Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

versaries themselves being our judges and our precedent, why should we not carry it along with us continually? Without it, a multitude of texts appear perplexed in their meaning, and clash with other scriptures; with it, they drop their obscurity, are disentangled from their intricacy, and harmonize entirely with the whole tenor of sacred writ.

1 Cor. xv. 28. is another scripture pointed out for consideration. This, I confess, is a difficult, and admitting it was (to me at least) an unintelligible passage, nay directly repugnant to my hypothesis, what would be a rational procedure in this case? To renounce my faith, because I cannot reconcile it with one scripture, though it stands supported by a copious multiplicity of others? If, in debating on any question, there be five hundred ayes, and but one no, I appeal to the conduct of the honourable House of Commons, whether it be reasonable that the point should be carried by the single negative, in opposition to so vast a majority of affirmatives? However, the state of our doctrine is not so bad, nor this text so diametrically opposite to it, as to destroy all hopes of establishing it with a nemine contradicente. The apostle affirms, that at the consummation of terrestrial things, when the state of human probation ends, and the number of the elect is completed, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all: i. e. according to my judgment, the Son, at the commencement of that grand revolution, will entirely resign the administration of his mediatorial kingdom; he will no longer act as an advocate or intercessor, because the reasons on which this office is founded, will cease for ever; he will no longer, as a high-priest, plead his atoning blood in behalf of sinners, nor, as a king, dispense the succours of his sanctifying grace, because all guilt will be done away, and the actings of corruption be at an end: he will no longer be the medium of his people's access to the knowledge and enjoyment of the Father, because

then they will stand perpetually in the beatific presence, and see face to face, know even as they are known. I may probably mistake the meaning of the words, but whatever shall appear to be their precise signification, this, I think, is so clear as not to admit of any doubt, that it relates to an incarnate person; relates to him who died for our sins, was buried and rose again, 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. And can the surrender of all authority made by the man Jesus Christ, be any bar to his unlimited equality as God?

You refer me to Psalm viii. 5. and lxxxii. 1. 6. Exod. xxii. 28. and add, these texts prove that God signifies, in some places, king or ruler. I acknowledge that the word Elohim, in the afore-cited passages, signifies no more than angels, kings, or rulers. But is this a demonstration that the word Jehovah, the incommunicable name, signifies no more than an angel, a king, or a ruler? This is the conclusion our adversaries are to infer; this the point they are to make good, otherwise their attempts drop short of the mark, fly wide from their purpose: Because it is plain from incontestable authorities, that Jesus is Jehovah. This was hinted in a former letter; and if you please to compare Isa. vi. 3. with John xii. 41. you will find another convincing evidence, that the Jehovah of the Jews is the Jesus of the Christians. Besides, in all those places where the term God is used to denote some created being, invested with considerable authority, or possessed of considerable dignity, the connexion is such as absolutely to exclude the person so denominated from any title to a divine nature; whereas, when the name God is applied to the second person of the Trinity, it is connected with such consequents or antecedents as necessarily include the idea of divinity and supremacy. instance, when the apostle recognizes the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in those remarkable words, Rom. ix. 5. Who is God-lest this idle piece of sophistry should have any room for admittance, he adds a most determining clause- over all, blessed for

For

ever. I have called it idle sophistry, for really it is nothing else. Only observe the process of the pretended argument, and you yourself will allow it no better appellation. What is designed for the argument runs thus: Because rulers of distinction have sometimes the title of Elohim, therefore Jesus, who has the title of Jehovah, is not very God, but only a ruler of distinction: Or, the word God, when necessarily determined by the context to some subordinate being, signifies a subordinate being; therefore the word God, when necessarily determined by the context to signify the supreme God, does not signify the supreme God, but only some subordinate being. These are the mighty reasonings, such the formidable artillery, with which the adherents of Arius attack the divinity and equality of our Saviour. May the arms of our foreign enemies and intestine rebels be made in their kind, of such metal, consist of such strength! and I may venture to address my countrymen in David's encouraging language, Let no man's heart fail because of them.

I hope it will not be objected, that I have sometimes mistook the particular point to be discussed, and confounded the divinity of our Lord with his equality to the Father. I own I have not been scrupulously careful to preserve any such distinction, because I am persuaded it is perfectly chimerical. Whoever admits the former grants the latter; the one cannot subsist without the other; or rather they are one and the same thing. To be equal with the Father is to be divine; and to be divine is to be equal with the Father. An inferior deity was a notion that passed current in the heathen world; but we have not so learned the divine nature as to adopt it into our creed. It is a proposition that confutes itself. The predicate and subject are self-contradictory. God certainly means a being of incomparable, unparalleled glory and perfection. No one will dare to give a lower definition of the Godhead. Yet this the first term of the sentence affirms, the second denies.

Whenever I hear the awful word GoD, I form an idea of a being possessed of absolute supremacy. Inferiority is altogether as inconsistent with my apprehension of the Godhead, as a limited extension is with immensity. The schoolmen's maxim is strictly true when applied to the divine nature, that his properties and excellencies non recipiunt magis aut minus. Besides, sir, is there not another apparent inconveniency, another inextricable difficulty, attending this superfine distinction? Does it not suppose, instead of distinct persons, distinct beings, distinct essences? That which is inferior cannot be the very same with its superior. Identity, in this case, consists not with inequality. The consequence of this tenet is polytheism.

For my part, I lay it down as an incontestable principle, such as reason and Scripture concur to establish, that whatever, whosoever is God, must be absolutely supreme. I then proceed to examine, whether the divine names, attributes, honours; those which are incommunicably divine, which flow from the divine essence, which cannot comport with a finite existence, but are the sole prerogative of the unequalled God; whether these are in Scripture clearly ascribed to the sacred person of the Son; if they are, my reason requires me to believe that he is very God, and co-equal with the Father. My reason, in her sedatest moments, assures me, that Scripture cannot deceive, though I may be unable to conceive. My reason declares, that I shall be a rebel against her laws, if I do not submit to this determination of Scripture, as decisive, as infallible.—I am, &c.

LETTER XXVII.

Weston-Favell, April 1. 1746. DEAR SIR, IF you can spare the Night-Thoughts, the bearer of this ticket will bring them safely to Weston. I propose to read them when business is done, and the day is fled; so that the time may correspond with the subject.

I hope the bookseller has, before this time, waited on you with the little volume which desires your acceptance. Was it to pass through my hands before it was presented, I should almost be induced to inscribe it with that pretty line in Virgil,

Munera parva quidem, at magnum testantur amorem.

Pray, do you think that passage, Luke vi. 38. δωσεσιν εις τον κολπον υμων, is rightly rendered by our translators, Shall men give into your bosom? Is the idea of men necessarily implied in the original? Or can fact and experience justify the translators in giving this sense to the original? God, and conscience, and a future state, will amply recompense the beneficent; but whether men, the generality of men in this world, are thus generous and grateful, seems to be a point that wants confirmation. This remark was suggested in perusing the place; but I submit it to your judgment, and remain, dear sir, &c.

LETTER XXVIII.

Weston-Favell, Nov. 22. 1746. DEAR SIR,-As I cannot attend the infirmary this day, permit me to take this opportunity of acknowledging the favour of your last.

The sermon you was pleased to lend me I admire. Christ the great propitiation is, with me, a most favourite subject; and I think the author has been so happy as to treat it in a clear, nervous, pathetic manner. I am delighted with his reply, and rejoice to observe that it has passed a second edition. I hope the antidote will operate, and spread as wide as the poison. This writer has another recommendation: His conciseness, added to perspicuity, renders his arguments easy to be apprehended, and not difficult to be remembered. I am so much charmed with his performance, that I beg leave to keep it a few days longer; and should take it as a favour, if, in the mean time, you will give the bookseller an order to send for one of the sermons for me.

« AnteriorContinua »