Page images

often considered, and one would think confuted; however the Nature of this Design demanding it,


"how, and in what Manner, the Father and the Son are One; "that our blessed Redeemer never assumed to himself the Cha"raster of the supreme God; and that his Apostles, &c. never "looked upon or worshipped him as such, but all along kept (t up a plain and evident Distinction between the Identity of ** the Father and the Son. But as little can be said that is new, '' &c. we shall close this Article with our Author's Words *' towards the Conclusion, fffs.

Tin People os the Establishment, (sfc. are not so much to be wondered at for their Adherence to the Articles of the Athanafian Creed, as the Old Whigs, who adopt the main Purport of it, which is to prove the Co-equality of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ; and who, whenever they are closely pursued in this Argument, very gravely tell us, that the Doctrine is a Mystery, &c. But, in Opposition to this Notion, I have always thought, that what was revealed in Scripture, was revealed for a Subject of Contemplation; and that it is the very Essence of Popery, &c. to persuade the People, that no Man short of a Priest, was able to unfold the Mysteries of Religion.But, surely the Protestant Cause Jlands in no need of Ignorance to conceal it's Delusions; sacred Truth shines the more conspicuously the more it is examined &c, into. And if I have made the fame Distinction between the Father and the Son, which the Scripture makes, it is no longer such a Mystery, as the great Doctors of the Church have represented it; who have all along made Mysteries in Religion, by obtruding their own Schemes of Doctrine, with respect to this as well as other Points, till they have perplexed both themselves, and all who were so weak or foolijh as to be led by them; and, at last, to compleat the full Triumph of their profound Knowledge, they have left us in a Labyrinth of SCHOLASTIC Jargon, and Inexplicable Nonsense; and, by pretending to open our Eyes, and unsold a Alystery, in which there is nothing mysterious but of their own making, they have involved themselves, we will endeavour to review briefly some of the principal of them, and to prove them, at least to


selves, and their unhappy Followers, in Ægyptian Darkness, even .with respect to such Doctrines as the Scriptures had made intelligible to the lowest Capacities, if they had been left in the plain Terms in -which they are delivered in the New Tejlament for the Instruction of every sincere Disciple of Jesus Christ. Indeed, upon a Review of

some of the Works of those great Men in the Church, who have taken immense Pains to perplex the Doctrine of the Trinity, one can

scarce avoid imagining, that they loved Darkness rather than Light; nay, and perhaps, for the Same Reason as the Scripture assigns why Men do so. (See Monthly Review for January, 1756. Art. 3. p. 8.)

These are the Passages upon which the above Charge is grounded, which I now leave without one angry Word, or exaggerating Reflection, to the dispassionate Consideration of every impartial Reader. Nay, I will appeal even to the warmest Friends and Admirers of the Reviewers themselves, for the Determination of this Point; whether, admitting it, for the present, to be a Matter of Dispute, on which Side the Merits of the Cause lean, between the Church of England and her Enemies of whatever Denomination, the Advocates of her Doctrines or Discipline are like to be fairly and candidly treated by these Gentlemen, or to have their Performances in the Defence of either, ushered into the World with proper and reasonable Circumstances of Recommendation ?—I could fay no less than this upon the present Occasion; and perhaps I can fay more, if called upon by a Reply, or Vindication from these Authors: in the mean time, as they seem to abide by the Decisions of honest Farmer Fothergili and Co, and to look upon their Arguments as invincible, I will beg leave to propose a few Questions to them, relative to the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it has been ever received in the Christian World: referring them also to what has been offered upon this Subject in

the our own abundant Satisfaction, to be either ridiculous, or groundless, or retortible upon the Objectors

first Chapter of this Work. The Questions are grounded on the just cited and other Passages in the Reviews, which have fallen in my way since that Chapter was written, and are as follow.—Whether there be any Character, Property, or Attribute ascribed to the supreme God in the Old Testament, but what is in the fame, or at least tantamount Expressions applied

to Jesus Christ in the New? Whether, supposing Christ

'' never to be called Almighty God," (see Review for Nov. 1756. p. 447.) we know, or can even conceive any thing to be beyond his Power, upon a competent Authority from the Scriptures ?—Whether the following Verse in the Revelations is not most indisputably relative XaChrist ?lam Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, faith the Lord, which is, and which

was, and which is to come, the Almighty, (Rev. i. 8.)

Whether therefore " he who is, and who was, and who is to come" can be said to be God's own peculiar Name exclusively of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? (See Review for Jan. 1757. p. 4.) Whether this Character, the Almighty, be not equivalent to that of the Almighty God? Whether these Gentlemen can produce any Text that is descriptive of " the "unbegotten, underived, or necessarily existent Father of all," (See Review for Nov. 1756. p. 447.) in Terms so full and strong as this, which is declarative of the Existence of the Son? and if not, whether these Writers ought not to give Advantages, as well as take them ?—Whether we do not immediately and primarily ascribe to the supreme God underived, and necessary Existence, as the Foundation of all his other Attributes? if so, whether that Being can be supposed to be inferior or subordinate to the supreme God in respect of these, who is unquestionably equal with him in respect of this ?—Whether, if these Authors will still contend that the Expression of King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, under which Christ is confessedly described in the Revelations, (Chap. xix. 16.) is not equivalent to

that jectors themselves. But before we proceed to this, it may be proper to offer here a few general


that of The King of Kings (I Tim. vi. 15, 16.) &c. by which God the Father is said to be characterised, we are not at liberty, in order to prove the Originality of Power to be in Christ in one Instance, and by consequence in all, to observe that it is he, and not the Father, who is exprefly stiled The Resurrection, and The Life? (SeeReview for March 1757. p. 495.)—Whether among the many scriptural Titles of the supreme God, in the Old Testament, that of the Judge of all the Earth, is not, without Controversy, One ?—Whether, in the following Passages in the New Testament, God the Father must not necessarily be intended under the fame Title and Character ?—Ye are come unto Mount Sion, tfc to an innumerable Company of Angeh, to the general Assembly and Church, Isfc. and to God the Judge of all, l$c. and to Jesus the Mediator, &c. &c. (Heb. xii. 22. &c.)— / saw the Dead, small and great, Jland before God, and the Books were opened, &c. and the Dead were judged out of those Tilings which were written in the Books, &c. (Rev. xx. 12.)—Whether, notwithstanding this, the Title of Judge be not frequently and exprefly appropriated to Jesus Christ? and if so, whether it does not appear from this, among a great Number of Circunw stances, that the Attributes, Prerogatives, and Characters of the supreme God are recip rocated throughout the Scriptures between the Father and the Son? and consequently equally appertain to both ?—Whether, if the Sense of this Text were inverted, The Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed (or, as the original Word might be translated, hath offered, or surrendered up) all Judgment unto the Son, it would not have been before now produced in Proof of the Son's declining the divine Supremacy and Co-equality with the Father ?—Whether St. Thomas does not plainly acknowledge the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ in that rapturous Exclamation upon the sensible Demonstration of his Resurrection with which he was favoured— My Lord, and my G)d ?—Whether all the Apostles did not do

the Considerations, which, 'tis presumed, ought to have much Weight with all thinking and welldisposed Minds. It

the fame when they worshipped him both after his Resurrection and Ascension? (Matt, xxviii. 17. Luke xxiv. 52.)—Whether it can be proved from Scripture that the Angels worship any other Being but the supreme God ?—Whether they are not exprefly commanded to worship Jesus Christ?Let all the Angels of God worjhip Him; (Heb. i. 6.)—Whether, when the Reviewers assert, " that the blessed and Only Potentate, the King of Kings, &c. the Only one having Immortality, dwelling in Light which no Man can approach unto, whom no Man hath seen, or can see, (See Reviews for March 1757. p. 195. and for fan. 1757p. 4.) is a " Description of the one true God," even the God and Father of Christ, peculiar to him, and incompatible to any other Being whatsoever," they will undertake to prove that this Description, throughout the whole of it belongs Jlriclly and literally to God the Father, or that the Glory of Chrijl is accessible, or his divine Nature visible to the Eye of Mortals ?—Whether, if *' he who appeared to Men under the Old Testament, and took upon him the Name of God, or Jehovah, £ffc. was not (viz. never was) the supreme God himself" the true God has ever been acknowledged, or worshipped from the Creation to this Day ?—Whether the Concession that Jesus Christ is "Jehovah, will not enable us to prove that Chrijl is strictly and properly God ? —Whether, admitting the occasional Deputation of an Angel, who assumed the Name, and Characters of the true God, in many Places we can understand any thing less than the immediate Interposition, and assumed Appearance of the supreme God himself? (Gen. Ch. 1. 2. 3. &c. Exod. 19. 16. &c. Ch. 20. 18.) Or, again, whether, granting the true God, considered abstractedly as a pure Spirit, to be invisible, (as no doubt he is, and, as such, has never been seen or heard by any Man) granting this, whether any Argument can be deduced from this Consideration that will prove the Inferiority of the Son to the Father ?—Whether Jesus Chrijl does not assume an


« PreviousContinue »