« EdellinenJatka »
the God : Jehovah, he is the God.” When God proclaimed his name in Mount Sinai, Exod. xxxiv. 5, 6. “He passed by and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah.” Jer, x. 10. " Jehovah is the true God; he is the livingGod, and an everlasting King." Exod. xv. 11. “ Who is like unto Thee, O Jehovah ?"1 Chron. xvii. 20. “O Jehovah, there is none like unto Thee.” Psalm lxxxvi, 8, It might well be expected, that, in that abundant revelation which God has made of himself, he would make himself known by some one name at least, which should be expressly delivered, as the peculiar and distinguishing name of the Most High. And we find it to be so ; God has with great solemnity, declared a certain name as his most peculiar name; which he has expressly and very often spoken of as a name that belongs to him in a most distinguishing manner, and belongs to the Supreme Being only; and hath expressly asserted that it belongs to no other. But, notwithstanding all this, the Arians, to serve their particular purpose, reject this name, as not being the distinguishing name of the Supreme God.
$ 48. King of kings and Lord of lords, are titles peculiar to the Supreme Being. Deut. x. 17. “ For the Lord your God is God of gods, and the Lord of lords." Psalm cxxxvi. 3. “O give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.” Dan. ii. 47. “Of a truih it is that your God is a God of gods, and Lord of kings.” 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15, 16. “Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light, which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honour and power everlasting, Amen." Rev. xix. 11--16. “ He whose name is called the Word of God, hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.'
§ 49. Christ's eternity is abundantly asserted. Psalm cii. 24–27.“ Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Rom. i. 23. “The incorruptible God.” I Tim. vi. 26. “ The king eternal, immortal.” Rev. iv. 9, 10. v. 14. x. 5, 6. and xv. 7. Heb. vii. 2. “Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”
$ 50. There must be a vast difference, not only in the degree, but in the kind of respect and worship due to the Supreme God, as well as in other things; since there is so infinite a difference between this Being and all others. There is a great difference as to the kind of respect proper for a wife to render to her husband, and that which it is proper for her to render towards other men. So it is with regard to the respect due to God; otherwise there would not be a foundation for that jea
lousy which God exercises on occasion of his professing people worshipping other beings.
In addition to what has been observed of the works and worship of God, the following sayings of Christ are worthy to be observed. John v. 17. “My father worketh hitherto, and I work.” Verse 19. “What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." Ver. 23. 6 Tbat all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” It is plain, God is jealous in that respect, that no other being may share with him in honour, that he alone may be exalted. It is expected that other beings should humble themselves, should be brought low, should deny themselves for God, and esteem themselves as nothing before him. And as he requires that they should abase themselves, he would not set up others to exalt them to a rivalship with himself. If men may pray to Christ, may adore him, give themselves up to him, trust in him, praise him, and serve him ; what kind of worship is due to the Father, entirely distinct from all this in nature and kind ?
When Satan tempted Christ to fall down and worship him, as one that had power to dispose of the kingdoms of this world, and the glory of them ; Christ replies, “ It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” But the Arians must suppose, that we are required to worship and serve some other being than this Lord God which Christ speaks of, as the disposer not only of the kingdoms of this world, but of the kingdom of heaven and the glory thereof. On the supposition of Christ's being merely a creature, he would much more properly be ranked with creatures exclusively, and never with God, as being called by his name and titles, having ascribed to him his attributes, dominions, &c.) However great a creature he might be, he would be infinitely below God.
§ 51. Concerning the grand objection from that text, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, nor the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father :" I would observe, that even the Arians themselves, with regard to some things said of Christ, must make the distinction between his power or knowledge, as to his inferior and his superior nature; or, if they do not allow two natures, then, at least, as to his humbled state, and his state both before and after bis humiliation: as Mark vii. 24. - And would have no man know it, but he could not be hid." This cannot mean, that the person who created the whole world, visible and invisible, &c., and by whom all things consist, and are governed, had not power to order things so, that he might be hid.
§ 52. It is observable, that Christ is frequently called God absolutely, Deos and ó Osos; by which name even the heathens themselves always understood the Supreme God. Dr. Cudworth, in his “ Intellectual System,” abundantly shows, that the heathens generally worshipped but one supreme, eternal, universal, uncreated Deity ; but that their best philosophers maintained, that this Deity subsisted in three hypostases : though they had many created gods. And in page 627, he says, " It now appears, from what we have declared, that as to the ancient and genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans, none of their trinity of gods, or divine hypostases, were independent; so, neither, were they creature gods, but uncreated, they being, all of them, not only eternal, and necessarily existent and immutable, but, also, universal, i. e. infinite and omnipotent causes, principles, and creators of the whole world. From whence it follows, that these Platonists could not justly be taxed with idolatry, in giving religious worship to cach hypostasis of their trinity. And one grand design of Christianity being to abolish the Pagan idolatry, or creature-worship, it cannot justly be charged therewith, from that religious worship given to our Saviour Christ and the Holy Ghost, they being none of them, according to the true and orthodox Christianity, creatures, however the Arian hypothesis made them such. And this was, indeed, the grand reason why the ancient fathers so zealously opposed Arianism. We shall cite a remarkable passage out of Athanasius, fourth oration against the Arians, to this purpose, as follows:
Why, therefore, do not these Arians, holding this, reckon themselves amongst the Pagans, or Gentiles, since they do, in like manner, worship the creature, besides the Creator ?τη κτισει λατρευσι παρα τον κτισαντα.' Athanasius's meaning here, could not well be, that they worshipped the creature more than the Creator ; forasmuch as the Arians constantly declared, that they gave less worship to the Son than to the Father.
" For though the Pagans worship one uncreated, and many created gods; but these Arians only one uncreated, and one created, to wit, the Son, or Word of God; yet will not this make any real difference betwixt them; because the Arians' one uncreated god, is one of those many Pagan gods; and these many gods of the Pagans, or Gentiles, have the same nature with this one, they being alike creatures."
$ 53. It is remarkable, that in so many places, both in the Old Testament and New, when Christ is spoken of, his glory and prerogatives represented, and the respect due to him urged, that the vanity of idols, in the same places, should be represented, and idolatry warned against. See Psalm xvi. 4. It is manifest, that it is the Messiah that there speaks. See, also, many prophecies of Isaiah, and other prophets. 1 John v. 20, 21, 1 Cor. x. 19_22.
“There is not the least intimation, where Christ is styled God, either in the texts themselves, or contexts, that this is to be understood of his office, and not of his person; as is the case where magistrates are styled gods, where the very next words explain it, and tell us what is to be understood by it. And when Moses and angels are called gods, no one who attends to the whole discourse, could easily mistake the meaning, and not see, that this term God, was there used in an inferior and metaphorical sense." Letter to the Dedicator of Mr. Emlyn's Inquiry, &c., p. 7,8.-Matt. xix. 17. “Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is God."“Mr. Emlyn affirms it to be evident, that Christ here distinguishes himself from God, and denies of himself what he affirms of God. But the truth of his interpretation, entirely depends upon the opinion which the young man had of Christ, who received this answer from him.” Ibid. p. 17, 18.
$ 54. That Christ had divine omniscience, appears from his own words; Rev. ii. 23. " And all the churches shall know that I am He which searcheth the hearts and the reins." Now Solomon declares, 1 Kings viii. 39: “ Thou, even Thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men." And Jer. xvii. 10. God says, “I, the Lord, search the heart; I try the reins.” And Christ does not say, The Churches shall know that I search the reins and the heart; but that “ I am he," &c., which, if words have any force in them, yea, if the expression is not altogether unintelligible, implies, “I am He
I who is distinguished by this character; or, the Churches shall know that I am the God who searcheth,” &c. lbid. p. 43, 44.
§ 55. That the eternal Logos should be subordinate to the Father, though not inferior in nature; yea, that Christ, in his office, should be subject to the Father, and less than He, though in his higher nature not inferior, is not strange. It is proper, among mankind, that a son should be subordinate to his father, yea subject in many respects, though of the same human nature ; yea, though in no respect inferior in any natural qualification. It is proper that Solomon should be under David his father, and appointed king by him, and receive charges and directions from him, though, even then, in his youth, probably not inferior to his father.
The disciples of Christ, or those that trusted in him, when here on earth, applied to hiin as trusting in his ability, not only to heal all diseases of the body, and to raise the dead ; but as leaving their souls in his hands, and being able to heal the diseases of their minds; as being the Author and Fountain of virtue. So Luke xvii. 5. “The apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.” So the father of the demoniac, Mark ix. 24. "Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.”
$ 56. It is a good argument for Christ's divinity, that he is to be Author of the resurrection. The atoms and particles in one little finger, are capable of so many removes, and such dispersions, that I believe it would surpass any finite understanding at two or three thousand years' end, to tell what distinct particles of the universe belonged to it. It would require a vast strength and subtilty of mind, to trace but one atom so nicely, as to know that individual atom in the universe, after so long a time; after it had been a particle of air, water, oil, or animal spirit, &c. and had been transported with prodigious swiftness from place to place, back wards and forwards, millions of times, amongst innumerable others of the same kind. Especially, would it be exceeding difficult, so narrowly to watch two of such at once. If so, what would it be, to follow every atom in a man's body; yea, of all the bodies that ever have died, or shall die? And, at the same time, to have the mind exercised with full vigour upon innumerable other matters, that require an equal strength of understanding ? and all this with such ease, that it shall be no labour to the mind ?
$ 57. God would not have given us any person to be our Redeemer, unless he was of divine and absolutely supreme dignity and excellency, or was the Supreme God; lest we should be under temptation to pay him too great respect; lest, if he were not the Supreme God, we should be under temptation to pay him that respect which is due only to the Supreme, and which God, who is a jealous God, will by no means allow to be paid to an inferior being. Men are very liable to be tempted io rate those too highly, from whom they have received great benefits. They are prone to give them that respect and honour, that belongs to God only. Thus the Gentile world deified and adored such of their kings as did great things for them, and others from whom they received great benefits. Cornelius was tempted to give too great respect to Peter, he being the person that God had marked out to be his teacher and guide in things pertaining to eternal salvation. So the apostle John could scarce avoid adoring the angel that showed him those visions: he fell down to worship him once and again. Though the first time he had been strictly warned against it; yet the temptation was so great, that he did it again: Rev. xix. 10; xxii, 8. This being a temptation they were so Jiable to, was greatly disallowed of by God. When Cornelius fell down before Peter, he took him up, saying, “ Stand up; I myself also am a man.” So, when the people at Lystra were about to offer divine worship to Paul and Barnabas, when they heard of it, they rent their clothes, and ran in among them crying out, “ Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein ;"? Acts xiv. And when John was about to adore the angel, how strictly was he warned against it ; " Seethou do it not,” says he. Vol. VII.