Page images
PDF
EPUB

priate sense, designates the Messiah, the Saviour, the incarnate Redeemer. When the appellation is used in prophecy, (e. g. Ps. ii. 7,) he is called Son, by way of anticipation. In other cases, where it designates a divine nature, it does this only because it has come, by usage, to be a proper name, like the terms. Christ, or Messiah, which may designate either the human or divine nature of Christ, or both of them.

This simple view of the subject, it seems to me, might disembarrass some theological discussions of many paragraphs, which now are very obscure, and (at least to me) unprofitable as well as unintelligible. The ancient Fathers involved themselves in more than a Cretan labyrinth, by undertaking to defend the doctrine of eternal generation. If any one wishes to see how easy it is to accumulate words without meaning, and perplex common minds with representations, which after all afford no instruction, let him plunge into the abyss of patristical speculations on this subject.]

I have thus summarily touched upon the principal texts, which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the doctrines which I have been endeavouring to defend. Whether I have violated the laws of exegesis in doing this; and whether you or I depart most from them, in explaining the texts which seem to be at variance with the opinions that we defend, must be left to the judgment of the intelligent reader.

I must observe however, before I close this letter, which concludes what I have at present to advance, in respect to your Sermon, that I do not omit making observations on the rest of the Sermon, because I accede to many things which you profess to believe, or to the mode in which you have represented the sentiments of Trinitarians, in regard to various topics. I might mention the manner in which you accuse us of treating the moral attributes of God; your appropriating to yourself and your party, by implication, the exclusive belief in all that is amiable and excellent in the Deity, (pp. 15-18;) your assertion, that the reproaches which you are obliged to encounter, are occasioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonored goodness and rectitude of God, (p. 18;) the manner in

which you state our views of the atonement, and by implication appropriate to Unitarians only, many important things in which we all agree, (pp. 18-21;) the appropriation also to Unitarians only, in a similar way, of many views respecting the love of God, rational zeal in religion, and the benevolent virtues; and the intimations that we are opposed to all that is excellent, and rational, and worthy of belief. The manner in which you have treated these topics, I do very much regret ; and I cannot think that this is the way to convince opponents, or to terminate disputes. If I have attempted to hold up you, or Unitarians, to ridicule; if I have misrepresented your sentiments; made any effort to use the argumentum ad invidiam; appealed to human authorities to decide the question between us; or appealed to any thing but the sober rules of exegesis; then I desire to know it and be humbled for it. I will not say that I have not transgressed in any of these particulars; for who that knows the human heart does not know that it is deceitful? But I can say sincerely, I did not mean to transgress; and that I will, with all my heart, thank the man, who in the spirit of Christian love will point out my error, and show me wherein I have written in such a way, as to endanger, or render repulsive the cause which I am advocating. That cause I believe to be just: and I should regret to employ any unfairness to defend it. What real interest have we, but to know the truth? And what but simple argument can lead us to it?

I retire then, from the field of review which the remainder of your Sermon presents; for since the pressure of my official duties, that cannot be abandoned or neglected, is so great, I am compelled to relinquish the idea, which I at first entertained, of pursuing the investigation of the topics presented by the remainder of your Sermon.

I have but a few considerations to add, on the subject of the preceding pages; which must be reserved for another Letter.

12

LETTER V.

Reverend and Dear Sir,

IN page 14 of your Sermon, you inform us o the method, in which you explain those passages, which seem to speak of the divine nature of Christ. The paragraph is as follows:

"I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most established and obvious principles of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey very different ideas, when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon built the temple in a different manner from the architect whom he employed: and God repents differently from man. Now, we maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power & offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we say,oblige us to interpret the comparatively few pas sages, which are thought to make him the supreme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness. These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ."

I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, without examining its nature and tendency. On the supposition that you admit the Bible to be a revelation from God, as you aver, permit me to ask, whether it is the object of a revelation to disclose truths which are NOT known, or are insufficiently established; or whether it is the object of a revelation, to disclose truths already known and established? If you answer, The latter; then your answer denies, of course that it is a Revelation. What the book of nature exhibits,,

[ocr errors]

the Scriptures do not reveal. Is there then, any thing in the Scriptures, which the book of nature does not exhibit? If you concede this; then I ask, How are we, on your ground, to obtain any notion of that thing, which was unknown, before it was revealed? E. g., the resurrection of the body is revealed. Now it is a known property of the human body to corrupt and perish. Shall I construe a pašsage of Scripture then in such a manner, as to contradict this known property? If not, then I can never suppose the resurrection of the body to be revealed. I however do construe the Scriptures, so as to contradict this apparently known property of the human body-following the obvious assertion of the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to force a constructive meaning upon their language. Yet, if I understand you, I am at liberty, "to restrain, and modify, and turn the words from their most obvious sense,” because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the matter, of which our bodies are composed.

[ocr errors]

The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact or doctrine. What I know already of a thing,.is, if you are correct," to modify, and restrain, and turn from their obvious sense," the words which are employed in revealing. it, because what is revealed, I suppose to be at variance with some known doctrines or properties. Is there not room here, for great caution, and great doubt, as to the correctness of your principle?

According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures may be construed very differently, by persons of different degrees of knowledge. One man knows the properties of things, far more extensively than his neighbor. He sees, that what is revealed may consist with known properties of things; but his neighbor, who lacks this knowledge, is unable to perceive the consistency of revelation with what he knows; and this, because his knowledge does not qualify him to judge, or because what he thinks he knows, he is really ignorant of. The same text in the Bible therefore, may be received by one, as a consistent part of Revelation, and rejected by the other. The measure of a man's knowledge, consequently, cannot be a proper test by which the meaning of Scripture is to be proved.

But you will say, "I can never believe in the reality of

a revelation, which contradicts my reason." I accede. And here is the very place, where I find the greatest difficulty with your theory of interpretation. You do not seem to me to carry your objections back, to the proper place. If God manifest in the flesh be an absurdity, a palpable.contradiction" an enormous tax upon human credulity," as you aver; then the claims of the book which asserts this, are, no doubt, to be disregarded. What is palpable contradiction, we certainly can never believe.

But in determining what the Scriptures have taught, we have no right to say, that because any particular doctripe is repugnant to our views, therefore we will "modify and restrain, and turn from the obvious sense," the words in which it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis are not a mass of wax which can be moulded at pleasure, into any shape that we may fancy. We do as great violence to reason-to the first principles of all reasoning, when we reject these rules, as when we admit absurdities to be true.

In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that clear passages relating to the same subject, are to be adduced to ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been simply called God, I should allow that this term might be explained, by its use as applied to inferior, beings. But when the sacred writers themselves, have explained the meaning which they attach to it, by telling us that Christ is the God, who created and governs the world; who is omniscient and eternal; the object of religious worship and prayer; God over all, or supreme God: (not to mention" the true God," and the "Great God;") there is no law of exegesis, no method of interpretation, which can obscure their meaning, that is not violence-an infringement of the fundamental principles of interpretation and therefore an abandonment of the first principles of our reason. It does appear to me, therefore, that my only resort in such a case is, to reject their authority, if I disbelieve the doctrine. To say that they did not mean to teach, what they most obviously have taught, I cannot; must not. No book can be understood; no writer can be interpreted at all, by such a rule of exegesis, without forcing upon him the opinions of his readers. My system of philosophy, we will say, differs from yours. What you view to be a palpable contradiction and absurdity,

« PreviousContinue »