Page images
PDF
EPUB

In conclusion, permit me to ask, why do Unitarians separate these great truths? Why do they presume to erase from the history of religion, that which constitutes its chief beauty and comfort?-that mystery which is the clue to all others, without which, as Paschal remarks, (Pensees de Paschal, "Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus,") Religion becomes an inexplicable enigma, and man a more inconceivable mystery to himself, than this mystery is to him. Original sin is a folly in the eye of the vain sophister, but this folly is wiser than all the wisdom of men,-"That which appeareth foolish of God, is wiser than men."-(1 Cor. 25.) He who has revealed to us these two great mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, makes us find the image of them in ourselves, in order that they may be ever present with us, and that we may understand the dignity of our nature.

[blocks in formation]

I answer your letter just received as follows:-If the Evangelist, by the term Word, intended to designate nothing more than a Divine attribute, how does it happen that through the whole chapter, the "Word" is spoken of as a subsisting person, and that it is expressed by personal pronouns,-he-him-by him, &c.? Again: "We know (1 Ep. St. John v. 20) that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and eternal life." Here the emphatic article is prefixed, the

true God therefore is meant. But the Son of God is that true God; therefore, the Son of God is meant.

St. Thomas solemnly proclaimed the Divinity of his loving Master, when on seeing him after his resurrection, he broke out into the short but comprehensive exclamation,"My Lord and my God."-(St. John xx. 28.) St. Thomas, therefore, meant the true and supreme God. Did Christ censure him for it? By no means; but on the contrary, reproached him rather for not having believed sooner: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou has believed; blessed are they who have not seen and have believed."

I further argue, that from an equality of honour and of worship due to God only," That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." -(St. John v. 23.) Therefore, the Son enjoys a perfect equality of nature and consubstantiality with the Father; therefore, he is true God. See Hebrews, chapter i. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. In these few verses, the Apostle may be said to have erected an impregnable fortress in defence of the Godhead of Jesus Christ, a fortress which has already baffled the long and continued efforts of the enemies of the Son of God, of the Simonians, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, the Sabellians, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, &c. &c. &c., and will for ever stand proof against the infuriate attacks of the Unitarian Philosopher. This chapter, in its admirable and sublime conciseness, contains so clear, so full, and so complete a promulgation of the Godhead of Jesus Christ, that even the wild and ridiculous criticism of the Unitarians, either does not at all approach it, or whenever it does, runs into such disgusting absurdities, as clearly to shew the truth of the maxim,-Magna est veritas et prævalebit; Truth is great, and will in fine triumph.

Although I readily agree with all the interpreters of the Scriptures, that the word worship, adoration, the Latin adoratio, is taken at times in the Old Testament as an homage of inferior reverence, or even only as of civil respect; yet I defy you to shew me one solitary instance from the New Testament, in which the above expressions do not signify the true Divine worship, supreme adoration, the "Cultum Latriæ," which is due to God only.

LETTER XXII.

FOURTH LETTER ON UNITARIANISM.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

REV. SIR,

I have just received your letter, and in reply, I beg most sincerely to declare, that the very pretension of Unitarianism to be the doctrine of the Bible, the whole system of its general principles and particular tenets, stands so plainly and so diametrically opposed to the clearest dictates of the Sacred Volume, that this of itself is enough to disgust ninety-nine in the hundred of all who are able to read they shake their heads and say, "No, no; this will never do. True or false, this is not the doctrine taught in the Bible: these men should honestly confess that they did not learn their system there, and either abandon it, or renounce Revelation."

A Deist might well say to an Unitarian, "Your system is no doubt free of most of the absurdities of orthodox theology: it is much more rational and manly, and approaches to the simplicity of our own creed. But why impose upon us, and impose on yourselves, by calling it the system of the Bible? Your eyes have been opened to see the falsehood and folly of that contradictory jargon which is received as Gospel by the simple, or unhappily, prejudiced believers. One reason for our rejecting the pretensions of the Bible as a Divine Revelation, is, that it does, beyond all reasonable question, contain the doctrines which you have had the good sense to disavow. But to be consistent you must go a step farther :-reject the book, and giving up all your attempts to torture it into consistency with your own rational sentiments, frankly confess, that the doctrines which it contains are enough to sink it and all its evidences together."

There may be many things in a scheme of doctrine very palatable to human corruption, and, in so far, calculated to procure for it an extensive reception; while yet there may be such palpable and flagrant opposition between it and the book from which it professes to be taken, as at once to shock the judgment of the great majority of men, to effectually counteract their wishes for its truth, (if such they may secretly have formed,) and to insure its general rejection. Besides, there are wants in the condition of mankind which Unitarianism does not meet: however reluctant men may be to acknowledge themselves utterly "lost," and "without strength," yet there remains a prevailing consciousness of sin, and guilt, and condemnation. The Gospel, in its exhibitions of an atoning Mediator, meets this natural feeling. There is an obvious congruity between the general idea of such a Saviour and the secret dictates of conscience in the human breast. Now, I assert here, without fear of con

tradiction, that it is impossible for an Unitarian to prove his principles on these subjects Scriptural, except by proving that the principles of Trinitarians are Unscriptural. It ought to be his business, instead of proving the Unity of God, to disprove the Trinity; instead of proving Christ's humanity, to disprove his Divinity. If he can do this, he will have done everything: but till he has done this, he has absolutely done nothing, except having deceived himself or his readers.

As to what you repeat regarding the 17th chapter of John, v. 3,-" That the attention of every honest man ought "to be directed to this 17th chapter of St. John, 3rd verse, "it appearing to me as decisive of the whole controversy, it "being absolutely incapable of being reconciled to the "doctrine of the Trinity;" I answer, (I have also replied to this difficulty in another part of these letters,)— When the Father is addressed as the "true God," the "only true God," he is so denominated to distinguish him from false Gods,-from the idols of the heathen; to the exclusion of those "quos falsa gentium persuasio introduxerat," (Grotius as quoted by Whitby,) "whom the false persuasion of the Gentiles had introduced." To confirm this, pray compare 2 Chron. xv. 3, 8; Jer. x. 10; 1 Thess. i. 9: also, please to recollect, that this very title of "the true God," is expressly given to Jesus Christ, and with the same distinction too from idols. See John v. 20, 21, compared with chapter i. 1, 2. See the manner John also speaks of "the Word" in chapter i. 1, 3, as well as in other parts of his Gospel. The Evangelist does not surely contradict himself, and after having positively affirmed that the Word was God, exclude him from all claim to the Deity in the other. I have proved in these letters that there is no inconsistency between Jesus professing Divine Dignity, and his being sent, when he is considered as having

« EelmineJätka »