derstood, affords a ftrong proof of the coequality of the two Perfons; and that it is quoted accordingly by Dr. Whitby in his treatife de vera Chrifti deitate. But as this can only be done by help of the above distinction, I must ask, why Novatian's sense of this text must be admitted as the true one? He did not affect, fay fome, did not claim, did not take upon him, &c. to be honoured as God. Notwithstanding the great authorities of Grotius, Tillotson, and Clarke, &c. * with which this interpretation is fortified, I cannot help thinking the reading in use, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, not barely to be the more eligible, but indeed the proper reading. For, not to infift on one circumftance in its favour, which is the nonagreement of the feveral interpretations of the learned Gentlemen above-mentioned, it deferves to be noted, that though the phrase 8χ αρπαγμον ηγησατο would admit the conftruction contended for, yet the context will be found abfolutely to revolt against it. Granting the phrafe being in the form of God to be * See Mr. Parkhurft's Note at p. 79. of his Treatife on the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour. in itself of undeterminate fignification, yet when predicated of him who is one with the Father, who was in the beginning with God, and really and truly was God, it certainly is to be regarded as fynonymous with those expresfions; and confequently as importing an intire equality with God. But herewith the conftruction of Novatian, and of the Arians, not to fay of Dr. W. himself, is totally incompatible. The reading in ufe therefore must be allowed to be not only natural, but neceffary. He thought it not robbery, i. e. to be no violation of right, or justice. The other paffage is the following. There is one body, fays the Apoftle to the Ephefians, and one Spirit; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Chap. iv. 4. &c. The Socinian and the Arian inference from these texts is obvious; but in proof that it is an unfair one, I would remark, that had St. Paul intended here to have diftinguished the Father from the Son and the Spirit Spirit, by this ascription of Supremacy, he would certainly have named the two latter with their severally discriminating inferior titles; and this without a needlefs, and I might fay, impertinent combination of unities, if I may fo call them. Besides, had this been the Apostle's defign, how comes it to pass that fupremacy is in almost the same terms afcribed in the New Teftament to Jefus Chrift; whofe throne is for ever and ever, who is Lord of all, who is over all, God blessed for ever? Or how are we to account for its being fo frequently faid, that both Christ and the Spirit as well as the Father is in us? If the manifeft attribution of Supremacy in the texts just now cited does not exclude the Father, why must it be understood in the place under confideration to exclude the Son? The fame question may be asked with the fame propriety, and with the fame fuccefs, with regard to the following well-known paffages in the first Epistle to Tim. which, I believe, the Anti-trinitarians in general fet with much affurance at the head of their authorities. Now Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invifible, the only wife God, be bonour and glory for ever and ever:† Who is the bleffed and only potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man bath feen, or can fee: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Surely all this is briefly but fully comprehended in the above descriptions of Jefus Chrift; to whom, by the way, independently on the Father, St. Peter afcribes glory both now and for ever. We shall now be able to despatch with no difficulty certain paffages which at first fight have an humiliating tendency, and feem to import the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and the impersonality of the Holy Ghost. It may be of use to expose pretences. With respect to his human character, or his legation, Chrift is confeffedly God's; and the head of Chrift is God; and, fays he, my Father is greater than I. We have already seen, that the abfolute Godhead of Jefus † 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 15, &c. * Christ, though it had been on certain occafions not barely intimated, but in plain terms afferted by him, was not uniformly manifested to his difcipies during his refidence upon earth. It was a truth which he was in due time fully to authenticate to them, but which at present for obvious reasons they could not bear. Accordingly, as in many other places, fo in the words last quoted, which were calculated to footh them under the lofs they were about to fuftain by his going away, my Father is greater than 1, the bleffed Jefus with particular propriety alludes to the commiffion he had undertaken, and adapts himself to their imperfect and unfettled conceptions. On pretty much the fame ground he had at another time declared to the ruler who addreffed him under the character of Good Mafter, ‡ that there is none good but one, that is God. The full manifestation of the great mystery of the Gospel was reserved for the day of Pentecoft; before which confideration a thousand difficulties *See Parkhurft's Divin. &c. of Chrift. 117. . &c. |