Page images
PDF
EPUB

Besides, it is an Expedient that the common Modes of scriptural Language will by no means warrant: Our Saviour usually delivers his great Doctrines with the Plainness and Perspicuity of ordinary Conversation; and even when he speaks in a parabolical or mysterious Manner, every Difficulty is either cleared up by his own subsequent Explication; or by the plain Scope and Import of the Context itself. As many, and as strong as the Prejudices were, which the Jews had conceived against the Person of Jesus Christ, the most insuperable, we find, (as we have already hinted) was that which was raised in them by his repeated and manifest Declarations of his Divinity. 0 The Jews fought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

And it is very observable here, that these peremptory Declarations of our Saviour were considered by the Jews as so many plain and direct Assertions of his Divinity, notwithstanding the many Expressions he made use of in his Discourses with them, which the Anti-Trinitarians are ever ready to triumph in as qualifying ones, and importing the Inferiority of the Son to the Father; as, The Son can do nothing of himself; {John v. 19.) lean os mine own self do nothing; &c. (Ver. 30.)—

• John v. 18.

F 4 Again, —Again, when he declared in a following Passage that He and his Father were one, (John x. 30, &c.) the Jews took itp Stones to jlone him; and the Reason they gave for it was, because they looked upon that Expression to be tantamount to an Assertion of his Equality with God the Father; For a good Work we stone thee not, said they, but for Blasphemy, and because thou being a Man makest thyself God. And lastly, we know, it was his explicit Assertion to the same Purpose, that was the immediate Occasion of the Sentence which was past upon him. 'Tis certain therefore the Jews understood our Saviour according to the literal Signification of his Expressions; and if he himself had not intended they should do so, it was not only his Duty, . but his plain Interest also, to have undeceived them. In Truth, he who shall affect to doubt the Sense of such Expressions must be an Enemy to intelligible Language, and a Sceptic in Matters of Fact ; - he may with equal Reason pretend that our Saviour suffered by Figure, and was allegorically nailed to the Cross. Upon the whole, how strong and emphatical soever certain Passages may be which express the Unity and the Privileges of Christians, (see particularly John xvii. 11. 21. &c.) it is abundantly clear from Multitudes of Texts that no created Being can be called the Son of God in the fame Sense in which Jesus Chrift is often declared to be, or be united to the

Divine Nature literally and essentially like himself. In short, either the Holy Scripture is to be understood in die same Manner, and by the same Rules with all other Compositions, or it is not; if it is, the Debate will be soon ended; if it is not, the AntiTrinitarian will be found to lend a very strong Argument to Catholicks themselves; since nothing more is requisite than this Concession, to prove not only the Desireableness, but even Necessity of an infallible Guide for the right understanding the true Sense and Purport of the sacred Writings.

Those who cannot, or will not see the Force of the Texts we have referred to, will probably attend little to any thing more that may be said upon this most important Subject; it will however be a Satisfaction to true Believers to observe the corroborating Evidence we have of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the rational Deductions we are enabled to make in Support of it, upon the Authority of the sacred Writings.—St. Paul tells us, that Christ took not on him the Nature of Angels; but he took on him the Seed of Abraham; (Heb. 11. 16.) Christ existed therefore before he took on him our Nature, or the Seed of Abraham: for Existence was necessarily previous to the taking it on him; if he existed before this, he existed not in the human Nature; for it would be absurd to say he invested himself with a Nature in which he existed at the same Time: Neither could he exist in the angelical Nature, because it would be absurd to say he declined assuming a Nature which he must have laid down in order to have assumed; and consequently he existed in the divine Nature, on which the human was superinduced: For the Scriptures ascertain but three Natures that can possibly come within the Compass of the present Question, the human, the angelical, and the divine. —Again, the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes the Nature of Christ from that of Angels by Characters peculiar to the Deity, and those Attributes which our first and most obvious Reasonings, as we have observed, naturally ascribe to him; as eternal Existence, and infinite Power: Unto the Son he faith, thy 'Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; (Chap. i. 8.) and, Thou, Lord, in the Beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth; &c. Stc. (Ver. 10, &c.) If then there be no intermediate Nature between the angelical and the divine, the latter must necessarily be ascribed to Jesus Christ; and till this intermediate Nature be clearly proved from Scripture, it will neither be rational, nor safe, to sacrifice such a Number of plain and positive Texts as the Doctrine under Consideration is supported by, to the chimerical Suppositions, or palpable Evasions and Misrepresentations of Infidels, under what Names or Colours soever they may be disguised.—Once more; the

Resurrection Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an Event to be attributed no doubt to Almighty Power; nor is there any Occasion, was there any Pretence, to dissernble that this Event is very frequently attributed in Scripture to the Power of God the Father: (ABs ii. 24. iii. 15. Rom. iv. 24. Cor. i. 6, 14. &c. &c.) But then it is to be remembered likewise, that our Saviour foretold his Resurrection by virtue of his own Power; (John ii. 19, &c.) that he stiles himself emphatically the Resurrection and the Life; (John xi. 25.) and that this great Event is represented in Scripture as a necessary Consequence of the Plan concerted before the World by the Deity, or rather the Three Persons in the Deity, for the Salvation of Mankind. Ought not Chrijl (fays himself to the Disciples going to Emmaus) to have suffered these 'Things, and "to enter inio his Glory? (Luke xxiv. 26.) He tells his Apostles afterwards that thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the Dead the third Day; (Ver. 46.) And St. Paul, reasoning out of the Scriptures with the Jews at 'Theffalonica, opened and alledged, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the Dead; (ABs xvii. 2, 3.) Agreeably to all this, when St. Peter tells the Jews that God had raised up Jesus whom they had crucified and stain, he does in effect resolve the same into the Divine Power of Christ himself, and . the absolute Necessity of the Thing: Him God hath raised up, having loosed the

« PreviousContinue »