CONFESSIONS, &c. THE first section is entitled " THE DIVINITY The word Divinity, as it is here used, requires a definition. Had it been limited to the Scriptural account of it, I should not offer a word against it; but when I see that Mr. Jones asserts the coequality of the Son with the Almighty Father, and that his power and dominion were inherent in himself, and underived, I must appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Jones commences with the following texts: (p. 1.) 66 I. Sanctify THE LORD OF HOSTS HIMSELF, and Isa. viii. 13, "let HIM be your fear, and let HIM be your "dread: and HE shall be for a Sanctuary; but for a STONE OF STUMBLING, and for a ROCK "OF OFFENCE to both houses of Israel." 66 14. "The stone which the builders disallowed, the 1 Peter ii. 7, same is made the head of the corner, and a B 8. (p. 2.) "STONE OF STUMBLING, AND A ROCK OF " OFFENCE." These two passages are brought together with the view of proving that the "Stone of stumbling "and Rock of offence," mentioned in the first text, is applied to Christ in the second, “ therefore,” says Mr. Jones, "Christ is the LORD OF HOSTS "HIMSELF." Now, at the 28th ch. 16th v. of Isaiah, we read, "Thus saith the Lord God, behold I lay in "Sion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a 66 precious corner stone," &c. That this refers to the stone mentioned in Mr. Jones's first text, is shown in Matt. 21. 42; Acts 4. 11; Rom. 9. 33; and in the chapter from which Mr. Jones's second text is taken; and is declared to have been laid by the LORD OF HOSTS, by whom this stone was "made the head of the corner," "According to “the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ "Jesus our Lord." (Ephes. 3. 11.) If Mr. Jones had fairly quoted the whole passage from which he took his second text, it would have refuted his argument; for it is there affirmed that this stone was "chosen of God." (1 Pet. 2. 4.) Our Lord himself declares, in no fewer than thirty texts, in the Gospel of St. John alone, that he was sent by the Father. At the 8th ch. 42nd v., the words are very emphatical. "I proceeded forth, and came from "GOD; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Much more might be adduced to prove that this stone was laid by the Almighty Father, the Lord of Hosts, and therefore if Mr. Jones's argument proves any doctrine, it is that of Sabellius, confounding the persons of the Father and the Son. This practice (which Mr. Jones and some other writers constantly adopt) of bringing detached sentences from distant parts of the Scriptures, and joining them together, is often mischievous: -the most absurd doctrines may appear to be proved by it; and the Bible is brought into contempt, by frequently making it seem to contradict itself. A multitude of passages in the New Testament unequivocally deny the doctrine of co-equality, and declare the superior power and dignity of the Almighty Father. Mr. Jones, and many other writers who are deemed orthodox, argue that these texts apply to Christ in his human nature, in which the Athanasian creed confesses him to be inferior to the Father, but "equal to the "Father as touching his Godhead." This notion is irreconcileable with very many expressions used by our Lord and his Apostles. The words I have quoted from St. John's Gospel, "Neither came I "of myself, but he sent me," evidently refer to our Lord's pre-existent state, when he was in the fulness of "the glory which he had with the "Father before the world was," and, I conceive, explicitly deny the doctrine of co-equality. Mr. Jones's next quotation is: (p. 2, 3.) Isa. vi. 5. John xii. 41. II. "Mine eyes have SEEN the King, the LORD OF "HOSTS." 66 "These things said Esaius, when he SAW HIS (Christ's) glory, and spake of HIM." He reasons thus :-The person whom Esaius saw, is the Lord of Hosts; but St. John says it was Christ's glory which he saw, "therefore,' says Mr. Jones, "Jesus is the LORD OF HOSTS." The same conclusion had been drawn before, by Dr. Whitby, in the days of his early judgment; though, if we may credit his biographers, he repented of it with an aching heart, in the latter years of his life. Of his writings, after he had given up his early opinions, I have never read a line. Mr. Jones concludes that it was Christ's glory which is spoken of by St. John, whilst some other Commentators consider that it was the glory of the Father. Admitting Mr. Jones's construction, the glory of both might have been shown to the Prophet, in his vision; but it by no means proves identity or co-equality. Here again is an instance of the injury inflicted on Christianity by Mr. Jones's method. The Prophet says, "Mine eyes have seen the Lord of Hosts." St. John says, "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1. 18.) This plainly shows that the words in the first text are not to be taken literally. The language used by the holy prophets of old, in their descriptions of visions and raptures, was probably well understood by their contemporaries ; but to us, at this day, the matter is frequently beyond our comprehension, and the language unintelligible; therefore, to rest a doctrine upon any expressions used on these occasions, endangers religion by making it appear absurd. "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and Isa. xliv. 6. "his Redeemer the LORD OF HOSTS, I AM THE 66 FIRST, and I am THE LAST, and BESIDES ME "there is NO GOD." 66 66 "I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the begin- Rev. xxii. ning and the end; THE FIRST and THE LAST." From these two texts Mr. Jones draws the following conclusion:-" There is no God but him, "who is the first and the last; but Jesus is the first and the last; therefore, besides Jesus "there is no other God." 66 Now, how is a plain unlearned Christian to understand this? He would probably ask, Is not the Father God?-Our blessed Lord frequently declares him to be his God. It is declared no fewer than four times in the 3rd ch. 12th v. of this very book of Revelation, from which Mr. Jones quotes. The book itself commences with these words:"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which 13. |