« PreviousContinue »
account of the state from which our Lord stooped, and will, if the author is not mistaken, turn out upon examination to be decidedly hostile to that sy, stem. The Greek text shews at the first glance, that it will admit of other interpretations, at least equal, and in the author's judgment much superior, to that of the common version. p. 204.-First translation, supposing the inter, pretation in the common versiun “ thought it not, robbery to be equal to,” to be correct, but rendering Itos without the article, when applied to Christ, a God; The moment the Father is introduced, he is at once called • @sos. p. 205.Reasons for, and advantages of, thus rendering tos without the article. p. 207. -Meaning of being in the form of a God, considering the latter word to be used in its inferior sense according to our Lord's own interpretation of it. The apostle obviously considered him to have stooped from the state of a prophet endued with miraculous powers, to that of a slave. p. 208.-Objections to the rendering of “ thought it not robbery to be equal to." p. 209.-Preferable rendering of egtaypov, a prey, and it, like. p. 209.-Makes the passage consistent, and our Lord a pattern of perfect humility throughout. In what manner he divested himself of the form of a God, and took upon him that of a slave. p. 210.–That it was voluntary on his part, and why. p. 211.--How he might, according to his own account, have delivered himself. p. 212.No alJusion in this passage to a preexistent state, the whole relating to our Lord's voluntary humiliation when he delivered himself up. p. 212.-Absurd consea quences of supposing that be humbled bimself when in a preexistent state of glory equal to that of the Father. The apostle appears to have had no idea of it, nor of two natures in our Lord. p. 213. Other translations, instead of “ thought it not robbery to be equal to God.” p. 214. The rendering of wru Oiq; by like God, or as God, exemplified by Job xi. 12, ld, xl, 15, Sept. and vindicated from objections. p. 215. Rendering of sysopas in the sense of imaginor, which makes the passage did not imagine, or think of the robbery to be equal to God. Novatian seems to have understood the corresponding Latin words in this sense. Quotation of the passage in which he says also, that the Son never compared himself with the Father, and of another in which he proves the Son to be less than the Father, by his receiving sanctification from him. p. 217.--This a remarkable instance of a Trinitarian, when the Trinity was not supposed to consist of three equal persons, quoting this very passage, to prove the Son’s inferiority. p. 218.-Other proofs from Origen of the passage being understood in ancient times in a sense the very opposite to that supposed by modern Trinitarians. p. 219.-Proof of Eusebius having so understood it. p. 220. —and Hilary in a sense nearly similar. p. 221.-lustances of the correspond-, ing Latio phrase having retained the true sense of the Greek, in times long subsequent. p. 221.-A text admitting of so many different interpretations, unfit to be quoted as an authority, particularly as the Trinitarian interpretation disturbs the sense, and contradicts the general scope of the writer, and there are others perfectly rational and consistent. p. 222.-Have any other writings received such treatment as the Christian Scriptures from their Trinitarian friends ? p. 223.-There have been Trinitarians, however, who bave under
stood the passage in a different sense. p. 223.-It says nothing of any original glory of our Lord, nor of his having received a new and peculiar glory in a new nature. p. 224. Remarks on 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.-Objection that the Son being to give up his kingdom, and to be subject, implies that he is not subject now. p. 224.- Answer, that this is mere inference, which if it arises may always be rebutted; that the apostle has taken care that it shall not arise ; that he is now a delegated king under the supreme sovereignty of the Father; that when he has delivered up his kingdom, he will instead of a king be merely a subject of the Father, illustrated by Matt. xx. 20-23. p. 225.-The Divine's description of the Father as holding in the scheme of redemption the office of guardian of the rights of government in the universe, wholly unscriptural, as is that of Christ's giving up the kingdom, by giving in an account of his ada ministration ; and also the Trinitarian notion, that when he shall have delivered up his kingdom, the government of God, whether as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, shall be all in all. p. 227.-This not the language of the evangelists and apostles, but the contrary. The passage speaks of no one reigning after this event, but the Father. It says nothing of the Son, but that he shall be subject, and of the Holy Spirit nothing at all. The two natures are quite out of the question. p. 298.-Absurdity of supposing that the Son, upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, when in possession of all his glories, is to be subject to his equal. p. 228.-Three instances, mentioned by the Divine, of Unitarians, and one of a Deist, having become Trinitarians, considered. Multitades of Trinitarians, many of them men of distinguished learning and talents, who have joined the Unitarians. p. 229.-The Deist perhaps educated a Trinitarian, and may have used a Greek Testament containing more than one spurious text, particularly 1 John v. 7. p. 230.- The double view of Christ, both as God and man, has no foundation in Scripture, and creates difficulties, jostead of solving them. First instance of this from Matt. xxiv. 36. p. 231.-Second instance from John xvii. 1-3. p. 232.Third instance from Joha xiv, 28. p. 233.-Fourth instance from Matt. xx. 20-23. p. 233. The Divine having to avoid the imputation of contradiction and absurdity in calling two persons one being, stated that Trinitarians understand the word
person’iu a middle sense between the philosophical person, as a distinct and complete being, and the political, as George king of Hanover, and George king of England; that every thing in the Deity is sui generis ; and appearing to consider him as speaking of himself as including three personal distinctions. p. 234.-The author replies, that this is an important step, and brings us to the system of the Nominalists. Remarks on this system, and those who have advocated it, particularly Dr. Wallis. p. 235.-The Doctor's statement of three personal distinctions, with Mr. Belsham's remarks upon it as an Uni. tarian doctrine. p. 237.--Queries by Mr. Yates, tending to shew its absur: dity. p. 238.-Ivquiry when the word 'person' is applied in Scripture to any thing subsisting in the divine nature in the middle sense just mentioned. p. 239.-A trinity of three personal distinctions less open to the charge of contra. diction than one of three distinct persons, or minds; but it is equally tinscrip
tural, and there is no reason why such subtle and perplexed doctrines should be forced upon us. p. 210.-Extraordinary that the Divine should hesitate to consider those who maintaiv the same sentiments as the author, Unitarians, since, if they are pot, none else can be. No objection to Trinitarians call, ing themselves so in their sense of the word, if they please. p. 241.--The Unitarians prefer that name to Socinians, not out of disrespect to the two Socini, who would have done honour to any sect; but because they materially differ from them in their doctrines, which the Unitarians have from the Scriptures. p. 242.-Unitarianism never completely extinguished. Faustus Socinus found Unitarians in Poland when he went there. p. 242.We can believe many things of which we have an imperfect idea ; but the less we know of them, and the more extraordinary they appear, the stricter is the proof we require of their existence. p. 243.-Inquiry whether the text, Matt.xxviii. 19, “ baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” be an early interpolation. p. 243. — The context reads just as smoothly, if not more so, without than with it. The extrinsic evidence most strong against it.-If such a command bad been delivered by our Lord, being one of his last, it would have been regarded as a most solemn law, of the greatest importance, binding to a strict performance; yet seven out of eight of the New Testament writers have not only utterly neglected to make the least mention of it, but in all the instances of baptism they have recorded, have entirely disobeyed it themselves, or related its disobedience by others without any disapprobation ;
which is incredible, except on the supposition of this text being a subsequent interpolation, all their baptisms appearing to have been in the name of our Lord only. p. 244.-Instances of this, with remarks on them: first from Acts ii. 38. p. 248. Second from Acts *. 48. p. 249. Third from Acts viii. 16. p. 250. Fourth from Acts xix. 1-5. p. 252.-The time arrived when such bap-. tisms came to be considered invalid; but this was not in the days of the apostles or their contemporaries; on the contrary, whole bodies of Christians appear to have been baptized by them in the name of Christ, whilst not a single instance can be produced of any of them baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. p. 252.-It would have been sufficient to have shewn that there are objections to the passage sufficient to prevent it from being pronounced to be indubitably genuine, to have made us hesitate to receive it as proof of a doctrine which requires the highest degree of certainty to establish it. p. 252.-Supposing it, however, to be unquestionably authentic, it is incapable of proving the doctrine of the Trinity. Whatever may be meant by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it does not declare the two latter to be God, or that all three are God, or that they are all equal, or all subsist in the same substance. p. 353.—That the baptizing into, or into the name of, a person, means the same thing, and does not prove him to be God. Rom, vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27, Acis ii. 38, Acts x. 48, Id. viii. 16, Id. xix. 1-5, and Ps. xx. 1, 7. p. 254. -Israelites baptized into Moses, and into the baptism of John. p. 255.--Baptism into the death of Christ. p. 256,---Baptism into a
person or thing, means an avoval of belief in that person or thing. So understood by many moderns, and by Hilary. p. 257.-Baptizing, therefore, inlo the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no more proves the two latter to be God, than the same thing proves Moses and John to be God. p. 258.The joining of two or more persons in a form or ceremony, does not prove them to be one, or equal, or, that if one is God, the others are. Exod. xiv. 31, 1 Sam. xii. 18, i Chron. xxix. 20, 1 Tim. v. 21. p. 258.--That baptism into the name, in the singular, and not names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, carries it no further. Luke ix. 26. p. 260.—That they had no name common to them all in Scripture. The name Trinity not to be found there. p. 261.Joining the Holy Spirit, supposing it to be a power, with the Father and Son, considering it as professing a belief in the existence of such power, not calcu. lated to mislead, nor is there any impropriety in joining a mere power with a person. If the Holy Spirit was a person, John was guilty of a similar impropriety, Matt. iji. 2; and according to the Trinitarian mode of reasoning, both the Holy Spirit and Fire might be proved to be persons, or both mere quali. ties or powers. p. 262.-No instance to be found of the apostles imploring benediction from three. p. 264.-Consideration of 2 Cor.xiii. 4, as it affects this question. p. 264. -Mr. Yates's reason for regarding it as adverse to the doctrine of the Trinity. p. 265.--Remarks on Rev. i. 4, as adduced for the same purpose. Is one of the strongest texts to shew the absurdity of concluding, because persons are mentioned together, they must be one, or equal, or each God if one is. p. 266.-It is incredible that the writer of this book should have often ascribed glory and praise to the Father and Son, and never to the Holy Spirit, if he had thought it a person, and equally entitled to them as either of them. p. 266.-Not conceivable bow the unity, equality, or godhead of persons can be proved by our being commanded to reverence and obey them. p. 268.-Nothing like proof advanced of the Holy Spirit being a person, or equal to the Father. Reason why, if it were a person, it could not be omniscient, omnipotent, or a proper object of religious worship. p. 269. Passage in which Lucian is supposed to have ridiculed the Christians for making three one and one three, as early as the reign of Trajan. p. 270. -Had Lucian been the author of it, there would have been no reason for believing that its object was to ridicule the Christians, that is the body of Christians, or that they then held the doctrine of the Trinity. p. 270.- But the Philopatris, in which it occurs, was not written by Lucian, nor till long after his time, when the doctrine of the Trinity had made some progress, by some unknown author. p. 272.-But by whomsoever written, it has some awk. ward features for a modern Trinitarian to deal with. p. 273.-Passage from Tertullian, proving that the doctrine of the Trinity was not held by the majority of Christians in his time, namely, half a century at least later than Lucian. p. 274.-Passages from Origen, who flourished somewhat later than Tertullian, shewing that the same state of things continued in his time, and confirming what has been considered the meaning of Tertullian. p. 276.Curious caution of these writers, and to what causes to be ascribed. p. 279.
The great body of Christians in those days shocked at any thing inconsistent with the monarchy of the Father; for which reason their refined speculations were not calculated for the public ear, but were reserved for those who had been privately initiated. p. 281.-How the doctrine of the Trinity gradually became predominant, after wbich there was no more caution on the part of its advocates, but they persecuted their opponents without mercy, p. 281. Testimony of the fathers of great weight upon matters of fact, particularly if militating against their particular opinions, which, shocking as they then ap: peared to the great body of Christians, were much less so than those which succeeded them, their Trinity consisting of three unequal persons, of whom the Father was supreme. p. 282.-We have therefore the joint testimony of them and of the great body of Christians, 1st, that the Trinity was not then the belief of the Christians; and 2dly, that such a Trinity as is now believed, was not the belief of themselves, the learned and philosophical Christians; in opposition to which, the passage in question, even if written by Lucian, would have been of no value, but; considered as written by no one knows whom, or when, or where, sinks into complete insignificance. p. 283.-What such proofs res semble. p. 283.-Conclusion. p. 284.