Page images
PDF
EPUB

were to enter on an argument with such persons, in order to show them how utterly opposite their views of Christianity were to the whole teaching and spirit of the religion as represented in the New Testament, and, in doing so, we should cite passage after passage affording the clearest proof that Christ was a teacher of peace. Suppose all this done; and our warfaring Christians should reply, "All you have urged we fully admit; but it does not affect the question at issue. The passages you cite have reference merely to Christ in his character as a peacemaker, but do not bear against his character as a warfarer. Remember how he said, 'I came not to send peace but a sword'; and again, 'He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.' You do not seem to understand that he is to be viewed in two distinct lights; you do not seem to apprehend that he was both a peacemaker and a warfarer." To this very strange reply we should naturally answer, "Your distinction of two characters in Christ is a pure assumption, - it has no proper foundation; and we put it to you, as candid and conscientious people, will you avail yourselves of such an artifice to maintain your position, and to evade the prevalent teaching of the Scripture against you." We are then met by the rejoinder, that it is necessary to make the assumption of the two-fold character of our Lord, in order to interpret such a passage as that wherein he says he " came to send a sword" in harmony with the other teachings of the Scriptures concerning him.

[ocr errors]

Now the analogy is obvious between this case and that which is more particularly under review. In both cases, the general teaching of the Scripture is plain, powerful,

precise, and not to be misunderstood; but, in both cases, there are a few texts to be found which clash, apparently, with the general teaching. Rightly understood, they will be found to involve no contradiction. It is our business, then, to endeavour to understand them, and to discover how they may be interpreted in harmony with the current language and general tenor of Scripture. We are not at liberty to make gratuitous assumptions to suit our own purposes, and to save some favorite doctrinal theory from being overthrown. Common sense revolts at the assumption, which would unite two characters in Christ so entirely incompatible as those of a perfect peacemaker and a bloody warfarer. And surely the assumption is not less unreasonable and impossible, which would combine in one and the same person the attributes of the Supreme God and the qualities of a mortal man. It is to assume that the mind of that person is at once created and uncreated, finite and infinite, than which no greater contradiction can be supposed or asserted.

But even this assumption of two natures in our Lord cannot be made to cover all the circumstances of the case, and protect the theory of Christ's Supreme Deity from the difficulties which press upon it from the plain statements of Scripture. Those statements not only deny the supremacy of the Son, but they affirm the supremacy of the Father. In thus making express affirmation of the Supreme Deity of the Father only, they obviously exclude the Supreme Deity of the Son in any and every sense. Let us advert to what Christ says of the time of his coming in judgment: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father

only." (Matth. xxiv. 36.)

In the

Mark (xiii. 32), it is thus written :

parallel passage in

"Of that day and

that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." In these passages it is evident that our Saviour disavows knowledge of the event referred to, in every sense, and assigns that knowledge to the Father exclusively. Here, then, is a difficulty which cannot be met even by the assumption of the two natures. By what ingenuity the force of these passages is to be evaded, and their plain statements set aside, we cannot even conjecture. We have seen the Orthodox expositions of these texts; and they do not seem to us to have even the poor merit of plausibility.

Another objection we have to urge against this assumed theory of two natures (and certainly not the least serious one) is, that it imputes equivocation to our Saviour. If ever there had been any intimation given, either by himself or by any of the sacred writers, that our Lord had two natures, and that sometimes he spoke in the one and sometimes in the other, we should not feel justified in urging so very serious a charge against the theory under notice. But no such intimation ever was given. We feel bound, therefore, in vindication of the integrity and consistency of Christ, to bear solemn testimony against so dangerous and so groundless an assumption. What! shall it be said of him " in whose mouth guile was never found," that he explicitly disavowed knowledge of the time of an event, when in reality he was in full possession of that knowledge? Remember the answer he gave to the mother, who came to him requesting for her sons certain places of dignity in his kingdom. His reply was, "To sit on my

right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." (Matt. xx. 23.) Shall it be said, we ask again, of him who knew no deceit, that he positively disclaimed all power to confer a certain privilege, when in reality that power was fully his? Suppose any of us were to go to a governor of this Province, and apply to him for a certain office; and suppose he were to say, plainly and without any explanation, that that office was not in his power to grant, that the sovereign of Britain kept its bestowal in his own hands. What would be our inference? Surely it would be, that the governor had it not in his power to bestow the office. And if any one claiming to be that governor's especial friend should afterwards seek to draw a line of distinction between his personal and his official capacity, and say that he really had the power, and that his denial of it was only to be understood in reference to one of his two capacities, in such a case, would not every right-minded man regard the denial in the light of a wretched equivocation? Now, shall we be bold enough to place our Saviour in a similar position, by saying that he really had the power to confer the dignity on Zebedee's sons, while he positively and unqualifiedly disclaimed it? We honor Christ too well to impute any such equivocation to him. We reverence him too highly to suppose that he would employ language so calculated to mislead those whom he immediately addressed, and so calculated to mislead every simple-minded reader of the Bible. Our opinion of the Saviour is this: - that whenever he spoke he meant just what he said, — without the slightest approach to equivocation, — without any mental reservation whatsoever.

[ocr errors]

It is of great importance that we should look closely to this theory of the two natures in Christ. It makes our Lord a shifting image, instead of a distinct reality. It throws a cloud of obscurity about him who was the brightness of the Father's glory. According to it, he is now one thing and then another; and thus we are prevented from gaining any clear and definite perceptions of his person or his character. Nothing has ever surprised us more, than to mark with what unsuspecting confidence the Trinitarian controversialist glides from the one "nature of Christ to the other, just as he finds it convenient for his argument. It is but seldom he thinks it necessary to attempt any proof of the "two natures." Yet, without its aid, he could not even pretend to withstand the Scriptural arguments brought against the Trinitarian theory, so plain, so powerful, so precise, and so overwhelming in number. What can be more remarkable, than to hear and read of men first admitting the subordination of the Son, and then proceeding to prove his Supreme Deity? This has about the same meaning as if they were first to admit a thing to be black, and then proceed to prove that it is while. It has about the same meaning as if they were first to admit a figure to be a circle, and then proceed to prove that it is a triangle.

Here we must pause. Our remarks on this subject have extended much farther than we purposed in commencing. In the foregoing sketch, we have given some of our reasons for declining to receive the commonly accepted doctrine of the Trinity. Are they or are they not sufficient? Reader, judge for thyself.

« PreviousContinue »