spiritual wound, to the great hazard of his soul.

Q. Do you think that in the terms used by Christ, in the latter part of the text we have been considering, there was an allusion to any ancient prediction?

R. Perhaps there was. For the words naturally bring to mind the vision, recorded by Da

But as men's falling on a stone, does not always prove the means of their death-as they sometimes recover from the wounds thereby received; so, men's being so offended in Christ, as to disown and reject¦niel, of a stone cut out without him for a time, does not in all cases issue in their utter and everlasting ruin there is a possibility of their being recovered from the dangerous wounds, which they thereby give to their souls; and some, who have thus fallen, have afterwards been converted and healed. Witness the case of Paul, and of numbers of the Jews, who, for a time, were offended in Christ, but afterwards believed and found salvation in him.

hands, which smote the image, which Nebuchadnezzar saw, upon his feet, and brake them to pieces whereupon, the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, were broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away.

Q. What an affecting view, do the solemn truths stated in this conference, exhibit, of the dan gerous and alarming condition of all those, who have hitherto been so stumbled or offended in Christ, on any account whatev

recieve him, and build upon him, as the alone foundation of all well grounded hopes of sal vation !

But on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it will grind him to powder. That is, as a huge stone, falling upon a man, crush-er, as not cordially to own and es him to atoms, and instantly puts an end to his life, beyond the possibility of escape or restoration; so he on whomsoever Christ falls, by his almighty power, to take vengeance on him, for his persevering and final rejection of him, will be completely ruined for ever: his destruc-jection against Christ and the tion will be remediless, terrible, gospel, and to receive him," and total, and final. This stone will become cordially obedient to thus fall on all those who are him, without delay. finally disobedient to the gospel. 2 Thess. i. 7,8, 9.

R. Dangerous and threatening indeed, is the condition of all such; and infinitely doth it concern them, to give up every ob

The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, &c.

(Continued from p. 339.)

† 1 Cor. viii. 6. To us there is but ONE GOD, THE

FATHER.

If we compare this with that expression of St. Thomas,-John xx. 28, MY LORD, and MY GOD, we have the following argument:

To us there is but one GOD, the FATHER.

But TO US JESUS CHRIST IS GOD: therefore, The Gospel has either preached two Gods to us, one distinct from the other or that one God the Father is here the name of a nature, under which Christ himself, as God, is also comprehended. And the same may be proved of it in several other places.

† Matt. xxiii. 9.

earth, for ONE IS

XXXIV.

Call no man your
Call no man your Father upon
YOUR FATHER which is in heaven.

Ibid. v, 10. Neither be ye called masters, for ONE is
YOUR MASTER, even CHRIST.

is in heaven.

John iii. 13. which

Dr. Clarke has a particular Section*, wherein he pretends to have set down the Passages that ascribe the highest Titles, Perfections, and Powers, to the second Person of the Trinity. Yet he has wholly omitted the latter of these verses; though by a rule of his own making, it allows to Christ an higher title than any other in the whole Scripture. It is this same Author, who has laid so great a stress upon the word as, one, which he has insisted upon it can signify nothing else, but one Person; and the criticism is thought to be of such use and importance to his Scheme, that his book begins with it; and in the course of his work it is repeated three times, nearly in the same words. But the Passage now before us, if he had produced it, would have turned his own weapon against himself. For the word, is here an attribute of Christ; and if we argue from it in this place, as he has done in the other, it must prove, that one person only is our Master, and that this person is Christ: which excludes the Persons of the Father and the Spirit from the honor of that title; and so reduces that learned author's reasoning to a manifest absurdity.

We are to conclude then, that as the Phrase, one Master, cannot be meant to exclude the Father; so neither does that other—— one is good (supposing that were the sense of the Greek) or, one is your Father, exclude the person of Christ. And if the reason of the thing teaches us that it cannot, so the Scripture assures us in fact that it does not the title of Father, being also ascribed to the second person of the Trinity. For Christ, the Alpha and Omega, says of himself. He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be HIS GOD, and he shall be MY SON†. Isaiah calls him The Everlasting FATHER‡. And again it is written They are the CHILDREN of GOD, being the children of the RESURRECTION||: But, says Christ I am the RESURRECTIONS: therefore he is God, and hath us for his Children. If this be the case, the word Father cannot always be a name that distinguishes God from another person of God; but is often to be understood as a term of relation between God and Man: or as a modern Divine of our Church has well expressed it A word not intended for God the Father only, the First § John xi. 25,

Chap. ii. §. 3. † Rev. xxi. 7. ix. 6. | Luke xx. 36.
VOL. VI. NO. 10.

Z Z

"person of the Trinity; but as it is referred unto the Creature, "made and conserved by God; in which sense it appertains to "the whole Trinity."

XXXV.

John xiv. 28. MY FATHER IS GREATER than I.

The two preceding Articles will sufficiently justify what the Church has asserted with a view to this passage- -That Christ is "inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood." And the stream of the whole Scripture is against that use the Arians generally make of it; who stand in need to be reminded at every turn, that in the person of Christ, there is a human soul and body, the nature of a man, which as it cannot lay claim to what is spoken of Christ in unity with the Father, so must it receive to its own account whatever seems to degrade, and disjoin him from the Father. It is indeed hard to say, which of the two heresies is the most unreasonable and unscriptural; that of the Socinians, which never considers Christ as any thing but a mere man or that of the Arians, who never look upon him as any thing but a supposititious God. Between these two gross errors, lies the true Catholic Faith; which as it allows him to be perfect God and perfect man, is never offended, or put to its shifts, by any thing. the Scripture may have said about him in either capacity.

XXXVI.

† 1 Cor. xi. 3. The HEAD of Christ is GOD.

The name Christ does here stand, as in other places out of number, for the man Christ; otherwise it must follow, that as Christ is God, God is the head of himself; which is a contradiction; or that one God is the head of another God; which also is a contradiction.

This Text is capable of a good illustration from Gen. iii. 15. where we read, that the heel of the promised seed should be bruised: by which, the Church has always understood the sufferings of his human nature, metaphorically represented by the inferior part in man. So in this place, his Divinity or superior nature is as aptly signified by the head or superior part of the human body. XXXVII.

↑ Mark. xiii. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither THE SON but the FATHER.

It is declared of Christ in another place, that he increased in wisdom*: why should it be incredible then, that during the whole term of his humiliation in the flesh, something should still be left, which as man upon earth he did not know? if you suppose him to be ignorant of this matter as God, how is it that St. Peter confesses him to be omniscient, without receiving any rebuke for it, or being reminded of any particular exception ?-LORD, thou knowest ALL THINGS†.

XXXVIII.

† John i. 18. No man hath SEEN GOD at any time. Ibid. xiv. 8, 9. Philip saith unto him, Lord SHEW US THE FATHER-hast thou not SEEN ME Philip? he that hath seen ME hath seen THE FATHER.

"These words (says Dr. Clarke) do not signify, that he who hath seen the Person of Christ hath seen the person of the Fa"ther." No surely; but that he who hath seen all that was visible of Christ, hath seen the person, to whom was joined that invisible and divine Nature, which the Scripture has called by the Name of the Father, And to shew that Christ (though he was God manifest in the flesh*) is yet no other than the same invisible, God, whom no man hath or can see and live, we are told, that “when he shall appear (glorified, not with any secondary divinity, "but with the FATHER'S OWNSELF †) we shall be like him “(fashioned like unto his own glorious body‡, and conformed to his "Image) for we shall SEE him AS HE IS," which no man ever yet hath done.

XXXIX.

+ 1 Cor. xv. 27. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE IS EXCEPTED (exTes TY UROTHEAVTOS) which did put all things under him. υποταξαντος) And when all things shall be SUBDUED (Terays).

Phil. iii. 20, 21. We look for THE SAVIOUR, the Lord JESUS CHRIST-who-is ABLE even to SUBDUE ALL THINGS (Vπoraža, va warra) to HIMSELF.

It is manifest, therefore, that the exception in the former text, is not meant to set one person of God above another person of God; but only to distinguish the Power of the Divine Nature from that of the human in its greatest exaltation. As Christ is man, all things are subdued unto him by ANOTHER; as Christ is God, he himself is that other, and able to subdue all things to HIMSELF. And this will be sufficient to confirm the Reader in what I have already observed that the cause of Arianism borrows its chief support from the humiliation of Christ in the flesh. Search the very best of their arguments to the bottom, by a diligent comparing of the Scripture with itself, and they all amount to this great absurdity Man is inferior to God; therefore God is inferior to himself: and this they prove, by imputing to Christ's Divinity what is said only of his humanity.

I have now presented to the Reader's consideration the most noted texts, which, under the management of Arian or Socinian Expositors, may seem to have favored their Doctrine. Many, I hope, will be of opinion, that the Catholic cause is rather beholden to them, particularly in this last instance, for the opposition * 1 Tim. iii. 16. ↑ John xyii. 5. Phil i 21. Rom. vii. 29.

"person of the Trinity; but as it is referred unto the Creature, "made and conserved by God; in which sense it appertains to "the whole Trinity."

XXXV.

↑ John xiv. 28. MY FATHER IS GREATER than I.

The two preceding Articles will sufficiently justify what the Church has asserted with a view to this passage- -That Christ is "inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood." And the stream of the whole Scripture is against that use the Arians generally make of it; who stand in need to be reminded at every turn, that in the person of Christ, there is a human soul and body, the nature of a man, which as it cannot lay claim to what is spoken of Christ in unity with the Father, so must it receive to its own account whatever seems to degrade, and disjoin him from the Father. It is indeed hard to say, which of the two heresies is the most unreasonable and unscriptural; that of the Socinians, which never considers Christ as any thing but a mere man; or that of the Arians, who never look upon him as any thing but a supposititious God. Between these two gross errors, lies the true Catholic Faith; which as it allows him to be perfect God and perfect man, is never offended, or put to its shifts, by any thing the Scripture may have said about him in either capacity.

XXXVI.

t1 Cor. xi. 3. The HEAD of Christ is GOD.

The name Christ does here stand, as in other places out of number, for the man Christ; otherwise it must follow, that as Christ is God, God is the head of himself; which is a contradiction; or that one God is the head of another God; which also is a contradiction.

This Text is capable of a good illustration from Gen. iii. 15. where we read, that the heel of the promised seed should be bruised: by which, the Church has always understood the sufferings of his human nature, metaphorically represented by the inferior part in man. So in this place, his Divinity or superior nature is as aptly signified by the head or superior part of the human body. XXXVII.

Mark. xiii. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither THE SON but the FATHER.

It is declared of Christ in another place, that he increased in wisflom*: why should it be incredible then, that during the whole term of his humiliation in the flesh, something should still be left, which as man upon earth he did not know? if you suppose him to be ignorant of this matter as God, how is it that St. Peter confesses him to be omniscient, without receiving any rebuke for it, or being reminded of any particular exception ?-LORD, thou knowest ALL THINGS†.