Page images

terms “wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” to Hezekiah, to be unscriptural, when he refers to page 274 of this work, and considers the following passages, in which the same epithets are used for human beings, and even for inanimate objects. 2 Chron. ii. 9, “ The house which I am about to build shall be wonderful great." Micah iv. 9: “Is there no king in thee? Is thy counsellor perished ?” Genesis xiii. 6: “ Hear us : thou art a Mighty Prince amongst us.Judges ix. 13: “Should I leave my wine which cheereth God and man?” that is, master and servant. 2 Thess. ii. 4: “ Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God." Gen. xlix. 26: “ To the utmost bound of the everlasting hills.” 1 Samuel iv. 8: “ Who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty gods ?” which Cruden interprets of the Jewish ark. Isaiah xliii. 28: “Therefore I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary.”

I wonder how those who found their opinion respecting the Trinity on terms applied in common to God and creatures, can possibly overlook the plain meaning of the term “Son,” or “Only-begotten,” continually applied to the Saviour throughout the whole of the New Testament; for should we understand the term God in its strict sense, as denoting the First Cause, (that is, a being not born nor begotten,) we must necessarily confess that the idea of God is as incompatible with the idea of the “ Son," or “Only begotten,” as entity is with non-entity; and therefore that to apply both terms to the same being will amount to the grossest solecism in language.

As to their assertion, that there are found in the Scriptures two sets of terms and phrases, one declaring the humanity of Jesus, and another his deity, and that he must therefore be acknowledged to have possessed a twofold nature, human and divine, I have fully noticed it in pp. 162–166, 245—248, pointing out such passages as contain two sets of terms and phrases applied also to


Moses and even to the chiefs of Israel and to others; and that, if it is insisted upon, that each word in the Sacred Writings should be taken in its strict sense, Moses and others, equally with the Saviour, must be considered as gods, and the religion of the Jews and Christians will appear as Polytheistical as that of Heathens.

Although there is the strictest consistency between all the passages in the sacred books, Trinitarians, with a view to support their opinion, charge them first with inconsistency, and then attempt to reconcile the alleged contradiction by introducing the doctrine of the union of two natures, divine and human, in one person, forgetting that at the same time the greatest incongruity exists between the nature of God and man, according to both revelation and common sense.

If Christianity inculcated a doctrine which represents God as consisting of three persons, and appearing sometimes in the human form, at other times in a bodily shape like a dove, no Hindoo, in my humble opinion, who searches after truth, can conscientiously profess it in preference to Hindooism; for that which renders the modern Hindoo system of religion absurd and detesta"»le, is, that it represents the Divine nature, though one, as consisting of many persons, capable of assuming diff ent forms for the discharge of different offices. I am, however, most firmly convinced, that Christianity is entirely free from every trace of Polytheism, whether gross or refined. I therefore enjoy the approbation of my conscience in publishing the Precepts of this religion as the source of Peace and Happiness.


« PreviousContinue »