Images de page
PDF
ePub

When I have been asked to spend an afternoon with gentlemen of a learned education, and unquestionable ingenuity, I have fancied myself invited to take a turn in some beautiful garden, where I expected to have been treated with a sight of the most delicate flowers, and most amiable forms of nature; when, to my great surprise, I have been shown nothing but the most worthless thistle, and contemptible weeds. To one who has so often been disappointed, it must be peculiarly pleasing to find the satisfaction which he has long sought in vain. This I make no doubt of obtaining, if I may be permitted to be a third person in the interview, when you and Mr sit together in social conference.

I beg leave to return my thanks for your ingenious remark upon a sentence in the essay towards a preface; and also to express my entire satisfaction in your motion for considering more attentively the spiritual interests of the poor patients in the hospital. At present, it is undeniably plain, that much more assiduous and effectual care is taken of their temporal than of their eternal welfare. With pleasure I shall join in concerting some proper method to rectify this misconduct; and with a real alacrity shall execute (as far as I shall be enabled) any expedient which you shall judge conducive to the recovery and health of their souls.

I almost repent that my pen has intruded, perhaps in the midst of important business, and stole so much of your valuable time. But now I have done; and shall only repeat what agreeable views I form from the prospect of your future acquaintance, and what an addition it will be to my happiness to be owned and regarded as, &c.

LETTER XXIII.

Weston-Favell, Dec. 17. 1745. SIR, I ADMIRE your remarkable regard for the truth, and that noble greatness of soul which scorns to sacrifice conscience to interest, and cannot stoop

to receive temporal honours on such ignoble terms. Your conduct reminds me of a most amiable peculiarity in the upright and religious man's character, as it is drawn by the inspired writers; with which you cannot but be particularly pleased, as it so exactly corresponds with your own: Such a one, says the royal preacher, feareth an oath; such a one, adds the sweet singer of Israel, speaketh the truth from his heart.

The Thirty-nine Articles I have more than once subscribed; and as I continue steadfast in the belief of them, as you are pleased to ask my opinion relating to some seemingly exceptionable tenets contained in them, I most readily submit it to your consideration; not, sir, in the capacity of a casuist, who would attempt a satisfactory answer to your questions, but only under the notion of a sincere friend, who would freely disclose his whole soul, and entertain no one sentiment but what should be communicated to a valuable acquaintance.

"You are a good deal puzzled about the equality of the Son with the Father, in Athanasius's sense. I own it is no wonder that we should be somewhat staggered at this mysterious truth, especially if we indulge a wanton curiosity, and inquire after the quomodeity of the doctrine: if nothing will content our busy minds but a clear comprehension of this particular, they will never be brought to acquiesce in this article. But if they dare venture to believe the express declarations of infinite Wisdom, and wait till a future state for a full evolution of the mystery, their assent will soon be determined.

I once thought a very striking proof of this scriptural doctrine might be derived from the known properties of a mortal child, considered in comparison with the parent. Is not the son as perfect a partaker of all the constituent parts of the human nature as the father? Are not the children of this age possessed of the same endowments of body and mind as their fathers in the preceding age? Whatever essen

tial excellencies belong to the one, may, with equal truth, be predicated of the other. And if the son, in this our inferior world, be in all points equal to his progenitor, why should we not suppose that the glorious Son of God is equal, in all respects, to his Almighty Father?

But I choose to forbear all such fond endeavours to explain what, to our very limited comprehensions, is altogether inexplicable. I rather receive Scripture for my teacher, and give up my sentiments to be formed and conducted by that infallible guide. In Scripture there are abundance of texts which, in the most explicit terms imaginable, assert the Son to be God. Now, if he be God, he cannot have any superior: inferiority evidently destroys divinity; inferiority, in any instance, is inconsistent with the notion of a supreme Being. So that every text in Scripture, which ascribes a divine nature to the blessed Jesus, seems to speak all that Athanasius maintains concerning the absolute universal equality of the Son with the Father.

In what respects can the Son be supposed inferior? Are not the same honours given to the Son as are paid to the Father? The Psalmist mentions two of the incommunicable honours which are due to the supreme Majesty; both which he declares are, and shall be addressed to the Son: Prayer shall be made ever unto him, and daily shall he be praised. This adorable Person is the object of our worship throughout the whole Litany. In the Doxologies of our Liturgy, the same glory is ascribed to all the three infinitely exalted Persons of the Trinity. I take notice of this, not as a conclusive argument, but only to hint at the uniform judgment of our reformers on this important head; and to point out their particular care to inculcate, with incessant assiduity, this belief upon the members of their communion. Are not the same works ascribed to the Son as are ascribed to the Father? God, the sovereign and supreme God, (according to the periphrasis of a heathen

poet, Cui nihil simile aut secundum), often declares his matchless perfections, by referring mankind to his astonishing works of creation. And is not the Son the Creator of the universe? All things were made by him, is the testimony of one apostle; and, He upholdeth all things by the word of his power, the deposition of another. Is not the same incommunicable name applied to the Son? Jehovah is allowed to be a name never attributed, throughout the whole Scripture, to any being but only to the one living and true God, who only hath immortality, who hath no superior, none like him in heaven or earth. But this title is the character of the incarnate Son. If we compare Moses and St Paul, we shall find that Christ is Jehovah, Numb. xxi. 6. with 1 Cor. x. 9. This argument, I think, is not common, and, I must own, has had a great influence in settling my judgment ever since I was apprized of it. Another proof was suggested in the morning lesson for the day, Isa. xlv. 23. compared with Phil. ii. 10. It is the Lord, in the prophet, that infinitely wise God, who manifesteth, even from ancient time, the dark and remote events of futurity, who peremptorily declares, that there is no God besides him, consequently none superior in any degree to him; yet this most sacred Person, who, in the prophet's text, has the attributes of incomparable perfection and unshared supremacy, is, in the apostle's comment, the Redeemer.

I fancy all those texts of Scripture which seem to you, sir, so diametrically opposite to this doctrine, will, upon a renewed examination, appear referable only to the humanity of our Saviour. If so, they cannot affect the point under debate, nor invalidate the arguments urged in its support.

After all, I believe, here lies the grand difficulty: -Sonship, we take for granted, implies inferiority: Sonship implies the receiving of a being from another; and to receive a being is an instance of inferiority. But, dear sir, let us repress every bold in

quiry into this awful secret, lest that of the apostle"doubting the things which he did not see," be the lightest censure we incur. What is right reasoning, when applied to the case of created existence, is little less than blasphemy when applied to that divine Person who is, from everlasting to everlasting, the great I AM. The generation of the Son of God is an unfathomable mystery. A prophet cries out with amaze, Who can declare his generation? and if we cannot conceive it, how can we form any conclusions, or determine what consequences follow from it? Here it becomes us not to examine, but to adore. If we know not how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, how shall we be able to state the nature, or explain the effects of a generation, inexpressibly more remote from our finite apprehensions?

Upon the whole, since the Scripture has given us repeated and unquestionable assurances that Christ is God; since common sense cries aloud against the absurdity of supposing a God who has a superior; shall we reject such positive evidences of revelation, and be deaf to the strongest remonstrances of our reason, merely because we cannot conceive how the Sonship of the Redeemer can be compatible with an absolute equality, in all possible perfection, to the Father?

that this doctrine

It need not be hinted to of the divinity, consequently of the equality, of the sacred TRI-UNE, is not merely a speculative point, but has a most close connexion with practice, and is admirably fitted to influence our lives in the most powerful and endearing manner: That it is no less inseparably connected with the grand blessings of acquittance from the guilt, and delivery from the bondage of sin-blessings of unutterable and infinite value, without which the children of men are of all creatures most miserable; which yet we cannot reasonably hope to enjoy, if any of those illustrious persons, concerned in accomplishing the great redemption, be supposed less than divine.

« PrécédentContinuer »