Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

nothing to do with our present inquiry. And as to the assertion, that Christ received divine honors from his disciples after his resurrection, there is no such instance recorded; * nor is there any precept in the whole of the Apostolic writings, either exhorting or permitting Christians to pray to him. Upon such a point as this, inferences and deductions are out of place. One plain precept,

* A circumstance which readily distinguishes the respect and homage paid to an illustrious personage from that which is due only to the Almighty, is, that the former can only be presented to the person to whom it is addressed, while he is personally and visibly present; whereas, the latter may be presented, and indeed must be presented, where there is no visible object to which it can be addressed; for God is an invisible Spirit. Now the acts which are relied on as proofs of worship paid to Christ after his resurrection, are all of the former description; that is, the acts of reverence and homage done to him while personally and visibly present. Of this kind was the dying address of Stephen, Acts vii. 59. He had immediately before seen Jesus personally, and thus ascertained that he was within hearing of his voice. Some critics, however, would render the words, not "O Lord Jesus!" but " O Lord of Jesus!" and the original admits this sense. So also, in Heb. i. 6, where God is represented as introducing the Son into the world, and saying, "Let all the angels worship him," the Son is manifestly supposed to be visibly present. In 2 Cor. xii. 8, the Apostle says, that he "besought the Lord thrice" that his thorn might depart from him; and the context renders it probable that the Lord Jesus Christ is the person intended, although this cannot be made absolutely certain. But it also gives us reason to believe, that the supplication was offered when the Apostle in vision in "the third heaven," or "paradise," when he had the Saviour visibly manifest before him. The symbolical worship or homage paid to the Lamb in the Revelations, is entirely of the same character. In none of these instances does it appear from the circumstances, that religious or divine worship was intended. They can, therefore, afford no proof of the deity, of Christ.

[blocks in formation]

commanding Christians to worship Christ as God, would be worth the whole folios filled with the most specious argumentations. But where is such a precept to be found?

I have now given you some specimens of the manner in which it has been attempted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, and that of the Supreme Deity of Christ, from the testimony of the Apostles. I think I have fairly and fully shown, that the attempt, so far as relates to the passages which have been commented on, is an utter failure. Now, if these passages do not establish the points in question, they cannot possibly be established; for those that have been selected are among the strongest and clearest that ever have been, or that can be brought forward in their support. Is there a man in this assembly, who, if he were upon a jury empannelled to try a case of £20 value, would feel himself justified in giving his verdict upon either side, on evidence so irrelevant, so wide of the point at issue? And yet, on such evidence, we are called upon to award the sovereignty of the world to one who never claimed it for himself, - who always consistently declared it to be the sole right and property of another! And we are told, that, unless we pronounce this unwarrantable judgment, we forfeit all hope of our eternal salvation!

[ocr errors]

3. I had intended to consider, in the same manner, the evidence adduced from the speeches and writings of the Apostles, to prove the supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit; but time will not permit me to do so in the course of this lecture, and I not unwillingly relinquish the tedious and unnecessary task. I call it unnecessary; for lame and defective as is the reasoning which has now been review

ed, the proofs of the Deity of the Spirit are still more inconclusive. In truth, they can present no difficulty to

only use the understandand unless men are pre

--

the mind of any man who will ing which God has given him: pared to exercise their intellects, it is vain to address to them arguments and proofs. I shall, therefore, content myself with saying, that there is not a single verse in the New Testament in which the Holy Spirit is stated to be God, that there is not a single doxology or ascription of praise to the Spirit in the whole of the sacred volume, that there is not a single act of worship, of any kind, recorded as having been addressed to the Holy Spirit, that there is not a single precept teaching Christians the duty of acknowledging and worshipping the Spirit as God. The personality even of the Holy Spirit is a mere inference, and one of the most obscure and doubtful kind; in fact, it appears to me to be altogether an erroneous inference. The Deity of the Spirit is a second inference, built in part upon the former, partaking of all its doubtfulness and uncertainty; and having a great many more, and more important, difficulties and objections of its own to contend against. The doctrine of the Trinity is a third inference, built upon the former two, and likewise attended with its peculiar impediments; so that the cardinal point of Orthodox theology is an inference doubtfully derived from another inference, which again is deduced from a third inference, that is, in like manner, drawn from vague and inconclusive premises.* It may, therefore, be aptly compared to the reflection in

* In this statement, I have done little more than put into other words admissions frequently made by advocates of the Trinity; of

water of the shadow of a shade! And yet, we are told, that whosoever will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity! On such an insecure foundation is the salvation of the world made to rest!

In conclusion. We find that the Apostles of our Lord have not once stated the doctrine of the Trinity in express terms in the whole of their writings, although they certainly could have done so as easily as the framers of the creeds and articles of modern churches, had they believed it to be true; and although they have broadly laid

which we may take an example from the fourteenth chapter of a work already mentioned - Jesus Christ the Great God our Saviour by the Rev. JAMES CARLILE.

We are

"ON THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. now come to the limit of explicit revelation, and are entering upon the region of reasoning and inference. I admit, therefore, that we have not the same clear light to conduct us that we have hitherto enjoyed. I admit, that a doctrine of inference ought never to be placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of direct and explicit revelation. It is very obvious, that, so far as our belief of any doctrine is the result of inference, it is not an exercise of faith in the testimony of God, but in the accuracy of our own reasoning.

. That the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son, seems to be removed one step from a direct, explicit revelation. That there are three persons in the Godhead is a second remove from explicit revelation. I, therefore, proceed to this subject with the caution and diffidence which becomes a man who feels that he depends partly on his own imperfect pow. ers of intellect to guide him. We have passed the last lamp that has been lighted up to direct our way. We may proceed a few steps further, aided by the light which shines behind us; but, if we attempt to proceed far, we shall, as many others have done, lose ourselves in the thick darkness." Pages 369-371.

Thus, according to Mr. Carlile, God has only given us light on a part of our way to the Trinity: yet, if we stop short, or miss our road, or go one inch beyond the Orthodox "inference," we are lost!

down the distinguishing principle of Unitarianism - the sole Deity of the Father-in many clear and explicit passages. We find that the arguments adduced to prove their agreement with modern Orthodoxy in this point, are mere inferences from expressions which they have employed while writing upon other topics; and that these inferences are drawn from their language in a manner which is contrary to the laws of sound reasoning, and which the writers manifestly never intended nor approved. We find, that they have never employed, in speaking or writing, a single one of the many phrases in which the modern doctrine is expressed, and without which it cannot be expressed. We find that they never once were attacked by Jew or Gentile for teaching a doctrine to which both would have so strenuously objected. We find that, during the apostolic times, there was no controversy, either in the church itself, or with its adversaries, on the subject of the Trinity. We find that there is not in the whole writings of the Apostles, a single prayer which has even the outward semblance of being addressed to the Trinity. We find that the passages alleged to prove the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ are either fabricated texts, fraudulently introduced into the sacred volume to support this very opinion; or such as do not, in any degree, affect the point in question; or such as prove the very reverse of the position which they are brought to support. And finally, we find that the supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit - the third person of the undivided Trinity -labors under a deficiency of proof still more glaring. Under these circumstances, I think I have laid a firm foundation for the opinion which I have expressed in the title of this lecture that Unitarianism was the faith of the Apostles. The man who contends, in the face of evi

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »