Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

through any thing as an instrument, be properly expressed by 'По, (which certainly is the general case) then the miraculous works performed by Jesus, which required, for their accomplishment, the exercise of Divine power, were done by him, not as a mere instrument, but by his own immediate agency. It is this preposition that is used when these works are spoken of as done by him: Luke v. 15. ix. 7. xiii. 17. xxiii. 8. See also Phil. iii. 12.—If 'тпо means the original or primary cause, then Jesus was not the mere instrument or medium of the cures wrought, but their "original author," effecting them by his own power. Assuming Mr. Yates's style, we might say, these mighty works are not represented as done AI' aurov, THROUGH him, but 'TITI' avrov, BY him. Thus Mr. Yates, in fixing the signification of 'ÎÃO to the primary efficient cause, has forged a weapon against himself.-If he refuses to admit the inference drawn in the present case, he must then admit, that these are additional instances of ПO denoting, in opposition to his too unqualified hypothesis, the secondary or instrumental cause.

[ocr errors]

6thly. As to the critical authority of Origen and Eusebius, we have had enough of it. We have seen Mr. Yates, on a former occasion, parading this authority, and then presuming to dissent from it himself; whence I infer, that, notwithstanding his reiterated eulogy of these fathers-of Origen," who lived in the "beginning of the third century, who wrote in Greek, than whom "none of the ancient fathers was more learned, more hon"est, or more industrious," and of Eusebius. "the learned, ❝ accurate, and laborious author, to whom, among the an"cients, the Christian world is chiefly indebted for the testi"monies to the genuineness of the New Testament writings, ❝ and who could not possibly be mistaken about the common " meaning of two prepositions which he used daily and hourly

Gg

" in conversation and in books;"-that, notwithstanding all this, he would have done the same again had it suited his purpose.— As for Origen, we have seen also how strongly he affirms the equality of the Son with the Father.* Either, then, the inferiority implied in the words quoted from his writings by Mr. Yates, must be of an official kind, (a circumstance to be determined by their connexion, which I have not the opportunity to consult) or else he flatly contradicts himself: and if so, I do not well comprehend the "honesty" of the good old father; and, not comprehending his honesty, I can have little dependance on his "learning," however great it may have been. †

7thly. On Col. i. 16. Mr. Yates says "In the longest, and, "as it is commonly imagined, the clearest of these passages, "(that from Colossians) sufficient evidence is presented, to ، enable the mere English reader to determine, whether, in ،، the creation of the material universe, Christ displayed "underived glory. After stating the fact, that all things "were created through him, the apostle assigns the cause “ of this fact, in the following terms: For t pleased the ، Father, that in him should all fulness drwell. It appears, "that the reason, why Christ was employed in the work of "creation, was, that such was the pleasure of the Father, "and that the Father bestowed upon him a full participation "of his power and glory." (Pages 87, 88.)

On this I have to observe, in the first place, That, in the words quoted as assigning the cause of "all things having "been created through him,"the words "the Father," are

* See pages 206, 207.

[ocr errors]

+ Mr Yates speaks in very confident terms of Origen's honesty. I feel no satisfaction in seeing his credit, or that of any other man, at all shaken; nor does my argument in the smallest degree require it. The reader, however, may, if he please, consult on this subject Bishop Horsley's Controversial Tracts, Part II. chap. i. pages 391-400 and Disquisition V. pages 534-548.

supplementary.-Secondly, That, granting the propriety of the supplement, (for I think it is a fair and natural one) the verse does not (as a careless reader of Mr. Yates would suppose) immediately follow the one which ascribes to him the creation of all things. There intervenes the declaration of his being "the head of his body the church, the beginning, "the first-born from the dead, that in all things he might

66

have the pre-eminence.”—And in this his mediatorial capacity, as the Head of authority and influence in his church, all fulness is represented as dwelling in him, by the pleasure of the Father, consistently with the whole representation of the scheme of redemption.-And, lastly,-What does Mr. Yates mean when he says, that "the Father bestowed upon him a full participation of his power and glory?"-Does he mean to say, that the power of creating out of nothing was communicated to this subordinate agent, himself a creature? And by a full participation" of this power does he mean that it was imparted fully-in all its extent? I cannot, indeed, conceive, for my own part, that, if creative power was imparted at all, it could be imparted otherwise than in all its fulness. The power of creating an atom is the same with the power of creating the universe-and the power of creating the universe must be infinite power; otherwise, as creation must be limited, we never can have evidence of the creator's possessing such power.-If creative power be capable of transference or communication to a creature, I can conceive of nothing else which may not; and must look on him who can believe in this fancy, as a believer in the possibility of the communication of all Divine perfections; an idea which would startle even a Trinitarian, with all his insatiable appetite for mystery.

"Why might not the power of self-subsistence," says Dr.

Priestley," be imparted to another, as well as that of creating "out of nothing?"" He must have lost his reason," says Allix, "who imagines, that God can make a creature capa❝ble of creating the universe. Grant this, and by what character will you distinguish the creature from the Crea"tor? By what right, then, could God appropriate, as he "doth very often in the Old Testament, the work of the "world's creation to himself, excluding any other from hav❝ing to do in it but himself? Why should God, upon this "score, forbid the giving worship to the creature, which is "due to the Creator? The Arians, who worship Jesus Christ, "though they esteem him a creature, and the Papists "who swallow whole the doctrine of transubstantiation; "they may teach in their schools that a creature may be en"abled by God to become a creator! But for us, who deny "that any thing but God is to be adored, we reject all such "vain conceits, of a creature being any way capable to re❝ceive the infinite power of a creator.” *

With regard to THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD and the FINAL JUDGMENT, Mr. Yates begins his observations by complaining, that I should have represented Unitarians, without distinction, as" doubting or denying that Jesus Christ is "appointed to execute these offices at all."-Although it is not exactly true, that I have quoted from Mr. Belsham only, as Mr. Yates alleges,-for, in a note, expressions to the same purpose with those of Mr. Belsham are quoted from Mr. Lindsay; yet I freely admit, that my language ought to have been qualified. This, I presume, is one of those "lesser differences, which are to be settled among Unitari"ans by their own amicable discussions.”

Considering Mr. Yates, then, as granting that the domi

* Judgment of the Jewish Church, &c. pages 193, 194,

nion of the world and the final judgment are, according to the Scriptures, assigned to Jesus Christ, let us see how he treats the argument thence derived for his "omniscience, " omnipotence, and independence."

"In a former part of this treatise," says he, "I have stat"ed and defended the Unitarian doctrine concerning the "judgment of mankind through Jesus Christ, which is, that "he is empowered and ordained to execute these exalted "offices by the one true God. He himself asserted, that "the Father gave him authority to execute judgment,' and "various explicit declarations of Scripture agree with the "doctrine of Paul, that he is ordained by God to be the judge "of quick and dead.' These clear assertions we believe; they " are not the deductions of human reason; they are authorita❝tively taught to mankind in the Scriptures of truth; Mr. "Wardlaw does not call them in question." (Pages 218, 219.)

No, indeed. So far from calling them in question, I have said, in the passage referred to, that "those who "maintain this view of his person and character (i. e. "who consider him as a Divine Mediator') acknowledge "such delegation, as an essential article of their scheme. "Believing him to be represented in the Scriptures as "voluntarily assuming the form, and acting in the capa"city, of a servant, they are not startled at finding this "representation consistently supported throughout.”—And it is curious to observe, how cautiously Mr. Yates avoids grappling with this great general principle of the double view of the person and character of Christ, held by Trinitarians, as the principle, and the only satisfactory principle, of harmony, between seemingly discordant passages.

I had argued besides, that "delegation cannot confer any "ability for the discharge of the functions of the office

« AnteriorContinuar »