Page images
PDF
EPUB

surely, be surprising, that he "feared to maintain his side "of the question in dogmatical terms." On the peculiarities of Trinitarianism he could pronounce with dogmatism enough:-"If it be not certain that such a doctrine is false, "there is no certainty in any subject. It is vain to call "it a mystery. It is an absurdity, it is an impossibility." -The reader is at liberty, if he chooses, to apply these expressions to the doctrine of a created Governor and Judge of the world. At any rate, never more let the smile of derision be seen on the countenance of Mr. Yates at the simple believer in mysteries.

But Mr. Yates, in declining to "argue" the point "on "the ground of reason," professes to make his appeal to the testimony of Scripture, as "alone able to afford us "information on this subject." And what testimony, then, does he adduce?-a testimony to the possibility, or to the fact, (which would imply the possibility) of a creature conducting the government of the world, and the final judgment? No such thing. All that he pretends to prove is, that the authority of Christ is delegated,-which no one denies;— and he begs all that remains of the question. He makes no attempt to disprove the Trinitarian hypothesis, that this delegation arises from the official character of Mediator voluntarily assumed by our blessed Lord; a character in which the Scriptures, as we affirm, declare him to possess the Divine as well as the human nature;-a union which, we further affirm, could alone qualify him for the government and judgment of the world; and which is therefore proved by this fact, amongst other evidences direct and indirect, that the government and judgment of the world are actually committed into his hands.

In Note G. after showing, by a quotation from Mr.

Belsham, how strongly he felt the difficulty arising from the final judgment being ascribed to Jesus Christ, I expressed myself as follows:-" Divest the Judge of his Divine "Majesty; and you render it impossible to feel, in an"ticipating our appearance before him, that trembling "awe which the thought of the future judgment ought "always to inspire. We do not feel as if satisfied with "his decisions. The necessity of instant unquestioning "submission, under which the mind sinks in the contem"plation of a Divine Judge, ceases to impress it. We "begin immediately to think of possible errors, and of "appeal to higher authority."-Having quoted these sentences, Mr. Yates comments on them in the following very solemn terms:- -"To my mind nothing can be more "shocking than these expressions. For who but the most "proud, profane, and hardened wretch, can imagine his appearance before the judgment-seat of Christ without a trembling awe, and begin immediately to think of possi❝ble errors, and of appeal to higher authority?' I have "so good an opinion of the author of these dreadful, ❝and, I trust, hasty sentences, as to believe, that, if it shall please God to spare his useful life, and to relieve his mind "from that heavy load of prejudice under which it labours, "he will tremble even at the idea of having employed "such language, and will submit to have his actions tried "and his destiny pronounced by any Being, whom God "shall have appointed to be his Judge." (Pages 220, 221.)

66

66

66

It is my prayer that my own mind, and the minds of others, may be more and more deeply impressed with the prospect of the awful solemnities of the "day of God." And God forbid that any expressions of mine should have an opposite tendency! In the sentences quoted, it was

my object, not formally to assign "reasons why it was re "quisite that the delegated Judge of mankind, as well as the "Being who confers upon him his commission and author"ity should be in his own nature nothing inferior to the "Supreme God;" (Yates, page 220.) but to state what I apprehended to be a simple matter of fact, and a natural and unavoidable feeling of the human mind, on the supposition of a merely human or created Judge. If, indeed, this Judge were to be no Judge, but a mere pronouncer of Sentences dictated by the Supreme Jehovah, the case might be different:-but if this creature is to be, bona fide, in the true and proper sense of the term, THE JUDGE of mankind, I still conceive, notwithstanding the horror with which the renewed avowal of it may fill the mind of my opponent, that some such feeling as that which I have described is unavoidable; and for this plain reason, that our minds revolt from the absurdity of any knowledge short of omniscience forming a sufficient qualification for infallible judgment; and this omniscience, we know, cannot be possessed by a creature. The sentences in my note immediately preceding those quoted, will satisfy the reader that such was my meaning:-"Jesus and his apostles,' 66 says Mr. Belsham, do not appear to have felt any dif "ficulty in the appointment of a human being to the "office of universal Judge.'-True: and the obvious rea❝son is, that the human Being of whom they speak possess"ed, at the same time, a higher nature than the human. "There is no accounting for it otherwise. For the sup"position of a mere man like ourselves executing the office "of universal Judge, is one so monstrous, so contradictory " to every idea we can form of what is fit, and reasonable, "and possible, as to require for its admission a larger

3

"portion of credulity than that which Mr. Belsham and "his friends affect to despise.-The difficulty is not remov"ed by the supposition of any powers, however enlarged, "in whatever way acquired, whether gradually, or by "communication for the purpose, if they are still powers, "as they must be, limited to the capacity of a being merely "human. I should even apply the same remark to the "most exalted of created natures."-I have only to add, that, considering the connexion in which the imputation occurs, it might perhaps have been prudent in Mr. Yates, for his own sake, to have avoided saying any thing about "loads "of prejudice;"-that I am sincerely obliged to him, however, for his good wishes, and return them to himself, with earnest and heart-felt prayers, that "God may give him "repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."

CHAPTER VIII.

I COME now briefly to examine Mr. Yates's strictures on those passages in which SUPREME WORSHIP is given to Christ. On the instances of homage paid to Jesus on earth, I satisfied myself with the following general remark:-"In some of "these instances, as must strike every reader of the Gospel

history, there is so strong a resemblance, so very near an "approach, to Divine worship, that we should have ex

56

pected a creature, actuated by such principles as were 66 formerly described, tenderly alive to a sense of his infinite “inferiority, and jealous of the glory of the God that sent ❝him, to have said, on such occasions, as the apostle Peter "did to Cornelius- Stand up-I myself also am a man;' 66 or as the angel to John, when he fell at his feet to wor

"ship him;- See thou do it not-worship God.'-But "in the life of Christ, as recorded by the Evangelists, "nothing of this kind is to be found. He accepts all the "homage that is offered to him, without a hint of its im"propriety, or the slightest monitory intimation of his "equality in nature with the persons by whom it is paid."

Mr. Yates's observations, under the first particular of his reply to this remark, do not appear to be at all to the purpose. That our blessed Lord frequently directed the minds of the people to the supreme Jehovah, the Father, as having sent and commissioned him, is true. How could it be otherwise? Who denies that, in the capacity in which he appeared in the world, he was sent, and commissioned, and had received his authority and power;-and that it was necessary that he should substantiate this by sufficient evidence? But, to assert that he claimed and received honour only as the ambassador of the Supreme God, is to beg the question; for the evidence adduced of the assertion is founded on a very questionable Unitarian commentary on our Lord's words, "that all men should honour the Son, "as" (that is, says Mr. Yates, because)" they honour the Fa"ther: he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the

Father that sent him." The particular cases of the homage in question still remain untouched. What Jesus said on other occasions will not show the "expectation' mentioned in my remark to be otherwise than "reasonable" in these. Mr. Yates indeed says, "We do not know that homage was "ever offered to him without a higher reference to God, " and that he accepted it without a hint of its impropriety." But we do know the simple facts stated in the history; that he did receive the external homage there related to have been paid to him, without any such "hint of its impropriety"

« PreviousContinue »