Page images
PDF
EPUB

nothing is to be admitted as of apostolical authority but what is to be found in the New Testament? How do we know that the Gospels of Matthew and John are of apostolic origin? Not because we are so taught in the New Testament for not a word is written, not a hint is suggested upon the subject. We believe it upon the uniform, universal, uncontradicted testimony of Christian antiquity. And we do well. Upon the very same evidence I assume the apostolical authority of Infant Baptism. T. BELSHAM.

W

Perpetuity of the Lord's Supper. SIR, London, Jan. 10, 1818. THEN Dr. Priestley endeavoured to convince Dr. Price that the mind of man was not immaterial, using this term in the sense he defined, the result was different to what either of the correspondents probably anticipated. For Dr. Price in the end declared that, although he was not convinced the mind of man is not immaterial, yet he was inclined to concede that matter is.

So with our friend Mr. Belsham, if he fails to convince his readers of the apostolic authority for the continued use of baptism, he may shake their faith in the perpetual obligation of the Lord's Supper, as resting upon the recorded authority of the founder of the Christian religion. But, Sir, I believe a little attention will convince us that the two rites rest upon a basis as different as that I pointed out in the letter you inserted in the Repository for November last [XII. 657].

Your readers may incline to think it a hazardous attempt for a layman to oppose Mr. Belsham's comment upon the writings of the Apostle Paul, writings to which he has so long and So successfully attended. But all I shall undertake, and indeed all I apprehend I need to undertake, is, to exhibit the testimony of the Apostle as recorded in the Epistle to the Corinthians; taking it from the text of the Improved Version.

At the end of the sixth chapter of the first epistle, the Apostle commences a long series of remarks and directions upon the abuse, and for the better use of the observances of that Christian community; which he continues to the close of the fourteenth

chapter. He introduces his account of the institution of the Lord's Supper with very remarkable expressions, and concludes it with some not less so.*

"For I have received from the Lord that which I delivered also unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the night on which he was delivered up, took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and said,This is my body, which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me.' In like manner he took the cup also, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant through my blood: do this, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew forth the Lord's death, till he come."

Should it be objected that the 26th verse is not to be considered a part of the direction received from Jesus Christ, I shall feel obliged to Mr. Belsham, or any other of your correspondents, for their reasons for the objection. At the conclusion of the 14th chapter, and near the end of the Apostle's remarks upon the observances of the Corinthian church, is the following remarkable declaration: "If any man seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."

Thus does the Apostle Paul bear his testimony direct and express to the perpetual observance of the Lord's Supper as a rite instituted by Jesus Christ, and declare that all his directions possess the authority of his Lord and Master: indeed it appears to me very difficult to record them more directly and more expressly. Yet Mr. Belsham says, p. 731 of your last volume, "For though Christ instituted the Eucharist, he gave no precept for its permanent obligation: and though St. Paul incidentally mentions that in the Lord's Supper we shew forth his death until he come,' such an oblique notice is by no means equivalent to an express command." I take the liberty of requesting him, if I am mistaken in my conclusions, to

I hardly need call to your readers' recollection that the Apostle had no in

tercourse with his Master before his crucifixion, therefore every other was su pernatural.

shew what is the true meaning of the apostolic language. Some persons may perhaps unwillingly alter the opinion they have hitherto cherished of the authority upon which this rite rests; but truth, however unpalatable, will in the end be preferred to error.

Before I conclude, I cannot but remark upon what appears to me an inconsistency in the members of our Unitarian churches. Unitarians claim to be observing and reflecting Christians. How is it, then, that when a rite so simple, decent and impressive, and resting upon such high authority, is about to be celebrated, the majority take their departure as though they had no interest in it? Why other bodies of Christians, who for want of a better term, are called "orthodox," habitually neglect this institution of the Christian religion, is obvious to every one who has escaped from the fold of orthodoxy; but that Unitarians should retain this part of the old leaven, is, to use the mildest phrase, inconsistent with their profession. Much do I wish that the state of public opinion would allow Christian ministers to make this a continued part of the public service-offering to no individual of the congregation, by the interruption of the service, an opportunity to depart. Let the ministers of our congregations reflect upon the favourable opportunity af

forded to them to lead their churches into the knowledge and practice of all that is truly Christian, by the freedom they, and they alone of all Christian ministers in this country, enjoy for conducting their public discussions towards such truths and in such manner as they deem most

useful.

[blocks in formation]

of the result of those efforts, I cannot but conceive I am warranted in the conclusion, that there is some radical deficiency in the Socinian views of the gospel to enable them to "convert sinners from the error of their ways."

The easy access with which the more popular doctrines of redemption seem invariably to gain the hearts and rivet the attachment of the lower classes of society, (to whom in fact missionary labours are devoted,) is surely a striking proof, in its contrast to the want of such success in the other case, that no inferior motives to conversion either at home or abroad, of the unreclaimed sinner in our own, or of the ignorant idolater in a Heathen land, will ever be productive of any material or permanent success.

And the cause, I conceive, of this contrast is obvious. The system of the gospel, as a whole, appears so inexplicable, there seems such a want of consistent explanation of its parts without the grounding main-spring of the atonement, that I can never imagine the possibility of any such powerful multitudes being brought to conversion by a system excluding this principle, which the influence of the Christian doctrine enforced with it, has been found so eminently and extensively successful in producing. To convert sinners without a Saviour,owrg-Salutifer—RESTORER-scems a hopeless effort.

Entertaining these views, and I do so from very sincere conviction and on most serious and deliberate inves

tigation of the subject, I would respectfully submit to those who so sanguinely anticipate the success of missionary labours, conducted on Socinian views, whether the tone of the public mind with respect to these sentiments does not argue the strong improbability of such success; and also whether the very partial effects that have yet resulted from these efforts may not be argued as a pretty decisive confirmation of the principle assumed in this letter, viz. the practical inefficacy of (what are called) Unitarian doctrines for the purposes of coNSIMPLEX.

VERSION?

P. S. In speaking, as I have done in this letter, of the religious views al

* Vide P.S.

luded to under the title of Socinian, I beg to be understood as far from wishing (however differing individually from those views), to apply the term in any offensive designation, or in any sense of "vulgar bigotry," (XII. 588,) towards the persons or party entertaining them; believing them generally, and knowing them in many particular instances, to be influenced by sentiments and actuated by motives of conduct, that do honour to them as Christians and as valuable members of society. But the appellation more usually adopted by themselves would, in this case, include numerous individuals, to whose views these remarks on the converting inefficacy of doctrines excluding an atoning Saviour, could by no possibility of construction be applied.

Letters by Mr. Marsom in Reply to Mr. Wardlaw's Arguments for the Leity of the Holy Spirit.

SIR,

HA

LETTER I.

Jan. 2, 1817. AVING Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses, on the Socinian Doctrines, put into my hands, I was forcibly struck, in reading them, with the weakness and inadequacy of the arguments, in general, which he adduces in proof of those doctrines for which he is so strenuous an advocate; but in particular of those arguments, (in his ninth discourse,) which he makes use of in support of the doc. trine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. This induced me to sit down and make some observations on his mode of reasoning, and to endeavour to establish the fact, that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as a person, and that in the nature of things, it neither is or can be such a being.

Mr. Wardlaw introduces this subject, taking for his text Matt. xxviii. 19, " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;" and immediately adds, "I should have no objection, with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, to take my stand in this text. It would, perhaps, (he says) be going too far to say, that I should certainly be a firm believer in this doctrine, if there were not another

[blocks in formation]

passage in the Bible affirming it." The doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead. The personality of the Holy Spirit, which it is the object of this discourse to establish, is, therefore, an essential branch of that doctrine. It will be necessary then to inquire, (especially as Mr. Wardlaw has no objection for the proof of it to take his stand in this text,) what evidence the passage affords of the truth of that doctrine. We have in it three names mentioned, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; two of these names, the Father and the Son, unquestionably denote persons, they are personal names. This needs no other proof than the mention of the names themselves, for they convey at once the idea of personality. The proper names of persons of the male kind are universally of the masculine gender, whereas the proper names of things, which are not persous, are as universally of the neuter gender, that is, they are impersonal names. The proper name, therefore, of any thing will infallibly determine whether that which it is designed to represent be or not a person. Now the Greek word

up here used and translated spirit is not a personal name, but is a noun of the neuter gender; it is derived from the verb to breathe, and means breath, air, wind, which is also the meaning of the Hebrew word m Spirit. The English word spirit is derived from the Latin word spiro, to breathe, and signifies breath." Had the nature and meaning of the word TVEUa, been as distinctly marked and preserved in the translation as it is in the original, there could have been no question whether or no it was intended to denote a person; for every one, on seeing or hearing it pronounced, would at once see that it could not be the name of a person. The nature of the English word spirit, as a neuter noun, and its meaning as derived from spiro, to breathe, is not understood by the generality of English readers, though it must be well known to Mr. Wardlaw. And the translators of the Scriptures, who were Trinitarians, have been careful, as much as possible, to keep it out of view by rendering TVεUμa almost uniformly spirit, and never breath or wind, except where the circumstances

of the place compel them so to render
it, as in the following instances, Gen.
iii. 8, it is rendered the cool of the
day; vi. 17, The breath of life; viii. 1,
wind;
so also Exod. xv. 10, Thou
didst blow with thy wind; and 1 Kings
xix. 11, it is three times rendered

wind; Psalm xxxiii. 6, “By the word
of the Lord were the heavens made
and all the host of them by (not the
spirit or person, but) the breath of his
mouth;" ver. 9, "For he spake and it
was done, he commanded and it stood
fast;" John iii. 8, “The wind, TVεUμa,
bloweth where it listeth." In these
passages the meaning of the word
spirit is clearly seen, and so the word
should be rendered, John xx. 22, " He
breathed on them, and saith unto them,
receive yethe Holy Breath;" thus 2nd
Timothy iii. 16, "All Scripture given
by inspiration of God." The words,
given by inspiration of God, are but
one word in the original, and is liter-
ally divinely breathed. So the words
under consideration might properly be
rendered, In the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy
Breath;" for as the terms Father and
Son, necessarily convey the idea of
personality, so the terms Holy Spirit,
being of the neuter gender, as neces
sarily convey the idea of imperson-
ality; and we as certainly know, by
the very name by which it is de-
scribed, that it is not a person, as we
know, by their very names, the Father
and Son to be persons.

66

Again, as nouns are the names of persons and things, so the pronouns which supply their place must necessarily correspond with those nouns whose place they supply, in number and gender, or they will not be just representatives of them. A violation of this rule, by substituting personal pronouns for neuter nouns, and neuter pronouns for personal nouns, is confounding all propriety, a perversion of all language and grammar. This is never done, nor can it be done, without the greatest absurdity; for instance, how preposterous would it be to apply neuter pronouns to God and to Christ, and to adopt such language as the following, God itself, even our Father, Christ loved our church and gave itself for it! God raised Christ from the dead and set it at his right hand, &c, This, on the face of it, is sufficiently ridiculous. If then the Holy

Spirit be a proper person, and the name TVεμa be of the masculine gender, such pronouns could not possibly be used to supply its place; but such pronouns are used, as for instance, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit;" "The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us," &c. The last clause in the next verse ought to have been rendered, "Because it, not he, intercedeth for the saints according to the will of God." There is nothing in the original to warrant the rendering in the common version. The Holy Spirit, therefore, cannot be a person. On the other hand, if the word spirit be a neuter noun, (as it unquestionably is,) it would be equally preposterous and absurd to make use of the personal pronouns, he, him and his, as its substitutes. This, we may venture to affirm, is never the case in the New Testament. Yet, notwithstanding this, Mr. Wardlaw, in violation of so plain a rule of grammar, (which every one understands and uniformly computes with,) almost invariably uses these personal pronouns as the substitutes of the neuter noun

spirit. "The great work of the Holy Spirit* (he says) is to bear witness to Christ. He did so by all those supernatural powers, of which He was the author, in the beginning of the gospel; and He did so then, and continues to do so now by his gracions influences on the minds of men." Such is the influence of system,-and by such a perversion of language as this is, the nature of the word spirit, as an impersonal name, and its meaning is completely kept out of the view of the common reader. He is first taught to believe that the Spirit is a proper person, and then to support the erroneous idea, personal pronouns are made to supply its place.

if this reasoning be just, on what ground does Mr. Wardlaw's believing the doctrine of the Trinity or of the personality of the Holy Spirit stand, in the commission of our Lord to teach and baptize? There is not, in this passage, any one of the terms by which those doctrines are or can be expressed; there is in it no such term as Trinity, nor does it contain in it the terms three persons. There are indeed three names mentioned, but one

* Page 312.

of them is an impersonal name; nor are the three said to be one God, one of the persons mentioned in it is said to be the Son. The word son is a term of relation, expressive of the relation which Jesus Christ bears to God as his Father, which relation implies in it derivation and dependence; but God cannot stand in the relation of son to any being, or be derived from or dependent on any one. Deity must necessarily be self-existent, underived and independent: the term son, then, in this passage, cannot be the name of a divine co-equal, person in God; so that of the three names here mentioned, two of them only are de scriptive of proper personality, and but one of them of a Divine person, truly and properly God; the other being evidently descriptive of a derived, dependent and inferior being. If then none of the terms by which those doctrines are expressed are to be found in the passage, how, in the nature of things, can it prove those doctrines?

Mr. Wardlaw himself, however, seems to feel that his "standing in this text" is not very firm, for he immediately adds, "It would, perhaps, be going too far to say, that I should be a firm believer of this doctrine, (that is the doctrine of the Trinity,) if there were not another passage in the Bible affirming it." This is a pretty clear admission that it is not affirmed in this text, for if it was, he could not have had any hesitation in believing it on such evidence; but if this passage does not affirm it, we may venture to assert, that there is not any passage in the Bible that does, because as the terms of it are not to be found here, so neither are they to be found in any other part of the sacred writings.

But in farther proof of the doctrine of the Trinity from these words, Mr. Wardlaw assumes, that the ordinance of baptism is an act of solemn worship to the three persons in the Godhead. His words are, "That the initiatory ordinance of baptism, prescribed in these words, involves in it an act of solemn worship, an invocation of the thrice holy name, in which it is administered, seems to be beyond dispute." That this matter is not beyond dispute is manifest, for I, myself, cer

tainly dispute it, as, I believe, all Unitarians (or, as he styles them, Socinians) also do. Baptism is no more an act of worship than circumcision. They are both acts of obedience to a command. Jesus Christ here gives a commission to his disciples to teach and baptize, and instructs them how they were to perform the latter; but this does not necessarily involve in it any act of worship, 'much less an invocation of the thrice holy name in which it is administered. If baptism involves in it an act of solemn worship, an invocation of the name in which it is administered, then must Moses have been to the Israelites an object of solemn worship, for they were all baptized, 85, into Moses,* and that act must have involved in it the invocation of his name.

But it was not my design to enter upon a discussion respecting the doctrine of the Trinity: I have been led into it by the above passage in Matthew being selected as the foun dation of the ninth discourse, which was professedly delivered for the purpose of establishing the doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit; and I have entered no farther into that subject thau as it stands connected with the text, and forms the introduction to the main subject of the discourse.

My object is to shew that the Holy Spirit is not, nor can in the nature of things be, a proper person, and that the reasoning in this discourse is utterly insufficient to support such an idea. In order to this, before I enter on the arguments in support of its personality, I shall make the following observations:

1. I observe that the proper name of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God must be admitted. The Scrip tures are so express on this subject, that a doubt respecting it cannot be entertained for a moment.

2. If the Holy Spirit be the Spirit of God, it is the spirit of a person, and not a proper person itself. This I shall attempt to prove by the clearest and most direct evidence. That God is a person, the Scriptures expressly declare. "Will ye speak wickedly

* 1 Cor. x. 2.

« PreviousContinue »