« AnteriorContinua »
as I contend they always do. But upon this point, especially, they, and the Bible, all
“ Firm concord hold — men only disagree.”
The idea of one God and Father of the universe, existing in one person, one undivided nature, possessing originally all power, the gracious, wise, supreme Governor and Director of all events, is calculated to lead the mind to the most exalted, sublime contemplations, to meliorate the affections, to warm the heart, to lift the soul to heaven, to diffuse light and joy throughout the world, and to display the whole universe as a perfect system of one all perfect God! While the doctrine of the Trinity, as usually taught, tends to distract the mind, to chill the heart, to confound the understanding, to cast a gloom over all the rational joys of earth, to blast the hopes of heaven, to make the worship of God a mystery, and his holy word a book of riddles! I make these remarks, not to wound the feelings any one, but because I believe they are supported by the testimony of the Bible, and the dictates of reason and common sense.
If then, it appears from the Bible, and from nature and reason, that the Father is, exclusively, the only God, in one person only, and that neither the Son, nor Spirit can be an equal person with the Father, it would seem that Trinitarians must adopt one of two courses; that they must either change or alter their creeds and catechisms, so as to conform them to the Scriptures, and the laws of nature, or
improve and correct the Bible, and vary the order of the universe, so as to support their doctrine. “How long will ye halt between two opinions ?” If the Scriptures be true, abide by them; if the Trinitarian doctrine, abide by that. It is time that this important question should be understood and settled. The minds of men have already been too long under a kind of ecclesiastical tyranny, as effectual as physical force. The light of the Gospel has for ages been eclipsed by the opaque creeds of men.' Soon after the days of the Apostles, the word of God was enveloped in Platonic darkness, which was succeeded by monkish superstition, and by absurd, unscriptural hypotheses of human invention, which remain, in part, to this day. 0, may the true unclouded light of the Gospel soon fully illuminate the whole world !
FURTHER REMARKS RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD.
I HAVE already noticed most of the passages that have been considered as proof texts of the Divinity of Christ. I have given time for the candid and unprejudiced to judge, whether they furnish good and satisfactory evidence of the doctrine, or whether they fully disprove it. It is now my design to consider some of the hypotheses, suppositions, and allegations of its advocates, which are not expressly, if at all, taught in the Bible, and to notice some of the arguments that are used to support them.
One of the most important and extraordinary of these suppositions is, that Christ, the Son of God, has two natures, though he is but one person, one Christ; that is, “ both God and man, very God and very man.” This undoubtedly is an invention, thought to be necessary
for the better and more easy management of a large number of obstinate texts of Scripture, which clearly and expressly prove, that the Son of God is not God ; that he cannot be the self-existent, independent, almighty, ever-living God himself, that God whose Son he is, that he cannot be his own Father.
It will be necessary to examine this matter fully and critically ; because it is granted, by all Trinitarians, that if the doctrine of the two natures in
Christ is not true, his Deity cannot be supported, and of course the Trinity must fail. Because Christ fully, expressly, and constantly declared, that he had no power of himself, but that all power and authority were given him of his Father; that the works he did, and the words he spoke were not his, but the Father's who sent him; that he lived by the Father; and many such expressions, which clearly prove that he could not be the supreme God, if he spoke of himself as God; therefore it was necessary to invent a strange kind of human nature, to which all Christ's expressions and acts might be applied, which did not appear consistent with Deity. And if Christ could have two natures, his words and works might very conveniently be referred to either, as might best suit sectarian views, or conform to creeds, catechisms, or ecclesiastical decrees; the application must be entirely arbitrary; for Christ himself never gave any intimation in which nature he spoke, as he must have done, if he had had two speaking natures.
But, before I proceed to consider the evidence relative to this hypothesis, I must observe, that it appears to me to be at least a very foolish invention, because it cannot answer the purpose for which it was designed ; it must weaken, in some respects, the cause it was intended to support; it must disprove the supposed equality between the Son and Father. For if the Son is God and man, and me diator too between them, while the Father is only God, he cannot be said to be equal, for he would be
superior; he would be more than the Father. Christ therefore instead of saying, “my Father is greater than I,” would have said, I am greater, I am more than my Father, by the addition of man and mediator to me, which the Father has not. Again, if all power was given to the Son, in his human nature, as Trinitarians assert, and he, as God, possessed all originally, he must have twice as much as the Father almighty. And besides, it indirectly accuses the allwise God of folly; for if the Son, as God, had all power, it must have been unnecessary, (if it was possible to give what was already possessed,) it must have been folly for the Father to give him, in his human nature, what he before had, originally, in his other nature, to which, as it is said, he was indissolubly united. Again, if we believe that the Son was the omniscient God, as well as man, we must believe that on a certain occasion he told a falsehood. For he said, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no one, no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only;” whereas, if he was God, he did know, and therefore knowingly declared what was not true. And must the true God be made a liar, to establish the truth of trinitarian hypotheses ? It is a solemn consideration. The supposition, that “Christ spoke in his human nature,” is a miserable explanation. It is inconsistent with nature, as well as the word of God. Whoever conceived the idea, that any being speaks in his nature, or a part of his nature ? Flesh and blood are a part of the nature of man. Does