« ZurückWeiter »
• Father: and, as I am his Ambassador, he is my • Principal, and as such my superior.' An ambassador is equal in nature to his prince.
“ Nei“ther the Son, but the Father.”
P. 133. 1. 14. Of that day and that hour.'The Son, as Mediator, does not know that day; it being no part of that "revelation which was
given” him to make known to his church.-Let the reader compare this part, which consists of quotations from the New Testament, with the language of angels concerning the “ Lamb that “ was slain," in the Revelation of St. John.
P. 133. 1. 33. • The difference is uncommonly great,' &c.—The Pharisees ascribed the miracles of Jesus to the power of Satan : thus they “ blas“phemed the Son of man,” during the season of his humiliation. They also condemned him to death, as a blasphemer, for making
« himself “ God.” But he arose from the dead. “ This " Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are “ witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand “ of God exalted, and having received of the “ Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath “shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” 2 Thus he was “ justified by the Spirit :" and they who rejected this last demonstration of his being the divine Messiah, would never be forgiven: not because the Holy Ghost is greater than the Son, but because the guilt of those, who blasphemed this grand proof that Jesus was the Messiah, was more heinous than the guilt of those, who blasphemed him when living as Man on earth. If a Jew will
"Rev. v. 12-14;
? Acts ii. 32, 33.
attempt to prove his doctrine from the New Testament, he must so far be answered from the New Testament, and according to it.-Indeed Jesus may be said to be greater than the Holy Spirit, in the very same way in which the Father is greater than the Son: not in nature and perfections ; but as sending him, and being glorified by him, as the principal by his ambassador. All other inferiority Trinitarians deny.
If Jesus be Immanuel, he is both God and Man: whatever is said of him as man, must be understood of his human nature: whatever of him as God, of his divine nature. Suppose, for a moment, the doctrine to be true; we ask, How could it be possible to speak of him in other language than that which he uses concerning himself, and which the writers of the New Testament use concerning him? Before any objection can be made to bear against this language; the doctrine must either be proved false, or, by a petitio principii, be assumed to be false.
P. 134. 1. 2. Secondly, Christ says, Not,' &c. In condescension to Jewish prejudices, and those of Jewish converts to Christianity, some particulars of the Mosaic law were recommended to the observation even of the gentile converts; but the Apostles evidently considered that law as, in itself, abolished. On the other hand, our Lord by no means intended that his disciples should, during his life, in any instance disobey the written ceremonial law. He himself perfectly observed it, and taught them to do the same. The oral law,
· Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
66 the traditions of the elders,” he indeed protested against, as “ making void” the written law of God. These hints suffice to shew, that there was no discordance between our Lord's doctrine and that of the apostles, as speaking by the Holy Spirit.
That the words and works of Christ, and those of the Holy Spirit, were, according to the New Testament, in many respects one and the same, might easily be shewn: let the reader carefully compare the texts referred to in the margin, and he must be convinced of this. 1
P. 134. 1. 17. 'A man,' &c.--That Jesus was “a man approved of God,” no Christian denies : but how does this prove that he was no more than a man? Even by assuming, before all proof, that the doctrine in debate is false and impossible, and in no other way. But is this sound logici
P. 134. 1. 31. “To take the glory,' &c. If we give the glory due to God 'to a mortal man,' or to any creature, we are guilty of idolatry. But, except by assuming without proof that our doctrine is false, this does not evince that our worship of Jesus Christ is idolatry: for we believe him to be One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, “ God over all, blessed for evermore.”
He requires, and we believe that he had a full right to require, that “all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father: he that hon“ oureth not the Son honoureth not the Father “ which hath sent him." 2 And we must have far
Matt. x. 20. Mark xiii. 11. Luke xii. 12. xxi. 15. Rev. ii. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 29. iii. 1,6,7, 13, 14, 22. John v. 23.
stronger arguments than those here adduced, to convince us that we are mistaken in this grand
But, if indeed the great and glorious God do subsist in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; if he have revealed this, as plainly as words can convey the mysterious truth; and if men, “ leaning to their own understanding,” treat this revelation as a LIE ; (“He that believeth not, hath “ made God a liar;") is there, I say, no danger on the other side? Is it not possible, that the
Supreme Being' of Antitrinitarians, whether Jews, Christians, or Mohammedans, may more the true God, than Baal or Jupiter was? Not only the mysteries of his nature, but the perfections of his justice and holiness, are (to say no more,) grievously veiled and clouded by all Antitrinitarians. “ The Holy ONE of Israel ceases “ from before us.” “A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOUR" is not recognised. Mercy, without an atonement of infinite value, dishonours the law and justice of God; and many of us are greatly alarmed in respect of Antitrinitarians, lest they should be found worshippers of an ideal Supreme Being, an ens rationis: though not “ the work of their own “hands,” yet the creation of their imagination ; and no more the God of Abraham, “ the Holy “ One of Israel,” “ the God and Father of our “ Lord Jesus Christ,” than the supreme deity of the Chinese or Hindoos. An impartial man must allow, that there is danger on both sides: and none, but he who takes it for granted that his own doctrine is true, and his opponent's false,
will contend that all the danger lies on one side.?
Some at least of the Jews consider Christianity as materializing or corporalizing the divine essence: but this originates wholly from misapprehension. It cannot be denied that there have been Christians, so called, who at least give occasion for such a charge; and indeed there still are; but Christianity itself is not answerable for any sentiment which is not authorized by the New Testament. And in this sacred book, where especially the doctrine of the Trinity is most fully revealed; the idea of materializing or corporal'izing, the divine essence, is wholly excluded. “No man hath seen God at any time.” “ The
King eternal, immortal, invisible,” “ whom no “ man hath seen, or can see.” 2 The doctrine of “ God manifest in the flesh” does not suppose that the divine essence is corporalized; but that it manifests itself to man in and through the human nature of Jesus Christ, who is “ the image “ of the invisible God,” and “ in whom it pleased “all fulness to dwell,” even“ all the fulness of “the Godhead bodily:"3 for “ the Word became
(éyévero) flesh, and tabernacled among us; (éoxýrwoer ;) as the glory of Jehovah did in the tabernacle in the wilderness, or in Solomon's temple. Therefore Jesus said, “ Destroy this * temple:"_" he spake of the temple of his 'body,” or of his human nature. The divine perfections are displayed in the person, and by
See Matt. xi. 27. John v. 23. 1 John ii. 23. v. 21, 22.