Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

which Christ wrought his miracles, in general without the least appearance of reliance on any power but his own, was very different from that of prophets or apostles; who took great care to have it understood, that they were merely the instruments of him in whose name they spoke.

V. The behaviour of our Lord towards those who honoured him, constitutes another argument of our doctrine. The servants of God have always been decided against every kind and degree of honour shown them, which seemed to interfere with the glory of God; and the Scriptures referred to put this beyond all doubt, (Gen. xli. 16; Dan. ii. 28-30; Acts iii. 12, 13; x. 25, 26; xiv. 14, 15; Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9). Yet it is obvious, that Jesus did not object to similar honours; nay, that "he most honoured those who thus honoured him," (1 Sam. ii. 30); and approved of men in exact proportion as they had high thoughts of, and large expectations from him. Nor is there a single exception from this rule, in his whole history; for his answer to the young ruler who called him "good teacher,' was an intimation that he did not think highly enough of him, and misapplied the epithet good to one, whom he deemed a mere man like himself. When the centurion compared his power over all diseases, even in such as were at a distance, to his own authority over his soldiers and servants, he highly commended the greatness of his faith, (Matt. viii. 8-10). When the afflicted parent besought him "to help his unbelief;" and when the disciples desired "him to increase their faith," no intimation was given that their language was improper: but who can believe, that apostles would have approved of such requests being made to them? (Mark ix. 24; Luke xvii. 5). He received, without reserve, that prostration or worship, against which prophets, apostles, and angels, decidedly protested, when paid to them, (Matt. viii. 2; xv. 25; Luke xvii. 16; John ix. 35-38); and when various opinions were formed of him, he always best approved of those that thought most highly of him, and even suggested still more exalted apprehensions of his glory, (Matt. xvi. 13—19; John xi. 21-27). Now by what means can we account for this? Must we not conclude, either that the servants were more humble and more jealous of the glory of God, than his beloved Son; or that Christ was conscious, "that all men ought to honour him, even as they honoured the Father?" for it is manifest, that he readily accepted of those honours which they most strenuously refused.

VI. The undeniable instances of divine worship paid to Christ, constitute another most conclusive argument. Worship (properly so called) is an ascription of the peculiar honours of the Deity to any being. To supplicate a creature, though visibly present, for those blessings which God alone can bestow, is idolatry; because omnipotence is ascribed to a creature: and it is the same to pray to any being, when not sensibly present, even for such deliverances as a creature might afford, because it ascribes to it omnipresence or omniscience; which proves all the prayers of papists to saints and angels to be idolatry. The petitions before mentioned, for "increase of faith," &c. were acts of worship paid to Christ, as was the address of Thomas, "My Lord and my God;" nor would any holy man or angel have received them. The form of baptism," in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," must be an appointed adoration of the Son and Holy Spirit; or we must admit the greatest absurdities. No doubt Stephen worshipped Christ when he prayed to him to receive his spirit, and not to impute his death to his murderers; otherwise he might deny Christ's own prayers to the same effect when he hung on the cross, to be an adoration of the Father, (Luke xxiii. 34, 46; Acts vii. 59, 60). What candid person can deny, that Paul addressed Christ concerning" the thorn in his flesh;" seeing, when the Lord answered, that "his grace was sufficient for him," he even gloried in his infirmities, that "the power of Christ might rest upon him?" 2 Cor. xii. 7-10). Did he not pray to Christ when he said, "now God himself, and our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you," &c. And now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, comfort

your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work?" (1 Thess. iii. 11-13; 2 Thess. ii. 16-17). Such instances show how familiar it was to the apostle "to honour the Son, even as he honoured the Father:" and as tending to the glory of God the Father," (Phil. ii. 11). The apostolical blessing is an act of worship coincident with that appointed by Moses (Num. vi. 24-27; 2 Cor. xiii. 14), yet Christ and the Holy Spirit are joined in it; and doubtless he was prayed to, whenever grace and " peace" (the sum of all spiritual blessings) were sought "from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed, it was the grand peculiarity of Christians, that "they called on the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts ix. 14, 21); and they who have attempted to interpret such expressions in some other sense, do as little credit to their critical talents as to their orthodoxy. Not to multiply instances to which some possible objection might be made, the words of Peter, (2 Pet. iii. 18) are incapable of any other construction. "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

As all the angels of God were commanded to worship his incarnate Son; so, when a door was opened in heaven, all the angelic hosts are introduced as joining the company of redeemed sinners, in ascribing eternal honour and praise to "the Lamb that was slain," in union with "Him that sitteth on the Throne" (Rev. v, vii.) No words can possibly be more emphatical, than those used on this occasion: can any man, therefore, after reading them, assert, that Christ is a mere created being? Or that it is idolatry to worship him? Or will he pretend to believe that book to be "the unerring word of God;" or can he disprove its divine inspiration: when its prophecies have been so remarkably accomplished? This shows that our version is faithful in another place (Rev. i. 5, 6;) and that every Christian ought to join the saints of old, in saying, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,-be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

VII. Lastly, our doctrine is confirmed by the absurdities into which its most able opposers have been driven. Such men have principally laboured to invalidate those texts, that seem most explicit on this subject; though we could prove our doctrine, even if these evidences were set aside: and for this reason I have not adduced one testimony, which is decisive if genuine (as I suppose it to be ;) because its authenticity has been so much disputed (1 John v. 7, 8.) A short specimen, however, may show with what success they have laboured, who deny the Deity of Christ. The psalmist, and from him the apostle, says of the Messiah, "Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c." (Psal. xlv. 6, 7; Heb. i. 8, 9 :) To elude the obvious inference from this text, it hath been said, that the words may be rendered, "God is thy throne for ever and ever." We read that heaven is God's throne, and the earth is his footstool; but who ever thought of God himself being the throne, on which a creature was to reign to eternity? Instead of "God was manifested in the flesh;" some would read it, "who was manifested in the flesh;" in which case God must be the antecedent, as the context shows, and the sense remains precisely the same (1 Tim. iii. 15, 16.) Others would read it, "which (mystery) was manifested in the flesh;" and then which mystery must be the nominative case to all the subsequent clauses in the verse; but whatever may be thought of the other propositions "which mystery was received up into glory," will scarce be deemed the language of inspiration by any, who do not prefer nonsense to orthodoxy. But sometimes they seem disposed to retain our reading, and to explain the expression to mean," the wisdom and power of God being conspicuous in Christ;" which would be also true of Peter, or Moses; and so this great mystery of godliness at length is found to be no mystery at all! When incredulous Thomas was at last convinced of Christ's resurrection he exclaimed, "My Lord, and my God!" And it cannot seem wonderful to those, who consider that he knew the Messiah was to be called Emmanuel, and had heard him say, "he that hath seen me hath seen the

Father," &c., that he should be convinced of his Deity by his resurrection from the dead (John xx. 26-31; Rom. i. 2, 3.) To set aside this testimony, it hath been said, that the apostle's words were the language of astonishment, and not of adoration; as men often exclaim, my God, when greatly surprised. But are not such exclamations manifest violations of the third commandment, and certain proofs of men's irreverent contempt of the name of God? Who then can believe, that the apostles used such profane language before Christ, without meeting with the least reproof for it? (Matt. v. 37.) Surely such a solution must be improbable in the highest degree; and they, who can admit it, have no right to despise other men's credulity! But indeed, the words do not admit of any such construction, consistent with the idiom of the original language. That most august passage, with which John opens his Gospel, has been so construed, in order to evade our inference from it, that the nominative case to the verbs used in it must be changed again and again, without the least intimation given of it; contrary to all the rules of grammar. At other times, the Word is supposed to mean nothing more than the energy or power of God, which was eternally with him and essential to him, by which he made the world, and which was manifested in the man Jesus: but can any man in his senses suppose, that this was all the meaning of the apostle's introduction to his Gospel, of the sublime things he says of the Word; and his becoming flesh and dwelling among us? If any one should think so for a moment, a second attentive perusal must surely convince him of his mistake. Aware of this, it is now deemed convenient to set it aside, as no part of revelation. The interpretation given of another decisive evidence (Phil. ii. 5-10) is grounded on a proposed different translation, implying that Christ did not think of such a robbery, as that of being equal with God." But, not to mention the various expressions used by our Lord, which certainly were thus understood by the Jews; who can believe, that the apostle should propose to his brethren, as a perfect example of humility, the conduct of a mere man, or creature, who barely did not claim equality with the eternal God; which could be no more than an exemption from the very summit of all possible pride and ambition? His argument (as well as the meaning of the words) proves, that "being in the form of God," signifies, being truly God, and appearing so; even as the form of a servant and the fashion of man signify being truly man: and how could a mere creature "take upon him the form of a servant," seeing he must always have been a servant of his Maker? To render the words of Paul (Rom. ix. 5,) “ God over all, blessed for ever," would reduce his language to absurdity:, for what could he then mean by saying, "of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came?" Did ever historian describe the descent of a prince in such language? and would it not be ridiculous in him to do so? Stephen's dying address to Christ has lately been considered, " as the words of a man, in an extacy of devotion, or in the agonies of death," and, therefore, not of much weight in the argument: as if modern reasoners could better direct our faith and worship, than this proto-martyr, when full of the Holy Ghost, favoured with the visions of God, and replete with the light of heaven! What shall we say to Paul's words? (2 Cor. viii. 9) 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 man? The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain (John xvi. 28,) and many other declarations he made, "that he came down from heaven," &c., so pressed the ancient Socinians, as to induce them to feign, that Jesus, like Mahomet, went to heaven to receive his instructions, previous 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 of the scripture are not authentic. Thus they save themselves much trouble, by answering all our witnesses at once: and doubtless they act prudently, in imitating the church of Rome, by constituting themselves judges of the scrip

ture, determining what parts of it are authentic, 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 consists 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 epistle? Having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (res) is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John v. 20, 21.)

ESSAY VII.

On the Doctrine of our Lord's Deity, showing it to be Essential to Christianity; with a Brief Answer to some Objections.

WE may not, in all cases, be able to determine 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, 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 say, that "Christ's divinity was the master-piece of absurdities-directly contrary to every part of natural and revealed religion, and to all the rational faculties God has given us:" "that a deceived heart had turned those aside who hold the doctrine:" and " that, by making more Gods than one, it was a breach of the first commandment," &c. 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 (showing, that another god is substituted by Socinians in the place of the God of the Bible,) the cause was fairly at issue, and was allowed to be of the greatest possible importance, and therefore 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 doctrinal errors will not condemn those who are sincere and lead good lives. 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 yet 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 most learned opponents.

I shall therefore endeavour, in this essay, to show, that the doctrine of our Lord's Deity is essential to the faith and hope of a Christian: and this

* Dr. Priestley's Address to the Methodists; Preface to the Letters of the Wesleys.

OUR LORD'S DEITY.

will introduce many arguments in proof of it, which have not before been adverted to.

I. There are several texts of Scripture which expressly prove the point. The Lord Jesus himself declares," that the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father: he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father," &c. (John v. 22, 23.) If then, the doctrine of his Deity be true, and if the very end of his mediatory authority, as the Son of man, (ver. 27), were this, that all men should honour him with the same kind and degree of honour that is shown to the Father, then such persons as deny his Deity, refuse to worship him, and spend their lives, with all their power, to draw men off from this faith and worship, do not honour him at all, but greatly deSo that, if our doctrine be true, grade him; and therefore by the verdict of their future Judge, they " do not honour the Father that sent him." it must be essential to Christianity. It appears, from Scripture already referred to, (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22), 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;"" He that hath seen him hath seen the Father," &c.? 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 to the Son, but must be of another nature. The apostle says, (1 John ii. 22, 23,) "whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." But can any man suppose this related only to a denial that Jesus was the Messiah? If this were all that was meant, then only avowed unbelievers were concerned in the warning; whereas it is manifest, that the apostle spoke of those who seduced, not such as 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 Scripture doctrine concerning the Son of God, (whatever that 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 con"for other foundation can no man lay," &c. (1 Cor. iii. 10-15). sequence, Again, the apostle (1 John iv. 2-6) lays it down as a rule, that the truth was to be known by its agreement with the doctrine taught by him and his brethren, “with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;" and that every tenet, however supported, must be a doctrine of Antichrist, which accorded not with what they had taught concerning the person of Christ. 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? And 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 begotten 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. Some of those heretics whom John here so strenuously opposed, as the forerunners of the principal Antichrist, were the very persons whom certain modern Unitarians would persuade us to regard as the only primitive Christians who retained the faith of the gospel in its original purity! Afterwards the same apostle, (1 John v. 10-13) declares, that the principal testimony of God related to his Son; and that he who be"hath made him a liar, because he believeth not lieves not this testimony,

« AnteriorContinuar »