Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

and the superior ability with which this system to be true, and that with its

he has executed the task he has undertaken:

"Having heard Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses with great interest, and afterwards read them with great care, I have found much to admire, but nothing to change my conviction of the strict Unity of God

I

and the subordination of Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that the delivery of them proceeded from laudable motives. It gives me great pleasure to express the approbation due to the eloquence with which they are composed and the powers of reasoning which they display. heartily join in the universal confession that the Trinitarian system could not bave been more ably defended. Mr. Wardlaw has shown peculiar judgment in confiuing himself to those arguments which have usually been considered as clear and decisive, instead of bringing forward all the passages of Scripture which have been conceived to bear remotely upon the subject, and by insisting upon which other advocates have weakened the cause they intended to support. Whilst I have been pleased with the ingenuity and alertness displayed in defending points of difficult and abstract speculation, I have been edified by the useful observations of a practical nature which are scattered through the volume, and which I would hope may redeem it from oblivion, when men have learned to value plain truths pertaining to life and godliness, above what is mysterious and inexplicable.' -P. 3.

Having thus acknowledged his excellencies, Mr. Yates states, in language equally unreserved, what appears to him to be his opponents de

fects:

«Mr. Wardlaw affirms solemnly (P 99), that his only object is TRUTH; and

doubtless the defence of the Calvinistic doctrines which he believes to be true,

was his only object.. But there is a wide difference between defending a particular system, previously assumed as true, and pursuing truth independently of system

a difference, which will materially affect the manner in which a man states his own doctrines and views the arguments of others. Mr. Wardlaw's whole style and

language in this controversy show, that he has never put his mind into that state of calm and impartial deliberation, which is necessary to collect and arrange the proofs on either side and to judge in favour of which opinion the evidence preponderates. On the contrary he has set out with a bold, undaunted and inipetuous zeal for a certain system; and believing

establishment and progress are connected the glory of God and the salvation of men, (Preface, p. iii.) he exerts his utmost labours to fortify his argument by bringing powers to impress it upon the mind, and all the affecting and solemn tones, all the out all the images and strong expressions, facts and allusions, all the faults and errors of his opponents, by which be can strike his hearers with astonishment and horror at the folly, the blindness, the perverseness of those who refuse to be evidence. converted by such brilliant and decisive

That an orthodox preacher in order to rouse the languid conviction should have recourse to those expedients, but they are utterly subversive of that of his own flock, may be perfectly proper; temper of cool, patient and unbiassed inVestigation, which may be expected in sive object to ascertain truth. We find one, who makes it his simple and exclualso in Mr. Wardlaw's volume a kind of management and generalship which a very few proofs to adduce, he makes the votary of truth would scorn. Having best use of what he has, brings them forward many different times, dwells upon them at great length, turns them about and shews them in the most pleasing variety of lights. Yet, lest after all they sion, he takes care to inform his bearers, should fail to make a sufficient impresthat these are only a specimen of what he might have brought forward; the pas

sages, which contain his doctrine are so numerous, that he would weary their patience and exceed his own strength, if he were to produce them all, and hence he is obliged to select a few of the more prominent. This PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION,' as Mr. Wardlaw calls it, I fear, I shall have frequent occasion to expose, and to shew that where he professes merely to bring out a sample, he has nearly or entirely exhausted his store.”

We cannot pass over the chapter on mysteries with which the introductory part of Mr. Yates's work concludes, without earnestly recommending it to the attention of all our readers whether learned or unlearned, orthodox or heterodox. No one who attends to it can afterwards be perplexed with the mysteries of the New Testament, or be for a moment deceived by the unmeaning declamation in which it is so common to indulge on this subject; and the object of which always is, to place a belief in contradictions and impossibilities on the same footing as a belief in mysteries.

Mr. Wardlaw in his first Discourse on the Unity of God and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, from Deut. vi. 4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," adduces the following evidence that the hypothesis he maintains is indeed the doctrine of Scripture:

"I would first of all observe that while the text as it stands in our English trauslation, appears simply to affirm the unity of God, it affirms it according to the proper import of the words in the original Janguage, in connection with the plurality of persons in the Godhead.-Hear, O Israel, JEHOVAHI, OUR GODS (ALEIM) IS ONE JEHOVA. Unity and plurality are here both asserted, and the plurality is emphatically declared to be consistent with the unity. The use of a plural noun for God, in the Hebrew language, and the construction of that noun with other nouns and with verbs and pronouns, sometimes in the singular number and sometimes in the plural, have often been noticed as remarkable anomalies, and these anomalies or irregularities are at the same time connected on some occa

sions with particular modes of expression, such as seem to be utterly unaccountable on any other principle than that of a plurality of persons in the Divine Unity. For example: in Gen. i. 26, Jehovah is represented as saying, with regard to the creation of man, 'Let vs make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.' It is worthy of notice, that while in the decla. ration of the Divine purpose, God said let us make man in our image, terms are employed expressive of plurality, the style of unity is resumed, in the record of the execution of the purpose, So God created man in his image; in the image of God created he him. Not unfrequently, however, this name itself in the plural, is associated in syntax with verbs, adjectives and pronouns in the same number. For example: Ye cannot serve Jehovah, for he is a holy God: the adjective holy well as the name of God, is in the original in the plural number. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth.' In the Hebrew thy Creators.' Thy maker is thy husband, Jehovah of hosts is his name.' Both the nouns maker and husband are plural, thy makers, thy husbands, &c."-Pp. 11, 12. 14, 15.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

and giving up without hesitation the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7, Mr. Wardlaw proceeds

"I shall confine myself at present to a few remarks on two passages only. The first is the form of baptism prescribed by our Lord to his apostles, immediately be fore he left the world, and which you will fiud in the nineteenth verse of the twentyeighth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. On the very first aspect of this text, it seems most unreasonable to suppose that the One true God is bere associated with two of his creatures: or with one of his creatures and an attribute or energy or mode of operation. It appears to me that the simple statement of such an interpretation should be sufficient to ensure its immediate and unqualified rejection."Pp. 16, 17.

The second passage is the form of apostolical benediction used in the conclusion of the second. Epistle of the Corinthians-"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all! Amen." That this form of blessing includes in it a prayer, it would be a waste of words to prove. To whom then is this prayer addressed? Had it been simply said, the love of God be with you all! Amen, no one I suppose would have hesitated to say that when the apostle thus expressed himself, he presented in his heart a petition tỏ

the Father of mercies for the mani festations of his love to the believers at Corinth. On what principle of criticism then are we to interpret the expression "the grace or favour of our Lord Jesus Christ," an expression-so precisely the same in form, in a different sense? in a sense that does not imply Jesus Christ's being the object of a similar inward aspiration? And the same question might be asked, with regard to the remaining phrase, "the communion of the Holy Spirit."-P. 18.

Such are the proofs on which Mr. Wardlaw rests the doctrine of the Trinity; and considering what that doctrine really is, namely, that there. are in the Godhead three distinct and, infinite minds and therefore three dise tinct persons; that those three distinct and infinite minds or persons are each truly and properly God, and yet that

there is properly and truly but One only God, the evidence here adduced of this wondrous doctrine is to be sure overwhelming: yet Mr. Yates, unconvinced and unappalled, thus replies

"If this translation (Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our GoDs is one Jehovah) had been proposed by a Unitarian, I have no doubt it would have been said, that he did it with a direct intention to burlesque the Scriptures. I believe that Mr. Wardlaw had not this design; but his version certainly produces this effect. To my mind nothing can sound more offensive. I do not however reject this argument from the force of mere feelings, however justifiable, but from the following considerations : 1. If the plural termination of ALEIM, &c. indicates plurality at all, it denotes not only a plurality of persons or subsistences, but a plurality of Gods, for on this supposition, Mr. Wardlaw's translation is undoubtedly correct, Jehovah our Gods. But this I presume is more than even Trinitarians will be inclined to admit. 2. I observe, secondly, that the true explanation of the use of the plural number in this case is known to every tyro in Hebrew literature. The whole mystery may be resolved by a short quo

tation from that useful book, the Hebrew Grammar:

Words that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural.' -Wilson's Hebrew Grammar, p. 270.

"Thus it is evident to mere English readers, that the plural termination of the Hebrew names for God, far from being an anomaly as Mr. Wardlaw calls it, is agreeable to a common rule of syntax. I shall illustrate this rule by a few examples. Gen. xxiv. 9, 10. On account of the great dignity and authority of the patriarch Abraham, the word ADONIM, translated master, is put in the plural number. The literal translation of the passage is therefore as follows: And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his masters, and sware to him concerning that matter: and the servant took ten camels of the camels of his masters and departed; for all the goods of his masters were in his hand.' Potiphar is called the masters or lords of Joseph. Pharoah is styled the lords of his butler and baker, and Joseph as governor of Egypt, is denominated ADONIM or lords. What then becomes of Mr. Wardlaw's argument from the Hebraism, If I be masters, where is my fear? 3. The plural termination is employed in speaking not only of the true God, but also of false deities. Exod. xxxii. 3, 4-7, 8. 81. Judges viii. 33. xvi. 23, 24, &c. &c.

4. This argument has been rejected by many of the most learned Trinitarians. Among others Calvin himself denies that the plural termination is any evidence of the plurality of persons in the Godhead.

"Mr. Wardlaw argues for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, from the construction of the Hebrew names for God, which verbs are sometimes in the singular number and sometimes in the plural. He calls this construction an anomaly or irregularity. But those who have learned Hebrew know that when a plural noun is used to denote a single object (which is the case in various instances), the verb is sometimes put in the plural out of regard merely to the plural termination of the noun.

See Patrick and Le Clerc on Gen. xx. 4. 8."-Pp. 135, 136. 138.

Our limits will not allow us to follow Mr. Yates in his reply to the other arguments adduced by Mr. Wardlaw in proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The passages we have quoted exhibit a perfectly fair specimen of its style and manner. To us it appears to be most satisfactory and complete through

[blocks in formation]

"If it be indeed a truth that Jesus Christ is GOD OVER ALL, it is utterly impossible that it can be a truth of subordinate magnitude. The simple statement of it is enough to shew that it must rank as a first principle-an article of prime importance-a foundation stone in the temple of truth-a star of the very first magnitude in the hemisphere of Christian doctrine. For my own part I believe it to be even more than this; a kind of central sun, around which the whole system of Christianity in all its glory and in all its barmony revolves. This view of its importance is confirmed when we consider it in connection with our most interesting and solemn duties, I mean the duties which we owe to the great Object of supreme reverence, worship and obedience. If Jesus Christ be not God, then we, who offer to him that homage of our hearts which is due to God alone, are without doubt guilty of idolatry, as really guilty as the worshippers of the deified heroes of Greece and Rome.

"The same thing is manifest from the intimate relation which this doctrine bears to others. It is an integral part of a system of truths which stand or fall along with it. It is connected, for example, in the closest manner, with the purpose of Christ's appearance upon earth and the

great design of his sufferings and death; that is, with the vitally important doc: trine of atonement: this doctrine, again, is inseparably connected with the corruption of human nature and the aniversal guilt of mankind; from which it is arises: this, in its turo, essentially affects the question, respecting the ground of a sinner's acceptance with God; the necessity of the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit; the principle and motive of all acceptable obedience, and other points of similar consequence. It is very obvious that two systems, on which the sentiments on subjects such as these are in direct opposition, cannot with any propriety be confounded together under one common name. That both should be Christianity is impossible; else Christianity is a term which distinguishes nothing. Viewing the matter abstractedly, and without affirming, for the present, what is truth and what is error, this I think I may with confidence affirm, that to call schemes so opposite in all their great articles by a common appellation is more absurd, than it would be to confound to-gether those two irreconcilable theories of astronomy, of which the one places the earth and the other the sun, in the centre of the planetary system. They are in truth essentially different religions.”Pp. 31-33.

that the necessity of such atonement

The great principle on which Mr. Wardlaw endeavours to establish the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Supreme God, as well as a man, the creature and servant of God is, that it affords the most easy and complete reconciliation of the passages of Scripture, relative to his person, which appear to contradict each other, and the fairest solution of the difficulties which thence arise; that it is a key which fits all the wards of this seemingly intricate lock, turning amongst them with hardly a touch of interruption, catching its bolts and laying open to us in the easiest and completest manner the treasures of Divine truth." But then, before this wonderwaking hypothesis can be admitted, it must be established by the clearest evidence evidence rising in magnitude in proportion to the extraordinary nature of the doctrine it is intended to confirm: it can never be adopted from a lare inference deduced from a comparison of one set of passages with another, especially if those passages can be reconciled in an easy and simple manner without having recourse to any extraordinary suppo

[blocks in formation]

sition whatever. Such an hypothesis can only be admitted on its being demonstrated that the authors of those apparently contradictory passages had it in their mind, and employed it as a key which fitted all the wards of this seemingly intricate lock. This every divine and human natures of Christ candid and intelligent believer of the must admit. Where then we demand is this clear and certain evidence that the writers of the New Testament were acquainted with this wonderful key, and that they constantly turned it in this intricate lock with hardly a touch of interruption, thus catching its bolts and laying open in the easiest and clearest manner the treasures of Divine truth?

There is one passage in Mr. Yates's work on this subject which we do not see how it is possible to get over :

"All Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ was but one person, although possessing two natures. Their doctrine is, that one of the three infinite minds in the Godhead was so united to a human soul, as to form one intelligent being, retaining the properties both of the God and of the man. By the nature of any thing we always mean its qualities. When therefore it is said that Jesus Christ possessed both a Divine and a human nature, it qualities of God and the qualites of man. must be meant that he possesses both the But if we consider what those qualities are, we perceive them to be totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are eternity, independence, immutability, entire and perpetual exemption from pain and death, omniscience and omnipotence. The qualities of man are derived existence, dependence, liability to change, to suffering and to dissolution, comparative weakness and ignorance. To maintain therefore that the same mind is endued both with a Divine and a liuman is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and indeable, both mortal and immortal, both pendent, both changeable and unchangesusceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them. if it be not certain that such a doctrine as this is false, there is no certainty upon any subject. It is vain to call it a mystery: it is an absurdity, it is an impossibility.“

nature, is to maintain that the same mind

-P. 160.

Mr. Wardlaw states that the doctrine

for which he contends is, that Jesus Christ is truly God; that in his person there subsisted when he was on earth and still subsists an union of the Divine and human natures; and after observing that our only business is with the fact and not with the mode of the fact, he says, "This is a question with regard to which it is manifest our appeal must be made exclusively to the sacred volume. The sole inquiry is, What saith the Scripture?" On reading this passage, we hoped that the direct and positive Scriptural evidence of the alleged fact, that in the person of Jesus Christ there subsisted, when he was on earth, and still subsists an union of the Divine and human natures, was about to be adduced: that the intimate knowledge and constant use of the writers of the New Testainent of this wondrous key was about to be placed beyond all dispute by citations from their own writings, But instead of this, Mr. Wardlaw merely produces in a string, the passages which are commonly quoted to prove the Divinity of Christ, together with several which at most only favour the doctrine of his pre-existence, without troubling himself in the least to shew, how these texts establish the grand principle, that in his person there subsisted, when he was on earth, and still subsists, a union of the Divine and human natures; or attempting to prove that the authors of those passages had this hypothesis in their view when they wrote them: and yet without this, as we have already shewn, Mr. Wardlaw would not have advanced a single step towards the establishment of his doctrine, were these passages a hundred times more numerous and a hundred times more clear and decisive than they really are.

But the passages adduced are totally inadequate to establish the doctrine of the proper Deity of Christ, and this in our opinion Mr. Yates has completely shewn. We intended to have proved that this conviction is wellfounded, by exhibiting an abstract of the arguments adduced on each side, but of this we find the limits which we must prescribe to ourselves will by no means allow. We can therefore only exhort those of our readers who feel an interest in the subject (and we hope many of them do feel an interest in it) to read with attention and cap

dour what these able disputants have advanced on this most important topic. He who confines his attention to one side of the question (provided he has not already made himself thoroughly acquainted with it, and in that case if he consult what is advanced on either side, it will be on that which is opposed to his own), must be either too proud to be taught or too ignorant to be aware that he is ill-informed or too conscious of the instability of his own system to allow him to con template an attack of it with steadiness and composure. Though we are firmly of opinion that the great doctrines that there is but One God, the Father, to whom alone religious adoration ought to be paid; and onc Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who, though honoured as no other being ever was, yet owes all his dignity and power to the favour of the Supreme and only Potentate, and holds it for the advancement of the wise and gracious purposes of his Providence, are truths of primary importance; and are persuaded, that even the benevolent influences of the gospel will never be felt as they may and will ultimately be experienced, until these doctrines are generally and cordially embraced : still we endeavour to remember, that this conviction, firm and undoubting as it is, may possibly be founded on inadequate or fallacious evidence; and therefore sincerely and earnestly wish our fellow-Christians to examine for themselves, with the utmost impartiality and diligence, both sides of this important controversy. If we know any thing of the feelings of our hearts, we are more desirous that converts should be made to the truth, than to our own peculiar opinions; and this appears to us to be a zeal of proselytisin which every enlightened Christian must be anxious to cherish, and it is the only one he can cherish. Let every one read, compare, reflect under the solemn impression, that the eye of God is on him; and that he must give an account of the improve ment he has made, of the means of gaining religious information, no less than of any other talent committed to his charge. Let him rise from his studies, if he can, thoroughly persuaded in his own mind; but whether his conviction be unhesitating and firm, or whether doubts and difficul

« ZurückWeiter »