ページの画像
PDF
ePub

"have created one being of fuch extraordinary power, as "should make it unneceffary for him to exert any more "creative power; fo that all that remained of creation " might be delegated to that great derived being *." Now, if our author, in perfect confiftence with Unitarian principles, can form fuch a fuppofition, he cannot refuse that the Jews, referred to, might have done the fame; unless he means to grant that he has not fuch ftrict ideas of divine unity as they had.

CHA P. III.

A confideration of the Argument against the Divinity of Chrift from his not being the Object of Prayer.

[ocr errors]

OUR

UR Saviour himfelf," Dr P. obferves, "always prayed to his Father, and with as much humility "and refignation as the most dependent being in the uni"verfe could poffibly do; ways addreffing him as bis "Father, or the author of his being; and he directs his dif"ciples to pray to the fame Great Being, whom only, he

[ocr errors]

fays, we ought to fervet." We have already spoken of Chrift's praying. But we would wish to know from the learned Gentleman, if fuch language as that, Father, I will, (John xvii. 24.) become "the most dependent being in the "univerfe?" Jefus indeed addreffes God as his Father: and it may be admitted that God the Father was the author of his human nature. For it is written, A body haft thou prepared me. But this did not exclude the divine agency of the second Perfon; else it never could have been said, that he took upon him the form of a fervant, Phil. ii. 7. that he himself took part of flesh and blood, Heb. ii. 14. that be took on him the feed of Abraham, ver. 16. But

he

Vol. i. p. 57.

↑ Ibid. p. 36.

he feems especially to call God his Father, to express his faith in God as well pleafed with him in his Mediatory character, for his righteousness fake, and in him with all his fpiritual feed. For when it is foretold that the Meffiah fhall addrefs God as his Father, this character is connected with others expreffive of a fœderal relation: He fhall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my Jalvation, Pfal. lxxxix. 26.

This paragraph ends with fomething very like a fallacy; -"whom only, he fays, we ought to ferve." According to the connexion of the fentence, the Father is the subject referred to by the pronoun whom. Thence, one who would take the words upon Dr P.'s quotation, would infer that Jefus had faid, Thou fbalt worship the Father thy God, and him only halt thou ferve; as entirely excluding himself. But his language is, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, &c. not as particularizing any perfon, but the one effence, in oppofition to that claim of worship impudently made by the Devil, Mat. iv. 9. I ask the Doctor's pardon, as he does not admit that there is such a being. For he tells us, with almost unparalleled impiety, that "all that may really "be meant by Jesus being tempted of the devil, may be, "that the improper thoughts mentioned in the course of "the narrative, either occurred to himself in his private "meditations, or were fuggefted by fome other person *." The abfurdity of both these fuppofitions is fo obvious, that an illustration of it would be an infult on the reader's understanding. With refpect to the impiety of the first, I shall only observe, that it fhews, in a striking light, what low thoughts Socinians have of him whom, out of compliment, they call their Saviour. Not only do they deny him to be the infinitely Holy God, but to be perfectly finless, as man. For it is impoffible that fuch thoughts could occur to one's self, without any external agency, whether they were indulged or not, without an inward princi

ple

* Institutes, vol. ii. p 435 ·

ple of fin. It is not at all furprifing, that the Doctor should be fo anxious to get rid of the miraculous conception; as he does not believe that even what was born of Mary was a boly thing.

He has a great deal of probable reasoning with respect to Chrift, as the object of prayer. But it is of no avail whatfoever against the evidence of facts. He, indeed, attempts to prove that the first Christians never prayed to their Lord and Saviour. With this view he quotes 1 Pet. iv. 19. Let them that fuffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their fouls unto him in well-doing as unto a faithful Creator. But it has been formerly obferved, that even where the name God occurs, it is often to be understood as denoting the whole divine effence; and although Jefus be mentioned in connexion, as Mediator, yet not as excluding him from that honour which is his prerogative as God. Are we to view him, to whom we commit our fouls, as a faithful Creator? Then, furely, either Socinians call Jefus the author of the new creation in folemn mockery; or he must be worthy of this truft. For he who makes us new creatures, if there be any truth in the language, must be as really our Creator as he who gave us being at first.

Dr P. alfo quotes 1 Pet. v. 10. The God of all grace who bath called us unto his eternal glory, by Jefus Chrift, after that ye have fuffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, Strengthen, fettle you. Here, indeed, Chrift is mentioned as the way. But because nothing more is faid in this paffage, it will not prove that he has no higher character; it cannot avert the force of other paffages, in which the fame work is afcribed to him, which Dr P. undoubtedly confiders as a proof of Supreme Deity. With this paffage let the Doctor, according to his fyftem, reconcile the following words; Now, our Lord Jefus Chrift himself, and God even our FaVOL. I. LI ther,

Vol. i. p. 43.

ther, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work, 2 Thef. ii. 16, 17.

Our author fays; "Let us now attend to fome particu "lars in the Hiftory of the Apoftles." We cordially accede to the proposal, being convinced that the more this history is examined, the more will the falfity of our author's fyftem appear. "When Herod," he fays, " had put "to death James, the brother of John, and imprisoned Pe“ter, we read, Acts xii. 5. that prayer was made without "ceafing of the church unto God, not to Chrift, for him." But the point that the Doctor has yet to prove, is, that this prayer was exclufively made to the Father. We have at leaft as good reafon to believe that this prayer was beard and anfwered by the Son, as that it was made to the Father. For Peter fays; Now, I know of a furety, that the Lord bath fent his Angel, and hath delivered me, ver. 11. But our author informs us that "this term, the Lord, generally fignifies Chrift *." And the moft that can be faid of the other, is that it generally fignifies the Father. But we are to understand neither exclufively. For we have as good evidence that Jefus is the one Lord, as our opponents have that the Father is the one God.

66

We are also told that " when Paul and Silas were in pri"fon at Philippi, they fung praifes to God, not to Chrift, "Acts xvi. 25.” But from the context, it would be maft natural to think that this term includes Christ as well as the Father. For Paul enjoins the jailor to believe on the Lord Jefus Chrift, affuring him that thus he should be faved, and in a little we find that this is the fame with believing in God, ver. 31. 34. At any rate, I could not, for my part, venture to believe, or truft in a perfon for falvation, from whom I could not ask it in prayer.

It is added; "When Paul was warned of what would "befal him if he went to Jerufalem, Acts xxi. 14. he said, ་ ་་ "The

Famil. Illuftr. p. 36.

"The will of the Lord be done. This, it must be supposed, "was meant of God the Father, because Chrift himself "used the same language, when praying to the Father, he "faid, Not my will, but thine be done." But the Doctor has taken only a curfory view of this paffage. For it was not Paul, but the brethren, who spoke in this manner. However, because one act of worship is fubftantially the fame with another, exprefsly addreffed to a particular perfon, it will not follow, if there be no other evidence, that the fame perfon is addreffed in both inftances. Nor can it be juftly concluded that the words, here quoted, could not respect Chrift, because he ufed the fame language in addreffing the Father. For Dr P. himself cannot deny that the dying martyr Stephen addreffed the fame prayer to Jefus, as Jefus at his own death, addreffed to the Father. It is granted that this language, with respect to Christ, The will of the Lord be done, was used very differently from that, Not my will, &c. For in the former inftance his divine will is meant, as being effentially the fame with that of the Father. But in the latter, he spoke merely of his buman will. According to the Doctor's own acknowledgment, there must be more probability that the term Lord here refpects Chrift, than that it refpects the Father. For he grants as we have seen, that it generally bears the former fense. But the truth is; Dr P. is willing that the term Lord fhould denote Christ, when it does not neceffarily refer to any of that lordship which is peculiar to the divine nature; that is, when it can be applied to him without its proper meaning.

It is certainly moft natural to think that the fame perfon is here meant, as the Lord, who, in the verfe immediately preceding, is called the Lord Jefus. An impartial reader would undoubtedly conclude that the language of the brethren directly referred to that of Paul. He faid, I am

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »