Could he, who was born in a stable, had not where to lay his head, and died on a cross, be rich before he was poor; if he had not existed before he became a man? The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain, " I came forth from the Father, and "am come into the world; again I leave the world and 66 go to the Father,"* and many other declarations he made," that he came down from heaven," so pressed. the ancient Socinians, as to induce them to feign that Jesus, like Mahomet, went to heaven to receive his instructions, previously to his entrance on his ministry. But modern Socinians have given up this figment; they seem conscious of their inability to maintain their old ground; and therefore, they now intimate that apostles and evangelists were mistaken, and that several books or parts of the scripture are not authentic, or not divinely inspired. Thus they save themselves much trouble by answering all our witnesses at once; and doubtless, they act prudently in imitating the church of Rome; constituting themselves judges of the scripture, determining what parts of it are divine, and making their own scheme the standard, by which it is to be interpreted; for neither of their systems can subsist, except by a proportionable disregard to, and degradation of the word of God. I feel a confidence, that each of the arguments here adduced are separately conclusive; how great then must be the united force of them? Yet only a small part of the evidence can be contained in so brief an essay. I would therefore conclude, with observing, that the scriptures were written to recover men from idolatry, to the worship of the true God; and that idolatry_con sists in worshipping such as by nature are no gods. What then shall we think of all the texts here adduced, if Christ be not God? Or what shall we say to John's conclusion of his first epistle? Having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (olos) is the true God, "and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves "from idols."t ESSAY VII. Shewing the doctrine of our Lord's deity to be essential to Christianity; with a brief answer to some objections. WE are not in all cases capable of determining exactly what things are essential to our holy religion, and what are not; yet the scriptures most evidently declare some particulars to be so; and I cannot but consider the doctrine of our Lord's deity as one of these essentials, nor hesitate to say that Christianity itself must stand or fall with it. The greater decision is proper on this subject, as our opponents seem lately to have shifted their ground. "They used to maintain that Christ's "divinity was the master-piece of absurdities-directly 66 contrary to every part of natural and revealed religion, "and to all the rational faculties God has given us ;" "that by making more gods than one, it was a breach "of the first commandment ;" and much more to the same purpose. This was a direct charge of gross idolatry, which surely must be a mortal sin; and as the defenders of the doctrine denied, and even retorted the charge, shewing that another god is substituted by Socinians in the place of the God of the bible; the cause was fairly at issue, allowed to be of the greatest possible importance, and entitled to the most careful, serious, and impartial investigation. But at present men are generally put off their guard by the plausible and indolent sentiment, that speculative opinions are of little consequence; and that those, who are sincere and lead good lives, will not be condemned for doctrinal errors. And an attempt has lately been made, by a champion of the party,* to persuade a very large body of men, who universally profess the doctrine of Christ's deity, that there is no essential difference between them and the Socinians. On the other hand, some able defenders of the doctrine seem disposed to allow, that the belief of it is not necessary to salvation, or essential to Christianity ; nay, that they who most strenuously oppose it, and not always in the most unexceptionable manner, may notwithstanding be accepted of God as sincere believers. Thus the subject, which used to be considered as of the utmost importance, is now generally thought to be rather a matter of doubtful disputation among Christians, than immediately connected with our eternal interests; and the cause hath more to fear from the indolent and contemptuous indifference of mankind, as to theological questions which are not supposed essential to salvation, than from the most strenuous and ingenious efforts of its very able and learned opponents. I shall therefore endeavour, in this place, to shew that the doctrine of our Lord's deity is essential to the faith and hope of a Christian; and this will lead our attention to many arguments in proof of it, which were not produced in the former essay. I. There are several texts of scripture, which expressly decide on the subject. The Lord Jesus himself declares, that "the Father hath committed all judg"ment to the Son; that all men should honour the "Son, even as they honour the Father. He that hon"oureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent: "him."t If the very end of his mediatory authority, as the Son of Man, were this, "that all men should "honour him" with the same kind and degree of honour that is shewn to the Father; and this must be the case, if our doctrine be true; then such persons, as deny his deity, refuse to worship him, and spend their lives, with all their ability, influence, and diligence, to draw men off from this faith and worship, do not honour him at all, but greatly degrade him; and therefore, * Dr. Priestley's address to the Methodists; preface to the letters of the Wesleys. † John, v. 22, 23, by the verdict of their future Judge, they "do not ❝honour the Father that sent him." So that the deity of Christ, if true, must be essential to Christianity. It appears from scriptures already referred to, that they have no true knowledge of the Father, who do not receive it from the revelation made of him by the Son; but how can that man be thought to learn the knowledge of the Father from the Son, who disregards his express declarations, that " he and the Father are one," and that "he that hath seen him hath seen the Fath"er?" If these words do indeed imply the deity of the Son, as one with the Father; the knowledge of God, which they who deny his deity possess, cannot accord to the revelation made by the Son, but must be entire ly of another nature. The apostle likewise expressly says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath "not the Father ;" and can any man suppose this related only to a denial that Jesus was the Messiah? If this were all that was meant, then none but avowed un believers were concerned in the warning; whereas it is manifest, that the apostle spoke of those, who seduced, not those, that opposed his Christian brethren; and who, by denying Jesus to be the Son of God, drew them off from the true doctrine in that particular. As, therefore, they, "who denied the Son, had not the "Father;" the inference is unavoidable, that they, who deny the scriptural doctrine concerning the Son of God, (whatever this doctrine be) have not the Father for their God and Portion. Many errors relate to different parts of the structure, the removal of which, (though ill spared) may not wholly subvert it; but this concerns the foundation, and is of fatal consequence; "for other foundation can no man lay." The same apostle gives it as a rule, that the truth, was to be known by its agreement with the doctrine, taught by him and his brethren, and that every tenet, however supported, must be a doctrine of antichrist, which accorded not with what they had taught concern * Matt. xi. 27. Luke, x. 22. †1 John, ii. 22, 23. ing Christ." Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come "in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confess“eth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of "God; and this is that spirit of antichrist. We are "of God; he that knoweth God, heareth us; he that " is not of God heareth not us; hereby know we the “Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."* According to this rule, all pretences to new revelations, and every philosophical reasoning, must be wholly disregarded as springing from the spirit of error, if they contradict the testimony of the apostles as recorded in the scriptures; and if this error relate to the person of Christ, it is of antichrist. It may be allowed, that by "coming in the flesh," the reality of our Lord's human nature was maintained; but who could have doubted, that he was really a man, if it had been generally believed that he was no more than a man? If he could not have come otherwise than in the flesh, the apostle would hardly have made that an essential part of his confession. But the coming of the only begotton Son of God in the flesh, as the anointed King, Priest, and Prophet of the church, was indeed essential to his doctrine; and they who denied it must reject or pervert all the rest. But indeed some of those heretics, whom John here so strenuously opposed, as the forerunners of the principal antichrist, were the very persons, whom certain modern antitrinitarians would persuade us to regard as the only primitive Christians, who retained the faith of the gospel in its original purity! The apostle afterwards declares, that the principal testimony of God related to his Son. "If we receive "the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. "For this is the witness of God, which he testified of "his Son. He that believeth not God, hath made "him a liar, because he believeth not the record, that "God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that "God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in "his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that * 1 John, iv. 2-6. |