Gambar halaman

to the reader, that the passage is so obscure and perplexed, that he is to despair of any explanation.

In this manner, it seems to me, the Scriptures must soon become such as the Prophet Isaiah declared they would become to the Jews, at a certain future period. The vision of all,' says that Prophet, chapter xxix. 11, ‘ is become unto you

, as the words of a book that is sealed; which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; And he saith, I cannot, for it is sealed ;' and the book is delivered

to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.'


IV. I object to the Unitarians direct unfairness in their conduct towards Trinitarians.

The unfairness here intended respects two particulars.

1. They treat the Trinitarians as if they were Tritheists, or held the existence of three Gods.

This they do in several methods, particularly, the name Unitarian, as I formerly observed, is designed to denote that they, 'among Christians, exclusively hold the existence of one God. The very name itself, therefore, is intended to declare, that Trinitarians hold the existence of morę Gods than one. Aa imputation wbich, they well know, every Trinitarian rejects with abhorrence.

Again: in arguing with Trinitarians, they customarily undertake to prove that the Scriptures, in a great variety of passages, assert that there is but one Godo; as if this were the very point, or at least one point, in debate between them and Trinitarians. Accordingly, when they have proved this point, which a child can easily do, they commonly triumph, and appear to consider the dispute as ended, and their antagonists overthrown. In this way they insinuate to their readers that Trinitarians hold the existence of more Gods than one; and that all their arguments are intended to support this doctrine. Whereas every Unitarian perfectly well knows that the unity of God is as entirely and as professedly holden by Trinitarians as himself; that none of their arguments are directed against it; and that this point has never been, and never can be, in debate between hiin and them. That the doctrine of the Trinity involves or infers the existence of more Gods than one, every Unitarian has a right to prove, and may with perfect fairness prove, if he can. But to insinuate,

, that Trinitarians believe the existence of more Gods than one, and to treat them as if they thus believed, when it is perfectly well known that every Trinitarian disclaims such belief with indignation, is conduct which, in my view, admits of no justification.

2. The Unitarians customarily undertake to prove that Christ is a man ; and thence triumph also, as if they had refuted the doctrine of their opposers. Now it is well known

. to every Unitarian, that the Trinitarians with one voice acknowledge Christ to be a man ; and that this point, therefore, is not in controversy between him and them.

It is wholly disingenuous, therefore, to insinuate that it is in debate, or to attempt to make it a part of the controversy, when they know that Trinitarians as uniformly hold it as themselves. Of these facts, however, they usually take not the least notice, but appear to consider both points as the principal topics in debate. Such conduct in their antagonists the Unitarians would censure with severity.

I shall conclude this discussion with two observations.

The first is, that the Unitarians are extensively disagreed concerning the person of Christ. The Arians consider him as a super-angelic being: The Socinians partly as a man, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ;' and partly as a man, differing from other men only by being wiser and better : The Sabellians, as God manifested in one manner. The Patripassians, as the Father living and suffering in the man Jesus Christ. Some of the Unitarians hold, that he created the universe ; some that he made an atonement for sin; some that he ought to be worshipped ; and some deny all these doctrines. This difference is derived from two sources ; one is, that their reason or philosophy dictates nothing concerning Christ in which they can harmonize. The other is, that the Scriptures in no very satisfactory manner support either of their opinions. But it ought to be observed, that this very difference is of such a nature as strongly to indicate that the Scriptures exhibit Christ as God..

The second observation is, that Unitarianism has an evident tendency to infidelity.

This is strongly evident in the manner in which the Unitarians speak of the Scriptures, the insufficiency which they attribute to them for settling religious doctrines, and the superior sufficiency which they attribute to reason. It is evident, also, in the laxity of their ideas concerning what genuine religion is, their want of veneration for the sabbath, their want of attendance on the public worship of God, and their devotion to the pleasures and amusements of life.

Dr. Priestley acknowledges, that “the Unitarian societies do not flourish : that their members have but a slight attachment to them, and easily desert them.”

Voltaire also says, “ that down to his own time only a very small number of those called Unitarians had held any religious meetings."

Dr. Priestley also say, that “ many Unitarians have become more indifferent to religion in general, than they were before ; and to all the modes and doctrines of religion.” Concerning himself, he says,

“ that he was once a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect; then a high Arian ; next a low Arian ; then a Socinian; and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Jesus Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other Prophet.” He also says, “ he does not know when his creed will be fixed.” This I consider as the true progress, nature, and tendency of Unitarianism. The end of this progress in most men is easily foreseen. Let him, therefore, who finds himself inclined to think favourably of these opinions, consider well before he embraces them, what will probably be the final termination of his religious system.





I have, in several preceding Discourses, endeavoured to settle the meaning of the phrase, God's own Son,' used in this passage of the Scriptures. This was indispensably necessary at the opening of all the observations intended to be made concerning the doctrines of the Christian system. As these doctrines are truths, partly unfolding to us the character and conduct of this wonderful Person, and partly disclosing to us the consequences of his interference in the behalf of mankind; as his character, in a greater or less degree, affects every doctrine of what is appropriately called the Christian religion; and as those who set out with different views of his character, proceed farther and farther asunder, so as to form in the end entirely different systems of religious doctrine; it became indispensable that this great point should, as far as possible, be fixed at the beginning. If the attempt to do this has been successful, in the degree which I have hoped, it will contribute not a little to settle on a firm foundation most of the doctrines which remain to be investigated. My own views concerning them it will, at least, contribute to explain.

In this passage we are informed, that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. The meaning of this phrase (“the likeness of sinful flesh,') will be obvious from similar phrases in Philippians ii. 7,8, He was made,' or, as it is in the Original, • He existed in the likeness of men; and being found in



fashion as a man. In the first of these phrases, the original word, howuatı, is the same with that translated likeness,' in the text. In the second, it is oxinuatı, a term of a kindred signification, denoting form or fashion. In the passage in Philippians, the phrases, ' He existed in the likeness of men,' and, · He was found in fashion as a man,' denote, that he was a real man. In the text, the phrase, “the likeness of sinful flesh,' denotes, that he was sent in real flesh ; here figuratively called sinful, because it is in all other instances, except that of Christ, the flesh, or body, of sinful beings.

The Doctrine contained in this passage, is, therefore, the following


This doctrine, like that of the Deity of Christ, has been extensively disputed.

The Heretics generally, who embraced the Gnostic philosophy, denied Christ to have been a man. Some individuals and some classes held, that he was clothed in a body of air ; that he suffered only in appearance; and that Judas Iscariot suffered in his stead.

To all these and the like doctrines, they were led by philosophizing on this subject. It is a just observation of Lardner, that“ Heretics were, in the general, men of a curious and inquisitive turn of mind, and greatly indulged this disposition, which led them to speculate on many points of doctrine concerning which the Scriptures had afforded little or no light. When the Scriptures were in some cases inconsistent with their notions, they were for making them yield to their philosophical opinions. Thus the simplicity of truth was banished, and endless divisions arose.” Tertullian also says, that “ heresies are derived from philosophy; and that secular wisdom is a rash (or fool-hardy) interpreter of the divine nature and disposition."

These observations are, with equal force and justice, applicable to heresies of modern days, and those of the ancients; and few of either will be found to have arisen from any other source, beside a philosophy too proud or too knowing to submit implicitly to the testimony of God.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »