Imágenes de páginas

1st. If the argument here ridiculed has nothing more to recommend it than mere ingenuity and eloquence, let it be at once rejected.

2dly. But, if Mr. Yates means to impress the reader with the conviction, that these “ pieces of reasoning" are really, on the whole, the best, the most forcible, on the point in support of which they are adduced,—I again say, Timeo Danaos. Although I think the argument possesses force, and considerable force too, yet, in the scale of comparative importance and conclusiveness, I am far from giving it this pre-eminence. I feel jealous of all such compliments. They glitter on the hilt of a sword. The commendation bestowed on an argument of this nature, seems intended to operate, in the reader's mind, as a deduction from the value of all the rest.

3dly. The insinuation that we do “ not rely on plain and positive declarations of Scripture,is contrary to truth ; and Mr. Yates's language here, when he talks of the “ deplora6 ble condition of our system,” and of our being “ obliged to

prop it up by far-fetched inferences, and imaginary hints and " allusions," is quite of a piece with that of Mr. Belsham, when he speaks of the controversy on our side being “ reducedto the argument from the use of the definite article; and it merits the same reprehension.--As to the argument itself in question, the reader '

must be left to form his own judgment whether it deserves to be ranked amongst " far-fetched inferences, and imaginary hints and allusions."

Athly. The sarcasm about “ Reason," which was intended no doubt to bite, is a very harmless one. I shall leave the reader to feel for its fangs; merely remarking, that the only occasion on which we feel disposed to turn Reason out of doors is when, in the plenitude of her pride and presumption, she attempts, with the aid of her Unitarian adherents, to do the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

same by Revelation: and then we are of opinion that she well deserves this summary justice.

I must transcribe another paragraph from Mr. Yates, on account of the sentence with which it concludes:--" I might “bid adieu to this argument without any farther observations. “ But the charge of presumptuous impiety' has been brought

against the holy and humble Jesus: he is said to have claimed “ for himself, as his original possession, an unlimited control 66 over the material and moral world. Let the reader call to 6 mind those solemn, explicit, and often repeated declara6 tions, which were formerly brought forward, (Part II. ch. 667. §. 2.) and by which our Lord absolutely disclaimed the * possession of inherent power,' saying, that of himself he « could do nothing, and that the Father, dwelling in him, did " the works. I confess, that his express assertions, when “ put into the balance with the eloquent and ingenious plead“ ings of one whose talents and virtues I highly esteem, weigh 6 more in my mind than the waters of the ocean, when

placed in comparison with the drop that hangs upon the 66. bucket.” (Page 219.)

And so unquestionably they should. The only fault of the comparison is, that it is not sufficiently strong. All the “ pleadings" of man, however “ ingenious and eloquent,” when opposed to a single “ express assertion" of the “ faithful 6 witness” must be infinitely less than nothing. But the charge which is here implied, of my framing eloquent and ingenious pleadings, in opposition to the “ solemn, explicit, and frees quently repeated declarations” of my Lord and master, is a very serious one indeed. Aceursed be the pleading,-avadeua forw_with all its ingenuity and eloquence, that would contradict his words, or impute to him the impiety of claiming an equality with God, which he did not possess!' But if, on the


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

other hand, his inferiority was the official inferiority of a relation to the Father which he had voluntarily assumed, and was thus perfectly consistent, as we believe it to have been, with his possessing, at the same time, the power and majesty of underived Godhead, then equally accursed be the reasonings that would rob him of his essential dignity and glory! When we come to examine a little the part of Mr. Yates's book to which he here so confidently refers, we shall have occasion to touch particularly on this important general question.

The proofs of THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS. being ascribed to Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates meets by a reference to a former part of his work, in which, he says, he had shown that 6 in every passage which can possibly be interpreted as at66 tributing the work of creation to Jesus, the idea is express“ed of his executing this work as a subordinate agent, a “ mere instrument, inferior to Jehovah.” (P. 217.)-Having made this confident reference, he dismisses the whole in the following strain of happy irony. « Three of these passages,

(John i. 3, 10: Col. i. 16, 17.) together with the words

quoted in Hebrews i. 10. as referring to the government “ of Christ, though addressed to Jehovah, form the ground“ work of such severe and triumphant criticism, extending “ through ten pages, as will make the bapless Unitarians “smart so long as Mr. Wardlaw's critical celebrity shall en“ dure.” (Page 217.)-May I request of my reader to re-peruse those ten pages (104-112.) which are thus so briefly and so wittily despatched? I fear not the comparison of the reasoning which they contain with that of Mr. Yates in the pages of his volume referred to (82-88) by any reader, lettered or unlettered.

When Mr. Yates-states my affirmation that the Scriptures give no countenance to the idea of his executing this work o as a subordinate agent, a mere instrument, inferior to Jeho65 yah," he takes no notice of the grounds on which it is made. I'must therefore repeat them:

“ I have only to add, on this part of the subject, that while 6 création is thus repeatedly, and in the plainest terms, ascrib66 ed to Jesus Christ, the Scriptures give no countenance to the “ idea of his executing this work, as a subordinate agent, a “ mere instrument, inferior to Jehovah.-The very terms, in“ deed, in some of the passages already quoted, themselves pre“clude every such supposition. They are universal. The cre6 ator of all things, of all created beings, cannot be hiuself a © creature;-cannot, therefore, be, in any sense, or in any re6 spect, an inferior agent to the Supreme God. He who is

not a creature must be God: and God is ONE.-This idea is s strongly confirmed by such expressions as the following in " the prophecies of Isaiah:- Hearken unto me, O Jacob 6 and Israel, my called: I am he; I am the first, I also am “ the last. My hand also hath laid the foundations of the 66 earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens;”« Thus saith Jehovah thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee “ from the womb; I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; 6 that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth 6 abroad the earth by myself.' - It is somewhat curious, that, in the former part of his work, after having finished his critical strictures on the different passages, Mr. Yates expresses himself in these terms: “ The Greek words employed in these passages, cannot bear 64 to be interpreted so as to ascribe to our Lord the creation of of the material world by his own uncommunicated omni“ potence. They directly contradict the notion, that Christ

stretched out the heavens alone, and made the world by him6 self.(Page 87.) In this it is plainly implied, that if it had been said of Christ that he “ stretched out the heavens alone, and made the world by himself,it would have justified the conclusion that no other was employcd in the work along with him. Do not the words, then, when used by Jehovah, imply, that no other besides Jehovah was employed in the work of creation ? and if Jesus Christ be not Jehovah, do they not consequently express what is not true?

Let me now examine a little the strictures themselves. I begin with observing, that here, as in all other places, we are left in the same mysterious uncertainty about Mr. Yates's own sentiments:—“ The question to be determined,” says he,“ is, “ Whether, supposing that our Saviour created the material “ universe, he accomplished this undertaking by his own in“ herent, underived, and unaided omnipotence, or whether “ he was employed and empowered to fulfil the counsels of a “ superior.” (Page 217.)—“ I have already stated, that many « Unitarians altogether deny the existence of Christ previously to his conception in the womb of his mother; but that

agree with the orthodox Christians in asserting, " that he lived before his incarnation in a state of glory, and “ was employed by the Deity as an instrument in creating “the material world. The determination of these lesser differ“ences does not belong to our present inquiry: they are to “ be settled among Unitarians by their own amicable discus6 sions. The question now before us is, Whether, granting the

pre-existence of Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation underived power.” (Pages 82, 83.)--" But the passages which “ represent Jesus as the creator of the material world, also

suppose the exercise of power previously to his incarnation. “ These passages are decisively favourable to the Unitarian “ doctrine, that, if Jesus was concerned in the formation of

many others

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »