Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The prefent Orthodox (as they efteem themselves) hold the diftinct perfonality of the Father and the Son; that is, that these are two distinct agents or beings. This, I think, they may be faid to hold, if one can form any judgment of what they hold (which in the prefent cafe is fomewhat difficult) and in this they diffent from Sabellius. And they likewise hold, that the Son, or fecond Perfon in the trinity, was perfonally united to a man, and that the aforefaid fecond Perfon, and that man, in their united state, conftitute the person of Chrift; and in this they diffent from Socinus. They alfo hold, that the divine and human natures, in the perfon of Christ, did act in a feparate and distinct capacity one from another, and in this they agree with Cerinthus. They likewife hold, that in the fufferings of Chrift, it was the human nature only which acted, and bore those sufferings, and that Chrift's divine nature did not, or could not fuffer, or bear any share or part of that fuffering: so that in this, both Cerinthus, and Sabellius, and Socinus, and the prefent Orthodox agree, viz. that the agent which Juffered was but barely a man.

Those who are (by way of contempt) called Arians hold, that the Father and the Son are two diftinct agents or beings; and that the Son is not the very fupreme God himself, but the Son of the fupreme God: that the Son of God, was his Father's agent in making this vifible world; and confequently, that he had a perfonal existence antecedent to his conception in the womb of the Virgin, and that in his conception he condefcended to be united to, and take upon him human flesh, acted in, by, and upon a human body, or a body formed and brought forth as all other human bodies are, and this conftituted him a man; tho, with respect to the dignity of his fpiritual part, and his near relation to God, he was more than a man, or at least more than any other man was; and this fpiritual part, was that agent, in the person of Chrift, who chose to bear and fuffer all that pain and anguish which Chrift underwent: fo, that according to thefe, the agent which fuffered in the perfon of Chrift, was more than a man (if the expreffion may be allowed) viz. he was that agent by whom God made the worlds; and this opinion feems most agreeable to the fcriptures.

Which of these various opinions is the truth, is not the prefent queftion; but which of them fets the greatest value upon the agent, or fufferer in the perfon of Chrift, and fo fets the greatest value upon that fuffering. And this, I think, is plainly the cafe of thofe who are called Arians. They confider the Sufferer, or that agent who bore and fuffered in the perfon of Chrift, to be that very fame agent by whom God made the worlds. Whereas the Cerinthians, Sabellians, Socinians, and the prefent Orthodox, confider and esteem the suffering agent, in the perfon of Chrift, to be no more than barely a man. And if that man received affiftance from God, or was united to him, it alters not the case, because fuch affiftance and fuch union, does not alter or change the fuffering fubject: he is still but a man in their estimation, and therefore the value which arifes to his fuffering from his perfon, can be no other than what arises from him in the capacity of a man, as it was in that capacity, and that only in which he fuffered. And forafmuch as in the above propofition, the fuffering agent, in the person of Chrift, is not confidered, or reprefented as less valuable, than what

he

he really is, or than any chriftian of any denomination reprefents him to be; therefore the charging that propofition with leffening the value of Christ's fuffering and death, is unjust and groundless.

OBJECTION II.

Secondly, It may be objected, that the forementioned arguments fall to the ground, because the fcriptures, which are brought to prove and support them, are misapplied, by applying them to the divine, as well as the human nature of Chrift: whereas, if they had been rightly applied, it would have been to the human nature alone, confidered in a separate and diftinct capacity from the divine nature in Chrift.

"HIS being the grand refuge, which men generally fly to, under every difficulty in the prefent queftion, I fhall be the more particular in examining it. The plain english of which I take to be this, viz. that our Lord Jefus Chrift is conftituted of two diftinct individual moral agents, which agents are characterized by those terms, viz. Chrift's divine and human nature; and that what is said of and applied to Chrift in general, in the texts above, is in ftrictness applicable only to that part of Chrift which is called his human nature; and therefore, tho that part of Chrift be proved to be inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, from the texts before mentioned, yet nothing can be concluded from thence, with respect to the other part of Chrift, or Chrift at large, as including the two agents aforefaid; and that the other part of Chrift, viz. that moral agent which conftitutes his divine nature, this agent comes in equal fharer with the Father, and a certain third agent in fupremacy of existence, agency, and dominion; which three moral agents constitute the one fupreme God, whofe complex idea is expreffed by that character. This, This, I think, is a fair representation of what is urged in the prefent cafe, fo far as men talk or write intelligibly, or as one can judge of their meaning by their words. To which

I anfwer; the Two points advanced above, viz. that the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, is conftituted of a coalition or fociety of agents, whether two or two hundred: and that the one fupreme God is likewife conftituted of a coalition or fociety of agents, whether three, or three thousand: these are propofitions which are meerly fictitious, and are fo far from having any foundation in the Bible, that on the contrary the Bible every were fuppofes and expreffes otherwise. For when our Lord Jefus Chrift is there fpoken of, when he fpeaks or is spoken to, it is only as one agent, and not as a fociety of agents. The cafe is exactly the fame with refpect to the one fupreme God, when he is spoken of in the Bible, or when he speaks, or is fpoken to, it is always in fuch a way as fuppofes and expresses him to be but only one agent. And if after all this, men will take the freedom to aver, that the Son of God, and that God himself, are each of them a coalition or fociety of agents, as aforefaid; and if they will likewife aver, that those propofitions are contained in the Bible; this is, by a juft confequence, averring, that the Bible is unqualified for being the rule of truth, in this or any other cafe. For,

If

If fuch a notorious perverfion and abuse of language, as aforefaid, can be justly charged upon the Bible in one inftance, and with relation to one point, then it may be fo in many others: and if God acts fo unfair a part in this particular, by delivering his mind in fuch a way, as naturally and apparently tends to mislead us, which is the prefent cafe, then we muft of course be under the greatest uncertainty, with regard to knowing what he intends, by any revelation that he makes to his creatures. By the term two, he may intend twenty: and when he faith, hear O Ifrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord: he may not intend to express, that the God of Ifrael is only one individual Lord (which is the natural sense of the words) but on the contrary, that it is a fociety of Lords: and as the number of individuals, which conftitute that fociety, are not revealed in the Bible; fo it is utterly above our ability to discover their number. And when he faith, I am God, and there is none befide me, he may intend to exprefs ideas, which are contrary to what common ufage has fixed to those words. That is, he may intend to exprefs that he is not God, and that there are many others befide him. I fay, if God in the revelation he gives to his creatures, perverts the use of words, and mifapplies them in one inftance, as above, he may do the same in many others. And if this be the cafe, then nothing can be fairly concluded from the Bible; and confequently this, and every other controverfy (in which the appeal is made to the Bible) muft ceafe and be at an end.

[ocr errors]

Befides, If it fhould be admitted, that the term God, in the Bible, is used to exprefs a coalition or fociety of neceffarily exifting agents, which are of one fpecies or kind, then this is to admit a plurality of fupreme deities or gods. It is not enough for the avoiding of this charge to urge, that these are infeparably united in counfel, in acting, and the like; because fuch union does not destroy their individuation. It is true, this denies them to be a plurality of Gods, which are at variance and difcord among themselves; but then it fuppofes them to be a plurality of deities, which are in unity and concord; and furely they are not the lefs a plural in number, by their uniting in counfel, in acting, &c. And,

If there are a plurality of neceffarily exifting agents, as aforefaid; yet furely there is no foundation for confining them to the number three, feeing they may be three millions, or any other number, for any thing we know to the contrary. If it fhould be faid, that St. John has confined them to that number. 1 John The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft; and these three are one. fwer, if the words of St. John are rightly applied in the prefent case, which furely they are not, then his teftimony is confronted by that of our Saviour, who

ས.

7.

I an

by a like way of speaking confines them to the number two. John x. 30. I and my Father are one. And I think that the teftimony of Chrift must be allowed to be as good an authority, and as fit to be relyed on as that of St. John. But whoever reads thofe texts, and reflects with an unprejudiced mind upon the fubjects to which they relate, I am perfuaded will eafily fee, that this is not their fenfe, and that St. John, and our Saviour, are not at fuch variance as they are here reprefented to be.

If there fhould be urged, in favour of a plurality of neceffarily exifting agents, as aforefaid, such texts as thefe, Gen. i. 26. And God faid let us make man, in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

by

e

e

our own image, after our likeness, &c. I answer, first, the ufual reply in this cafe is, that the terms here referred to are only a mode of fpeech, which was common to the monarchs of the east, and that God is here represented as fpeaking in the language of thofe monarchs: now, if this be the cafe, then the urging fuch texts is trifling. But fuppofing these terms are to be confidered as plurals, which exprefs more than one agent; then I anfwer, fecondly, tho here are feveral plural expreffions made ufe of, yet they are not applied to God, nor fuppofed to be applicable to him, but the contrary. God is here represented and spoken of, as one individual agent, addreffing himself and speaking to another agent or agents: and he that fpeaks, and he or they that are fpoken to, are expreffed by thofe plurals, us, our, &c. if it fhould be asked, who, or what thofe agents were, which God is here reprefented as fpeaking to, the answer is, that the history is filent in this matter. This I think is manifeftly the state of the cafe; and therefore, for men to found the doctrine of a plurality of neceffarily existing agents, whofe complex idea is expreffed by the term God, upon fuch texts as thefe, in oppofition to the whole tenour of the Bible, and the most exprefs texts to the contrary, is a moft prodigious bold attempt.

If it fhould be farther urged, that the one fupreme God, is not a coalition. or fociety of agents, but only one individual agent, and that in this agent there are three individual properties, or three individual modes of existence, or three fomewhats, or the like; and that one of thofe properties, or modes, or fomewhats, and one only was united to the man Chrift Jefus, and in that its united state it conftitutes Chrift's divine nature; and that thofe texts in the precedent arguments, tho they are in the Bible applyed to Chrift without any limitation, yet they are in ftrictness only applicable to that part of Chrift which is called his human nature; whereas the other part of Chrift, which is called his divine nature (whether it be a mode, or property, a fomewhat, or the like) comes in for an equal share of fupremacy of existence, agency, and dominion, with the other two properties, or modes, or fomewhats, or parts of God, as mentioned above; which two parts of God, are, by way of diftinction, called the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

To all this I think it fufficient to anfwer, that it is the product of a fruitful fancy only, and that it has no foundation in nature or fcripture. Not in nature, there being no fuch thing as a property, or manner of exifting abstracted from being, as I have already obferved. And therefore to fuppofe that a mode, or property of the Deity, can be in fuch an abstracted and separate capacity, as to be closely united to a man, whilst the Deity or Being it felf is not thus united, but is in another feparate capacity from it; or that the Deity it felf with one of its properties, or modes of existence is closely united to a man, whilst the other modes, or properties of the Deity remain in a feparate capacity, and are not united with the Deity to that man; I fay, thefe fuppofitions are fhamefully abfurd and ridiculous. Befides, there is but one mode, or manner of existence in the Deity, viz. he exifts, by an abfolute neceffity, in the nature of things; and therefore to talk of God's exifting under different modeɛ, is alike abfurd and ridiculous. And,

As

As the abovementioned propofitions are ftrangers to nature, fo they are likewife as much ftrangers to the Bible. The Bible every where represents God as a moral agent, without dividing or diftinguishing him into modes, or properties, or fomewhats, as above; and this one agent it declares is the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, or that one moral agent which the Bible characterizes by that title; fo that the dividing and diftinguishing God, and Chrift into parts, and parcels, as above, has no foundation either in nature or fcripture.

I fhall not take upon me to examine ftrictly the foregoing schemes, in order to fhew the confufion and abfurdities that attend them; this would be a work of fuch large extent, that I should not know where, or when to end: but all that I fhall farther add, is to defire those men who advance them, to confider what just occafion they give to unbelievers, to infult and triumph over chriftianity, as an abfurd and ridiculous thing, by reprefenting the Bible as the ground and foundation of that patch-work, with which they have dreffed up Almighty God. At one time God is three agents; then he is but one agent; then he is three properties; then he is three modes of exiftence; then three fomewhats; and thus men have rung the changes as their schemes required, or as their fruitful fancies have invented, till they have brought the chriftian religion into contempt. But now, I hope, chriftians will let the time paft fuffice them, to have mixed the pure wine of christianity, with the water of their own inventions; and that they will leave off wandring, as above, and return back to the plainness and fimplicity of the gofpel. The Bible every where confiders, and represents Almighty God, as only one individual moral agent; who, out of a tender regard to the happiness and well-being of his creatures, at fundry times, and in divers manners, fent unto them his fervants, the prophets, and that laft of all he fent unto them his Son; not upon a different, but upon the fame errand that he had fent his fervants, the prophets, before him, viz. to call them to repentance, and to bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and thereby to oblige them to render themselves, the fuitable and proper objects of God's mercy and grace. And this laft meffenger is likewife in the Bible reprefented, fpoken to, and of, as only one individual moral agent, who, upon the account of his office, his performances, and his near relation to God, is characterized in the Bible, by high and honourable titles; but ftill as the Son, the messenger, and the minifter of the most high. This is the state of the cafe, as it ftands in the gofpel, which is plain and intelligible, and to be understood by the meaneft capacity. But when christians, out of respect to their crucified Mafter, and upon the account of what he had done, and fuffered for their fakes, tried to outvy one another in encomiums, and bigb appellations: then they fpake of him, and paid their refpect to him, not as one whom God had exalted up into the throne, and placed on the right hand of the majesty on high (which is the fcripture account of the cafe) but as if he had been the very fupreme God. And instead of treating him as the Son, minifter, and meffenger of the fupreme Being (which ftill they allow him to be) they spoke of him, and paid their refpect to him, as the most high God himself. Yea, their pious zeal did not reft here, for they almoft deified the Virgin Mary, because he was his mother: and from hence fprung all that confufion and ab

furdity,

« AnteriorContinuar »