« PrejšnjaNaprej »
God and the Lamb." Newton was too circumspect to leave his word liable to perversions by the popular opinion. He explains the sense in which Christians worship God, and also the sense in which they worship Jesus-the one as directly opposed to the other as the west to the east. Newton says, "God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming with his blood; God as sitting upon the throne and living forever, and the Lamb exalted above all by the merits of his death." The worship offered to the latter is therefore merely a manifestation of civil reverence, as I pointed out in p. 274.
To equalize a being exalted and worshipped for his meritorious death, with the eternal Supreme Sovereign of the universe, is only an attempt to bring the nature of the Deity on a level with a mortal creature, and by no means serves to elevate that creature to the rank of the Deity. If the Editor consider these quotations from Locke and Newton really orthodox, how inconsistent he must be in condemning those whose sentiments as to the person of Jesus Christ are precisely the same; to wit, that he is the anointed Lord and King promised and sent from God, is worthy of worship for his mediation and meritorious death, but by no means as a being possessed of a two-fold nature, divine and human, perfect God and perfect Man!
As to my remarks on certain abstruse reasonings resorted to by the orthodox, the Editor further says, that he needs them not, thereby avowedly relinquishing reason in support of the Trinity; but, hap
pily, he asserts at the same time, that "to us the scriptures are sufficient." I therefore entreat him to point out a single scriptural authority, treating of a compound God of three persons, and of a compound Messiah, one of these three persons constituted of a two-fold nature, divine and human.
The Editor alludes to the term "antichrists," found in the Epistle of John; but I am glad that we most fortunately are furnished with the definition of this term by that inspired writer, which decides at once the question who are the real subjects of its application. 1 John iv. 3: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist." We accordingly rejoice to confess that Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh, is OF GOD, and that not only he, but his apostles also were of God (1 John iv. 6, v. 19); but we feel sincerely for those who violate this standard, either by falling short or going beyond it, by denying that Jesus Christ is OF GOD, or by affirming that Jesus Christ is God himself, since both these assertions,-to wit, "Jesus Christ is NOT of God," and "Jesus Christ Is God,”—are equally incompatible with John's proposition, that "Jesus Christ is OF GOD." For example: The prime minister, by the law of the land, is appointed by the king, and consequently is acknowledged to be oF THE KING; to say, therefore, that he is not of the king, would be to detract from the minister's dignity; but to say that the prime minister is the king, is not only inconsistent with the assertion that the prime minister is of the king, but would be pro
nounced high treason; in like manner as deifying the Christ of God, is both an affront to God, and an antichristian doctrine.
Lastly, I tender my humble thanks for the Editor's kind suggestion in inviting me to adopt the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; but I am sorry to find that I am unable to benefit by this advice. After I have long relinquished every idea of a plurality of Gods, or of the persons of the Godhead, taught under different systems of modern Hindooism, I cannot conscientiously and consistently embrace one of a similar nature, though greatly refined by the religious reformations of modern times; since whatever arguments can be adduced against a plurality of gods, strike with equal force against the doctrine of a plurality of persons of the Godhead; and, on the other hand, whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of the Deity, can be offered with equal propriety in defence of Polytheism.
I now conclude my Essay by offering up thanks to the Supreme Disposer of the events of this universe, for having unexpectedly delivered this country from a long-continued tyranny of its former rulers, and placed it under the government of the English, -a nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment of civil and political liberty, but also interest themselves in promoting liberty and social happiness, as well as free inquiry into literary and religious subjects, among those nations to which their influence extends.
THANKS to the Reverend Editor for
Author's precaution in the Second Appeal
Quotation of some parts of the First Appeal
Author's public avowal of his faith
Author's vindica ion of himself from the charge of vanity
The Editor's ridiculing of the suggestion offered as to the study of the Bible
The reason assigned for his disapproval of the suggestion Impossibility of a belief in the Trinity and Hindoo Polytheism, unless inculcated in youth
No liberal parent can take advantage of the confiding credulity of his children; The duties of liberal parents
The force of early-acquired prejudices
es of prevailing errors in Christianity
The Editor's ironical remarks on the success of the Author in scriptural studies, noticed
The reason assigned by the Editor, for his omission of several arguments in the Second Appeal, noticed
The Editor's position of the insufficiency of the Precepts of Jesus to procure men salvation, noticed
The irregular mode of arguing adopted by the Editor