Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER II.

In the beginning of the fourth chapter of his Second Part, Mr. Yates announces three propositions respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, which in that and the two succeeding chapters he goes on to prove; viz. "that our Lord Jesus Christ was "not God, but a distinct Being from him; that he was in"ferior and subordinate to the Father; and that he received "from the Father all his wisdom and power.' "To these "doctrines," he observes, "it is commonly objected, that they "lower the dignity of the Saviour. Let the considerate "reader bear in mind the maxim acknowledged on all "hands, and laid down at the commencement of our inquir❝ies, that the truth of religious doctrines ought to be tried,

66

Is it not simpler to say at once, that not to know signifies not to have official commission to make known?—The only parallel case which the Doctor adduces in support of his view, is 1 Cor. ii. 2. where Paul says, " I determined to know (sideva) nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified;" i. e. says he "I determined to "make known, to preach nothing among you but Jesus Christ." But although this may be considered as the effect of the verb here, it is the effect rather by consequence or inference, than by its direct meaning.--It can hardly be said with propriety, that "to know nothing," means " to make known nothing." It is only a strong expression of the apostle's resolution to appear among them, and to preach among them, as if ignorant of every thing else, but the great subject of his ministry. He came among them in the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ. As a man, he was acquainted with many other things; and he might be under temptations to display his knowledge. But as an apostle he had one message to deliver, and he determined, in his official capacity, to know nothing else than that message. In the same way, "the Son" did not "know" the day of judgment. He knew it not in his official capacity, as the commissioned ambassador of heaven to men. It formed no part of the Divine communications to him in this character. This view has always appeared to me much more rational and satisfactory, than that which is commonly given, that he was ignorant of it in his human nature, although he knew it in his divine:--a mode of explanation with which, I confess, I have never been well satisfied,

"not by the standard of our fancies, wishes, and feelings, but "by the word of God." (Page 65.)—AGREED: “To the ❝law and to the testimony."

The first point which he sets himself to prove, is, that "Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct Being from him :"

"If,” says he," with a sincere desire of arriving at the truth, "we apply to this source of information, (the Scriptures) we, in "the first place, observe numerous passages which represent Je"sus Christ as a distinct being from God." (Page 65.)-Strings of passages are then produced, in which God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, are mentioned together, in evident distinction from each other. And to those quoted, I doubt not, a great many more might have been added. But, suppose them multiplied indefinitely, what is it that is proved by them? Is it any thing more than this; that there is such a distinction between God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, as admits of their being spoken of as two?—The adducing of such texts as proofs of the Unitarian doctrine, proceeds on the assumption, that in the Trinitarian system there is no such distinction held as could admit of their being so mentioned. But surely Mr. Yates knows, that such an assumption is unfounded. Trinitarians, he is well aware, not only maintain a distinction between the ETERNAL Father, and the ETERNAL WORD in the nature of Deity; but also a distinction between the Eternal Father and the Word made flesh, the Divine Mediator. In so far as he was man, they have no objection to admit the phraseology, that he is a distinct being from God, because the human nature, created, and, as created, dependent, was, and still is, unconfounded with the Divine, and can never become a part of the essence of Deity. Nothing, therefore, can be more futile, or less to the purpose, than to bring forward lists of texts which, so

far as mere distinction is concerned, are equally explicable on either hypothesis, and which, in this respect, must stand as they are, whichsoever hypothesis be established as the true one. If the Father alone were God, and Jesus Christ a mere creature, they must have been mentioned distinctly :--but if the Father be a person in Deity, and the Son a person in Deity; if, in the scheme of redemption, the Father asserts the claims of the Godhead, and the Incarnate Word is the Mediator between God and men ;-they must in that case also, have been mentioned distinctly. All that is needful to the explanation of such texts, is the admission of personal distinction: and as, in the Trinitarian system, such distinction exists, in the senses just mentioned, the recognition of this distinction in the phraseology of the Scriptures, can never be fairly urged against it. In these circumstances, I should think it quite as trifling and irrelevant for me to set about refuting the argument derived from each of these texts separately, as it was for my opponent to bring them forward into the argument at all. They all belong to the same class. They prove distinction :they prove, therefore, what Trinitarians do not deny. They disprove no one Trinitarian sentiment; and therefore they cannot prove any sentiment that is peculiarly Unitarian. For with regard to precise points of difference, no argument can prove one side that does not disprove the other.

But while Mr. Yates adduces these passages as evidences of distinction, and in this view, as we have seen, adduces them to so little purpose, there is another view in which, it seems to me, the enumeration of them is, as in the case considered a little ago, most unfortunate for his own cause.He brings forward, for instance, "seventeen passages," "each "of which," according to Unitarian phraseology, "expresses "a pious and benevolent wish of favour and assistance from

[ocr errors]

"two distinct beings." Several of these passages have been adduced by me, in evidence of Jesus Christ being the object of divine worship; and to the observations made on that branch of the subject, I refer the reader. The texts I allude to, were Eph. vi. 23. 2 John 3. 1 Thess. iii. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 16.; and almost all the other thirteen might be added. They are Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Eph. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 2. Philem. 3. Gal. i. 3. 1 Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 2 Pet. i. 2.-Let the reader turn to them if he will. It is my wish, indeed, that he should. For I am satisfied, that, if his mind be open to conviction, he will see, in the constant junction of Jesus with the Father, in the prayers of the apostle for both temporal and spiritual blessings, a much more convincing proof on the Trinitarian side of the question, than the mere circumstance of their being named and spoken of distinctly, can ever be on its opposite ;— this circumstance being alike consistent with both, and incapable, consequently, of being evidence on either.

Distinction, no doubt, is also implied in those passages, next quoted by Mr. Yates, in which worship is addressed, or enjoined, to God, or to the Father, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But what is this distinction ?-It is just the distinction between the Divine Father and the Divine Mediator. Had Mr. Yates attempted to show, that the Trinitarian view of the mediation of Christ, as the mediation of a Divine person in the human nature, is incompatible with the "marked dis"tinction" between this Mediator, and God, or the Godhead, as the object of worship, which the passages quoted express, he would have attempted something to his purpose; and had he succeeded, he would have done something to his purpose. This, however, he has neither done nor attempted: and yet, till this is done, nothing is done. We hold, that THE Eternal WORD "was made flesh," associating his infinite glories with

the nature of man; that, by his obedience unto death in the nature he had assumed, he might make sufficient atonement for human guilt, and render the acceptance of sinners, the pardon of their sins, their access to God, and their everlasting happiness, consistent with the immutable perfection, and un*sullied honour, of the name, and law, and government, of the Great Supreme. We come, therefore, to the Father, in the name of the Son:-we come to the Godhead,-Father, Son and Holy Spirit,-in the name of the second person, in his capacity of incarnate Mediator :-we come to the Son himself, as "God over all, blessed for ever," on the ground of his own mediation, as "God manifest in the flesh." Till this view is shown to involve absurdity and contradiction, we hold by such passages as those referred to, as most satisfactory exhibitions of the Saviour, as the great medium of the approach of sinners to Deity;-we act agreeably to the directions, or to the example, which they contain ;-and we conceive our view of the Mediator to give to them an energy and an interest of which they are utterly bereft by the self-righteous and frigid scheme of Unitarian theology. For, in what sense Unitarians draw near to God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is not very easy to say.

"Further," says Mr. Yates, "there are various passages "of the New Testament, which assert that Jesus Christ was "with God, (such as John i. 1, 2.) or that God was with him,

(such as John iii. 2. Acts x. 38.) These passages, while "they teach that Jesus was nearly allied to God in his en"dowments or his office, at the same time prove that he was "a distinct being from God." (Page 67.)-But let him, if he can, fairly refute the Trinitarian explanation of such texts; without doing this, he does nothing,-nay, he does less than nothing. He brings before the mind of his reader texts

« PreviousContinue »