페이지 이미지

Unitarian objects to all worship that is not paid to the Father; and dislikes such phrases as God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, as much as the orthodox Protestant dislikes to hear Mary termed the mother of God. Popery is the origin of both. And yet the objections of such Protestants as believe Christ to be the Deity, to hear Mary called the mother of God are certainly very unreasonable. For Mary being his mother, if he were God, the obnoxious conclusion is unavoidable; and wherefore should she be refused her title ?* The Roman Catholic who calls her the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God, as she was called in the days of Cyril, and decreed to be in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, is consistent. But the Church-of-England-man who refuses her the latter appellation at least, is not only inconsistent, but a dissenter from one of the most lauded bishops of his own church; even from Bull-the great Bull, the Lord Bishop of St. David's, who wrote in defence of the Nicene creed. Nelson the biographer of this redoubtable orthodox bishop, informs us, (page 487) that "in his Sermon concerning the Blessed Virgin, he asserts and vindicates her peculiar title of the MOTHER OF GOD; which was not invented by the Fathers of the third general council at Ephesus, convened against Nestorius, but approved by them as what belonged to her, since it was the language of Scripture, and the style of the Apostolical age." Another Church-of-England divine, but of a very different stamp, says, that "some of the fathers of the Nicene council would have had no difficulty to give the superiority or precedence to the Virgin Mary, in making her the third person of the Trinity."+ The council of Ephe sus, A.D. 431, received her as a supplement to the Trinity, under the appellation of Theotokos, Mother of God-Mosheim thinks it an innocent term; but his translator, Dr. M'Clean, truly observes that the use of such mysterious terms, as have no place in Scripture, is, undoubtedly, pernicious to true religion.

Some one may ask, are we not commanded to honour the Son, even as we honour the Father? Yea, verily, friend. But we are now discoursing, not of honour, but of religious worship. We are commanded to honour our father and mother, not to wor ship them; we are commanded to honour the king, not to adore

"Also, James ought to be called the Brother of God,' but such phrases are highly derogatory to the character of the Supreme Author of the Universe; and it is the use of phrases similar to these, which has rendered the religion of the Hindoos so grossly absurd and contemptible. Rammohun Roy, p. 254.

[ocr errors]

This, says the Rev. H. Taylor, Vicar of Portsmouth, the learned author of the Letters of Ben Mordecai, (p. 191) we learn from Elmacinus & Patricides." Hottinger, Hist. Orient, 1. ii. p. 227.

him; to honour all men, not to deify them; and to honour the Son of God, not to hail him as the supreme Jehovah. We should honour him, indeed, in a very exalted sense, for the reason which he has himself assigned-because the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son (xx) as they honour the Father"in the same manner, not in the same degree. Thus, we are enjoined to be merciful, as (xadas) "He that honoureth our Father also is merciful. Luke iv. 36.



not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent him." that would honour the king, must honour his ambassador. honour Christ, not by praying to him, but by listening with reverence to his precepts and doctrines; not by exclamations of Lord! Lord! but by doing the will of his heavenly Father. We dishonour him by giving him attributes which he disclaimed; by torturing his language, to favour creeds of human fabrication; by contradicting his own positive declarations that he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient; and by imputing to him that duplicity of character involved in the doctrine of what is called "the two natures."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




If prayer to Christ were an evangelical duty, we should have evangelical instruction for its performance. Those who advocate it are challenged to produce a single text in which the Saviour commands prayer to be addressed to a Trinity, or to himself, and to shew where certain terms ascriptive of religious homage to Jehovah, are equally applied to the Son. It has been already shewn that poxvw, a verb expressive sometimes of divine worship, and sometimes of civil respect, is used in conjunction with the Saviour's name, as with that of kings and prophets. But area, I praise, used in the worship of the Eternal God, is not applied to Christ: nor apsva shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.”—Aarpsvoss. Let the defenders of Trinitarianism produce a text like this for the worship of the Son, and the contest will be at an end. Couas I worship, in the true religious Thus Mat. sense, is also applied to God, but not to Christ. xv, 9, and Mark, vii. 7. "In vain do they worship me, asCovтαL Paul pes, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." speaking of the corruptions and idolatries of the Gentiles, says, sosednoay xat arpa, Rom. i. 25. they worshipped and served, or paid religious homage to the creature more than the creator. We find no such expressions connected with the name of Christ. Luke also, Acts, xvi. 14. says of Lydia the seller of purple, that she was one open rov Dov worshipping Godand of Justus, c. xviii. 7. debouers Toy Joy who worshipped God; and v. 13, persuaded men σ to worship God; and again, Acts, xix. 27. where Demetrius speaks of Diana, whom all Asia and the world worship. oxun birα. Mark what a distinction the Apostle makes (Philip, iii. 3.) between God and Christ; and the worship due to the one, and the joy inspired

[ocr errors]

by a sense of the blessings conveyed by the other: the circumcision, says he, which worship God in spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus,” δι πνευματι Θεω λατρευοντες, και καν· χωμένοι εν Χριστω. When Peter and John were suffering persecution from the Jews, they addressed their prayers not to Christ but to God-and clearly marked in what light they contemplated Christ, when they prayed "that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child (servant) Jesus." ayir Пaidos Inou, servi tui. GROTIUS.

To quit verbal criticism; this part of the subject shall be concluded by one general argument, to which the candid reader is requested to give particular attention. It will be admitted that no people, on the face of the earth, were ever more tenacious than the Jews, of their religious principles; or more jealous of any infringement on the honour and worship due to Jehovah. A belief in one God was the grand discriminating feature of their religion. They considered the God of Israel as peculiarly their own, and looked with ineffable contempt and abhorrence on every species of strange worship; insomuch, that after their return from the Babylonish captivity, we never hear of their relapsing into idolatry. Now, let the following questions be fairly answered.-Wherefore did the Jews never accuse either Christ or his Apostles, of introducing any species, or any object, of worship to which they had not been accustomed? Were they, with all their national prepossessions; their boasted patriarchal covenants; their special interests with heaven; their commandments written by the finger of God, and sanctioned by so many threats and promises; their positive laws directed against all idolatry, and guarded not only by the sword of the legislature, but by the interests of a vigilant, vindictive, and intolerant priesthood; were they, after all, less regardful of the purity of their worship, than the idolatrous Athenians who put Socrates to death, on the pretext that he had corrupted their religion? Why did they not bring forward a similar charge against Christ, and accuse him of having advanced the unheard-of claim to the second place in the Godhead, and demanded the same adoration as the Father? This would have been a glorious accusation for the priests. It would have sacrificed their victim, and preserved their popularity: and, it cannot be doubted that if they had found, either in the words or actions of our Lord, the smallest point on which they could rest such a charge, they would have seized it with malignant avidity. But that was an invention of which, with all their iniquity, they were guiltless. No suspicion of it ever glanced across their minds. For though the Saviour taught them more just notions than they had entertained of the benignant and paternal character of God, it was the God of their fathers whom they jointly worshipped-and in all their accusations of blasphemy, they never said that he claimed a right to be adored. We have already seen that the high priest

adjured him to declare, not whether he had assumed the character of deity, but whether he were the Christ; and when he was brought before Pilate, by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, of what did they accuse him? We found this fellow, said they, perverting the nation.-Luke, xxiii. 2. What kind of perversion did they mean? Political or religious? The former decidedly: to the latter they did not even allude. Nor did they, nor could they allege, though it would have served their purpose well, that any body of men, or any individual of all the thousands who had congregated to hear him, ever paid him divine honours. They dared not to affirm that he attempted to seduce them from the worship of the God of their fathers. For when the multitude saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see; they glorified, not the agent by whom these wonders were wrought, but "the God of Israel," who had imparted such power to work them.-Mat. xv. 31. When he cured the sick of the palsy, the people "marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men;" (args) Mat. ix. 8. that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, to a man. During the whole scene of his trial and crucifixion, he was never once accused of having either claimed or received adoration. When he hung upon the cross, and the mob, the soldiers, the priests, and the thieves, or one of the thieves at least, seemed to contend with each other, who should revile him most, they never touched upon this topic. One of the groupes said, "if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. He trusted in God, let him deliver him if he will have him, for he said I am the Son of God." But amidst all their revilings and derisions, they never confounded his claim to the title of the Son of God with that of God himself; nor charged him with the impiety of usurping divine honours; for the plain reason that he had never afforded them the slightest pretext for such an accusation; nor did they dream of any one in human shape making such extravagant pretensions: and if they had, our Lord's exclamation, MY GOD, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," would have dispelled the delusion.


Once more- Why were the Apostles in all their bitter persecutions and trials before the grand council of the Jews, never in any one instance, accused of introducing strange worship? Stephen was arraigned for speaking blasphemous words against Moses, against God, the temple and the law, and of saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy their city, and change the customs or institutions which Moses delivered unto them.Acts, vi. 14. But he was not taxed with any attempt to introduce a new deity. The ritual of the Jews might be changed, but the object of their worship was eternally the same. The Apostle Paul, after his conversion, declares, Acts, xxiv. 14. that he worshipped the God of his fathers-"I thank God,"

(says he, 2 Tim. i. 3.) "whom I serve, (w λarpsvw) from my forefathers." He sojourned at Ephesus for three years, and dur ing that time, "shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God"--but we are no where informed that he ever taught the Trinitarian doctrine. The Jews accused him of being a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of the Nazarenes-but they could not tax him with the more heinous offence of making a deity of Christ. They formed a conspiracy to assassinate him; but they did not charge him with an attempt to turn the people to idolatry. Both in his preaching and his writings he most strictly maintains the divine unity. "There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many, and Lords many,) but to us, (Christians) there is but one God, the Father; *** and one Lord, Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. And again—" There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."- 1 Tim. ii. 5. The adoration of Christ, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is founded neither on Scripture, nor on reason and common sense, but on tradition and the infallible church.


The Trinity a human invention-a mystery, and therefore no subject of Christian belief.

After quoting a long series of texts, which carry no proof of the doctrine he advocates, to such as understand them right, Mr. Pope comes to the conclusion that the TRINITY IS A MYSTERY. In this conclusion he has the felicity of agreeing with all who have espoused his side of the question. One of the fathers terms it "a tremendous doctrine," and never was any appellation more appropriate. It originated in darkness, has been propagated by terror, and upheld by the sword. The term Trinity was not known in the Christian Church for nearly 200 years, and when it was first used by Theophilus, a convert of Antioch, it was in a sense very different from that which it afterwards assumed. The fathers of the three first centuries, and consequently all the ancient Christian people for 300 years P. C. till the Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians.+ This may be learned from the testimony even of the most decided

"The tremendous Deity," says Dr. Waterland, "is all over mysterious." Surely this must be meant of some heathen deity; not of him whom the Scriptures have revealed to us as our Father, and whose tender mercies are over all his works.

+ Priestley.

« 이전계속 »