« AnteriorContinuar »
was manifest in the flesh, &c. makes so clearly for us, that the Socinians, and they who patronise them, struggle to get rid of it at all events. And that they do so purely by the help of a supposititious reading, which can be supported only by a strained, incoherent, and ridiculous construction, (according to which the mystery of godliness was manifeft in the flesh, and received up into glory, &c. instead of Jesus Christ,) hath been abundantly shewn by many, and especially by the learned Bishop Pearson in his Exposition of the Creed,
With a view to the elusion of certain passages in the Revelation which we have already produced as plainly expressive of the Son's coequal majesty with the Father, Grotius 'has most unwarrantably assigned them their proper
and respective thrones in heaven. He that sat on the throne, &c. in primo folio, id eft Deus, says he in his paraphrase of Rev.
Supposing, for argument's sake, the merit of the trinitarian controversy to depend chiefly
on the authenticity of the seventh verse in St. John's is Epistle, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, I I would gladly ask, whether it is not, in the nature of things, at least as reasonable to suppose in general that this text was omitted by the enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity, as that it was inserted by its friends ? And if so, infidelity would appear at best to stand upon a precarious foundation, as far as it depends on the spuriousness of this text; and we should surely err with more prudence and modesty on the side of the Catholic Church, than against her. But an excellent writer * has, in his Letters to Mr. Gibbon on this subject, evinced the genuineness of this text to the intire satisfaction of
candid and impartial inquirer; and particularly makes it appear, that “ the context of the Apostle “ is so far from receiving any injury by the “ retention of the verse in question, that it " would lose all its genuine spirit, would be“come unapt and feeble in its application,
| See Mr. Jones on this verse.
* Mr. Travis.
« and therefore could hardly be said to subsist “ without it.” To this performance I refer you with pleasure.
It has been urged, and with an air of confidence, that Jesus Christ cannot be an object of divine worlhip, because in that excellent form of address to the Deity which he recommended to his disciples, there is not the least mention made of himself, nor the most diftant allusion to his office and character. A circumstance which has been considered as decisive in favour of Unitarianism. Some perfons have as little of knowledge as they have of faith in these matters. At the time of his dictating this mode of prayer, our blessed Lord was not, properly speaking, either the mediator between God and man, or a sacrifice for the fins of the whole world. Though therefore this form of devotion is used at this day with the greatest propriety imaginable, yet it was originally delivered to the disciples for their own more immediate use; as iš mania: fest from the nature of the thing, and from St. Luke's account of this matter. It came
to pass, says that Evangelist, that as be was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples faid unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. * And be said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father, &c. It was not till after his Ascenfion, and return to his Father, that they could properly pray to or through him ; that they were to ask in his name, and to receive ; it was not till after he had offered one sacrifice for fin, f and sat down at the right band of God, that his mediatorial character commenced, in which he ever liveth to make interceffon for us.
There are two remarkable passages in St. Paul's Epistles, which, as they are claimed by our adversaries with more appearance of right than the foregoing, it will be proper take into consideration. Who (i. e. Jefus Chrift) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, &c. I This text is often quoted as asserting the true Divinity of our Saviour. I am therefore concerned to deliver
* Luke xi. 1. # Phil. ii. 6. &c.
+ Heb. x, 12. vii. 25.
it from the construction which the Arians with much assurance put upon it; and which many amongst ourselves have, I think,very unwarily admitted; subjecting themselves thereby to the necessity of having recourse to a hackneyed, and after all mere verbal distinction between felf-existence and necessary existence, in order to reconcile their admission with orthodox principles. Thought it not robbery, &c. 8x apFaymoy myndato, i. e. (says Novatian and
many with him,) he never compared himself with God the Father, nunquam fe Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit ; the reason follows, memor se efe ex fuo Patre. Every Arian will abide by this explication ; and how do the advocates for Novatian get clear of the imputed consequences? Why, says Dr. Waterland, “ this interpretation of the text (sup
posing it just) implies no more than this, " that Jesus Christ never pretended to an
equality with the Father in respect of his
original, knowing himself to be second only " in order, not the first Person of the ever“ blessed Trinity.” Dr. W. obferves, that the whole passage in Novatian, rightly un