« AnteriorContinuar »
apply the passage to the Messiah. And the former of these has this remarkable exposition of the thrice Holy, (already mentioned above in the,, 3d verse.) Holy, that is the Father; Holy, that is the Sons Holy, that is the Spirit.
Philo, the famous Jewish writer, acknowledges a generation in God from all eternity. He says in many different places, "that God begets the Word in himself; that this Word is Wisdom; and this Wisdom is the eternal Son of God. That God is called the God of gods, not with relation to created intelligences, whether human, angelical, or seraphical; but in relation to his two consubstantial powers, which are not simple attributes, but eternal, uncreated, infinite principles of action, represented by the two wings of the cherubim that covered the tabernacle." The Chaldee Paraphrast and Targum speak in the same manner: they " ascribe to the Word, the creation of the world, the pardon of sin, and the mediating between God the Father, and the creature." The cabbalistical Jews of a still later date, speak in the same way. They fix the number of three persons in the Divine Essence: they speak of the emanation of the two last from the first, and say that the third proceeds from the first by the second. The first they call Eusofih, the second Memra, and the third Binah.
But the conduct of the Jewish sanhedrim on the publick trial of our blessed Lord, puts this question out of doubt as to their belief. No sooner had Christ confessed himself to be the Messias, in answer to an interrogatory put to him under oath, according to the practice of the Jewish courts, by the High Priest, than he rent his garments and said, ' He hath spoken blasphemy, what need have we of fujther witnesses?' And again, in answer to Pilate, who wanted to release him, the Jews cried out,' we have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.'
What was so strongly shadowed forth in the Old Testament, was made perfectly clear under the Gospel. Christ himself revealed this so fully by his miracles, prophecies, and express declarations, that man, since his coming in the flesh, seems to be left without excuse, and justly exposed to that severe condemnation mentioned in John iii. 18. 'He who believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.' And that condemnation seems to be greatly aggravated, because « light had come into the world.' And in one of Christ's last conversations with his disciples, after declaring that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no man could come unto the Father but by him, assuring them that they had seen the Father, in answer to Philip's request that he would show them the Father, replied, with an apparent degree of surprise at the hardness of their hearts; ' Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?' As if he had said, you have seen the miracles I have performed; work that no
Koiv. History, Tol iii. p. 11.
other man ever did. You have been taught my doctrines, and some of you have been witnesses to my transfiguration in the mount, how then sayest thou show us the Father? He who hath seen me hath seen the Father: believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? It is the Father who dwelleth in me, who doeth these works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works' sake.
One would have imagined, that among those who professed a belief in Jesus as one sent of God, or even as an hone6t upright man, that the question of ,his representing himself to be God as well as man, would thereafter have been absolutely put to rest.— But hear the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Colossians, ch. i. ver. 15 & 16, and if language can express any determinate ideas, can any reasonable man doubt of the apostle's opinion on this subject; while at the same time it is an excellent comment on ♦he above conversation with Philip. Speaking of the inestimable privilege of being translated into the kingdom of the Son of God, he says, • who is the image, (or similitude,) of the invisible God, the first-born, (or begotten,) 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, firincifialitiea or fiowers; all things were created by him and for him: and he is Sefore all things, and by him all things consist: for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.'
In the year 96, in a fragment of St. Clement, quoted by Lardner, he says, ' Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the Judge of the quick and the dead.' And Lardner says, 'this character of Christ was a common article of every Christian's belief.'
About the year 121, during the third general persecution under the emperour Hadrian Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, and Aristides, a Christian philosopher, presented separate apologies to the emperour, ' defending the Christian religion from the exceptions' and calumnies of its enemies, showing an illustrious and fine spirit with great eloquence. They maintained the divinity of our Saviour before the emperour, not only in their writings, but also by a discourse in his presence.'*
Echard, speaking of Justin Martyr's Apology to Antoninus Pius, the emperour, in behalf of the Christians, says, ' We here find the doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of our Saviour, and eternal life; as also proofs of the Christian faith; the holiness and conversation of its professors; together with a description of their assemblies and their ceremonies, used in the administration of both the sacraments.''
And afterwards, in the year 167, Justin being arraigned before the Roman prefect, was asked what the Christian doctrines were? answered,' We believe the one only God to be the creator of all
* Echard's Ecelesiast. History, vol. ii lib. g.
things, visible and invisible; and our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, foretold by the ancient prophets, and who shall come to be the judge of all mankind; a Saviour, a Preacher, and Master to all those duly instructed by him. But as to himself, he was too mean and unable to say any thing becoming Christ's infinite Deity—that this was the business of the prophets, who had many ages before, forctold.the coming qf the Son of God into the world.'
About the year 177, Athenagoras, an eminent Christian, wrote also an apology to the emperour, in which, among other things, he said, ' That the Christians were not Atheists, since they acknowledged and adored one God in three persons, and lived conformably to his laws and commandment.'*
About the year 230, Hyppolitus, bishop of Portua, and a scholar of Irenaeus, who was brought up under Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John, in a work on the character of Christ, after showing the humanity of Christ, in various acts of his life, says, < His divinity is also as clearly perceived when he is worshiped by angels and visited by the shepherds; expected by Simeon, and receives testimony from Anna; is inquired of by the wise men, and shown by a star; when he turned water into wine at a wedding, and rebuked the sea, violently agitated by the winds; gives sight to a man blind from his birth, and walks on the sea; the raises Lazarus, who had been dead four days; he performs various acts of power, forgives sins, and gives power to his disciples.'
In the year 230, Origen says, < Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God in a sense not to be explained and made known to man, by any but those Scriptures alone which are inspired by the Holy Spirit.' J
In the third century, Arnobius proves the divinity of Jesus Christ from «the holiness of his life; the great number of miracles he performed; the power he gave to others of working wonders; and from the prodigies which appeared upon earth at the hour of his death.'
Quintianus the martyr, under the Dioclcsian persecution, being asked by the president, how it came about, that he, being a Roman citizen and the son of a senator, could truckle under such a superstition, and worship him for a God, whom the Jews had crucified? The martyr told him, < that it was the highest honour and nobihty to know and serve God. That the Christian religion, which he called superstition, ought not to be traduced with so base a name, seeing it immediately guided its followers to the highest degree of happiness; for herein it is, that the Omnipotent God is revealed, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom all things were made, and who is in all things equal to his Father.'
Eusebius cites a book, called the Little Labyrinth, written very early, against the heresy of Artemon, « which heresy, (says be,)
• Echard'a Eceleaast. History, vol. ii. lib. 3.
Paul of Samosata has again attempted to revive in our age," in which he proves that the said heresy, which asserts our Saviour to have been a mere man, was an innovation of a late date,although the introducers of it had boasted it was very ancient: and after many arguments to confute this blasphemous lie, has this relation word for word:—" For they affirm that all the ancients, and the very apostles, received and taught the same things which they now assert, and that the preaching of the truth was preserved till the times of Victor, who, from Peter, was the thirteenth bishop of Rome; but from the times of his successour Zephyrus, the truth has been adulterated. Peradventure this saying of theirs might seem probable, did not, in the first place, the sacred Scriptures contradict them, and then the writings of some brethren ancienter than the times of Victor, which books they wrote in defence of the truth, against the Gentiles, and against the heresies of their own times: I mean Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, and many others; in all which books the divinity of Christ is maintained. For who is he that is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, who declare Christ to be God and man? The Psalms and Hymns of the brethren, written at the beginning by the faithful, do set forth the praises of Christ, the word of God, and attribute Divinity to him. Seeing therefore this ecclesiastical opinion has been manifestly declared for so many years since, how can it be that the ancients should have preached that doctrine, (which these men assert,) till the time of Victor? How can they choose but be ashamed, of framing such lies of Victor? Whereas they know, for certain, that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner, the founder and father of this apostasy, which denies God, and which first asserted Christ to be a mere man! For if Victor was, as they say, of the same opinion of that which their blasphemy does maintain, why did he proscribe Theodotus. the inventor of this heresy?
"These people have impudently adulterated the sacred Scriptures. They have rejected the canon of the primitive faith, and have been ignorant of Christ. They are not inquisitive after that which the holy Scriptures say, but bestow much labour and industry in finding out such a scheme of a syllogism as may confirm their system of their impiety. What need I say, that those persons, who make use of the arts of infidels for the confirmation of their heretical opinions, and by the craft of atheists adulterate the sincere authority of the divine Scriptures, are most remote from the faith? Hence it is that they have impudently laid their hands on the divine Scriptures, saying, that they ought to be corrected. He who is desirous, may be informed, that I speak not this falsely of them; for would any one examine the copies which they have gotten together, and compare them one with another, he would find that they disagreed very much. For the copies of Asclepiarlotus agrees not with those of Theodotus. Many such copies as these may be procured, because their disciples have with much laJbo'r and curiosity written the corrections, (as they call them,} that is, their corruptions, of every one of their masters. Again, the copies of Hermophilus agree not with those now mentioned; and those of Appolonidas differ one from another. For he who shall compare them, will find, that those copies first put forth by him, do very much disagree from his other copies, which he did afterwards again wiest and deform. How much of audaciousness there is, in this wicked fact, it is probable they themselves are not ignorant. For either they do not believe the divine Scriptures to have been dictated by the Holy Spirit, and then they are infidels; or else they account themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost, and what are they then but madmen? They cannot deny this audacious fact to have been done by their own selves, because copies have been written by their own hands; neither did they receive such copies as these from those who were their instructors; nor yet can they show the copies from which they transcribed them. But some of them have not indeed vouchsafed to adulterate the Scriptures; but having wholly rejected the law and the prophets, by a lawless and atheistical doctrine, under a pretext of grace, they are fallen into the deepest pit of destruction."
Hum:bius says, (p. 107,) ' that Berythus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, subverting the ecclesiastical canon, endeavouring to introduce a new doctrine alienating from the faith, daring to affirm that our Lord and Saviour, before his incarnation, had no proper .different subsistence, neither any Godhead of his own, but only the Deity of the Father residing in him; a conference of bishops was had: among the rest Origen was called, who convinced bim of his errour, and restored him to the Church. But they of old evidently knew the -very Christ of God. For that he afi/ieared to Abraham—gave answers to Isaac—talked with Jacob—converted with Metes, and afterwards with the prophets'
TO THE EDITOR OF THE THEOLOGICAL MAGAZIHE.
A SUBSCRIBER to your valuable work takes occasion, under the shelter of the liberality which you profess, and under the persuasion that it will be religiously regarded by you, to present a few remarks on a single sentence in your prospectus. The passage referred to is, where, (p. 8,) you express the opinion, that the reformers of the Church of England entertained Calvinistick sentiments, although they have not introduced them into the Articles and the Liturgy. Against the former part of this opinion, the following objections offer themselves.
At the time of preparing the aforesaid institutions, Calvin had not distinguished himself by carrying to his subsequent extreme, the theory which has derived its name from his. At the period referred to, he had become eminent in the eucharistick contro