« ZurückWeiter »
ject; and a brief account of the origin and progress of the doctrine and the causes of its continuance." We can in no way give so satisfactory a notion of the manner in which these various topics are treated, as by one or two extracts from the book itself. The seventeenth chapter is rendered particularly valuable by its numerous citations from orthodox writers of all ages, containing expressions or concessions utterly inconsistent with the trinitarian doctrine. We quote two or three of them, with the author's remarks; observing only, that as he gives no references, we are obliged to take on trust the correctness of his citations.
Bishop Pearson says, 'It is most reasonable to assert, that there is but one person who is from none; and the very generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, undeniably prove, that neither of those two can be that person. It followeth therefore, that this person is the Father. From hence he is styled one God, the true God, the only true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' The Bishop does not say, (like modern Trinitarians,) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are God, or the only true God; but expressly, that it is the Father alone who is such. And again, he says, 'There can be but one person originally of himself subsisting; because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a plurality of Gods.
- Jesus Christ, who certainly is not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting originally of himself.' Such kind of expressions abound in the Bishop's exposition on the creeds. And Bishop Bull says, 'This assertion [of the Son's subordination] is particularly to be heeded, upon the account of some modern writers, who earnestly contend, that the Son may be properly stiled, God of himself; which opinion is both contary to their own hypotheses, who maintain it, and to the catholic doctrine. He [the Father] is derived from no original, is subject to none, and can no more be said to be sent by any, than to be begotten by any. Which things manifestly denote some superiority of the Father over the Son, even in that respect wherein he is most properly the Son of God.'
"The language of the learned Dr. Payn is very clear and expressive. The Father is the only self-existent, unoriginated Being, whom the Scriptures, creeds, and Christian offices call God, absolutely, and by way of eminence and prerogative. The Son is produced of the Father, and so is not [autoεos, or] God in that sense as the Father who is from none. But God, as it signifies a self-existent, unoriginated being, is predicated only of the Father."""
"Now, though it is strange, yet it is (or should be) well known, that these celebrated authors, from whom I have just quoted, have been and are now considered by many, as strong supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity. But to me it appears, (and I think it must so appear to every candid, intelligent Christian,) that they have fully disproved the doctrine; that they have actually demolished the essential and necessary pillars of its support; that they have annihilated the supposed supreme Divinity of the Son of God, showing clearly that he is of himself neither omniscient nor omnipotent; that he has no power, or property whatever, but what was given him of his Father; that they have destroyed the imagined equality between the supposed three persons, making the second and third subordinate, inferior, and obedient to, and dependent upon, the first, the Father Almighty; and that they have set at nought the impossible numerical unity of three in one, or technically speaking, trinity in unity." ―pp. 308, 309, 313.
This paragraph on the personality of the Holy Spirit is a fair specimen of the writer's manner.
"The primâ facie evidence is against the personality of the Holy Spirit, because it is, in the original Greek, and in English, of the neuter gender; and if it is a person of any sort, it is the only person in heaven or earth, that is of that gender. Again, it has no proper name; and if it is entitled to personality, it is the only person in the Universe that has no name. The Holy Spirit is not a proper name; it is only the appellation of a thing or power. Proper names do not have the English article before them. We do not say the Jesus, the Peter, the Paul, or the John. Again, according to all we know of spirit, the spirit of a being is the being himself, his whole self, including all his powers and attributes; and not another distinct and different person of that being. The spirit of a man, though a complex being, spiritual and material, is considered to be the whole man, the whole and only person. Spirit or soul is often used in the Bible for man; as Eight souls were saved by water in the ark: ''Let every soul be subject to higher powers.' And there is a stronger reason why the spirit of a purely, exclusively spiritual being should be considered as that being, the whole of that being, and not a part or person of him. The true, strict meaning, therefore, of the spirit of God must be God himself, the whole Deity comprehending all his attributes, powers, and perfections; and not a distinct person or part of him, though it is often used in a figurative sense to denote a single attribute or power of him, as we shall notice here
after. Such being the primâ facie evidence in the case, there is a stronger reason, why the proof of the affirmative of the allegation of the personality and Deity of the spirit should be clear and positive. But such proof is not to be found anywhere in the Bible, in nature, or reason, or in anything we know. It is nowhere asserted in the Scriptures, that the Holy Spirit is God, or the third person in Deity; and certainly it is not so proclaimed in his works. We are therefore obliged to have recourse to inference, or presumptive evidence, to procure proof to support a presumption. This is the best we can do, until we have a new and different revelation, or unless we take the creeds, catechisms, or confessions of uninspired men, in place of a revelation of God." pp. 224, 225,
We, perhaps, ought not to close without expressing our disapprobation of some of the ungracious epithets occasionally applied to the opinions or reasonings of other men. They are not only out of place in all fair argument, and therefore in all instances to be repressed, but they are at variance with the general spirit of the work, which is marked by a regard to the laws of courtesy and Christian charity.
H. W. jr.
NOTICES AND INTELLIGENCE.
The Theory and Uses of Natural Religion; being the Dudleian Lecture, read before the University of Cambridge, May 8th, 1839. By JOHN GORHAM PALFREY, D. D., LL. D., Professor of Biblical Literature. Boston. 1839. 8vo. pp. 76.— For some years back most of the Dudleian Lectures have been inserted entire in this Journal, and if that course had been taken with the lecture before us, the contribution would have been one of permanent value. As, however, the author has seen fit to give it to the public in another form, we ought before this to have announced its appearance. Our apology is that we hoped to find opportunity to prepare a more extended and elaborate review, such as the greatness of the subject, and the ability with which it is discussed, might justly claim. But we have waited to no purpose. There is indeed an essential difficulty in the case, growing out of the vast extent of ground gone over by the lecturer,
and the consequent brief and sketchy character of the argument; which make it hardly possible, within reasonable limits, to notice the topics in order, or to find any to which such prominence has been given, as to arrest particular attention. Hence almost the only objection to the discourse. Some have thought that it partakes too much of the nature of a general summary of what might be said on the subject, and that it would have been better if the author had concentrated the lights of his ingenious, acute, and well stored mind on a few points, on which, if anywhere, it is now felt that the argument labors. But we must not choose for others the best application of their powers. It is enough that we have here a succinct statement of "the theory and uses of natural religion," which for its symmetry and compactness, its logical refinements, and scholar-like execution throughout, cannot fail to find as many admirers as readers.
The Poet's Tribute. By WILLIAM B. TAPPAN. Boston: D. S. King and Crocker & Brewster. There are certainly numerous little faults in these compositions, as there have been, so far as we know, in most of the poems which the same author has given to the public. They are the work of one who, like Sprague, Whittier, and other of our most popular writers of this class, have been indebted in a great degree to themselves, and in a very small one to circumstances to what are called "facilities " for their education and success. Such men always must feel the ill effects of this process, as well as the good ones. Their mere style can very rarely be equal to their sentiments, talent, or spirit. Mr. Tappan's case is such a one. Witness, for example, the address to the "Pennsylvania," and those on "Texas" and on 66 Bunker Hill." These are full of spirit, full of talent, and on the whole very effective in spite of everything. But it is just as we say; they are effective, notwithstanding the author is not a master of mere style, though by the way, he has somehow or other possessed himself of a very considerable degree of literary skill too, and we are sometimes tempted to think the little crudities we complain of must be ascribed to carelessness altogether, so exceedingly fine a verse, line, or phrase does he strike out, as it were, when he has "a mind" for it. The Lines to his "Little Son," "Foretaste," and "Better Thoughts," are among numerous specimens of such composition. They leave us little to desire. These poems, and such as these, have gained their author a name, and what is better, they have endeared him to thousands of hearts, for many of his poems, we are well aware, have enjoyed a rather extraordinary circulation in their day. We advise him to adhere to this kind of poetry. His forte is in the
devotional and domestic. And let him be studious of style, a little more than he has been. The spirit of his writings, we must do him the justice to say, is eminently excellent, cheerful, thoughtful, and full of the love of every living thing.
The Slave: or Memoirs of Archy Moore. Second Edition, two vols. in one, 12mo. pp. 238. Whipple and Damrel, 1840. We rejoice in the multiplication and circulation of books like this. The abler the better; but we do not care so much for ability as for the spirit in which they are written. Books, pamphlets, reviews, newspapers, devoted to the discussion, morally and politically, of Slavery, cannot be printed too fast nor sent too far. These are the true means by which to affect and convert the public mind. We have every day less and less faith in public meetings, speeches, associations, and concerted action on the part of parent and branch societies, scattered over the face of the whole land — while we have more and more in the continual droppings of the Press. The argument or the tale which is read quietly at the family fireside or in the closet does a better work—its influ ences are more wholesome and more likely to be enduring than those which flow from the heated orator in the midst of a heated assembly. With a free press and a free mail - truth and freedom cannot but triumph.
The book before us, written with a great deal of talent, we understand is a fiction. It pretends not to be a narrative of real events. As a fiction it would have answered its end far better had the author adopted a simpler style; especially as it professes to be the autobiography of a slave. In its present form it is in this respect a constant violation of probability. We read in what professes to be the language of a slave, that which we feel a slave could not have written. A book on the same theme in the style of De Foe would have gone on the wings of the wind. But if Archy Moore is a fiction, inasmuch as its particular series of events never actually occurred, it still is fact in a much more important sense, inasmuch as events of a similar character, only we doubt not of even greater horror, are occurring every day wherever slavery exists. Another picture indeed might be drawn, which, in a particular instance, should represent the condition of the slave as in all respects comfortable, and in most, happy. There are we doubt not humane masters and happy slaves. But such a picture, if true in the particular, would be false in the general. We need only know the laws of the slave states and the necessary condition of a slave under them, to know that inhumanity and suffering must be the rule, mercy and contentment, the rare exception. Being then, as we believe, a true VOL. XXVIII. 3D S. VOL. X. NO. 1. 17