« PreviousContinue »
upon the Trinitarian hypothesis of the incarnation. p. 57. Further remarks
unity he spoke of only an'unity of design, or intention. p. 67.-Further remarks on the Jewish ideas of blasphemy. No difficulty in this respect on the Unitarian system. p. 69.-Not a particle of evidence in the Scriptures that the Jews expected their Messiah to be equal to God. Our Lord himself frequently inculcated his own inferiority, that his father was greater, and that he himself was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. p. 70.-Absurdity of sup: posing that he knew the day of judgment in one nature and not in another. Our Lord himself negatives this unnatural construction, by declaring that his Father only knew it, Matt. xxiv. 36, thereby excluding any supposed divine nature in himself, and also the Holy Ghost, if supposed to be a per. son. p. 70.-Total failure of Mr. Wardlaw's explanation of this text. p. 71.-Our Lord never practised the double dealing imputed to him by the Trinitarians, of speaking in a sense different from that which his words imported. The divine nature of no use, nothing having been done by it, but all by the power of the Father only. p. 76.—The divine nature nowhere alluded to as qualifying our Lord to exercise the office of universal judge, to which he is not stated to have been appointed because he has a divine nature, but solely because he is the son of mar. p.76.-Mr. Wardlaw's invitation to his readers to apply the words“ absurd' and 'impossible to the doctrine that God could make our Lord, supposing him to be a man like ourselves, the future judge of the whole human race, considered and answered. p. 77.-Such power, however great, still finite, and nothing compared with omnipotence and omniscience. p. 79.-Reflections on the greatness of the Supreme Being, as exemplified in the works of creation. p. 80.- Probability that all space is inhabited, and that the works of the Supreme Being are like himself, infinite, p. 83.--Strange and incorrect conclusion of Mr. Wardlaw, that if we do not consider a being invested with power to judge mankind infinite, we cannot prove the Deity to be 80. p. 84.-Not certain that our Lord is to exercise this high office alone. p. 84. -This not the only text which negatives the omniscience of our Lord, and the Holy Ghost, considered as a person, proved by John xvii. 3. and I Cor. viii. 4-6. which shew, that neither of them can be possessed of omnipotence, omniscience, or ompipresence. p. 86.-It being impossible to impute either to our Lord or to St. Paul in these texts, the double dealing so unjustly ascribed to the former, why should it be imputed to him in other texts where his words are clear, as in John xiv. 28. p. 88.-If being one with another, means in some places, nope of which the author can find, humble imitation of a grand model, applying the same standard in both instances, it will follow, that Christ's being one with the Father, implied bis humble imitation of him as his grand model; and consequently, his inferiority to the model he proposed to himself for his imi-. tation. p. 89.-Nature of Christ's union with the Father, and of the glory which the Father had given him, illustrated by John xvii. 11, 20, 21, 22.
90. No proof in the Scriptures of an union between the Father and Son, which springs from identity of substance. p. 91.-The plain meaning of John xvij. 18, without alteration or addition, that Christ was sent into the world by bis Father, as his disciples were sent into the world by him. The Divine's cun-, struction, that lie was sent from another world, rezts upon unauthorised ad. ditions to the text. p. 92.-By the world, into which both were sent, was denoted the men of that 'age and country, shewn by John vii. 4,7. p. 93.Construction of John xvi. 28, that our Lord having been admitted to the knowledge of the divine coursels, was sent forth amongst mankind to declare them, as his disciples, having been admitted to the knowledge of his counsels and designs, were in like manner sent forth by him amongst mankind to declare them. John xvii. 18. In this sense both passages harmonize, and are also in únison with John i. 6.His leaving the world not designed to be taken in the same sense as his coming. p. 94. Fallacy of supposing that because he was to go to the Father into another world by death, therefore he must have come forth from the Father from some other world into this. p. 96.-John v. 22, 23, instead of proving the equality of the Son with the Father, proves the contrary, as appears by the reasons assigned for men's honouring him as they honour the Father. p. 97.-Strong light thrown upon this subject in ver. 26, 27, shewing that the Son had not originally in himself either life or power to execute judgment, but that both were given to him by the Father: neither is any other person called the Holy Ghost represented as having originally possessed, or having joined in bestowing them upon the Son. p. 99.-The ascription to Christ of every name, title, attribute, work, and honour of Deity not to be found in the Scriptures. His supposed omniscience and omnipotence negatived by himself. Matt. xxiv. 36. John v. 31). Luke xx. 23.-Those attributes ascribed to the Father only, and not to the Son or Holy Ghost, or to the Trinity. Even his kingdom is not to be eternal, but to be delivered up to the Father, who alone claims, and is entitled to, the attributes of true Deity. p. 100.Fallacy of urging the ascription of names and titles as proof that the person to whom they are ascribed is God. p. 101.--Arguments founded upon mere implication, or inference, are nothing against the plain declarations of Scripture, exemplified by 2 Pet. i. 4. p. 102. Instead of making express declarations bend to opinions founded upon mere inference, we ought to adopt the converse mode of proceeding. This illustrated by Matt. vi. 6, 9, and Luke xi. 2, where our Lord directs us when we pray to pray to the Father, and to say our Father,' and has left us do direction to pray to any other person; yet we having contrived, contrary to express declaration, to infer from a figurative expression, which means no such thing, that he is equal to the Father, have inferred likewise, that we are bound to pray to him. Having also inferred from other figurative expressions, that there is another person called the Holy Ghost, who is equal to the Father, we draw the further inference, that we are to pray to him likewise, a practice inconsistent with our Lord's express precept, with his uniform example, and the example of all his apostles. p. 103. Can we on no better authority address those prayers to the Son, which the Son himself has commanded us to offer to his father, or help shuddering with the plain unlettered men described by Tertullian, at the idea of adopting any doctrine interfering with his sole sovereignty? Is it possible for us to think, that we testify our love for the Son by thus disregarding his precepts? p. 104.
Our Lord says, If ye love me, keep my commandments, John xiv. 15.--He commanded us when we pray, to address ourselves to the Father ; yet we have thought fit, without any commandment, to offer up our prayers to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. p. 103.-The author having in consequence of his friend's letter fully reconsidered the arguments for and against the doctrines of the Trinity, the result has been his conviction, that they have no foundation in Scripture. p. 106.-Though great and excellent characters have held them, this does not alter their nature, which must be determined, not by great names, but by their conformity or nonconformity to Scripture. Consequence of relying implicitly upon the opinions of fathers and conncils, or individual writers. p. 107.-Little respect due to the decrees of councils. Their outrageous, factious, and bigoted proceedings. Little freedom of debate amongst them, nor much chance of any subject being fairly and calmly discussed. p. 108.--Monstrous and absurd articles of faith decreed by them, one of which is, that a man can make his Creator, and that after he has made him, it is his duty to eat him. Language of individual writers who have adopted their doctrines, if possible, still more shocking and disgusting. p. 109. This what mankind must descend to, if they once give up the right of private judgment. We ought to maintain, as our ancestors did at the Reformation, that the Bible is the religion, and private judgment the right, of Protestants. Progress since made, and still making, in discovering the errors which have been engrafted upon Christianity, which, however, even in its most corrupt form, makes men better than any other religion. Even the Church of Rome, debased and degraded as it is, has produced most meritorious and excellent
In our own country and age, every sect can furnish numerous instances of most pious, learned, benevolent, and useful characters, spreading the geruine lustre of Christianity around them. The union of all denominations in circulating the Scriptures ; some difference of opinion, however, to be expected upon religious as well as other subjects; perfect uniformity of sentiment, perhaps, never having been designed to take place; notwithstanding which, religion binds all in its comprehensive embrace, and will ensure the safety and happiness of all who obey its precepts. p. 110.
LETTER III. The author's reasoning not irrelative, as directed against the Divine's sentiments; the latter not agreeing, as he supposes, the humanity and subo jection of, and the rewards received by, the Redeemer ; but only to the humanity and subjection of, and the rewards received by, part of him. p. 113. The author inquires where the Scriptures say that our Lord had two natures ; a question that has never received an answer. The Trinitarians, who assert the two natures, bound to prove it ; which they have not done : but the author has proved, that if a divine nature existed in our Lord, it did nothing; but was absolutely useless. p. 114.- The two natures represented to be inseparably united, and to constitute but one person, the Redeemer, who is to be subject to the Father. The subjection of the whole, therefore, does not accord with
the supremacy of part: and this subjection extends to his present, and is to extend to his future, exalted and glorified state, without any intimation of its being predicted of only part of him. p. 115.-Gilbert Wakefield's opinion, that the double view of Christ, as both God and man, best accords with the letter of Scripture; not the author's, except in the same sepse as Moses in Exod. vii. 1. the princes, rulers, and magistrates, Exod. xxi. 5,6. Id. xxii. 8, 9, 28. in Numbers, Psalms, in the Prophets, and in John x. 34, 35. were both Gods and men, in which sense the letter and the spirit of Scripture completely harmonize; and this exposition is the more valuable, as being one of our Lord's own; but has nothing to do with the doctrine of the two natures, which is not supported by a single text. p. 116.-If there had been another nature in our Lord, it could not have been infinite or supreme, being excluded by our Lord himself from infinite knowledge and infinite power, Matt. xx. 23, Acts i. 7. p. 116.-The second nature a nonentity. p. 117.-Remarks upon the promise in Paradise, Gen. iii. 15. that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. Why the seed is with more propriety called the seed of the woman than of the man, though the seed of both. No proof that it was to have two natures, or to be more than a man. Had it even meant a miraculous conception, or production, that does not prove the divinity of the being thus produced. Adam a miraculous production; yet' he had but one nature, and that not the nature of his only parent, but a human nature only. p. 118.-The strange opinion of the two natures seems to have been introduced into Christianity by the Gentile converts, and how. p. 120.-Al. ways rejected by the Jewish Christians. p. 121.-If Is. vii. 14. had related to Christ, and had announced him, as one that was to be born of a virgin, that would only have been a miraculous conception, and would not have proved him to have been more than a man ; but the word there used may be, and in early times was, translated young woman. p. 122.--Proofs from Scripture, that our Lord had a human father, as well as a human mother, and therefore could not have been born of a virgin. John i. 45, Id. vi. 42. p. 123.-Strange, if our Lord had been announced as one that was to be born of a virgin, that not one of his apostles should ever have preached this important doctrine. p. 124.-Would Philip, if he had ever heard of it, have told Nathanael, John i. 45, that he and others of the disciples had found the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph ? p. 125.-All of them appear to have been in a state of profound ignorance of the existence of any such notion, as that he was to be born of a virgin. The conclusion is obvious, that Is. vii. 14. could not have been interpreted then as it is now: p. 125.--Impossible that a people so prepared for Christianity, and imbued with such sentiments, and possessed of such knowledge, as the Divine supposes, should have had no idea of these doctrines, or any others connected with the Trinitarian hypothesis. p. 126.--It would have been wonderful, if the Jews had been prepared for, and imbued with, Trinitarian sentiments, that Peter, in his first sermon, should never have alluded to any Trinitarian opinion, and that not a Jew whom the apostles converted, nor the Jewish church at Jerusalem, which they founded, should ever have been Trinitariaus. p. 126.-Remarks upon Is. ix. 6,