OCR Text |
Show jl The Trinity and Divinity of Christ I Father Lambert takes a New York Unitarian Minister to Task "Scholarly Interpretation" Some I Spicy Arguments. j I The auctions of the Incarnation and ' 1 pivinity of Christ, also the Trinity, f I which arc denied by Unitarians were I rPff!i!!y discussed in the pages of The I jntermountain Catholic. They are in-! in-! fpparaWf from Christianity and al- ways prove interesting subjects. In I jhe ypv York Sun of a recent date a ' Kev. Minnt Savage, who is a Unitarian Uni-tarian minister in New York, takes to task fine of his critic to whom he pro- pounds certain difficulties, in which he I questions the doatrines of the Trinity, Trin-ity, and the Divinity of Christ. ThPFP questions are answered by the ! i vetpran editor of the New York Freeman's Free-man's Journal, than whom there is no abler exponent of Christian truths in ; ; America. ILis profound theological lore, incisive logic and knowledge of all the great doctrines of the church have so equipped him for an intel-; intel-; lectual battle that his opponents seldom sel-dom try to answer his defense of Christian Chris-tian truths. His "Notes on Ingersoll" Fo pulverized the areh-infid.el that he had no reply to make, and, long before his death lost caste with many of his former admirers. These "Notes"' have been used by all denominations in their ' defense of Biblical truths. Lacey, who made a feeble effort to defend his master's sneers and sarcasms at God End the Scriptures, met his Waterloo in Father Lambert's reply "Tactics of ; Infidels." ' His answers to the Unitarian minister's min-ister's queries will be read with in- 1. teret. Savage Where, did Jesus ever say enything about any Trinity, or any persons in any Trinity, or himself, as in any way related to such Trinity? Trin-ity? Comment The question is not about j words, but about a truth, a reality for which the term "Trinity" has been i:ed for years as a symbol. The term stands for "cne God in three divine J persons." It is this truth we must ! seek in the Scriptures and in the writ- j ; inps of the Fathers of the Church, j whether expressed by one word or j many. It is the same with the word " person." Anti-Trinitarians object that St is not found in the Scriptures, but that does not and ought not prevent them from believing that the God they believe in is a person, nor does it re-QUire re-QUire them to believe that there were s no persons in existence until the word "person" was invented. A person is a Fubsistent, individual intelligence, and the Trinity means that there are three Fuch subsistent intelligences having but one and the same divine nature. ( It Is evidence of these that you should ' have asked for, and not for technical terms. , Savage If there is to be any intelligent intelli-gent discussion of the question as to 1 whether or net Jesus is God, at least , '! two points must be clearly settled. First, it must be shown that the New Testament (or, at least, some one or 1 ore of its writers) teaches that Je-; Je-; fus is God. This involves the scholarly schol-arly interpretation of the texts. Sec-md. Sec-md. it must be clearly shown that the subject with adequate author- ": Itv. I Comment Your first point is not a hoiarly position, because it limits the videnr- to a written record, which taflf informs us that all the teachings teach-ings of C hrist and his apostles are not to be found in that record, and that mc of the records no longer exist. ! Had ihe early Christians believed only : what thfy found written in the New Testament they could have believed little or nothing of Christian truth, for : ; the Ken- Testament, as we have it, r,,'v-r had 'an existence for them. It was cenerutions after their time be-j ! l0re it known what books consti-Xm"4 consti-Xm"4 New Testament. Your theory r; limit in- the evidence of Christian Wtrinr. the written record would ! fc-'ve m;ei- it impossible for those liv-in liv-in in th. post-Apostolic age to know hat ''lii isi and His Apostles taught or '0 prnve. .- no thing by this authority, Jr they had not the record. As those arly christians knew and believed the hins- n, dis -ipline Christ Without With-out th- wretten recoil r m, it fol- - that the record is 'jo , as it was "'it to tv,.,,.. .,. . ' I ,n ' " "le sole c -is of coming j f h k,n''u'1''d of christian truth and 1h ' Jh,i;!f' early Christians acquired thJ! through tradition and fstabhi,lK "f the Church which Christ foliV 1SlU 5 l tJacl1, and required his of't?m t0 Ilfiar- They d'd nt learn the s nf "f'e of the "hurch from ' arnVJ'1 ,U, P' n the contrar' they turs ' f 1hf' exif;tence of the Scrip-vhns Scrip-vhns il01" Uie authority of the Church, is fa'et existe"w' t0 them was as patent is fQ s tlui existence of this republic that vT- f lhePe facts il wil1 be seen estipar ' Savag:e's limiting the in-recordd.10n in-recordd.10n h,i Proposes to the written to R 'K s tinscholarly as it would be ratirm f intern'etation and appli-lorir.s appli-lorir.s , !,hp institution in the his-'l his-'l the United States, instead of k s 4 i seeking them in the decisions of the supreme court. ' Our purpose in objecting to his first condition for an intelligent discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity was not to object to the Scripture test, but simply sim-ply to take the Unitarian minister to j task for proposing an unscholarly con-j con-j dition of discussion. We might, with j equal propriety, object to his remark j that the texts involved require a. scholarly schol-arly interpretation. A scholarly interpretation in-terpretation is well enough in its way, but an authoritative interpretation is what is required. There is but one agency on earth that can give that. This agency is the Church established by Christ to teach and interpret His words an agency that existed and was in full operation before a word of the ' New Testament was written. Christ required obedience to this. His Church, under penalty of being considered as heathens and publicans. Her authority, there rests on His authority, and she is, therefore, the only competent court of appeals on earth in all matters concerning con-cerning her founder's revelation and law. If the constitution of the United States were left to scholarly interpretations interpre-tations alone there would be the same confusion and conflict of scholarly interpretations in-terpretations in the political order that there are in the Protestant world today;, to-day;, all wrangle, endless dispute and nothing ultimate. What is needed is an authoritative interpretation, such as the supreme court and that alone can give. Appeal to scholorly interpretationthat interpreta-tionthat is, to private judgment is to appeal to a court that can never utter an ultimate and authoritative decision, that can never say its last word on any subject. Every man who enters seriously seri-ously into a disputation assumes that he has the necessary scholarship and takes the fact that his opponent differs dif-fers from him as evidence of lack of scholarship in that opponent. This is precisely what Kev. Mr. Savage does in reference to the opponent whom he criticises. Perhaps he ought not to be blamed for this; it is so natural, and so very human. He may say that thorough scholarly schol-arly interpretation is defective and inconclusive. in-conclusive. We must of necessity appeal ap-peal to it in the absence of anything better. But we deny the absence of something better. We affirm the pres-1 pres-1 ence in the world of that teacher and interpreter which Christ established and commissioned His Church. That Church exists now or the gates of hell have prevailed against it. Its Founder said: "On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Rev. Mr. Savage is theji reduced to the alternative of admitting the present existence of that Church or affirming that Christ was a false prophet. Rev. Mr. Savage's second condition for an intelligent discussion of the question is, "that it must be clearly shown that the New Testament writers' writ-ers' speak on the subject with adequate authority." This is inconsistent with his first con dition. He first appeals to the scriptures as conclusive authority, and in the second sec-ond condition he requires some authority authori-ty back of them to prove that they are authoritative. Why does he appeal to the scriptures at all if he does not consider con-sider them ultimately authoritative? Why appeal to them with the caveat that if they do not coincide with his opinions he is free to reject them unless their "adequote authority" is proved? Is this not trifling in a very unscholarly unscholar-ly manner with an opponent? Does he imagine that any one can take his appeal ap-peal to the scriptures seriously under such conditions? He demands a witness wit-ness to be called, with the understanding understand-ing that if he favors your contention you must then call another witness to prove the "adequate authority" of the first witness. This third witness must have a fourth to certify him, and so on indefinitely. Is that what he would call a scholarly proceeding? In a court of justice it would be called the climax of puerility. We now come to Rev. Mr. Savages two statements against which he defies "scholarly contradiction." Savage "In the first place, Jesus nowhere claims to be God, and no person per-son in the New Testament whose name is known, makes any such claim on his behalf." We confess that we have not the same complacent confidence in our scholarship that you evidently have m yours; but we venture, nevertheless, to contradict your statement, and we will give the reason why. St. John begins his gospel thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by him; and without him was made nothing, that was made. (Continued on Page 8.) THE TRINITY AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST. (Continued from Page 1.) In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it. And the Word was made flesh 'and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) Fa-ther) full of grace and truth." Now for you who challenge to the scripture test these words of the evangelist evan-gelist St, John the beloved disciple should be adequate authority. Whether St. John's contradiction of you is "scholarly" we need not say. It is at least sublime. The remainder of St. John's gospel is a record of the acts and words of this "Word made flesh," and who "dwelt among us" Jesus Christ, in chapter x, St. John reports these words of Christ, "The Father is 1 in me, and I in the Father. I I and the Father are one." Here his di vine nature Is clearly asserted. His Jewish hearers understood him, but not believing hi3 declarations, accused him of blasphemy and stoned him. It is needless to accumulate texts that might be quoted to prove that Christ is God. We will make but one more quotation. It. is from the Apocalypse Apoca-lypse of St. John, where he describes Christ's second coming. . "Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, and who .hath loved us and washed us from our sins In his own blood. And hath made a kingdom and priests to . God and his Father; to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Behold he com-eth com-eth in the clouds and every eye shall see him and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so; Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, Ome-ga, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God of hosts,. who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Al-mighty." Chapter 1, 5 to 9. In these last words St. John, refers to the prophet Isaias, 44-6: "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel and his Redeemer Re-deemer the Lord of hosts; I am. the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." Those who desire, to see the" full scripture demonstration should read the treaties of Cardinal Gonsset, Per-rone Per-rone and Kenrick on the Trinity and divinity of Christ. They will be found sufficiently scholarly to gratify the moBt exacting.- .t .r. Savage "Will he tell me of v one Church Father of; the first two centuries centu-ries and a half who either taught that Jesus wa3 God or showed that it was j the belief of any considerable portion of the church?" .. : ;. . We will tell you first of St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist and bishop of Antioch from the year 70 to 107. This Christian bishop in his letter to the Ephesians writes: "Our God Jesus Christ in utero gestatus est a Maria." In his letter to the Romans he writes: "Ignatius, who isalso The-ophorus, The-ophorus, to the church which has found mercy on the majesty of the Father Most; High and of Jesus-Cttrist, bis only Son . (to the -church) belbted and enlightened en-lightened in the will of him who willeth all, things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God." In his letter to the Magnesians he wrote: "Be not led astray by . strange doctrines, nor by antiquated tales, which are unprofitable. un-profitable. For if we yet live according to Judaism, it is equivalent to declaring declar-ing that we have not accepted grace; for the most holy prophets lived according ac-cording to Jesus Christ. And for that cause they were persecuted, being inspired in-spired by the grace of Christ, that the unbelieving might be convinced that there is one God who hath manifested himself by his Son Jesus Christ, who is his eternal Word."' We might quote four to the same purpose, Justin Martyr, Irenaeu3, Athenagoras, Tertullian andi others. But we will conclude this point by j quoting, from St. Cyprian, who lived within the time specified by Rev. Mr. ! Savage. Arguing against heretical baptisms he asks how the subject of such baptism can become the temple Of God? And says: "If he be thereby made the temple of God, I would ask of j what divine person is it? Is it of God the Creator? He could not be so if he believed not in him. Is it of Christ? Neither can he be his temple if he denies de-nies Christ to be God. Is it then of the Holy Spirit? But since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit have 1 friendship with him that is at enmity 'with either the Father or Son?" St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo (395) thus speaks of the writers writ-ers before and of his time: "All the Catholic authors, ancient and modern, that I have been able to read, and who before me have written on the Trinity, Trin-ity, which is God, have intended to teach according to the scriptures, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of one substance, form the divine di-vine unity by their Inseparable equality, equal-ity, and that on that account there are j not three Gods, but one only God; though the Father who begot the Son, is other than the Son, and the Son, begotten be-gotten of the Father, is other than the Father, and the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and the Son, being hinr . i co-equal with the Father and the n. and belonging to the unity of the Trinity. This is my faith, because It is the Catholic faith." Augustine had access to many writings writ-ings that are now no longer extant, and he knew, from those that are extant and from those that have perished, what the, to him even, ancient writers meant to teach. He cannot be rejected for lack of scholarship. There are a few points left in Rev. Mr. Savage's letter that we will con- (To Be Continued.) sider next week. |