empty himself of that which he never poffeffed; nay, from which he hath still been infinitely removed? This analogical argument goes beyond the mark. If it prove any thing, it proves that Christ is not a king. Does our author really mean to affert this? It would only be a completion of his work. I do not wonder that thofe who fay, How can this man fave us? fhould be unwilling to submit to his government. This kind of language reminds one of the ungracious reply of the churlish Nabal, concerning the type; Who is David? and who is the fon of Feffe? there be many fervants now a-days that break away every man from bis mafter, 1 Sam. xxv. 10. Paul indeed" fays that the church at Corinth was Chrift's, "and that Chrift is God's." But it will not follow, that " he could have no idea of Chrift being God, in any proper "fenfe of the word." For in this affertion the Doctor ftill fupposes what he has not proved, that it is impoffible for him who humbleth himself to behold the things that are done in heaven, and on earth, to humble himself fo far as to take upon him the form of a fervant. The Apostle had certainly no idea that the church was a man's. CHA P. II. An examination of the Argument against the Divinity of Chrift, from the pretended Difficulty of tracing the Time when it was firft divulged. THE HE Doctor's nicely-conftructed chain of reafoning from the fuppofable surprise, and doubt, and befitation, and fpeculation, and debate, which must have been occafioned by the first preaching of the divinity of the Son*, Ibid. p. 23, 24. falls falls entirely to pieces, in confequence of what has been formerly proved, that the ancient Jews believed a plurality of perfons in the divine effence, and that the firft preachers of the Gospel really exhibited Jefus as a divine person. He further afferts, that " it cannot be faid that John Bap"tist preached any fuch doctrine *." But that this was the great article of his teftimony concerning Jefus, we have alfo fhewn. in On the fame fubject of our Saviour's deity he proposes this queftion; "If it had ever been known to Peter, can we "fuppofe that he could have denied him as he did +?" Might not any infidel plead as ftrongly, from this circumitance, against Christ being the Meffiah? Might it not be faid, Had Peter believed he was the Saviour of the world, and as himself afterwards declares, that there was not falvation any other," can we fuppofe that he would have denied "him as he did?" It is not eafy to fay, how far a perfon may go under the power of temptation. Our author himfelf, as he informs us, was once "a Trinitarian, and prayed "conscientiously to the three perfons without diftinction,→ "in the serious fimplicity of his heart,-impressed with a "full perfuafion that all the three perfons were fully equal "in all divine attributes t." Doubtlefs, he then thought that his perfuafion was founded on as good a ground as any that Peter could have, the word of God who cannot lie: and had any one told him that he would afterwards deny the fecond Perfon, and do his utmoft to prove that he was a mere man, he might have been apt to reply, with the fame Peter, Lord, though all men should be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended; or, in the words of Hazael to the prophet, Is thy fervant a dog, that he should do great thing 2 Kin. viii. 13. We would rejoice to VOL. I. Kk #Vol. s. p. 25. + Ibid. p. 27. Ibid. p. 41. hear hear that, like Peter, our author had also wept bitterly because of his denial. He endeavours, by a very curious manœuvre, to avert the force of the confeffion of Thomas. "If it be supposed," he fays, "that Thomas was acquainted with this most ex"traordinary part of his Master's character, which led him "to cry, My Lord and my God*, when he was con"vinced of his refurrection, as he was not one of the three "who had been entrusted with any fecrets, it must have "been known to all the twelve, and to Judas Iscariot among "the rest. And suppose him to have known, and to have "believed, that Jefus was his God and Maker, was it pof"fible for him, or for any man, to have formed a delibe"rate purpose to betray him ;-or if he had only heard of "the pretenfion, and had not believed it, would he not "have made fome advantage of that impofition, and have "made the discovery of this, as well as of every thing else "that he knew to his prejudice? +" Some things are fo weak as scarcely to deferve, or even to admit of an answer. One inference, however, natively occurs from the reasoning both in this, and in the preceding quotation ;—that the doctrine of Socinians, according to their own confeffion, tends greatly to relax the influence of faith in Christ, and to render the adherence of the foul to him extremely feeble. It must neceffarily make men bad martyrs; still presenting a temptation to apoftacy. For our author does not feem to think it near fo great a crime to deny Chrift, as to deny God. The most that can be said in favour of fuffering for the Saviour, is, that it is daring to die for a good man. It was certainly as poffible for Judas to betray his God, as his Saviour. He could have done neither, had he really believed the truth, either of Chrift's divinity, or of his mediatory character. But whatever faith he had, was dead. He + Ibid. p. 27, 28. *John xx. 28. He had no God but Mammon. He fought no falvation, but what came from the bag. Befides, Satan had entered into bis heart. With the fame propriety, therefore, might it be afked, "Is it poffible for Satan to carry on a constant war against God, to whom he, as a creature, owes his being?" But, perhaps, the Doctor may decline to meet me on this ground, as the existence of the devil feems to be no article in his creed. It is questionable, if he believes him to be even an occafional being. "Whatever," he says, "is afcribed "to this being will appear, if we confider the circumftan❝ces of the feveral narrations, to be derived from nothing "but the irregular paffions of men, which are, of them"felves, a cause adequate to the effect." Like the description of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs, all is allegory! But does not the learned Gentleman deserve our thanks for his generofity? As he bereaves us of that gracious Angel who is able to fave, he endeavours to rid us of that evil one who has been generally viewed as the inftrument in punishing. As little, furely, can be inferred, against the deity of Christ, from the filence of Judas on this article, as against his Meffiahfhip; because we have no evidence that he criminated our Saviour with respect to this. Such filly negative evidence, from the treafon or filence of one difciple, can be no argument against the exprefs teftimony of another. The amount of this reafoning is; Because we "know the treason of a false disciple, we must reject the "confeffion of a true one. Because Judas fays nothing with "respect to the divinity of Chrift, we are not to believe "Thomas in what he does fay." I fhall only add that the perfect harmony between the reasoning of Dr P. on this occafion, and that of the infidel Jew in Celfus, muft ftrike every one who is acquainted Kk 2 Inftitutes of Nat. and Rev. Relig. Vol. 2. p. 434. with with the work of Origen in reply to him. Their arrows, équally pointed against divine truth, are fo'much alike, that one would think they had been drawn from the fame qui ver. "How can we reckon him God," does he say, “who "-was bafely taken, being betrayed by those whom he "called his difciples? Did it become him who was ac"counted the Saviour, and the Son of God moft high, and "his messenger, to be betrayed and delivered up by his familiar friends," c*. There is this difference, however, that the heathen philofopher had penetration enough to obferve that the argument was of equal force against Jesus being the Meffiah, and therefore, against the whole of the Christian revelation. The Doctor, in another work, comes a little closer to the point. Of the words of Thomas he fays; "This is an "abrupt exclamation, and no connected fentence at all, and "feems to have proceeded from a conviction, fuddenly pro. "duced in the Apoftle's mind, that he who stood before " him was, indeed, his Lord and Mafter raised to life by "the power of God. The refurrection of Chrift and the power of God, had fo near a connexion, that a convic ❝tion of the one could not but be attended with an ac"knowledgment of the other +." When he calls the confeffion of Thomas "an abrupt exclamation," he infinuates nearly the fame thing with those who have fuppofed the language of the Apoftle to be equivalent to one of these unmeaning and irreverent addreffes, so commonly made, in our time, to the Majesty of heaven; fuch as, God bless me ! Good God! Sc. His words evidently exprefs admiration and surprise, perhaps immediately excited by the discovery Jefus made of his having heard his language to the disciples, although not prefent as to his human nature; hor, as The mas might be fully affured, informed by them, none of them *Origin cont. Celf. lib. 2. p. 6% +Famil. Illuftr. p. 33 |