Page images
PDF
EPUB

yet, forsooth, they would have men reject the Bible itself, to receive their assertions instead, under the shape of deductions from its doctrines.

Mr. R. admits in his "last thoughts," Christ to have, together with Jehovah, created something. This admission upsets the Humanitarian scheme at once. If Christ created anything, it is sufficient for our argument, which he could not have done, unless he be Jehovah. If, then, Christ be Jehovah, as I have shewn in the "Reviewer Reviewed," and as I could shew by many other texts of Scripture; and if Jehovah made all things, Christ made all things; if he did not make all things, only some, there are two Creators on Mr. R.'s own hypothesis, i. e., two Jehovahs.

But, he says, (Reply, p. 16) "the word Jehovah, the peculiar appellation of the Supreme Being, is never in the plural." No one, but a Humanitarian, ever imagined it was; though, blundering about in the midst of the evidence for the proper Deity of Christ, and determined to disbelieve the Bible, such texts viz. as Gen. xix. 24; Hos. i. 7 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; Zech. ii. 8-11, (&c., all which I take as they stand in John Wilson's Scripture Proofs, p. 92-94,) where JEHOVAH is twice mentioned; they pretend, either that two Jehovahs are mentioned, or that Christ is not Jehovah: and so, pinning up their oppoments in a corner, they think they have them safe prisoners. They borrow their ideas from similar phrases, respecting two mentions of Solomon in the same verse, as in 1 Kings x. 13, &c. Now, in reply, I refer Mr. R., and Mr. W., to Germany. The title of Duke is not only applied to the head or Father of a Ducal family, but to all the sons of that Ducal family. If a passage in a public edict or document of any kind, were to be issued, in which it should be said, (as in Jer. xxiii. 5, 6,)*"Behold, the days come saith the Duke, I will raise unto Saxe Weimar, a righteous branch, &c. &c. &c., and this is his name whereby he shall be called-the Duke our Righteousness,”—would there be a mistake as to the understanding of the promise?-Would any one infer, that the branch was not Duke, and if eldest son or onlybegotten son, not heir to the Dukedom?-Or infer, that two persons were not intended, because both are called Duke? The case is, of course, not altogetner parallel; because the only-begotten Son of God existed from all eternity,"—but SUCH as the FATHER (any father) is, SUCH MUST BE THE SON, (any son,) in rank, dignity, and nature, the same,

66

* See Appendix, No. 2, under text No. 6.

though, for a time, the son be heir, or in the "form of a servant," still, when the time comes, to assume the Supreme Power as Duke or "Lord of all."

It is unfair, then, to bring forward passages where Jehovah twice mentions himself in the capacity of the Father, to contradict passages where He mentions himself in the capacity of Father, and His Son in the capacity of the Sent, under the same generic title or name of Jehovah.

If God ever begat a Son, (seeing the word God is the designation of God's nature,) that Son must be God, Even the Pagan poet tells us,—

[ocr errors]

Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis:
Est in juvencis, est in equis, patrum
Virtus neque imbellem feroces
Progenerant aquilæ columbam.”

Hor, iv. 4, 31.

"The BRAVE and GOOD are COPIES of THBIR KIND:
In steers laborious, and in generous steeds
We trace their sires: nor can the bird of Jove,
Intrepid. fierce, beget th' unwarlike dove."

Francis' Translation,

If Christ were begotten, he was begotten or GOD: such as God was, such must HE HAVE BEEN: if he be THE ONLY BEGOTTEN, there can have been no other like him, of those who had a human mother; he must, then, have been man in a sense that NO OTHER MAN WAS, or COULD BE, having GoD for his Father, not by adoption, but by generation. And thus the Jews, though Mr. R. (see Reply, p. 16, on John i. 3) ignorantly denies it, understood the term "Son of the living God," to be synonymous with God; and thus the primitive Church understood it; and thus our Lord declared to Peter that on that truth SO UNDERSTOOD, the Church should be built as upon a rock,-NEVER, NEVER-to be moved by the assault of all the powers of hell, much less by the puny and impotent sophistry and determined folly of the sons of earth,

CHRIST was GOD;-if nature is nature;-if God is the God of truth-if Christ taught truth-or if the apostles repeated what they heard-or the Jews and first disciples understood what was spoken unto them; or the Scriptures we possess are the Scriptures which were written by the inspired penmen" for our learning and instruction,"

It must be a Herculean task to upset the testimony of the ancient critics, commentators, and historians,-to refute the apostles-the disciples-the Saviour-the God of the Jew; -to disprove the Bible, and the laws of nature:-but this our Unitarians dare to undertake! and with what engines? with what weapons? by what aid? by false reasoning-bold

K

assertions and all the dishonesty which men calling themselves scholars and christians can descend to. "Vain man

would be wise," says Job, (xi. 12) "though man be born like a wild ass's colt"a text that ought to be inscribed upon the phylactery of every aspirant to be thought wiser than even the God of wisdom himself.

APPENDIX.

No. 2.

86

After his fifteen pages of haughty sneering, Mr. Rowntree has chosen to throw into an appendix, many of the texts in dispute, still adhering to his own side of the question, the humanity" of Christ, (which, he knows, I believe,) but avoiding all texts on the other side, as to the "divinity" of Christ, which he knows also to be the only point at issue. And these texts which he thus cites, he endeavours to interpret in his own way, thinking to convince me, because he is himself deceived.

After the many proofs advanced in the preceding pages, of Mr. R.'s incompetence even to understand the language, to say nothing about interpreting the meaning of Scripture, those who are inclined to take neither Mr. R.'s word nor mine, but to "search the scrIPTURES" for themselves, by the aid of commentators and expositors on the original text of the Bible; who are desirous of "proving ALL things, and holding fast that which is good," and who go to the enquiry on their knees, as if seeking for "hidden treasures;" will not, perhaps, think much of the array of pretended learning in that appendix.

But, as some persons may be deceived (who are compelled to take TRUTH upon trust) by this array; I add here a few remarks, to counteract the effects of Mr. R.'s opinions.

First, then, I shall refer them to the 9th paragraph of p. 17, He says "he could have made some "learned observations, if "it suited his PURPOSE to do so"--but then he should only perplex his readers:”—and then he speaks of " the trouble of noticing" the passages I adduced.

Need I, let me say earnestly to the Unitarians within the reach of these pages, need I point out how awfully this bravado about concealed learning, contrasts with the profession about argument, persuasion, and truth." (Reply, p. 15.)

Does it not confess, that he wrote only for the unlearned, to make them receive the " COMMANDMENTS of men;" or,

are souls of so little value in the eyes of this "MINISTER," this "PREACHER," that "IT SUITS HIS PURPOSE," (whatever it may be,) to give us the husks instead of the kernel of the wheat, and considers it a "trouble" to investigate those Scriptures, upon which our "salvation depends??

He talks of" perplexing his readers!" has he not ALREADY perplexed them? Can any man make out his meaning, except it be to keep them in the dark, as to those identical passages which we of the Catholic Church at large affirm to be the evidence not only of Christ's humanity-(which we no more deny than he does)-but of his divinity and of his mediatorial character, as "Emmanuel, God with us?"

No, no,-so long as he can consult Belsham, and palm of his sentences, entire as they stand in his books, as his own, without acknowledging them by even the ordinary marks of reference, or so long as he can have an importation of learning per coach, so long may people think he knows what he is writing about; so long may they be led to believe in his "learned observations" bottled up for fresh attacks on printed sermons on particular occasions, by curates of the Church of England; so long will it SUIT HIS PURPOSE' to pretend indifference to those investigations which scholars of all ages have thought but a fit offering to Him, who gave them their talents and acquirements, to expend in his service, and for the furtherance of the salvation of mankind.

The texts advanced by Mr. R. are in two classes; in the first are those which I brought to his notice in "the Reviewer Reviewed," which, though he has replied to it, he has NOT answered.

I shall endeavour, in order to accommodate him, to take these texts, if not exactly as they occur, at least in some order or other; and I shall, as concisely as possible, answer his criticisms thereon.

(1.) I take, then, Heb. i. 2. (p. 17) "The word (Aiones) "is NOT used of the MATERIAL world. Periods of time are expressed by it. See Dr. Sykes (in loc)." See Dr. Sykes (in loc)." This is a gar bled extract from Belsham, (note 13, p. 291)!

66

Now, Sykes, and Simpson (whom Mr. R. does not name, but Mr. B. does,) ought to have known, that whatever aiones may mean in ordinary Greek, the opinions of the Gnostics, or primitive Unitarians was, that the worlds were framed by aiones or Eons; and, therefore, to exalt the character of Christ, and to prove him, beyond all doubt, THE CREATOR, the apostle here tells the Jews, to whom his epistle was

« PreviousContinue »