Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

has thus concluded:-"This stone of stumbling and rock of offence, as it appears from the latter text, (the text in Peter,) is no other than Christ, the same stone which the builders rejected. Therefore Christ is the Lord of hosts himself."-Here the Apostle Peter, in conformity with the Prophet, represents God as the founder of the cornerstone, and Jesus as the same corner-stone, which, though it be disallowed by the Jews, yet is made by the same founder, the head of the corner; but the Jews from their disobedience stumbled directly at the stone so exalted, rendering it a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and hereby they stumbled secondarily at the founder of this stone, and offended the Lord God; who, though he was the rock of defence of Israel, (rock of refuge, Psalm xciv. 24,) became a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.

Thus in Luke x. 16, Jesus declares to his disciples, "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me;" intimating by these words, that contempt for the holy doctrines which Christ commissioned his disciples to teach, argued contempt for him by whom Christ himself was sent; but no one will thence infer the deity of those disciples. In vers. 6 and 7 in question, and in ver. 4 of the same chapter of Peter, ("To whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious,") Jesus is distinctly declared to be " a stone of stumbling," "a living stone chosen of God;" the indefinite article "a" here denoting that he is only one of many such stones. It is surprising that Mr. Jones could overlook these phrases, and conclude upon the identity of Jesus with God from metaphorical language, which represents God as "a stumbling stone" of Israel, and Jesus a stumbling stone of those who never believed him. That there is nothing peculiar in Jesus being called a stone or a shepherd, see Genesis xlix. 24, where in a

metaphorical sense Joseph is called "the shepherd and the stone of Israel."

The Hebrew language, in common with other Asiatic tongues, frequently indulges in metaphor; and consequently the Old Testament, written in that language, abounds with expressions which cannot be taken in their literal sense. This, indeed, Jesus himself points out in John x. 34-36, in which he justifies the assumption of the title of Son of God, to denote that he was sanctified and sent of the Father, by shewing that in the Scriptures the name even of God was sometimes metaphorically applied to men of power or exalted rank. Hence we find epithets which in their strict sense in their most common application are peculiar to God, applied to inferior beings, as I have already noticed. But the Scripture avoids affording the least pretext of misunderstanding the real nature of such objects, by various adjuncts and epithets of obvious meaning, quite inapplicable to the Deity. It is melancholy, however, to observe, how frequently men overlook the idiom of the language of Scripture, and (apparently misled by the force of preconceived notions) set aside every expression that modifies those that suit their peculiar ideas.

Were we to admit common phrases applied both to God and to Jesus as a proof of the divinity of the latter, we must upon the same ground be led to acknowledge the deity of Moses, of David, and of other Prophets, who are, in common with God, the subjects of peculiar phrases. Moses in Deut. xxx. 15, declares, "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil." So Jehovah declares in Jeremiah xxi. 8, "Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death." In conformity to this mode of argument adopted by Trinitarian writers, we should thus conclude from these passages-unless Moses were one with Jehovah, he could not in his own name employ the same authoratative phrase which is used by Jehovah. In the

same manner the term worship is equally applied to God and David in Chronicles xxix. 20: “And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the Lord and the king." Whence, according to their mode of argument, every one must find himself justified in drawing the following conclusion: God is the only object of worship-but the term worship is in the Bible applied to David-David must therefore be acknowledged as God.

I have now noticed all the arguments founded on Scripture that I have heard of as advanced in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, except such as appeared to me so futile as to be unworthy of remark; and in the course of my examination, have plainly stated the grounds on which I conceive them to be inadmissible. Perhaps my opinions may subject me to the severe censure of those who dissent from me, and some will be ready to discover particular motives for my presuming to differ from the great majority of Christian teachers of the present day in my view of Christianity, with the doctrines of which I am become but recently acquainted.Personal interest can hardly be alleged as likely to have actuated me, and therefore the love of distinction or notoriety may perhaps be resorted to, to account for conduct which they wish it to be believed honest conviction could never direct. In reply to such an accusation, I can only protest in the most solemn manner, that even in the belief that I have been successful in combating the doctrines of Trinitarians, I cannot assume to myself the smallest merit :-for what credit can be gained in proving that one is not three, and that the same being cannot be at once man and God; or in opposing those who maintain, that all who do not admit doctrines so incomprehensible must be therefore subjected by the All-merciful to eternal punishment? It is too true to be

.

denied, that we are led by the force of the senses to believe many things that we cannot fully understand. But where the evidence of sense does not compel us, how can we believe what is not only beyond our comprehension, but contrary to it and to the common course of nature, and directly against revelation; which declares positively the unity of God as well as his incomprehensibility; but no where ascribes to him any number of persons, or any portion of magnitude? Job xxxvi. 26: "Behold God is great, and we know him not." Ch. xxxvii. 23: "Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out." Psalm cxlv. 3: "His greatness is unsearchable." Neither are my attempts owing to a strong hope of removing early impressions from the breasts of those whose education instilled certain ideas into their minds from the moment they became capable of receiving them; for, notwithstanding great and long-continued exertions on my part to do away Hindoo polytheism, though palpably gross and absurd, my success has been very partial. This experience, therefore, it may be suggested, ought to have been sufficient to discourage me from any other attempt of the kind; but it is my reverence for Christianity, and for the author of this religion, that has induced me to endeavour to vindicate it from the charge of Polytheism as far as my limited capacity and knowledge extend. It is indeed mortifying to my feelings to find a religion that, from its sublime doctrines and pure morality, should be respected above all other systems, reduced almost to a level with Hindoo theology, merely by human creeds and prejudices; and from this cause brought to a comparison with the Paganism of ancient Greece; which, while it included a plurality of Gods, yet maintained that Oeds orì sis, or "God is one," and that their numerous divine persons were all comprehended in that one Deity.

Having derived my own opinions on this subject en

tirely from the Scriptures themselves, I may perhaps be excused for the confidence with which I maintain them against those of so great a majority, who appeal to the same authority for theirs; inasmuch as I attribute the different views, not to any inferiority of judgment compared with my own limited ability, but to the powerful effects of early religious impressions; for when these are deep, reason is seldom allowed its natural scope in examining them to the bottom. Were it a practice among Christians to study first the books of the Old Testament as found arranged in order, and to acquire a knowledge of the true force of scriptural phrases and expressions without attending to interpretations given by any sect; and then to study the New Testament, comparing the one with the other, Christianity would not any longer be liable to be encroached upon by human opinions.

I have often observed that English divines, when arguing with those that think freely on religion, quote the names of Locke and Newton as defenders of Christianity; but they totally forget that the Christianity which those illustrious persons professed, did not contain the doctrine of the Trinity, which our divines esteem as the fundamental principle of this religion. For the conviction of the public as to the accuracy of this assertion, I beg to be allowed to extract here a few lines of their respective works, referring my readers to their publications upon religion for more complete information.

Locke's Works, Vol. VII. p. 421: "But that neither he nor others may mistake my book, this is that in short which it says-1st, That there is a faith that makes men Christians-2dly, That this faith is the believing 'Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah'-3dly, That the believing Jesus to be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving him for our Lord and King, promised and sent from God, and so lays upon all his subjects an absolute and indispensable necessity of assenting to all that they can attain

« AnteriorContinuar »