Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

spirit of contest, but with the desire of contributing, so far as lies in my power, to develope what the New Testament does teach, in relation to this matter. I have laboured to show, that the very reason why I believe Christ to be truly divine, is because the connection, when he is called GOD, ascribes to him such attributes and works, as leaves me no room to doubt that the New Testament writers meant to assert his proper divinity.

After stating your apprehensions in regard to the doctrine that Christ has two natures, the belief of which you affirm to be "an enormous tax on human credulity," you say: "I am aware that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God; and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him," p. 14. Whether the number of texts in which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge, whether the class of passages is "not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him," with equal facility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a doctrine. We have conceded the Bible to be of divine authority. The simple question is: What does any passage mean, according to the rules of interpretation admitted in all other cases? This being ascertained, only two courses are before us; the one to receive its meaning as the guide of our faith; the other to reject its authority, and deny our obligation to believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the New Testament does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a mere finite creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpretation of it, I must either receive this doctrine, receive it implicitly, (for if I am not deceived in respect to myself, I only desire to know what God has taught in order to believe it), or else I must reject all claims to inspiration in the sacred writers, and follow their instructions only so far as they coincide with my own speculations. I am fully satisfied there is no

middle path here; and that a man who investigates for himself extensively and independently, must eventually follow one or the other of these courses.

Convince me then that you apply the principles of interpretation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed manner, and that the New Testament does according to them clearly teach that Jesus is not, and cannot be, divine, and you will make me a convert to the doctrines, (at least to some of them), which you embrace. Where the apostles lead me, I will go; or if not, then I will renounce all deference to them. While I have a being also, I will cherish a grateful remembrance of any man, who shall convince me by sound reasoning, that I am in an error on this great subject, and am wandering from the path of life.

But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless affirm of yourself: 'I cannot be convinced, until I am satisfied that my principles of interpretation are wrong, and my application of them erroneous.' You have described (p. 14) in what manner you avoid the conclusion drawn from those texts which call Christ God, and which apparently ascribe divine attributes to him. On the principles of exegesis which you have there disclosed, I shall remark in another letter. I will at present say only, that they appear to me far from being well established.

I hope your candour will concede, that the positions which I have just laid down are correct, and are such as become every sincere lover of truth. I am quite ready to grant, that we ought not to expect to convince you and your friends, by using reproachful epithets or severe appellations. We cannot convince you by appealing to our New England fathers, or to their creeds; to the ancient fathers of the church, or to any body of men whatever. You may always say in reply to us : 'Are not men fallible? And have, not the best of uninspired men cherished some errors? Give us the reasons why our fathers received the doctrines in question, and then we will hear you; the fact that they did receive them is merely a part of church history, but certainly no theological

argument. The papal hierarchy is supported by many of the ancient fathers; and perhaps there never has been a sect in Christendom, who did not feel that they might make an appeal to fathers, whom they at least respected.'

reply I have nothing to object.

To this

Nor can we convince you, by a tenacious and unreasonable opposition to all critical examination of the New Testament; or by throwing out hints in our sermons or writings, that critical studies belong only to those who have a wish to be heretical or skeptical; or by a forced and mystical explanation of various passages of Scripture, and converting them to the support of sentiments which they never were designed to support. The sound rules of interpretation will soon sweep away every vestige of such defective and extravagant opinions about the word of God; and orthodoxy must stand or fall, at last, by the simple decision of the Scriptures interpreted according to the general laws of language.

On the other hand; you will, I hope, as cheerfully concede that we cannot be convinced by calling us hard names; by misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving that Calvin helped to burn Servetus; by affirming that our sentiments come from creeds and confessions of human authority, fabricated by superstition and philosophy; by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, malignant, and unsocial; by appropriating to Unitarians all that is kind and noble and generous and exalted, and leaving to us only all that is opposite to these virtues; by affirming that we are desirous of infringing upon Christian liberty, and of establishing an Inquisition to defend our sentiments, and by exhorting others to resist such tyranny; or by representing us as admitting in words that God is kind and paternal, while we think meanly of him, and treat him as the heathen did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel to the fire of controversy; but can the lover of truth and of the word of God be convinced by them? They are the arts indeed of controversialists-and arts like them, I am sorry to say, are not confined to any one party. Passion has more control over disputants than they are aware of. Zeal for

what they believe to be truth, is what they think inspires them; while perhaps their words, or the spirit of their representations, "breathe out threatenings," if not "slaughter," to their opponents. I hardly dare trust myself to write this paragraph, least I should catch the spirit while I am describing it. I know in some measure how frail I am; but I think I do sincerely disapprove of such a spirit, in whatever party may be found.

it

In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one is grieved to find how much of this spirit has been indulged. I have seen it even in many great and good men. Possessed of feelings naturally ardent, I am aware that there is reason to tremble for myself, lest I may, in some respect or other, transgress the laws of Christian propriety in these letters, and hinder in a measure the conviction, in the minds of some, which they might possibly produce.

In one thing we shall certainly be agreed. The sober inquirer after truth must be convinced by reason and argument. All else is nothing to him. And where these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the path of duty. The approbation of God is worth infinitely more to a sincere and candid and honest and believing heart, than all the honour which party zeal can bestow, or the world is able to give.

POSTSCRIPT.

AFTER finishing the above letter, your "Note for the second Edition" came to hand. But as it seemed to me, that most which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think it of importance to change the shape of the preceding letter, and adapt it to your Note as well as to your Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavored, as far as possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject all controversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. I have not the most distant design of saying anything, with a view to wound your personal sensibility; but I do feel, and I ought to

feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason of a man, who by his weight of character, sobriety of mind, and eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in society as you have. And in order to do this with propriety, I have endeavored as far as possible, to throw the whole subject into the shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that form of writing, which too commonly involves personal reflection.

Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me?

66

I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with another, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say: "We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same Being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal him in this character." In the latter you say: According to this doctrine, [i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity], there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed."

But how can Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the 66 same Being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that there is a distinction between him and the Father? You yourself represent them as even holding this distinction to be equal to that which exists between two different men. This indeed is incorrect; but it is equally so, to represent them as holding that Jesus Christ is the " same Being as the Father," if you mean by this the same in all respects.

Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if Christ were "the same being as the Father... we should expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God." For first, are we to receive the book of God as it is, or are we

« AnteriorContinua »