Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Att. Gen. Does the Defendant speak of the doctrine as derived from Plato?

Witness. He does, and he goes so far as to say, that it is acknowledged to be entirely of heathen extraction, borrowed from Plato and the Platonic philosophy; and this being its true origin, it should seem that a proper zeal for God's word, and regard for Christ and his inspired Apostles, should make us relax a little of our passion and vehemence against those who scruple to use a language not sanctified by their authority, in speaking of, and addressing the great God.'

[ocr errors]

Att. Gen. And do you admit this to be the "true origin" of the Trinity?

Witness. Decidedly not. To deduce the doctrine from the Platonic philosophy is as absurd as to suppose the doctrine of the Unity of the Godhead is derived from Socrates, because, though educated in a country where the unity of the Deity was esteemed impious, that philosopher dared to preach this imagination of his own brain.2

Att. Gen.

What does the Defendant say of the nature of Christ?

Witness. He would fain get rid of the testimony

he alludes to the union of Christ with his church, in the same manner that man and wife, though two, are made one flesh. Eph. iv. 32.

1 Apol. p. 13.

2 Script. Confut. p. 8.

M

of the Fathers and all other early Christian writers, by saying; "Authorities of men are nothing: it is Holy Scripture alone which can decide the point, and to which we must make our final appeal. But if the matter is to be put to the vote as it were, it is absolutely necessary that the less learned should be told, what upon enquiry will be found to be undeniably true, namely, that the Fathers of the three first centuries, and consequently, all Christian people, for upwards of three hundred years after Christ till the Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians, what is now called either Arian or Socinian, i. e., such as held our Saviour Christ to derive life and being, and all his powers, from God, though with different sentiments concerning the date of his original dignity and nature.”1

Att. Gen. What do you affirm or deny in this declaration?

Court. You hardly want more evidence upon that point.

Witness. I do not profess to know much of the sentiments, the opinions, or even the works, of the early Christian writers; I confine myself simply to the Scriptures themselves.

Att. Gen. Are there any passages involving any particular doctrine of Scripture on which this De

1 Apology, p. 23.

fendant has commented, bearing upon the point at issue, — I mean, the Trinity?

Witness. There are many, but the principal one is that which contains the command of Christ that his disciples should "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." "This form of baptism," says this Defendant, "which is made to contain a mystery, is only a compendious summary of the Gospel which Jesus had taught them, and into which all men were to be initiated and instructed: that religion which he received from God the Father, which he, the Son, had preached, and which was to be confirmed and propagated by the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit: and, from what Jesus had taught, no other construction can be put upon this baptismal commission." Now,this explanation, I do not hesitate to say, is the most absurd that ever was committed to paper. Dust is here thrown into the eyes, which not only pains the sight, but renders objects distorted; for the same sacred names into which Christians are commanded by their Lord to be baptized, are the very same by which the Apostles blessed their hearers; and it cannot be imagined possible for the people to do otherwise than equally believe in those, in whose names they are both baptized and blessed. They

Apology, p. 104.

must believe that those who

are called upon to bestow graces and blessings upon them, are able to give what they are thus taught to call upon them for. And whatever is meant by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it clearly seems that these three are equally concerned in what is done in that sacrament. Whether in this form of baptism be signified, on the minister's part, the authority or commission by which he acts in his administration; or whether, on the part of the person baptized, be meant any acknowledgment or confession, submission or dedication of himself; or whether this phrase " in the name" (or, according to the Greek, into the name) implies all this and more; the whole force and importance of the expression belongs, in the same extent, to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The power and authority here received is derived from all three: they are all to be acknowledged as Authors of our Salvation; all infallible, and to be believed in what they teach; have all the same title to our submission and obedience; and are joint parties in the Covenant which we make in baptism. The inference from all this is very plain and easy; that if any one of these terms signify God, they must all three signify God, and if all three signify God, they must all three signify one and the same God; for God is but one. Now that the One supreme God, the Lord and Maker of all things, is here meant by the word

ather, is a thing not questioned, and therefore on and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the me Divine Nature: for, let us for a moment uppose the direct contrary, that by Son was meant nly a mere man, or some heavenly being of highest ank under God; and by Holy Ghost was signified ome created spirit, inferior to the Son, or that it neant only the power, the love, or the favour of God, how strange would such a form of baptism then appear, as this: I baptize thee in the name of God, Peter the Apostle, and the Love of God! or this:-I baptize thee in the name of God, Michael the Archangel, and Raphael, a ministering spirit! The bare mention of such an exposition is sufficient to show the absurdity and falsehood of it.' Att. Gen. Does the Defendant deny Christ to be a proper object of worship?

Witness. He does; for he says, our Saviour Christ, in words as express as can be used, forbids men offering prayer unto himself:-"In that day ye shall ask me nothing: verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." "2 Hitherto he had been all along present with his disciples, as it were, in God's stead. And he adds, " As Christ was now

ye

1 Bishop Gastrell's Considerations on the Trinity. - Enchiridion Theol., vol. iii. p.

118.

[ocr errors]

2 Apology, p. 121.

3 Ibid.

« ElőzőTovább »