Page images
PDF
EPUB

in which our Saviour said of himself, or in which it is said by the Apostles and Evangelists, that he came from heaven and from God, in arguing upon which, the doctrine of a literal descent from above, is completely vindicated from the fanciful sophistry of the Socinians. The just and natural inferences are also drawn from the allusions, which our Saviour himself made to a previous state, in which he was possessed of the love of the Father, and glorified with glory before the world was, and in which he assumes to himself a more elevated dignity than belongs to man.

"Matt. xii. 6. But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. The temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to the service of Jehovah and sanctified by his immediate presence; how then could our Saviour represent himself as greater than this temple, unless he were the Lord of the temple, whose coming was foretold by Malachi iii. 1. Now the Lord of any temple is the Divinity that dwells in

it.

[blocks in formation]

"Matt. xvii. 25, 26. What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute? of their own children or of strangers? Peter said unto him, of strangers. Jesus said unto him, then are the children free.' The occasion of this discourse was, that those who received the didrachma, the half-shekel annually paid by the Jews above twenty years of age for the service of the temple, came to Peter and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? Upon which our Saviour reasons, If earthly kings do not receive tribute from their children, then am I who am the Son of God excused by their custom from paying any to God. The whole force of the argument depends upon our Lord's being truly and properly the Son of God; i. e. standing in the same relation to God, as the children do to earthly kings. His claim of exemption rests upon his being the Son of God, in a sense not applicable

to a mere man, which amounts to an as

sumption of Divinity." P. 125.

The argument is prosecuted through a large collection of texts, in which the deity of Christ is indirectly asserted, in which Divine works and offices are assumed or ascribed to him, in which the names of the Father and of the Son, or of Christ and Jehovah, are indiscriminately mentioned, in which his offices are said to exceed the power of man, (as is the case of the atonement, which if it fails in proving his divinity, at least proves him to be more than man,) and in which he is represented as an object of the same faith and the same religious affections as the Father. It is also shewn, that in the performance of his miracles he wrought them by his own power, at his own will, and in his own name; and the force of this argument is increased, when it is recollected, that of himself, and in his own name, he conferred the same extraordinary power upon his Apostles, who in performing them, acknowledged the power and authority of Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk." "His name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong." "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, even by him doth this man stand before you whole." Elisha did not receive this power of Elijah.

"This class of arguments is by no means exhausted by the preceding sections: some texts of Scripture which might be referred to it, will come under consideration in the following chapters, and others might be enumerated; yet enough have been accumulated to shew its value and importance. The force of these testimonies cannot be easily eluded, by the dexteritiy of criticism, and as many of them arise from a comparison of Scripture with Scripture, they seem to demonstrate the beautiful consistency and harmony of the sacred writings. The argument moreover is strictly cumulative. Every additional instance strengthens the conclusion; and though some of the sections should not appear conclusive, yet when taken all together, they must be allowed to con

stitute a powerful, in my judgment, irrefragible body of evidence in support of our Lord's essential deity." P. 168.

From the consideration of these express and indirect testimonies to the divinity of Christ, the author proceeds to illustrate the Divine titles, which are applied to Christ. It is asserted that Christ is called by the name of God; and in an ela. borate comment on the several texts in which that name is appropriated to our Lord, the true meaning of those texts is defined and explained, and the obvious and ordinary objections are anticipated and repelled. It is also proved, that Christ is called God, not in a subordinate, but in the highest sense of the term; the few texts in which that name is interpreted of man are brought to a severe examination, and it is rendered at least very doubtful, whether they will ever bear that interpretation, or whether the appropriation of the name of the Most High to man can be justified and sustained.

"The result of the whole is, that it is highly probable, the title God' is not given to men in the Old Testament; and that it is certain the term sos, God, in the singular number is never applied to men in the New, and in the plural, if at all, only once. Let me then ask any unprejudiced person, whether it is credible, that the Apostles and Evangelists would, in contradiction to their usual practice, denominate our Lord by the appellation 'God,' if they had believed him to be only a man like themselves. Nay, I will go yet farther, and maintain, that they could not, consistently with their principles, give this title to a mere man. As one great object was to subvert the polytheism of the Heathen world, they would have counteracted their own design had they given the name of the Supreme Being to any of the human race. Their firm conviction of the Divine Unity, and their earnestness to inculcate the belief of one God, would restrain them from the use of such language as might tend to countenance the notion of a plurality of Gods. Though there be,' says St. Paul, that are called Gods,

8

whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God of whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by

whom are all things and we by him.' Is not this an assertion, that Christians, although there are many called gods by the Heathen, could call none by that title, but the Supreme Father of all, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who, with the Holy Ghost, are one God, in nature co-equal, in glory co-eternal,

"These observations are chiefly directed against the Socinian heresy, with which the orthodox of this age are principally called upon to contend. Arianism, it is true, might still allege that the appellation 'God' is given to angels and superior intelligences, and therefore only proves that our Saviour was a subordinate or inferior God. But the allegation is not supported by convincing reasons, as might easily be

evinced, were it requisite, and of course

the conclusion is unsound. It is unnecessary, however, to enter into a professed refutation; it is sufficient to reply both to the Arian and Unitarian oppugners of our Lord's essential deity, that if it could be proved, though I am convinced it is imtaken was erroneous, that the term God is possible, that the view of the subject above used in a lower sense, and that men are denominated God, not only in the Old Testament but in the New, the argument built upon this title would not be overthrown; for we have discovered some instances where it is applied to Christ, under such peculiar circumstances, as leave no room to doubt its implying his absolute divinity." P. 206.

It is also shewn, that Christ is called Jehovah, which name is translated Kupios, or Lord by the Seventy, from whom that word is appropritament to our Lord: the name of ated by the writers of the New TesJehovah also occurs in passages of the prophetic Scriptures, unques tionably relating to Christ, in the exposition of which, the text of Jeremiah xxiii. 36, in which Christ is called the Lord our Righteousness, is ably vindicated from the misconceptions of Blayney, of which the Unitarian school have not failed to avail themselves. He is also called King of Israel, which was the title of Jehovah under the theocracy, Almighty, Lord of Glory, and God of Glory, First and Last, A and ♫, the Beginning and the End.

The argument from the assump tion and ascription of the Divine

titles to our Lord, is confirmed by the appropriation of the Divine attributes to him, which are assigned, not only generally, so that in his own language, "all things that the Father hath are mine," but severally and particularly. Thus he is eternal and therefore immutable.

"Heb. xiii. 8. 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.' If this be spoken of Christ, it is an express declaration of his eternal and immutable nature. Several commentators, it must be confessed, have understood it to refer to the doctrine of the Gospel, sometimes called Christ or Jesus Christ; yet the following reasons seem to confirm its relation to the person of Christ. First, This is taking the words in a literal signification, which is always preferable to a figurative construction, when no necessity exists for departing from it. Secondly, The context requires it: Remember them, which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God, of whose conversation, considering the ending, follow their faith: Jesus Christ yesterday, and to-day is the same, and for ever.' The verse in question then describes the object of the faith of the rulers, i. e. as Pierce parphrases it, 'considering the conclusion of their life and behaviour, imitate their faith, for the object of their faith, Jesus Christ, is the same now as he was then, and will be the

[ocr errors]

same for ever, to the end of time. Thirdly, as 'for ever,' at the end of the sentence, means an eternity to come, so 'yesterday,' by being opposed to it, means an eternity past. It is, in truth, almost self evident, that yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' denotes an eternal duration, consisting of past, present, and future. In the Revelations, eternal, unchangeable existence is described by the character of 'which is, and which was, and which is to come.' The Gospel, it is true, is called 'everlasting,' Rev. xiv. 6. but this does not respect the time past, but time to come, and denotes the unchangeable constitution of the Christian religion, which should remain always the same in the truth of its doctrines, the certainty of its rewards and punishments, to everlasting ages.' In this epistle, mention is made of the everlasting covenant (xiii. 20.) which clearly denotes a covenant, that should never be changed. It may also further be urged, that the Gospel may be called eternal, because it was from everlasting in the divine decree. Perhaps it may: but this answer will not apply to REMEMBRANCER, No. 39.

[ocr errors]

Heb. xiii. 8. for admitting that the doctrine of the Gospel may be called 'yester day, or from everlasting, as being in the divine decree, yet how can it be said to be for ever,' for all eternity to come, in the divine decree? In short, had the apostle meant to assert the immutability of the Christian religion, it is utterly incredible that he would have expressed it by Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' whence it follows, that these words are to be referred to the person of Christ.-Fourthly, & auto, is the very same expression that is applied personally to Christ, ch. i. 12. of this Epistle, to describe his immutability.Fifthly, the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries frequently cite this text against the Arians, and they are not contradicted by those before them. These reasons, in my apprehension, clearly establish the application of this verse personally to Christ, and we need not hesitate in appealing to it, as a testimony to our Lord's eternal and unchangeable existence." P. 243.

Omniscience is another attribute ascribed to Christ, and comprehends a knowledge of the thoughts of man's heart, which man does not possess; snch knowledge of God, even to seeing him, as hath not been given to man; knowledge of all things, without limit or exception; and knowledge of his "sheep" in all places and ages of their dispersion throughout the world. Mr. Holden is cautious of inferring the omniscience of Christ from Col. ii. 3. because the true reading of the text is uncertain; but if the words rejected by Griesbach are not genuine, and ought to be rejected, the text becomes one of those in which Christ is called by the name of God; for he is the subject of the Apostle's discourse, and it is to him that the elevated terms which he uses throughout the chapter are appropriated. The great and leading objection to the omniscience of Christ is collected from Mark xiii. 32. and Mr. Holden, who neither evades an objection, nor suffers it to pass without refutation, shews that our Lord either uses the word "know" in the sense of communicating or publishing, or that in the

A a

union of the divine and human natures, he speaks in the subordinate relation of the Son of Man, and with reference only to his human

nature.

Omnipresence is another attribute of Christ, established as upon other texts, so especially upon the following, which is of the more importance from its connexion with the preceding institution of the Sacrament of Baptism, of which the perpetuity and universality are coextensive with the promised presence of our Lord.

“ Matt. xviii. 20. And lo! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Who but an omnipresent being could, in such express language, declare his continued presence with his disciples?

"We are told that the words recorded by the Evangelist, may be rendered with Dr. Campbell, I am with you always, even to the conclusion of this state,' or to the end of the age,' namely, the end of the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. H Ourtshila Toυ alvos, it is acknowledged, may admit this translation, which, however, in no way assists the Unitarian cause; for if Christ, after his ascension, was present with his disciples to the end of the age, as it could not be in his human nature, it must have been by his superiutending providence, the influence of his Spirit, and the miraculous operations of his power, which certainly imply divinity. Besides, if Christ was every where pre. sent, at all times, with all his disciples, dispersed through different parts of the world during that age, he must be omnipresent in all ages. There can be no intermission of an infinite attribute."

[ocr errors]

"Allowing that the words may by themselves be translated to the end of the age,' I nevertheless am of opinion that, in this place, it is not the proper translation, or at least that they refer not to the destruction of Jerusalem, but to the end of the world. The words, Taσaç Tas nurgas, at all times,' strongly oppose the notion of limiting the promise to the Jewish dispensation. The phrase ʼn our TEAIA TOU Asavos, occurs six times, Matt. xiii. 39, 40. 49. xxiv. 3. xxviii. 20, Heb. ix. 26. in the three first of which it evidently means the end of the world: and this seems to be the meaning here, as Christ's presence with his disciples was equally necessary after the destruction of

Jerusalem as before it. In fact, not a shadow of proof is given for putting any limitation of tine to the promise of Christ, except the necessity of propping up the baseless fabric of Socinianism: and we may, in the confidence of faith, rely upon the enlivening and consolatory promise of our Saviour, that he will be present to comfort and support his true disciples to

the final dissolution of the world." P. 275.

The Omnipotence of Christ is exhibited in distinct propositions, in each of which it is proved upon competent authorities, that he sends the Holy Spirit; that he forgives sins; that he hears and accomplishes the prayers of his servants; that he confers power of various kinds upon others; that he governs the world with unlimited and abso. lute power; that he will raise the dead, a power plainly not of man, and ascribed to God; and, lastly, nor ascribed to man, but of God, that he will judge the world. Nor does it in any degree disparage these evidences of the divinity of our Lord, to acknowledge and maintain that this power is delegated, that it was given to the Son, and received by the Son; for the orthodox faith is founded on the subordination of the Son to the Father, a truth on which Mr. Holden expatiates in his ninth chapter.

from the alleged office of creation, In inferring the Divinity of Christ it is argued that Christ is the crea tor, and that the creator is God: and it is proved, in answer to the Socinians, that the creation thus assigned to Christ, was not and could not be a moral renovation, but was a true and proper creation.

The chapter on the divine worship ascribed to Christ, is highly interesting and important, alleging the various acts of prayer actually offered to Christ, as well as the positive directions to pray to Him; the doxologies addressed to him; the benedictions pronounced in his name; the thanksgivings addressed to him, and the solemn adjurations delivered in his name; and the force of the argument is not abated,

whether his name is used alone or in conjuction with that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.

“When we consider the great difference between these doxologies, and the commendations but sparingly given in the Scriptures to mere men; the serious and reverential manner in which they are introduced, and the superlative praise they convey, so far surpassing what humanity can deserve, we cannot but suppose, that the being to whom they refer is really divine. The ascription of eternal glory and everlasting dominion, if addressed to any creature, however exalted, would be idolatrous and profane. It must also be remembered, that similar doxologies are addressed to God the Father, as Rom. xvi. 27. 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16. Jude 25. and unless Christ were God, it is not to be believed that the same praises would be ascribed to him as to the Father. The Apostles, to the fervour of piety joined a sound and masculine judgment, and they would have abhorred the profanation of ascribing to a creature the glory which is alone due to the immortal and immaculate Creator. When Jesus Christ, therefore, is the subject of their doxologies, which imply eternity and omnipotence, aud which are likewise addressed to the Father, the conclusion that Christ is God cannot reasonably be controverted."

P. 367.

After reciting various benedictions in the name of Christ, it is again conclusively argued:

"One cannot but suspect a want of candour in the mind that can peruse the texts here referred to, and not acknowledge that the author, while he wrote them, was impressed with a firm conviction that Jesus Christ is a proper object of religious worship. Of every one of these texts it may be said, 'Whether it be a blessing or a prayer it implies that religious worship is due to Him, in whose name, if a blessing it is pronounced; or to whom if a prayer it is directed.' To suppose that a mere man would be thus associated with the Almighty Father of all, by an Apostle, in imploring grace, peace and mercy to be with the Christian converts, would be an impiety of which the most abandoned would shudder to be guilty. Grace, peace and mercy are spiritual blessings, which it is universally allowed can only be supplied by the ineffable operation of the Godhead: and as the Apostle supplicates for them equally

from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, impartial reason infers, that they are equal in essence and perfections.

،

[ocr errors]

"Nor will it alter the nature of this conclusion, should these passages be considered, as Unitarians are fond of representing them, in the light of wishes. A wish preferred to the Deity is in effect a prayer. It implies an ability in the person to whom it is made of performing the wish. I may innocently wish,' says Mr. Belsham, that a person in power may grant an office to a friend, to ask for which, if the person were present, might or might not be proper, according to circumstances; but to pray to him for it when he is absent, with an expectation that he will hear and grant the request, would be downright idolatry? True; but the very wish implies that the person in power is able to grant that office. In like when St. Paul wished, supposing manner, the passages just cited to be wishes, that the new converts might receive grace, peace and mercy from the Lord Jesus Christ, he must have supposed in bim an ability to grant these blessings. If St. Paul had wished for spiritual blessings from a being whom he believed incapable of granting them, it would have been a most flagrant absurdity: hence these wishes of the Apostle must have been founded on the belief that our Lord was able to comply with them, which is, in fact, tacitly attributing to him essential divinity, since it is in the power of God alone to bestow spiritual blessings. The apostolical supplications, therefore, for grace, peace and mercy, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, whether we chuse to denominate them wishes or prayers, evince incontestibly the Deity of our Saviour, and the consequent duty of presenting religions addresses to him as well as to the Father.” P.369.

The method and design of the argument on the Sonship of Christ and proof of his divinity is thus stated:

"The main object to be kept in view, is to show that Jesus Christ is a son in his superhuman nature: for the proof of this position will be a sufficient refutation of all the objections which have been advanced against it. Now that he is properly and peculiarly the Son of God, will be admitted, if it can be proved that he was a Son before his appearance in the flesh, that he is styled the Son of God in so emphatic a manner as to distinguish him from all others to whom this appellation

▲ a 2

« PreviousContinue »