Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Having fhown upon what grounds we are not convinced, by the arguments of the advocates for the fupreme and independent deity of Chrift, we proceed to state what appears to us direct and pofitive proof, that Chrift is not the most high God, but a being entirely diftinct from God, inferiour and dependent, bis Son, fervant, messenger, &c.

In what follows there is nothing remarkable, because if Christ is really a human being only, there cannot be much room for laborious criticism or ingenious illustration of passages in which he is represented as a man. The parade of mathematical reasoning in page 147 is, we think, childish and unnecessary. The remarks in section 2, upon the meaning of the word son, are acute, and upon the prayer of Christ upon the cross, forcible. To prove Christ a distinct and dependent being, we have found no place in the present volume, where the reasons are more forcibly stated than in the following passage.

We come, now, to a very memorable paffage, which embraces the whole economy of Chrift's exaltation, and which ftates minutely the duration and issue of it. "Then cometh the end, when he fhall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he fhall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he muft reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The laft enemy that shall be destroyed, is death. For he hath put all things under him. But, when he faith all things are put under hsm, it is manifeft that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And, when all things fhall be fubdued under him, then fhall the Son alfo himfelf be fubject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." In this paffage the following things are worthy of observation.

1. The Son is fpoken of under his highest designation. This the most eininent advocates of his deity are compelled to acknowledge; for he is fpoken of in the capacity of ruling and governing all things, and fubjecting every thing to his dominion, excepting the infinite God: Which they fay is beyond the power of a creature to perform.

2. He is reprefented as a distinct being from God.To God he is to deliver up the kingdom, and God is excepted from the number of beings to be fubjected to him; which manifefts that God is as diftinct a being from him, as those not excepted. Indeed if he were not thus distinguished, there would be no propriety in making the exception.

3. The extraordinary powers by which he puts down all rule and autho rity, and fubdues all things to himself, are represented as not inherent, but dele gated powers from that God," who did put all things under him."

4. Immediately after the subjection of the laft enemy, death, the Son is to relinquifh the management of the kingdom to

God.

5. Then the Son himself is to become a fubject to him, who did put all things under him. The meaning of this plainly is, that the Son fhall then defcend from his exalted state of authority. He shall no longer be the oftenfible governour, vicegerent, or medium through whom God rules and manages all things; but fhall appear in his own natural rank, without any authority over his fellow fubjects; and God shall govern without any vicegerent.

The whole of the above account coincides, perfectly, with our scheme of fen. timent; and is directly in the face of the fentiment of our opponents. According to their scheme the Son humbles himself to become Mediator; and is, as mediator, inferiour to the Father. Upon the conclufion of the mediatorial work, then, he must rife to his former flation, and take e qual rank with the Father. But this paffage reprefents that he is to take a lower Ration than be now has, and to become fubject to him,who put all things under him.

Befides, how can the Son, as mediator, become fubject when he ceafes to hold that character? What is it that is to be subject, if not the fecond perfon in the Trinity?

Further. Our opponents fuppofe that, when the economy of redemption is finished, the mediator is to deliver up the kingdom into the hand of God; that is, of the three perfons jointly, between whom there will no longer be any economical fubordination. But this paffage. afferts, that it is to be delivered into the hands of God the Father, the first perfon; who is here reprefented as having put all things under him. So that the Son and the Holy Ghoft will not hold a rank equal to the Father's.

find, that Paul caufed the fins of Elymas, the forcerer, to be retained, by fixing blindness upon him, for labouring to turn away the deputy from the faith. This was the extent of the Apostle's power to forgive and retain fins. This therefore was all that Chrift himself poffeffed, while here on earth. For he told them, that, as the Father had fent him, fo he commiffioned them; i. e. with the same power to forgive and retain fins which he poffeffed. There can be no question then, that, by forgiving the fins of the paralytick,our Lord meant nothing more

Op the original of John xx. 28. Mr. S. makes the following ob

servation:

Both xugos and 90s, Lord and God, are in the nominative, and require fome verb to fucceed, in order to make sense.

to God, is, indeed, often ufed, for the vocative. But we have never seen an inftance of this use of xvgo; Lord. It is believed,that there is no example of it in the fcriptures.

What does Mr. S. think of John

ο κύριος

? He had better also have forborn to supply, what he supposes to be the ellipsis in this exclamation of Thomas.

than healing him of his diforder, taking xiii. 13. ύμεις φωνειτε με, ὁ διδάσκαλος, και away the confequence of that intemperance, of which he had been guilty. Hence our Lord replies to the malicious wrefting of his words by the Pharifees, Whether is it easier to fay, Thy fins be forgiven thee? or to fay, Arife and walk? i. e. What matter is it about the expressions, which we ufe, if they are but in telligible? Which beft conveys the idea of cure, to fay in the language of the prophets, which you cannot but underStand, Thy fins be forgiven thee? or to say in plain common language, Arife and walk? Surely you difplay a captious difpofition in cavilling about words. But, that ye may know that the Son of man bath authority on the earth to forgive fins, to take away the diseases which come upon men for their fins, then faith be to the fick of the pally, Arife, take up thy bed, and go into thine boufe. p. 60.

The eighth section contains a very full discussion of the use of the word worship in the Old and New Testament, in order to prove, what we believe no one will deny, that "there is nothing in the word gove itself, which confines it to divine homage. The kind of homage implied in any particular instance is to be decided by the circumstances under which it is paid." P. 62.

The next section is employed in examining several important texts, in which names and titles appropriated to God appear to be given to Christ. We have not room to pass every criticism in review before us; a few remarks on some erroneous suppositions of Mr. S. may not be unprofitable.

Jerem. xxiii. 6. "His name shall be called Jehovah our rightcousness." On this appellation Mr. S. observes, "Christ is here called, in Hebrew, Jehovah Tsidkenu. Abraham, that Father of the faithful, called the mount, on which he was to sacrifice his Son, Jehovah-Jireh, Moses built an altar and called it JEHOVAH Nissi Gideon built an altar and

called it JEHOVAH-Shallum. Yea, when David brought up the ark, from the house of O-. bededom, to the city of David, he styles it, in his song on the occasion, both God and Jehovah; God is gone up with a shout, the Lord (Heb. Jehovah) with the sound of the trumpet. Thus evident is it, that Jehovah is not a name appropriated only to the supreme God." Here we think the zeal of the author has rather overleaped his good sense, and led him to express himself inaccurately. If any thing is plain from the Old Testament, it is, that the title Jehovah can in strictness of speech be given to none but the only true God. Because it is sometimes used in composition with other words, as in the instances above cited, to constitute a name, it cannot with any more propriety be said, that per

SHERMAN ON THE TRINITY.

sons or things thus nominated are
called Jehovah, than that the city
Elizabethtown is called Elizabeth.
Surely also it cannot be supposed
by any person, who attends to the
subject, that, in the passage which
Mr. S. has quoted from Psalm
xlvii., the ark is called either God
or Jehovah.

We are also satisfied that the
author is mistaken in his inter-
pretation of Isaiah viii. 14. com-
pared with 1 Pet. ii. 8; but we
can only refer him to a most val-
uable note of the learned James
Peirce, on Heb. ii. 13., and also to
Dodson on this passage in Isaiah;
for the limits of our review, and
perhaps others will say of our
knowledge, do not allow us to
expatiate in elaborate criticism,
and copious illustration.

"We now proceed to exam-
ine," says Mr. S. in the next sec-
tion, "such passages as are said to
indicate or imply two natures in
Christ, a divine and human na-
ture." After stating the argu-
ments in favour of the reading
in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mr. S. offers the
following translation of a passage,
which, we believe, will forever ex-
cruciate the wit of the antitrinita
rian.

Indeed openly proclaimed to all ranks
and defcriptions is the fublime mystery of
godliness, which has been made known
to mortal man, substantiated by miracu-
lous atteftations, revealed to infpired
meffengers, preached to the nations, cre-
dited by the world, embraced with joy-
ful exultation.

Mr. S. must pardon us for our opinion, that he derives not his principal credit from his original attempts at Greek criticism. He makes several remarks to justify his unnecessary and paraphrastick version of oμoroyomives, a word to which confessedly in English exactly corresponds.

Ev oag (in Mr. S.'s version, to mortal man) cannot be justified by any parallel passage in scripture, and hardly by theGreek idiom; pen is never used in the passive to express the disclosure of truths to the understanding; and finally, it is too much to say that the verb αναλαμβάνω no more signifies to receive up, than it does to receive down." Though its classical use is undoubtedly extensive, yet in the New Testament it is repeatedly used to signify the assumption Indeed of Jesus into heaven. whether, or os, or bos be the true reading in this celebrated text, we think every impartial theologian must confess that the subsequent clauses can be properly applied to a person only, and to no person but Jesus Christ.

Mr. S. conjectures that him is the true reading in Zach. xii. 10. He might have added, that Kennicott assures us it is found in forty Hebrew MSS. to which De Rossi has added the authority of several editions.

On the celebrated prediction of the birth of Jesus in Isaiah vii. 14. we have much to observe, but this is not the place for our remarks. We will only suggest, that if this prediction, as Mr. S. supposes, does not relate to the birth of Christ, there is no literal prediction of his birth in the Old Testa→ ment. It is true that many illustrious names in scriptural criticism, among whom we may mention Grotius, support Mr. S. in his opinion; but it should be recollected, that they also maintained a double sense of the prophecy, whereas Mr. S. with Porphyry, the modern Jews, and the subtile Collins not only contends that the name Immanuel belongs only to the child which the prophetess of that time was to conceive, but far

Moreover, as no one is excepted from fubjection to the mediatorial Son, but he who did put all things under him, which is the Father from whom the Son receiv

ed the kingdom, and to whom he delivers it up, it is plain, that the Holy Ghoft is not excepted, and must be one who is fubjected to the Son. And as the Son is to give all that government which he

received into the hands of the Father,

he must give the government over the Holy Ghoft into his hands, fo that at the conclufion of the economy of redemption the Holy Ghost will still be under the rule of the Father: Contrary to their doctrine on this fubject.

Finally, If the Son is to deliver up the kingdom to the three perfons jointly confidered, then he must deliver up the kingdom to himself, he being one of thefe perfons. P. 168.

We wish that we had room to extract the remarks on the form used in baptism, and on the term Holy Spirit. But we can only say of the last section, that, in our opinion, it is the most ingenious, plausible, and impressive in the whole volume. We do not say conclusive, for this reason, among others, that we might be thought to intend a pun.

The style of Mr. S. though not flowing and polite, is generally correct, and sufficiently elegant for polemick writings. We think that he is sometimes too familiar, and sometimes too dogmatical. His mode of attacking his adversaries resembles more the untutored and natural dexterity of a rustick boxer, than the graceful flourishes of a practised fencing master. By declining to establish any scheme of his own, relating to the person of Christ, it is evident, that Mr. S. combats the trinitarians with much advantage. Other controversialists have commonly wasted their strength in defending some heretical offspring of their own brain, and by this incumbrance have exposed themselves to more formidable attacks, as a

man fights under great disadvantages with a child in his arms.

We have been thus copious in our account of this book, on account of the novelty, the boldness, and the force of the attack which it makes on a doctrine, which is at least professedly believed by a large majority of the clergy of New-England. If they read this book, they will be sensible that it must either be answered, or thrown

by with affected contempt; for though it contains not an argument against the doctrine of the trinity which has not been often repeated, still it offers a kind of challenge to the orthodox, and is written, we believe, with the most undissembled conviction. Let the inexperienced reader however keep in mind, "that one great advantage possessed by the Unitarians in their warfare with the orthodox results from the very circumstance of their being the assailants. If the Unitarians or even the Deists were considered in their turn as masters of the field, and were in their turn attacked, both by arguments tending to disprove their system directly and to disprove it indirectly, it is likely they would soon appear wholly unable to keep their ground.”*

* Wilberforce.

ART. 20.

Familiar Letters to the Reverend John Sherman, once pastor of a church in Mansfield, in particular reference to his late Antitrinitarian treatise. By Daniel Dow, pastor of a church in Thompson, (Con.) Hartford. 1806. 8vo. pp. 51.

FROM this familiar letter writer the person of Mr. Sherman is in much greater danger than his ar

guments. Our readers perhaps will esteem us partial, uncandid, and heretical for such an appar ently contumelious remark; but we confidently rest our justification on their unbiassed judgment, if they should ever happen to read these letters, which discover the utmost contempt of scriptural crit icism, ignorance of theological opinions, impudence of style, and bigotry of doctrine.

ART. 21.

American Annals; or a chronolog ical history of America from its discovery in 1492 to 1806. In two volumes. By Abiel Holmes, D.D. A. A. S. minister of the first church in Cambridge. Vol. I. comprising a period of two hundred years. Cambridge. W. Hilliard. 8vo.

IN Rome the people were careful to mark down the occurrences of every year. Hence the name of Annals. This register was safely preserved, but at the same time exposed to publick inspection, that every one might read it, and every error be corrected by those who could give the most accurate information. The affairs of that city and empire are therefore better known, than, the rise and progress of other nations. We know not only what was done by their consuls, but even the names of the consuls, from Brutus and Collatinus to the destruction of the empire. If similar records had been kept and preserved in other nations, or if historical societies were formed in every community, who should make it their business to note transactions rather than to write upon the times, the advantages resulting to the cause of truth Vol. III. No. 5. 2 I

would be exceedingly important. Such institutions would at least provide instruction for those grave and sober-minded readers who look after facts, instead of seeking for amusement in fabulous stories.

Individuals have done this among ourselves. The fathers of New England, though in some things too superstitious, were careful to note down, not only what was extraordinary or marvellous, but also common events, the occurrences of the year, the names of persons who were raised to honour, together with many particular circumstances by which posterity might judge of their characters. Winthrop, Johnson, and Prince enabled Hubbard, Neal and Hutchinson to give very correct information of the affairs of Massachusetts.

We say nothing of the Magnalia, that compages rerum, where facts, fables, biography, &c. &c. are mingled in such a strange manner, as to be a chaos of remarks, rather than of materials; and where the writer, whenever he tells what he himself believes, is sure to stagger the faith of others.

Dr. Holmes has extended the plan of his work and calls it American Annals. "While local histories of particular portions of A- ' merica have been written, no attempt, he says, has been made to give even the outline of its entire history." We think him very capable of doing this, and that the American Annals contain a great deal of information; many his torical documents; and a variety of knowledge, for which the laborious author deserves the thanks of the friends of literature. Dr. H. is well known as an author, many of his compositions are before the publick, and very few works of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »