Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

should follow his steps, always prayed to the Father; and, while engaged in the solemn act of prayer, he declared that the knowledge of the Father, as the ONLY TRUE GOD, and of Jesus Christ whom he had sent, is eternal life. See John xvii. 3. He never prayed to his own divine nature, or to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost. He never prayed to the Triune God, or to a Trinity in any form. I recollect of but one instance in which he invoked the Supreme Being by the appellation God. This was when upon the cross he repeated the words of David, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"-Ps. xxii. 1. Just before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed thus: "O MY FATHER, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." At the grave of Lazarus he prayed thus: "FATHER, I thank thee that thou hast heard me: And I knew that thou hearest me always." So certain is it that Jesus always prayed to the FATHER.

The precepts of Jesus inculcate the same important doctrine. He said to the Tempter in the wilderness, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve." The word here rendered serve, always denotes religious service. It is used, I think, in the New Testament 21 times, but not once in reference to Jesus Christ. Is not this as decisive as it is remarkable?

Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, "The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth: for the FATHER seeketh such to worship him." If Jesus had said the true worshipers shall worship God in spirit and in truth, the Trinitarian might infer that he meant the Triune God-Father, Son, and Spirit. I cannot conceive how it is possible for Trinitarians, who professedly worship two other objects besides the Father, to claim the character of "the true worshipers?" since they have no written authority, but "the tradition of the elders," to urge against this plain decision of Jesus Christ.

[ocr errors]

Hallowed be thy

In compliance with the request of his disciples to teach. them to pray, Jesus said unto them, "When ye pray, say, OUR FATHER which art in heaven. name."-Luke xi. 2. So in Mat. vi. 9. ‘After this manner, therefore, pray ye: OUR FATHER which art in heaven." If Jesus had intended to teach his disciples to pray to the Triune God of human creeds, is it not morally certain, to say the least, that he would have directed them to use the general appellation GOD? Had he done so, the idea of a Trinity would not have been so certainly precluded. But by teaching them to pray to one person only, the FATHER, to whom he himself prayed, to whom their fathers prayed, and whom he declares to be the ONLY TRUE GOD, he has entirely precluded even the possibility of such an inference. And is it not more than probable that it was one design of our Saviour in being thus explicit in regard to the object of prayer, to leave no room for such an inference?

Had our Saviour, in prophetic vision, surveyed the age in which we live, and had it been his intention to give instructions relative to the object of prayer in such a manner as to leave no pretext to infer the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God, I cannot conceive how he could have employed better phraseology, or chosen more appropriate words.

If the Apostles had taught us any thing contrary to the instructions of the Great Teacher, we should be at no loss to determine by whose authority we ought to be governed. But they have not done so. They have taught, both by example and precept, that the FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only object of supreme worship. lowing passages. Rom. xv. 5, 6. Eph. ii. 18, Phil. iii. 3. Col. i. 3, 12, and iii. 17. I Pet. i. 17.

v. 20.

See the foliii. 14, and

James iii. 9.

SECTION VII.

CHRIST TESTIFIES THAT HE IS NOT GOD.

are one.

Christ, speaking of his sheep, said, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God."—John x. 29—33. As this is the only instance recorded in the Bible in which Jesus was accused of making himself God, his answer must be important and decisive. 'Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"—Verse 34-36.

66

In this refutation Jesus denies being God; denies calling himself God; and repels the accusation of blasphemy even on the supposition that he had called himself God. He denies being God, by asserting that he was sanctified and sent into the world by his Father. God could not be sanctified, nor sent; neither has he any Father. He denies calling himself God, by asserting that he had only called himself the Son of God. A father and son are two distinct

beings; nor is there any term that more strongly marks derived existence, than the term son. Besides, Jesus founds the propriety of calling himself the Son of God, not on any thing peculiar in his nature, or any supposed resemblance or likeness to his Father, but simply on the ground of his being sanctified and sent by the Father. He repels the charge of blasphemy, by appealing to the well known scripture usage, by which they are called Gods unto whom the word of God came. So that if he had called himself God (which he had not done) it would have implied, according to his own explanation, nothing more than that he was a divine messenger one to whom the word of God

came.

That this is the sense in which the Jews understood the answer of Jesus is evident from the fact that they never after accused him of making himself God, though urged to do so by considerations as powerful as can well be con ceived. When he was arraigned before their Council, and the accusation was blasphemy, they made great efforts to support the charge. They could not obtain the necessary evidence. After they had suborned witnesses, all they could prove by them was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days. Now if Jesus had ever made himself God, or intimated any desire to be considered as God, it is incredible that they should not have urged it against him at a time like this. This would have been the very evidence they felt themselves so much in need of When they were ready to seize on every circumstance, however trifling; and were driven to extremities, to obtain witnesses to support the charge of blasphemy, it is incredible, I say, that they should not have availed themselves of such an advantage. It is as certain, then, that Jesus never made himself God, as it is that the Jews did not urge it against him at his trial.

Let us suppose the same Jews who accused Jesus of

[blocks in formation]

--

making himself God, had heard other Jews, who were not present when he confuted their charge, complaining that they had heard him call himself God: would they not have been likely to answer them somewhat in the following manner? "We ourselves once thought we heard him call himself God; and we accused him of it, and threatened to stone him. But instead of acknowledging it, he denied it; and convinced us that we had accused him wrongfullythat he did not call himself God, but simply the Son of God, whom the Father had sanctified and sent." Again, had these same Jews, whom he had thus convinced, afterwards heard him actually call himself God, would they not, must they not, have understood him to mean nothing more than, that he was one to whom the word of God came? Yet astonishing as it may seem, his answer and explanation, which perfectly satisfied his enemies, does not appear to have satisfied his friends; nor to have restrained them from repeating the same charge which he refuted, viz. that he, being a man, made himself God.

Let us suppose a royal Missionary to be sent to a foreign land, to publish a most important doctrine. The Missionary is perfectly acquainted with all the difficulties and dangers of the mission. He foresees all the opposition he must meet, and all the hardships he must encounter, before he undertakes. A satisfactory reward being offered, he cheerfully engages in the work. Having arrived at the field of his labor, he opens his commission, exhibits his credentials, and enters upon his work. He preaches the true doctrine of his mission. His hearers perfectly understand his meaning, but they dislike the doctrine, and vehemently remonstrate against it. They accuse him of holding and preaching a doctrine in the highest degree absurd and blasphemous. Finally they severely threaten him, in case he does not retract what he has said, and abandon his position. He now

« EdellinenJatka »