Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Measures of power may be communicated; degrees of wisdom and goodness may be imparted to created spirits; but our conceptions of God are confounded, and we lose sight of every circumstance by which he is characterized, if such a manner of existence as we have now described be common to him and any creature."(9) To these attributes may also be added OMNIPOTENCE, which is also peculiar to the Godhead; for, though power may be communicated to a creature, yet a finite capacity must limit the communication, nor can it exist infinitely, any more than wisdom, except in an infinite nature. Christ is, however, styled, Rev. i. 8, "THE ALMIGHTY." To the Jews he said, "What things soever he [the Father] doeth, THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE." Farther, he declares that "as the Father hath LIFE IN HIMSELF, so hath he given to the Son to have LIFE IN HIMSELF," which is a most strongly marked distinction between himself and all creatures whatever. He has "life in himself," and he has it "As the Father" has it, that is perfectly and infinitely, which sufficiently demonstrates that he is of the same essence, or he could not have this communion of properties with the Father. The life is, indeed, said to be "given," but this communication from the Father makes no difference in the argument. Whether the "life" mean the same original and independent life, which at once entitles the Deity to the appellations "THE LIVING GOD" and "THE FATHER OF SPIRITS," or the bestowing of eternal life "pon all believers, it amounts to the same thing. The "life which is thus bestowed upon believers, the continuance and perfect blessedness of existence, is from Christ as its fountain, and he has it as the Father himself hath it. By his eternal generation it was derived from the Father to him, and he possesses it equally with the Father; by the appointment of his Father, he is made the source of eternal life to believers, as having that LIFE IN HIMSELF to bestow, and to supply for ever. We may sum up the whole scriptural argument, from Divine attributes being ascribed by the disciples to our Saviour, and claimed by himself, with his own remarkable declaration, "ALL THINGS which the Father hath are MINE" John xvi. 15. "Here he challenges to himself the incommunicable attributes, and, consequently, that essence which is inseparable from them."(1) "If God the Son hath all things that the Father hath, then hath he all the attributes and perfections belonging to the Father, the same power, rights, and privileges, the same honour and glory; and, in a word, the same nature, substance, and Godhead."(2)

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ACTS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST PROOFS OF HIS
DIVINITY.

intended a moral, and not a physical creation, he could not have expressed himself as he does without intending to mislead; a supposition equally contrary to his inspiration and to his piety. He affirms that "all things," and that without limitation or restriction, "were made by him;" that " without him was not any thing made that was made;" which clearly means, that there is no created object which had not Christ for its Creator; an assertion which contains a revelation of a most important and fundamental doctrine. If, however, it be taken in the Socinian sense, it is a pitiful truism, asserting that Christ did nothing in establishing his religion which he did not do: for to this effect their version itself expresses it," all things were done by bim, and without him was not any thing done that hath been done;" or, as they might have rendered it, to make the folly still more manifest, "without him was not any thing done that was done by him, or which he himself did." Unfortunately, however, for the notion of arranging or regulating the new dispensation, the apostle adds a full confirmation of his former doctrine, that the physical creation was the result of the power of the Divine Word, by asserting that "THE WORLD was MADE by him ;"(3) that world into which he came as "the light," that world in which he was when he was made flesh, that world which "knew him not." It matters nothing to the argument, whether "the world" be understood of men or of the material world; on either supposition it was made by him, and the crea tion was, therefore, physical. In neither case could the creation be a moral one, for the material world is incapable of a moral renewal; and the world which "knew not" Christ, if understood of men was not renewed, but unregenerated; or he would have been "known," that is, acknowledged by them.

Another passage, equally incapable of being referred to any but a physical creation, is found in Heb. i. 2, "By whom also he MADE THE WORLDS." "God," says the apostle, "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things;" and then he proceeds to give farther information of the nature and dignity of the Personage thus denominated "SON" and "HEIR ;" and his very first declaration concerning him, in this exposition of his character, in order to prove him greater than angels, who are the greatest of all created beings, is that "by him also God made the worlds." Two methods have been resorted to, in order to ward off the force of this decisive testimony as to the Deity of Christ, grounded upon his creative acts. The first is, to render the words, "FOR whom he made the worlds;" thus referring creation immediately to the Father, and making the preposition dia, with a genitive case, signify the final cause, the reason or end for which "the worlds" were created. Were this even allowed, it would be a strange doctrine to assert that FOR a mere man, FOR the exercise of the ministry of a mere man, as Christ is taken to be upon the Socinian hypothesis, "the worlds," the whole visible creation, with its various orders of intellectual beings, were created. This is a position almost as much opposed to that corrupt hypothesis as is the orthodox doctrine itself, and is another instance in proof The first act of this kind is creation-the creation of that difficulties are multiplied, rather than lessened by all things. It is not here necessary to enter into any departing from the obvious sense of Scripture But no argument to prove that creation, in its proper sense, example is found, in the whole New Testament, of the that is, the production of things out of nothing, is possi- use of dia with a genitive to express the final cause; ble only to Divine power. The Socinians themselves and, in the very next verse, St Paul uses the same conacknowledge this; and, therefore, employ their pervert-struction to express the efficient cause," when he had ing, but feeble criticisms in a vain attempt to prove that the creation, of which Christ in the New Testament is said to be the author, is to be understood of a moral creation, or of the regulation of all things in the evangelic dispensation. I shall not adduce many passages to prove that a proper creation' is ascribed to our Lord; for they are sufficiently in the recollection of the reader. It is enough that two or three of them only be exhibited, which cannot be taken, without manifest absurdity, in any other sense but as attributing the whole physical creation to him.

THIS argument is in confirmation of the foregoing; for, if not only the proper names of God, his majestic and peculiar titles, and his attributes are attributed to our Lord; but if also acts have been done by him which, in the nature of things, cannot be performed by any creature, however exalted, then He by whom they were done must be truly God.

The ascription of the creation of "all things," in the physical sense, to the Divine Word, in the introduction to St. John's Gospel, has been vindicated against the Socinian interpretation in a preceding page. I shall only farther remark upon it, first, that if St. John had

[blocks in formation]

by himself purged our sins." "This interpretation," says Whitby, justly, "is contrary to the rule of all grammarians; contrary to the exposition of all the Greek fathers, and also without example in the New Testament."

The second resource, therefore, is to understand "the worlds," Tous atvas, in the literal import of the phrase, for "the ages," or the Gospel dispensation. But " atoves, absolutely put, doth never signify the church or evangelical state; nor doth the Scripture ever speak of the world to come in the plural, but in the singular number only."(4) The phrase di atoves was adopted either as equivalent to the Jewish division of the whole creation into three parts, this lower world, the region

(3) "The world was enlightened by him," says the New Version; which perfectly gratuitous rendering has been before adverted to.

(4) WHITBY.

of the stars, and the third heaven, the residence of God and his angels; or as expressive of the duration of the world, extending through an indefinite number of ages, and standing opposed to the short life of its inhabitants. Atov, primo longum tempus, postea eternitatem, apud Scriptores N. T. vero коσμov, mundum significat, ex Hebraismo, ubiyet y de mundo accipitur, quia mundus post tot generationes hominum perpetuo durat.(5) The apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, used, therefore, a mode of expression which was not only familiar to them; but which they could not but understand of the natural creation. This, however, is put out of all doubt by the use of the same phrase in the 11th chapter-"through faith we understand that the WORLDS were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear;" words which can only be understood of the physical creation. Another consideration which takes the declaration, "by whom also he made the worlds," out of the reach of all the captious and puerile criticism on which we have remarked is, that in the close of the chapter, the apostle reiterates the doctrine of the creation of the world by Jesus Christ: "But unto THE SON he saith," not only "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," but "Thou, Lord (Jehovah), in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" words to which the perverted adroitness of heretics has been able to affix no meaning, when taken in any other sense than as addressed To Christ; and which will for ever attach to him on the authority of inspiration, the title of "Jehovah," and array him in all the majesty of creative power and glory. It is, indeed, a very conclusive argument in favour of the three great points of Christian doctrine, as comprehended in the orthodox faith, that it is impossible to interpret this celebrated chapter, according to any fair rule of natural and customary interpretation, without admitting that Christ is Gon, the DIVINE SON OF GOD, and the MEDIATOR. The last is indicated by his being the medium through whom, in these last days, the will of God is communicated to mankind. "God hath spoken" by him; and by his being "anointed" priest and king" above his fellows." The second is expressed both by his title "THE SON," and by the superiority which, in virtue of that name, he has above angels, and the worship which, as the SON, they are enjoined to pray to him. He is also called Gop, and this term is fixed in its highest import, by his being declared "the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person," and by the creative acts which are ascribed to him; while his character of Son, as being of the Father, is still preserved by the two metaphors of "brightness" and "image," and by the expression, "God, even thy God." On these principles only is the apostle intelligible; on any other, the whole chapter is incapable of consistent exposition. The only additional passage which it is necessary to produce, in order to show that Christ is the creator of all things, and that the creation of which he is the author, is not a moral but a physical creation; not the framing of the Christian dispensation, but the forming of the whole universe of creatures out of nothing, is Coloss. i. 15-17: "Who is the IMAGE of the invisible GOD, the FIRST-BORN of every creature: for by him were all things CREATED, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created By him, and FOR him; and he is BEFORE all things, and by him all things CONSIST." The Socinians interpret this of "that great change which was introduced into the moral world, and particularly into the relative situation of Jews and Gentiles, by the dispensation of the Gospel."(6) But,

1. The apostle introduces this passage as a reason why we have "redemption through his blood" (ver. 14); why, in other words, the death of Christ was efficacious, and obviously attributes this efficacy to the dignity of his nature. This is the scope of his argument. 2. He therefore aflirms him to be "the image" (Eikov), the exact representation or resemblance of the invisible God; which, when compared with Heb. i. 2, "who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," shows that the apostle uses the word in a sense in which it is not applicable to any human or angelic being," the first-born of (6) Improved Version.

(5) ROSENMULLER.

[ocr errors]

every creature ;" or, more literally, "the first-born of the whole creation." The Arians have taken this in the sense of the first-made creature; but this is refuted by the term itself, which is not "first made," but "first born;" and by the following verse, which proves him to be first-born, FOR, or BECAUSE (OT) "by him were all things created." As to the date of his being, he was before all created things, for they were created by him: as to the manner of his being, he was by generation not creation. The apostle does not say, that he was created the first of all creatures; but that he was born before them :(7)-a plain allusion to the ge neration of the Son before time began, and before creatures existed. Wolf has also shown, that among the Jews Jehovah is sometimes called the primogenitum mundi, "the first-born of the world," because they attributed the creation of the world to the Logos, the Word of the Lord, the ostensible Jehovah of the Old Testament, whom certainly they never meant to include among the creatures; and that they called him also the SON OF GOD. It was, then, in perfect accordance with the theological language of the Jews themselves, that the apostle calls our Lord "the first-born of the whole creation."

The Arian interpretation, which makes the first made creature the Creator of the rest, is thus destroyed. The Socinian notion is as manifestly absurd. If the creation here be the new dispensation, the Christian church, then to call Christ the first-born of this creation is to make the apostle say that Christ was the first-made member of the Christian church; and the reason given for this is, that he made or constituted the church' If by this they mean simply that he was the author of Christianity, we have agam a puerile truism put into the lips of the apostle. If they mean that the apostle declares that Christ was the first Christian, it is diffi cult to conceive how this can be gravely affirmed as a comment on the words; if any thing else, it is impossible to discover any connexion in the argument, that is, between the proposition that Christ is the first-born of the whole creation, and the proof of it which is adduced, that by him were all things created. The annotators on the New Version say, "It is plain from comparing this passage with verse 18 (where Christ is called the first-born from the dead), that Christ is called the first-born of the whole creation, because he is the first who was raised from the dead to an immortal life." This is far from being "plain;" but it is plain, that in these two verses, the apostle speaks of Christ in two different states; first, in his state "before all things," and as the sustainer of all things; and then, in his state in "the church" (verse 18), in which is added to the former particulars respecting him, that "he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead." Again, if in verses 15, 16, 17, the apostle is speaking of what Christ is in and to the church, under the figure of a creation of all things in heaven and in earth, when he drops the figure, and teaches us that Christ is the head of the church, the first-born from the dead, he uses a mere tautology; nor is there any apparent reason why he should not, in the same plain terms, have stated his proposition at once, without resorting to expressions, which, in this view, would be far-fetched and delusive. In "the church" he was "head," and "the first-born from the dead," the only one who ever rose to die no more, and who gives an immortal life to those he quickens; but before the church existed or he himself became incarnate, "before all things," says the apostle, he was the "first-born of the whole creation," that is, as the fathers understood it, he was born or begotten before every creature. But the very terms of the text are an abundant refutation of the notion, "that the creation here mentioned is not the creation of natural substances." The things created are said to be "all things in heaven and upon the earth;" and lest the invisible spirits in the heaven should be thought to be excluded, the apostle adds, "things visible and things invisible;" and lest the invisible things should be understood of inferior angels or spiritual beings, and the high and glorious beings, who "excel in strength," and are in Scripture invested with other elevated properties, should be suspected to be exceptions, the apostle becomes still more particular, and adds, whether "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers,"

(7) Vide WOLF in loc.

[ocr errors]

terms by which the Jews expressed the different orders of angels, and which are used in that sense by this apostle, Ephesians i. 21. It is a shameless criticism of the authors of the New Version, and shows how hardly they were pushed by this decisive passage, that "the apostle does not here specify things themselves, namely, celestial and terrestrial substances, but merely states of things, namely, thrones, dominions, &c., which are only ranks and orders of beings in the rational and moral world." Was it then forgotten, that before St. Paul speaks of things in rank and order, he speaks of all things collectively which are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible? If so, he then unquestionably speaks of "things themselves," or he speaks of nothing. Nor is it true, that in the enumeration of thrones, dominions, &c., he speaks of the creation of ranks and orders. He does not speak "merely of states of things, but of things in states; he does not say that Christ created thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, which would have been more to their purpose, but that he created all things, whether' EITE, they be thrones,' &c." The apostle adds, that all things were created by him, and FOR him, as the end; which could not be said of Christ, even if a moral creation were intended; since on the Socinian hypothesis that he is a mere man, a prophet of God, he is but the instrument of restoring man to obedience and subjection, for the glory and in accomplishment of the purposes of God. But how is the whole of this description to be made applicable to a figurative creation, to the moral restoration of lapsed beings? It is as plainly historical as the words of Moses, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "Things visible" and "things on earth" comprise of course all those objects, which, being neither sensible nor rational, are incapable of moral regeneration; while things in heaven" and "things invisible" comprise the angels which never sinned, and who need no repentance and no renewal. Such are those gross perversions of the Word of God which this heresy induces, and with such indelible evidence is the Divinity of our Lord declared by his acts of power and glory, as the UNIVERSAL CREATOR. The admirable observations of Bishop Pearson may properly conclude what has been said on this important passage of inspired writ.

"In these words our Saviour is expressly styled the first-born of every creature,' that is, begotten by God, as the Son of his love,' antecedently to all other emanations, before any thing proceeded from Him, or was framed and created by Him. And that precedency is presently proved by this undeniable argument, that all other emanations or productions come from Him, and whatsoever received its being by creation was by Him created, which assertion is delivered in the most proper, full, and frequent expressions imaginable. First, in the plain language of Moses, as most consonant to his description: for by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth;' signifying thereby that he speaketh of the same creation. Secondly, by a division which Moses never used, as describing the production only of corporeal substances: lest, therefore, those immaterial beings might seem exempted from the Son's creation, because omitted in Moses's description, he addeth visible and invisible;' and lest in that invisible world, among the many degrees of celestial hierarchy, any order might seem exempted from an essential dependence on Him, he nameth those which are of greatest eminence, 'whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers,' and under them comprehendeth all the rest. Nor doth it yet suffice thus to extend the object of His power, by asserting all things to be made by Him, except it be so understood as to acknowledge the sovereignty of His person and the authority of His action. For lest we should conceive the Son of God framing the world as a mere instrumental cause which worketh by and for another, he showeth him as well the final as the efficient cause; for all things were created by Him and for Him.' Lastly, whereas all things first receive their being by creation, and when they have received it, continue in the same by virtue of God's conservation, in whom we live, and move, and have our being lest in any thing we should not depend immediately upon the Son of God, He is described as the Conserver as well as the Creator, for He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.' If, then, we consider these two latter verses by themselves, we

cannot deny but they are a most complete description of the Creator of the world; and if they were spoken of God the Father, could be no way injurious to His Majesty, who is nowhere more plainly or fully set forth unto us as the Maker of the world."

But our Lord himself professes to do other acts besides the great act of creating, which are peculiar to God; and such acts are also attributed to him by his inspired apostles. His preserving of all things made by him has already been mentioned, and which implies not only a Divine power, but also ubiquity; since he must be present to all things, in order to their constant conservation. The final destruction of the whole frame of material nature is also as expressly attributed to him as its creation. "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands; these shall perish, but thou remainest, and as a vesture SHALT THOU FOLD THEM UP, and they shall be changed." Here omnipotent power is seen "changing" and removing, and taking away the vast universe of material things with the same ease as it was spoken into being and at first disposed into order. Generally, too, our Lord claims to perform the works of his Father. "If I do not the WORKS of my Father, believe me not; but if I Do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." Should this even be restrained to the working of miracles, the argument remains the same. No prophet, no apostle, ever used such language in speaking of his miraculous gifts. Here Christ declares that he performs the works of his Father; not merely that the Father worked by him, but that he himself did the works of God; which can only mean works proper or peculiar to God, and which a Divine power only could effect.(8) So the Jews understood him, for, upon this declaration, "thev sought again to take him." That this power of working miracles was in him an original power, appears also from his bestowing that power upon his disciples. "Behold I GIVE unto you power to tread on serpents, and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luke x. 19, "And HE GAVE them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." Luke ix. 1. Their miracles were, therefore, to be performed in his NAME, by which the power of effecting them was expressly reserved to him. "In MY NAME shall they cast out devils;" and "HIS NAME, through faith in HIS NAME, hath made this man strong."

The

The manner in which our Lord promises the Holy Spirit is farther in proof that he performs acts peculiar to the Godhead. He speaks of "sending the Spirit" in the language of one who had an original right and an inherent power to bestow that wondrous gift, which was to impart miraculous energies and heavenly wisdom, comfort, and purity to human minds. Does the Father send the Spirit? he claims the same power,"the Comforter whom I will send unto you." Spirit is on this account called "the Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of God." Thus the giving of the Spirit is indifferently ascribed to the Son and to the Father; but when that gift is mediately bestowed by the apostles, no such language is assumed by them: they pray to Christ, and to the Father in his name, and he, their exalted master, sheds forth the blessing-"therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, HE hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” Another of the unquestionably peculiar acts of God is the forgiveness of sins. In the manifest reason of the thing, no one can forgive but the party offended; and as sin is the transgression of the law of God, he alone is the offended party, and he only, therefore, can forgive. Mediately, others may declare his pardoning acts, or the conditions on which he determines to forgive; but authoritatively, there can be no actual forgiveness of sins against God but by God himself. But Christ forgives sin authoritatively, and he is, therefore, God. One passage is all that is necessary to prove this. "He said to the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." The scribes who were present understood that he did this authorita

(8) "Si non facio ea ipsa divina opera, quæ Pater meus facit; si quæ facio, non habent divinæ virtutis specimen."-ROSENMULLER. "Opera Patris mei, i. e. quæ Patri, sive Deo, sunt propria: quæ a nemine alto fieri queunt."-POLI Synop.

tively, and assumed in this case the rights of Divinity. They therefore said among themselves, "This man blasphemeth." What then is the conduct of our Lord? Does he admit that he only ministerially declared, in consequence of some revelation, that God had forgiven the sins of the paralytic? On the contrary, he works a miracle to prove to them that the very right which they disputed was vested in him; that he had this authority" but that ye may KNOW that the Son of man hath POWER on earth to forgive sins, then saith he to the sick of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine own house."

Such were the acts performed by our Saviour in the days of his sojourn on earth, and which he is represented by his inspired apostles to be still constantly performing, or as having the power to perform. If any creature is capable of doing the same mighty works, then is all distinction between created finite natures and the uncreated Infinite destroyed. If such a distinction, in fact, exists; if neither creation, preservation, nor salvation be possible to a mere creature, we have seen that they are possible to Christ, because he actually creates, preserves, and saves; and the inevitable conclusion is, THAT HE IS VERY God.

CHAPTER XV.

DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. FROM Christ's own acts we may pass to those of his disciples, and particularly to one which unequivocally marks their opinion respecting his Divinity: they woRSHIP him as a Divine Person, and they enjoin this also upon Christians to the end of time. If Christ, therefore, is not God, the apostles were idolaters, and Christianity is a system of impiety. This is a point so important as to demand a close investigation.

The fact that Divine worship was paid to Christ by his disciples must be first established. Instances of falling down at the feet of Jesus and worshipping him are so frequent in the Gospel, that it is not necessary to select the instances which are so familiar; and, though we allow that the word яроσкуvε is sometimes used to express that lowly reverence with which, in the East, it has been always customary to salute persons considered as greatly superior, and especially rulers and sovereigns, it is yet the same word which, in a great number of instances, is used to express the worship of the Supreme GOD. We are, then, to collect the intention of the act of worship, whether designed as a token of profound civil respect, or of real and Divine adoration, from the circumstances of the instances on record. When a leper comes and "WORSHIPS" Christ, professing to believe that he had the power of healing diseases, and that in himself, which power he could exercise at his will, all which he expresses by saying, "Lord, if thou WILT, thou CANST make me clean," we see a Jew retaining that faith of the Jewish church in its purity which had been corrupted among so many of his nation, that the Messiah was to be a Divine Person; and, viewing our Lord under that character, he regarded his miraculous powers as original and personal, and so hesitated not to worship him. Here, then, is a case in which the circumstances clearly show that the worship was religious and supreme. When the man who had been cured of blindness by Jesus, and who had defended his prophetic character before the council, before he knew that he had a higher character than that of a prophet, was met in private by Jesus, and instructed in the additional fact, that he was "THE SON OF GOD," he worshipped him. "Jesus heard, that they had cast him out, and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe; and he WORSHIPPED him:"-worshipped him, be it observed, under his character "Son of God," a title which, we have already seen, was regarded by the Jews as implying actual Divinity, and which the man understood to raise Jesus far above the rank of a mere prophet. The worship paid by this man must, therefore, in its intention, have been supreme, for it was offered to an acknowledged Divine Person, the Son of God. When the disciples, fully yielding to the demonstration of our Lord's Messiahship, arising out

of a series of splendid miracles, recognised him also under his personal character, "they came and worshipped him saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God!" Matt. xiv. 33. When Peter, upon the miraculous draught of fishes, "fell at his feet," and said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," these expressions themselves mark as strongly the awe and apprehension which is produced in the breast of a sinful man, when he feels himself in the presence of Divinity itself, as when Isaiah exclaims, in his vision of the Divine glory, "Wo is me, for I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell among a people of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts."

The circumstances, then, which accompany these instances, make it evident, that the worship here paid to our Lord was of the highest order; and they will serve to explain several other cases in the Gospels, similar in the act, though not accompanied with illustrative circumstances so explicit. But there is one general consideration of importance which applies to them all. Such acts of lowly prostration as are called worship were chiefly paid to civil governors. Now, our Lord cautiously avoided giving the least sanction to the notion that he had any civil pretensions, and that his object was to make himself king. It would, therefore, have been a marked inconsistency to suffer himself to be saluted with the homage of prostration proper to civil governors, and which, indeed, was not always, in Judea, rendered to them. He did not receive this homage, then, under the character of a civil ruler or sovereign; and under what character could he receive it? Not in compliance with the haughty custom of the Jewish Rabbis, who exacted great external reverence from their disciples, for he sharply reproved their haughtiness and love of adulation and honour: not as a simple teacher of religion, for his apostles might then have imitated his example, since, upon the Socinian hypothesis of his mere manhood, they, when they had collected disciples and founded churches, had as clear a right to this distinction as he himself, had it only been one of appropriate and common courtesy sanctioned by their master. But when do we read of their receiving worship, without spurning it on the very ground that "they were MEN of like passions" with others? How, then, is it to be accounted for, that our Lord never forbade or discouraged this practice as to himself, or even shunned it? In no other way, than that he was conscious of his natural right to the homage thus paid · and that he accepted it as the expression of a faith which, though sometimes wavering, because of the obscurity which darkened the minds of his followers, and which even his own conduct, mysterious as it necessarily was, till "he openly showed himself" after his passion, tended to produce, yet sometimes pierced through the cloud, and saw and acknowledged, in the Word made flesh, "the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

But to proceed with instances of worship subsequent to our Lord's resurrection and ascension: "He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven, and they wORSHIPPED him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy," Luke xxiv. 51, 52. Here the act must necessarily have been one of Divine adoration, since it was performed after "he was parted from them," and cannot be resolved into the customary token of personal respect paid to superiors. This was always done in the presence of the superior; never by the Jews in his absence.

When the apostles were assembled to fill up the place of Judas, the lots being prepared, they pray, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these men thou hast chosen." That this prayer is addressed to Christ is clear, from its being his special prerogative to choose his own disciples, who, therefore, styled themselves "apostles," not of the Father, but "of Jesus Christ." Here, then, is a direct act of worship, because an act of prayer; and our Lord is addressed as he who "knows the hearts of all inen." Nor is this more than he himself claims in the Revelations, " And all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and the heart."

When Stephen, the protomartyr, was stoned, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles records two instances of prayer offered to our Lord by this man "full of the Holy Ghost," and therefore, according to this declaration, under plenary inspiration. "LORD JESUS! RE

St. Paul, also, in that affliction which he metaphorically describes by "a thorn in the flesh," "sought the Lord thrice" that it might depart from him; and the answer shows that "the LORD," to whom he addressed his prayer, was CHRIST; for he adds, "and he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness: most gladly, therefore, will I glory in my infirmities, that the POWER OF CHRIST may rest upon me;" clearly signifying the power of him who had said, in answer to his prayer, "My strength, dvvapus, power, is made perfect in weakness."

CEIVE MY SPIRIT!" "LORD, LAY NOT THIS SIN TO THEIR CHARGE!" In the former, he acknowledges Christ to be the disposer of the eternal states of men: in the latter, he acknowledges him to be the governor and judge of men, having power to remit, pass by, or visit their sins. All these are manifestly Divine acts, which sufficiently show, that St. Stephen addressed his prayers to Christ as GoD. The note from Lindsay, inserted in the Socinian version, shows the manner in which the Socinians attempt to evade this instance of direct prayer being offered by the apostles to Christ. "This address of Stephen to Jesus, when he actually saw him, does not authorize us to offer prayers to him St. Paul also prays to Christ, conjointly with the now he is invisible." And this is seriously alleged! Father, in behalf of the Thessalonians. "Now our How does the circumstance of an object of prayer and LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, and God, even our Fareligious worship being seen or unseen alter the case?ther, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlastMay a man, when seen, be an object of prayer, to whom, ing consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort unseen, it would be unlawful to pray? The Papists, if your hearts, and stablish you in every good work," 2 this were true, would find a new refutation of their Thess. ii. 16, 17. In like manner he invokes our Lord practice of invocating dead saints furnished by the to grant his spiritual presence to Timothy: "The Lord Socinians. Were they alive and seen, prayer to them Jesus be with thy spirit," 2 Tim. iv. 22. The invoking would be lawful; but now they are invisible, it is idola- of Christ is, indeed, adduced by St. Paul as a distinctive try! Even image worship would derive, from this characteristic of Christians, so that among all the pricasuistry, a sort of apology, as the seen image is, at mitive churches this practice must have been universal. least, the visible representation of the invisible saint "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them or angel. But let the case be put fairly: suppose a that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, dying person to pray to a man, visible and near his with all that IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF bed, "Lord, receive my spirit: Lord, lay not sin to the JESUS CHRIST Our Lord, both theirs and ours," 1 Cor. charge of my enemies," who sees not that this would i. 2. "It appears, from the expression here and elsebe gross idolatry? And yet if Jesus be a mere man, where used, that to invocate the name of our Lord Jesus the idolatry is the same, though that man be in heaven. Christ was a practice characterizing and distinguishIt will not alter the case for the Socinian to say, that ing Christians from infidels."(9) Thus St. Paul is said, the man Jesus is exalted to great dignity and rule in before his conversion, to have had "authority from the invisible world; for he is, after all, on their show- the chief priests to bind all THAT CALL UPON THY ing, but a servant; not a dispenser of the eternal states NAME." The Socinian criticism is, that the phrase of men, not an avenger or a passer-by of sin, in his Exadεiodai тo ovoμa may be translated either "to call own right, that he should lay sin to the charge of any on the name," or be called by the name; and they, one, or not lay it, as he might be desired to do by a dis- therefore, render 1 Cor. i. 2, "all that are called by the ciple and if St. Stephen had these views of him, he name of Jesus Christ." If, however, all that can be would not, surely, have asked of a servant, what a said in favour of this rendering is, that the verb may be servant had no power to grant. Indeed, the Socinians rendered passively, how is it that they choose to render themselves give up the point, by denying that Christ is it actively in all places, except where their system is to lawfully the object of prayer. There, however, he is be served? This itself is suspicious. But it is not neprayed to, beyond all controversy, and his right and cessary to produce the refutations of this criticism power to dispose of the disembodied spirits of men is given by several of their learned opponents, who have as much recognised in the invocation of the dying Ste- shown that the verb, followed by an accusative case, phen, as the same right and power in the Father, in the usually, if not constantly, is used, in its active signilast prayer of our Lord himself: "Father, into thy fication, to call upon, to invoke. One passage is suffihands I commend my spirit." cient to prove both the active signification of the phrase, when thus applied, and also that to call upon the name of Christ is an act of the highest worship. whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," Rom. x. 13. This is quoted from the prophet Joel. St. Peter, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, makes use of it as a prophecy of Christ, and the argument of St. Paul imperatively requires us also to understand it of him. Now, this prophecy proves that the phrase in question is used for invocation, since it is not true that whosoever shall be called by the name of the Lord will be saved, but those only who rightly call upon it; it proves also, that the calling upon the name of the Lord, here mentioned, is a religious act, for it is calling upon the name of JEHOVAH, the word used by the prophet Joel, the consequence of which act of faith and worship is salvation. "This text, indeed, presents us with a double argument in favour of our Lord's Divinity. First, it applies to him what, by the prophet Joel, is spoken of Jehovah; secondly, it affirms him to be the object of religious adoration. Either of these particulars does, indeed, imply the other; for if he be Jehovah, he must be the object of religious adoration; and if he be the object of religious adoration, he must be Jehovah."(1)

To Dr. Priestley's objection, that this is an inconsiderable instance, and is to be regarded as a mere ejaculation, Bishop Horsley forcibly replies: "St. Stephen's short ejaculatory address you had not forgotten; but you say it is very inconsiderable. But, sir, why is it inconsiderable? Is it because it was only an ejaculation? Ejaculations are often prayers of the most fervid kind; the most expressive of self-abasement and adoration. Is it for its brevity that it is inconsiderable? What then, is the precise length of words which is requisite to make a prayer an act of worship? Was this petition preferred on an occasion of distress, on which a Divinity might be naturally invoked? Was it a petition for a succour which none but a Divinity could grant? If this was the case, it was surely an act of worship. Is the situation of the worshipper the circumstance which, in your judgment, sir, lessens the authority of his example? You suppose, perhaps, some consternation of his faculties, arising from distress and fear.

The history justifies no such supposition. It describes the utterance of the final prayer, as a deliberate act of one who knew his situation and possessed his understanding. After praying for himself, he kneels down to pray for his persecutors: and such was the composure with which he died, although the manner of his death was the most tumultuous and terrifying, that, as if he had expired quietly upon his bed, the sacred historian says, that he fell asleep.' If, therefore, you would insinuate, that St. Stephen was not himself, when he sent forth this 'short ejaculatory address to Christ,' the history refutes you. If he was himself, you cannot justify his prayer to Christ, while you deny that Christ is God, upon any principle that might not equally justify you or me, in praying to the blessed Stephen. If St. Stephen, in the full possession of his faculties, prayed to him who is no God, why do we reproach the Romanist, when he chants the litany of his saints?"

"For

In the Revelations, too, we find St. John worshipping Christ, "falling at his feet as one dead." St. Paul also declares, "that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE sha!! bow," which, in Scripture language, signifies an act of religious worship. "For this cause 1 bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

But this homage and adoration of Christ is not confined to men; it is practised among heavenly beings. "And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM." For the purpose of evading the force of these words, the Socinians, in their version, have

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »