Images de page
PDF
ePub

of them is an impersonal name; nor are the three said to be one God, one of the persons mentioned in it is said to be the Son. The 'word son is a term of relation, expressive of the relation which Jesus Christ bears to God as his Father, which relation implies in it derivation and dependence; but God cannot stand in the relation of son to any being, or be derived from or dependent on any one. Deity must necessarily be self-existent, underived and independent: the term son, then, in this passage, cannot be the name of a divine co-equal person in God; so that of the three names here mentioned, two of them only are descriptive of proper personality, and but one of them of a Divine person, truly and properly God; the other being evidently descriptive of a derived, dependent and inferior being. If then none of the terms by which those doctrines are expressed are to be found in the passage, how, in the nature of things, can it prove those doctrines?

Mr. Wardlaw himself, however, seems to feel that his " standing in this text" is not very firm, for he immediately adds, "It would, perhaps, be going too far to say, that I should be a firm believer of this doctrine, (that is the doctrine of the Trinity,) if there were not another passage in the Bible affirming it." This is a pretty clear admission that it is not affirmed in this text, for if it was, he could not have had any hesitation in believing it on such évidence; but if this passage does not affirm it, we may venture to assert, that there is not any passage in the Bible that does, because as the terms of it are not to be found here, so neither are they to be found in any other part of the sacred writings.

But in farther proof of the doctrine of the Trinity from these words, Mr. Wardlaw assumes, that the ordinance of baptism is an act of solemn worship' to the three persons in the Godhead. His words are, "That the initiatory ordinance of baptism, prescribed in these words, involves in it an act of lemn worship, an invocation of the thrice holy name, in which it is administered, seems to be beyond dispute." That this matter is not beyond dispute is manifest, for I, myself, cer

tainly dispute it, as, I believe, all Unitarians (or, as he styles them, Sociniaus) also do. Baptism is no more an act of worship than circumcision. They are both acts of obedience to a command. Jesus Christ here gives a commission to his disciples to teach and baptize, and instructs them how they were to perform the latter; but this does not necessarily involve in it any act of worship, much less an invocation of the thrice holy name in which it is administered. If baptism involves in it an act of solemn worship, an invocation of the name in which it is administered, then must Moses have been to the Israelites an object of solemn worship, for they were all baptized, εs, into Moses, and that act must have involved in it the invocation of his name.

*

But it was not my design to enter upon a discussion respecting the doctrine of the Trinity: I have been led into it by the above passage in Matthew being selected as the foundation of the ninth discourse, which was professedly delivered for the purpose of establishing the doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit; and I have entered no farther into that subject than as it stands connected with the text, and forms the introduction to the main subject of the discourse.

My object is to shew that the Holy Spirit is not, nor can in the nature of things be, a proper person, and that the reasoning in this discourse is utterly insufficient to support such an idea. In order to this, before I enter on the arguments in support of its personality, I shall make the following observations:

1. I observe that the proper name of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God must be admitted. The Scriptures are so express on this subject, that a doubt respecting it cannot be entertained for a moment.

2. If the Holy Spirit be the Spirit of God, it is the spirit of a person, and not a proper person itself. This I shall attempt to prove by the clearest and most direct evidence. That God is a person, the Scriptures expressly declare. "Will ye speak wickedly

1 Cor. x. 2.

for God? Will ye talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person ?" * "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,—who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his (God's) person." The individual personality of the Divine Being, that is, that God is one person, and not three, is an idea that is kept up in all the language of the Old and New Testament respecting him. The proper name of the God of the Old Testament, and which is expressive of his self-existence, is Jehovah. "I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another." I This surely is the language of an individual person, and not of a nature common to a plurality of persons, or of one person in the Godhead partaking of the Divine nature and perfections in common and equally with other divine persons in the Godhead; but of a single person possessing in himself alone, supreme and unrivalled Deity, a glory peculiar to himself, which he will not give to, and which cannot be possessed by any other person or being whatever. "I am Jehovah and there is none else, there is no God besides ME."§ "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." || Jehovah, the peculiar name of God, admits of no plural, nor can it admit of any plural or neuter pronouns as its substitute; such a substitution would be highly improper, and would convey an erroneous idea. Accordingly, in every passage in the Old Testament where Jehovah is represented as speaking, or as spoken to, or as spoken of, the personal pronouns I, me, thou, he and him, are invariably used, as the representatives of that name; nor could it be otherwise, consistently with the nature of things or of language. Such is the case also with respect to the word God as the proper name of the Divine Being in the New Testament. A plural or

Job xiii. 7, 8. t Hebrews i. 1—3. Isaiah xlii. 8.

Ibid. xlv. 5.

neuter pronoun then cannot possibly be its substitute. Hence it will follow that Jehovah, God, is a person, and one person only, not three; and that person the New Testament, in the most explicit and direct terms, informs us, is the Father. "There is one God which is the Father, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Mr. Wardlaw indeed alleges, that the Hebrew word□ God, has a plural termination; and he renders Deut. vi. 4, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Gods (Aleim) is one Jehovah."* But in so doing, he has acted just as absurdly as our translators have done, in applying the word Gods to a calf and to an old man. But I observe, 1. That this must be an erroneous rendering, because it is inconsistent with itself, and perverts the design of the writer; for if Jehovah be one Jehovah, he cannot be our Gods, and if he be our Gods, he cannot be one Jehovah. The design of the writer was, as is very evident, to assert the absolute unity of the God of Israel; but this rendering contradicts that position, by asserting that he is more than one. 2. This rendering proves too much, for if it prove any thing, it is not that there is a plurality of persons in God, but that there are a plurality of Gods; and, had it been uniformly adopted by our translators, the Bible would have been a system of the grossest polytheism. 3. Our Lord and his apostles, in citing passages from the Old Testament, and this in particular where the word

' occurs, as the name of the Divine Being, uniformly render it by the singular noun E, God, and never by the plural ɛo, Gods; but surely they would not have so done, if the word had contained in it such a profound mystery as that of the Trinity.

Having proved that God is a person, which was the point to be proved, it will necessarily follow, that the Holy Spirit, if it be the Spirit of God, is the spirit of a person, and, consequently, not itself a person distinct from him whose spirit it is. leads me to observe,

* Page 12.

This

+ Exodus xxxii. 4, and 1 Samuel xxviii.

Psalm lxxxiii. 18.

13, 14.

3. That spirit is essential to personality. Every intelligent agent, therefore, every person, must necessarily have his own proper spirit. This is essential to his very existence; it is his life, his energy, that by means of which he is possessed of all his powers of understanding, reflection and action; it is "the breath of life," without which he would cease to be a person. One person, then, cannot possibly be the spirit of another person; nor can the spirit of a person be a person distinct from him whose spirit it is, unless every person is in fact two persons. If then the Holy Spirit be the Spirit of God, i. e. the spirit of a person, the Spirit of the Father, as it is also denominated, it cannot have any personality distinct from that of the Father. As spirit is essential to personality, if the Holy Spirit were a person, he must also have his own proper spirit, and, consequently, there must be another Divine person in the Godhead, the Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and if that also were a person, he too must have his own proper spirit, and so we might go on adding persons to the Godhead ad infinitum.

Having made these observations in order to ascertain the meaning of the term Spirit, and the sense in which the Scriptures speak of it as standing in relation to the Divine Being; we now proceed to examine the arguments by which Mr. Wardlaw endeavours to prove that the Spirit is a proper person, another person distinct from him whose spirit it is said to be. Before we enter on the subject it may be proper to observe, that on the Trinitarian scheme, when the Holy Spirit is denominated the Spirit of God, the term God cannot mean the whole Godhead, consisting of three Divine persons, for then the spirit must be the spirit of itself, as much so as it is the spirit of either of the other of the Divine persons. The term God, therefore, in this connexion, must be confined to the person of the Father.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Islington, not much more than a hundred yards from my own habitation, I purchased the identical quarto manuscript copy of Dr. Doddrige's principal work, neatly bound and lettered, entitled, "Lectures on Pneumatology, Ethics and Theology," in ten parts, with particular references to the most considerable authors on these subjects. This volume he drew up with consummate care for his pupils; and its posthumous publication by the Rev. and learned Mr. Clark, of Birming ham, established his already justly-acquired fame as a tutor of young men training up for the Christian ministry. It has been since augmented in size and value by the notes of Dr. Andrew Kippis, and still more recently by the illustrations of Messrs Parsons and Williams, in their well-known edition of Dr. Doddridge's Works.

The manuscript is in short-hand, except proper names and technical phrases, which are written at full length. The title-nage is spread out in small capitals, with the date at the bottom, Northampton, 1740. The neatness of the whole volume, distributed into its several lectures, with opposite blank pages for additional remarks, and ruled with red ink, is inimitable! A transcript of the author's intelligent and pure mind, such a literary relic cannot fail to be held in estimation. Little did the good Doctor imagine when he was passing, as he frequently did through Isling ton, in his way from Northampton to the metropolis, that the original copy of his favourite work, over the pages of which he had passed many an hour by the pale light of the midnight lamp, would lie exposed to sale on a common stall, near a century afterwards, in this same village, and fall into the hands of a Christian minister, who, though not one of his own denomination, has been through life the admirer of his learning, his genius and his piety!

Acquainted with the short-hand which Dr. Doddridge wrote, and which was always taught his pupils upon their first entrance into his academy, I have amused myself by comparing the original copy of his Lectures with the last printed edition.

strict coincidence of the one with the other, excepting the additions made

[ocr errors]

by Dr. Kippis and its subsequent editors, to which their own initials are annexed. How desirable and grati. fying," exclaimed I to myself, " would it be to inspect in a similar manner the autographs, or the identical copies proceeding from the pens of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!" This, however, must not be expected; it is in the nature of things impossible. They have long ago mouldered into that common dust whence every terrestrial object hath arisen, and by which all human things must be ultimately absorbed and forgotten! But let us, instead of repining, be thankful that we have in our possession a number of ancient manuscripts, on which, diligently collated together, we can rely, and from which, for the formation of our faith as well as the regulation of our practice, we may derive every reasonable satisfaction. From this source learned men, both of the Establishment and among the Protes tant Dissenters, (witness the New Version, founded on Archbishop Newcome's Translation of the New Testament,) are educing fresh testimonies to authenticate the records of eternal life! And approximating thus nearer to the primitive purity of the sacred writings, it is to be hoped that the professors of Christianity, however diversified their creed or varied their mode of worship, will be yielding more substantial proofs of their virtue and piety.

J. EVANS.

Mr. Jones in proof of Philo and Josephus being Christian Writers. No. I.

THO

SIR, Jan. 6, 1818. HOUGH the Ecclesiastical Researches have been now some years before the public, their contents still remain little known. I avail myself therefore of your wishes, Mr. Editor, that the leading arguments calculated to prove Philo and. Josephus to be Christian writers, be laid before the readers of the Repository In doing this I will be as brief as possible. My proofs will be but inferences drawn from passages in those authors. If they are not conclusive, some of your learned readers will, it is presumed, expose their weakness or fallacy; while on the contrary, if they appear solid and

[ocr errors]

irresistible, a new and powerful evidence will break forth in favour of the gospel. Indeed, no question con- ' nected with the credibility of our faith, seems to me more surprising, interesting and important, than that on which I am now entering: and I trust that this importance being felt to a certain extent by others, will induce the more intelligent part of your readers to peruse them with candour and attention. Before I commence, it is necessary to premise two remarks.

Though Christians are in the habit of distinguishing between Judaism and Christianity, they were originally the same: and they were known and maintained to be so by Christ and his followers in Judea. Moses and the prophets taught the existence and government of one true God; inculcated virtue and piety as the only effectual means of pleasing him; predicted the advent of a Messiah, his death and resurrection, and thus opened the door for faith in the re-surrection of the dead and a life of immortality. The gospel is but a fulfilment of these predictions: and hence Christ is not so much the author or founder, as the finisher of Christianity, having himself taught no new truths, but explained and enforced those already known by new sanctions. Paul, though deemed a heretic, taught only the heresy of Moses and the prophets. Our Lord too assures us that he came to fulfil, not to destroy the law; and he directs his adversaries to examine the Jewish Scriptures as containing eternal life. If Philo and Josephus believed in the Divine mission of Jesus, they could not but entertain the same notion: and my object is to shew that, whenever they speak under any term of the Jewish religion, they meant by it that religion, improved and spiritualized by Jesus Christ. I have to remark,

Secondly, that, when the religion of Jesus was separated from Judaism, properly so called, the zealots, who opposed him, ceased to make proselytes to their system among the Gentiles: for however zealous they might be to gain converts among the Heathens, their doctrine was calculated only to insult, and to repel them: they held forth a triumphant Messiah

[ocr errors]

who should come only to destroy the rest of mankind; they enjoined a submission to rites that were oppressive, painful and ignominious, and the adoption of a name and of a creed that were detested by the whole world. What Heathen in his right mind would embrace such a doctrine, especially as it offered him no advantage whatever to compensate the great and various sacrifices he was called upon to make? The Pharisees felt this; and their attempts to proselyte the nations ended with the promulgation of the gospel. All the efforts they made were to follow the apostles, and to pervert those who had already been brought over to the faith. On the other hand, the preachers of spiritual Judaism, as they had received a commission to convert the Heathen world, received also the necessary means to effect this task, however arduous. They laid aside every burdensome rite; they held forth an illustrious messenger, already arrived from God, not to destroy, but to save mankind; they invited every man, however poor, obscure or illiterate, upon the simple terms of repentance and reformation, to come and receive the most glorious and animating privileges, the forgiveness of their past sins, the favour of God, and the hope of immortal glory. What rendered this invitation most effectual was the happy effect which the newly-purified religion produced on the lives of those who preached it to others. Under its influence, they exhibited examples of all that is beautiful and sublime in virtue: and thus proved the reasonableness and subserviency of their doctrine to make them happy here as well as hereafter. The deportment and character of the first teachers of Christianity assumed by this means a language more convincing, if not more eloquent than their tongue in recommending their faith to the world. And it is to them and their converts that Philo refers, when he pens the following matchless passage: "The children of wisdom resemble the sand because the sand is uncircumscribed in number; and because, as the sand which lines the shore repels the incursions of the sea, so the divine word of instruction does the sins of men. This word, accord

ing to the promises of God, spreads to every corner of the universe, and renders him who receives it, the heir of all things, extending in every way to the east and to the west, to the north and to the south. A good man is not a blessing only to himself, but the common benefit of all other men ; as he readily communicates to all others, the advantages which he himself enjoys. For as the sun is a light to all those who have eyes, so the divinely wise are the light of all rational beings. For in thee, says the scripture, shall all the tribes of men be blessed. If any one, therefore, in a house, or a city, or a country, or a nation, is become enamoured of wisdom, those who live in that house, or city or country, or nation, must learn from him to mend their lives. For as the aromatic spices, which exhaling spread on the breeze, fill with their sweet odour those who are near; in the same manner the friends and acqaintances of a good man, derive from the breath of virtue, which emanates far and wide from his character, a perfume that adorns and enriches their own." P. 592. The inference to be drawn from these remarks is, that where Philo and Josephus speak of Judaism prevailing among the Gentiles, we are to understand them to mean Judaism purified by Christ and disseminated by the apostles.

In the second book against Apion, Sec. 39, Josephus speaks to this effect: "For a long time past multitudes are become zealous for our worship; nor is there a city among the Greeks, nor a nation among the barbarians, to whom many of our customs have not been extended, and who do not endeavour to imitate the cordiality and harmony, the distribution of their property, the industry in their callings, the patience under tortures in support of our laws, which are evinced amongst us. And what is most worthy of admiration in this respect is, that this zeal for our law is not awakened by any allurement from pleasure or profit, but by the internal excellence of the law itself. And as God pervades the whole world, so his law has at length pervaded all mankind; and whoever reflects on his own country, and even his own family, will find evidence of the assertion now made by me. Let those

« PrécédentContinuer »