Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

any propriety be confidered as exceptions; in the former, eos is Deus fcilicet, and the whole paffage in our English tranflation fhould have been rendered For him hath the Father fealed, that is, GOD;" just as the words Matt. xix. 17. are rendered ouders αγαθος, ει μη εις, ὁ Θεός. "There is none good but ❝one, that is, GOD. In the latter, where the article is omitted before Θεος και πατηρ, it will be probably thought, that by reafon of the word being combined with the numeral as, it is not applicable to the prefent question; this, however, must be left to the reader's decision. One thing only I fhall obferve, that as Θεος πατηρ and ὁ Θεος και warp are certainly different expreffions, they may naturally be conceived to have different extents in the intentions of the facred writers; and that ecs awarp is defigned to fignify to us, that the wains is not 90s exclufively.

πατηρ

From the first Epiftle of St. Peter we have not much to produce as directly teftifying to the Divinity of the Son of GOD, although the whole, interpreted according to the analogy of faith, ftrongly coincides with the doctrine. However, in the fifth chapter v. 2, he expreffes himself in terms which are not applicable to any but CHRIST; fur, he fays ποιμάνατε το εν ύμιν ποίμνιον του Θεου και φανερωθέντος του αρχι ποιμενος, κομιείσθε τον αμαράντινον της δόξης ςεφανον. The chief fhepherd is he whofe the flock is; but the Apoftle fays, the flock of the chief fhepherd is the flock of Gov, ποιμνιον του Θεους therefore the chief Thenherd

fhepherd is God, for otherwife the flock is not the flock of the chief fhepherd. In the like manner, in the preceding chapter, the Apoftle calls the Gofpel of CHRIST the Gofpel of GOD, "What shall be the "end (faith he) of them that obey not the Gospel of "GOD?" which is often likewife the language of St. Paul. Now, when the facred writers ufe indifcriminately the terms "Gofpel of CHRIST " or or "Gospel "of GoD," what muft the reader think, but that either there is a double Gofpel, the one diftinct from the other; or, if they are not diftinct, that CHRIST and GOD are one? Let Sophistry evade this as it will, fuch nevertheless will be the opinion of the bulk of mankind; if CHRIST is GOD, there is no difficulty at all in understanding this language of the facred writers; but, if he is not, we shall be unable to give any tolerable account of it without a strange jumble of pofitions and inferences, and fuch as will ftill leave us at a lofs to reconcile the loofe careless manner in which the Apostles have expreffed themfelves with their infpiration; if they knew that CHRIST was not God, why fhould they term that, which we all know to be emphatically and exclufively the Gofpel of CHRIST, the Gofpel of GOD? This is opening fuch a door to mistake and misapprehenfion as it is impoffible they could have been guilty of. If the hiftorian, in fpeaking of any particular tract of country, fhould call it the territory of Philip, and afterwards fpeaking of the very fame tract of country fhould call it the territory of the King,

3

King, could you hefitate a moment in pronouncing Philip to be a King? Now what is the difference between these two cafes? abfolutely none; the territory is the territory of Philip, and is called also the territory of the King, and therefore Philip is King. The Gospel is the Gofpel of CHRIST, and is called alfo the Gospel of GoD, therefore CHRIST is Gov. He that can fhew any difference between these two cafes may be allowed to offer it as a plea for himfelf in the mifinterpretation of the facred writers'; but, if he can fhew no difference between them, it will not be eafy for him to justify himself in putting an interpretation upon the plain words of the facred writers, different from what he would put upon the plain and fimilar words of any other writer. Again our Lord fays, Matt. xvi. 18. Upon this rock will I build my Church,” Επιταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν. But where in the New Teftament is the Church spoken of and diftinguifhed other than as the Church of God? I do not know that it is even once mentioned under the terms Church of CHRIST; where then are we to look for the Church of CHRIST? Μου την εκλλησιαν is a limiting and exclufive expreffion; therefore the Church of CHRIST and the Church of GoD are one and the fame, or there are two diftinct Churches, which no one will fay; but, if they are one and the fame, then muft CHRIST and GOD be one and the fame. Hence the facred writers, by characterifing the Church under the terms Church of God, affix the character of

[ocr errors][merged small]

GOD to JESUS CHRIST, whofe the Church is from its very origin.

The second Epiftle of St. Peter with fome perhaps will be thought to be of little authority, as its authenticity has been doubted; the style, I own, differs from that of the firft Epiftle, but I do not fee that this is a fufficient ground of objection, as there are a thousand circumstances which may occafion a variation of ftyle; and this Epiftle, as we underftand, was written under the difconfolate circumftances of a prison. However, I believe there is fufficient evidence that it was written in the Apoftolic age; and, as the writer expreffly speaks of himself under the name and character of "Simon Peter, a Servant and Apoftle of JESUS CHRIST," and as there is no other pofitive proof, that he was any other than Simon Peter, and, moreover, as it is not conceivable that any one in that age would have affumed to himself a name which was not his own, and wherein his forgery and falfehood would have been fo certain of being detected, I think we need not hesitate a moment about acknowledging the Epiftle to be his, whofe name it bears. The Apoftle then thus expreffes himself, ch. i. 1, TOLSTO λαχουσι πιςιν εν δικαιοσυνη του Θεου ήμων και σωτηρος Ιησου Xasou; "To them that have obtained like precious Χρισου faith with us, through the righteousness of our God, and Saviour JESUS CHRIST." There is a various reading (I own) of Kupov inftead of ov; but,

what

what is the proof that Kupov is the true reading? Are the Apostle's words unintelligible except it is fubftituted in the room of sou? Is the doctrine of the prefent reading inconfiftent with the general doctrine of the other parts of the Scripture? No: nothing of the kind. Therefore, as there is no manner of call for a various reading, in order to make us understand the Apostle's meaning, or to render him confiftent with the other Apoftolical and Sacred Writers, I make no fcruple in pronouncing, that the various reading is of no confequence; and that, as it is wholly unneceffary, fo would it be very abfurd to adopt it.

Ch. iii. 10. "Ηξει δε ἡ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης, &c. "But the day of the LORD will come as a thief in "the night, &c. Seeing then that all these things "fhall be diffolved, what manner of perfons ought ye "to be in all holy converfation and godliness, looking "for and hafting unto the coming of the day of GOD!" Προσδοκώντας και σπεύδοντας την παρουσίαν της του Θεου

gas. Here the day of the second coming of our LORD is decidedly and unequivocally called, the day of GOD; it was before called the day of our LORD, and fo it is frequently called; and, as there cannot be a doubt but that the day of CHRIST is thereby meant, therefore the day of CHRIST is equivalent to the day of GoD ; and, therefore, CHRIST is GOD.

« PreviousContinue »