Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

and "to-day" under the evangelical. Thus a perfect consistency pervades the whole system of revelation; one and the same almighty Architect both planned and executed the physical and moral structure of our nature: nor can the mind of man conceive an idea more magnificent and awful, than that of the Divine Being descending from his state of glory, and taking upon him a form of flesh, in order to repair the desolations of ages, and restore perfect order among the works of God. On this ground it is perfectly natural and just that the Apostles should, without reserve or explanation, transfer to Jesus Christ in the New Testament, passages appropriated to Jehovah in the Old: of which practice a sufficient specimen occurs in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.-Pp. 40-46.

In treating of the omnipresence of the Saviour, Mr. G. remarks,

This attribute is similarly supposed, when "one like unto the Son of man" is exhibited as "walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks," the different churches of Asia Minor, representative in spirit of the church universal in every subsequent age. (Rev. i. 18-ii. 1.) He was thus efficiently and simultaneously present (it cannot be doubted without impiety) to every individual of his primitive disciples; 'wherever a particle of that "salt of the earth" might be sprinkled, in Asia Minor or Palestine, in Greece or Italy, and perhaps in Spain or Britain. At the same moment, by his essential Deity, he was enthroned in heaven, amidst the adoring myriads of angels and the redeemed; and imparting, "in his presence, fulness of joy," to his prisoner at Rome, or to his exile in the solitary isle of Patmos. At the same moment he continues to be present, influentially though invisibly present, in every devotional assembly of the church universal, in every heart that becomes a temple of his Spirit; he travels, voyages, and sojourns, with the missionary labourers sent forth in that spiritual harvest of which he is the Lord, in the sultry regions of Africa and either India, in the snowy deserts of Labrador and Greenland, in the sprinkled islands of the vast Pacific.-Pp. 51, 52.

(1

When the wisest of men addressed Jehovah in that sublime prayer which accompanied the dedication of the temple, he alleged omniscience as the ground of adoration: "Hear thou in heaven thy dwellingplace; for thou, even thou only, knowest -the hearts of all the children of men." Kings, viii. 39.) And the Psalmist, in the incomparable description of this attribute, implies that it can belong only to creative and omnipresent Deity: "Thou understandest my thoughts afar off; search me, O God, and know my heart." (Ps. cxxxix.)

But the self-sane expressions of this incommunicable heart-scrutiny are applied to Christ, even while he sojourned as man on earth. How repeatedly does the inspired biographer mention that "he, knowing their thoughts; he, perceiving their thoughts," directed his answers not according to their words, but to what they said within themselves (Matt. ix. 4, 12, &c.); conformably with that conspicuous prediction concerning him, that he should possess "the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge," enabling him to " judge not after the sight of his eyes, and reprove not after the hearing of his ears," but with that "righteousness and equity" which corresponds with the secret reality of things. The discourses and the actions of our Lord niscience, which exclude all comparison are replete with indications of creative omwith those of the wisest men. To produce all the illustrations of this remark, were to transcribe the principal parts of the evangelical narrative. Everywhere we perceive, in living evidence, that " he needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man :' " and it is remarkable, by the way, that, immediately after this general assertion, the Evangelist proceeds to relate a striking instance of its truth, in the consummate reply which our Saviour makes to the first words of Nicodemus; a reply, not to any thing which that Jewish doctor had expressed, but to the secret intent and real anxiety of his mind: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: Jesus answered, Verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."Pp. 59, 60.

That the power of imparting righteousness and goodness, or what (in the prescriptive language of Christianity) we term the exercise of grace, is an exclusive prerogative of Deity, and utterly transcends the capacity of a creature; this is apparent from the whole tenour of the Scriptures. Not the remotest hint is given of such a communicative energy being possessed by the most distinguished of saints or of angels. We hear of the spiritual graces, as of the miraculous powers imparted to prophets and apostles; we hear of the holiness, as of the strength, in which ministering spirits excel: but not a word do we hear of Moses or of Gabriel being invested with a power to justify the guilty, or sanctify the unholy; to impart of their own righteousness their own spirit. Nothing can sound more abhorrent from the pervading doctrine of inspiration, than the transferral to Moses of such an assertion as this; "Out of his fulness we have all received, even grace for grace.' Nothing, at once more unscriptural and incredible, can be conceived, than

the utterance, by Gabriel, of a promise like this; "My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is perfect in thy weakness." There appears to be no reason why the same ac

knowledgment, which is bound upon the saints of God, should not extend to his angels; "we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty."

But the communication of "all spiritual blessings," is unequivocally ascribed to Jesus Christ.

66

That assertion, so irreferrible to Moses, was made respecting him; that promise, so preposterous on the lips of Gabriel, was uttered by him. The difference which subsists between his moral excellence and that of every creature, is infinite, not only as it is the difference between infinite and finite, but also as it is the difference between excellence supremely original and communicative, and excellence entirely dependent and incommunicative; between the inexhaustible fountain, and the comparatively minute derivations. To all others" is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ " (Eph. iv. 7); but what must be "the supply of the Spirit in Christ," which is adequate to supply all the need" of such needy millions! (Phil. i. 10--iv. 19.) As he is personally "the righteous One," so is he relatively "Jehovah our righteousness," and we are "made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. v. 21.) As "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead personally,” so (the Apostle adds) "we are complete in him." The unsearchable riches" of Moses, "the supply of the spirit" of Gabriel, were strange and idolatrous expressions; but, restored to their Divine proprietor Jesus Christ, none can be more congenial to that constant aspect of Deity, which he presents to the candid disciple of the New Testament. As the Apostle demands, "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" we may similarly demand, how could he without impiety affirm, in reference to one who was not God; "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me?" deeply sensible as he was, that in all things "our sufficiency is of God."-Pp. 113-115.

Dr. Blomfield's five Lectures were delivered on the Fridays during the season of Lent, and are published chiefly with a view to their dispersion amongst the inhabitants of his parish, a neighbourhood where Unitarian opinions

*Dr. Blomfield says, "In compliance Iwith the custom of those writers, who deny our Saviour's divinity, I have spoken of them under the name of Unitarians ; which, however, is an improper appellation,

have been disseminated with more than common activity. In the first Lecture, Dr. B. recommends the frequently reading the Gospel history, with a view to some particular point of inquiry.

For instance, I would at one time study the narratives of the Evangelists, with a view to the peculiar opinions which the Jews entertained concerning their expected Messiah. I would read them again, with reference to the personal character and conduct of our Saviour; at another time, for the purpose of comparing all the parables which speak of the kingdom of heaven; at another, with an eye to the fulfilment, or abrogation, of the Mosaic law; and lastly, with a particular attention to that important and capital feature of the Gospel dispensation, the office and nature of our blessed Saviour. In pursuing our inquiries on this head, we shall find our attention particularly drawn towards the Gospel of St. John, which tells us a great many things about which the other Evangelists are si

when used to distinguish them from other Christians, who, while they believe the divinity of our Lord, assert the Divine Unity as strenuously as the Unitarians themselves. The term Humanitarian is more proper; but it is hardly come into general use."Preface, p. iv.

We do not conceive either Unitarian or Humanitarian a proper term. We maintain the unity of God, and the perfect hu man nature of Jesus Christ; and we are therefore compelled still to call these heretics by the name of their great heresiarch Socinus. The Socinians may call this illiberal, but until a more appropriate title can be devised, we do not see how we can act otherwise. The following extract from Mr. G. deserves notice :

"All the objections, urged against the Deity of Jesus Christ, may be reduced to two classes; that of those which insist upon his humanity, and that of those which insist upon the Divine Unity. Thus the opponents of this doctrine lay the whole stress of their argument upon conceded truth.

We assert,' says an able writer, that in the unity of God, there is a distinction of persons; we are met with proofs of the unity of God:-we assert that Jesus Christ

was God as well as man; we are encountered with multiplied evidences of his humanity. The true points of difference are thus completely evaded. It ought to be the business of our opponents, instead of proving Christ's humanity, to disprove his divinity; instead of proving the Unity of God, to disprove the Divine Trinity."-P. 119.

lent, and takes but little notice of others, upon which they enlarge.-P. 2. ‹

After some further remarks, in which he states the difference between the other Evangelists and St. John to be, that they wrote a history of our Saviour's life, but St. John of his person and office, Dr. B. proceeds to expound in order the passages in this Gospel relating to the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ; and in the close of his last Lecture he thus sums up the whole argument:

We have now considered the manner in which St. John has executed his purpose. He commences his work with a full, precise, and positive declaration of the eternal pre-existence and divine nature of the Word; of his agency in the work of creation; of his incarnation and residence amongst men. He then details, in successign, those discourses of our Saviour's, in which, while there is a constant reference to his office of a divine legate, there are also frequent and striking allusions to his participation in the divine nature. Not one of these allusions is explained away by St. John; there is not a word, which can be construed into an assertion of our Saviour's simple humanity; but a great many passages which do plainly imply his divinity, and which cannot be otherwise explained, without doing violence to the natural propriety of language, and to the most unquestionable rules of interpretation.

The intention of the Evangelist displays itself in every page of his Gospel: it was to exhibit Jesus as the true Messiah, the restorer of the human race, not by his doctrines only, but by his death; as the Son of God, existent from eternity with the Father; having all things that the Father hath, and doing all things which the Father doth; and to be honoured by all men, even as they honour the Father. All these points St. John in the first instance briefly but pointedly asserts; and afterwards proves them at large, by the words of Jesus himself. And in conclusion he tells us, that his object was, not to record, all the wonderful things which Jesus did, but only such particulars as might convince mankind that he was the Son of God; not merely a prophet (for that he was proved to be by his miracles which the other Evangelists had related), but the very Son of the Most High, which he repeatedly declared himself to be, in the discourses preserved by St. John. I will conclude with a brief recapitulation of the principal doctrines which are taught in this remarkable Gospel.

So God loved the world, that he gave
AUGUST 1823.

(i. e. to death) his only-begotten Son, that men might be saved by their belief in him as such. Jesus Christ was this only-begot ten Son; the Son of God, in a manner, and

by a mode of generation peculiar to himself. He had God for his own Father, and was equal to him (v. 18); existing with him before he appeared in the flesh; and sent by him upon earth (iii. 18, 17). He had world was: he had come from that glory, dwelt with his Father in glory, before the and returned to it (vi. 38, 623 viii. 42; xvi. 28; xvii. 5). He was exactly equal, in attributes and powers, to the Father (v. 17, 19, 26), and is to be worshipped as the Father (v. 23). The Father and the Son have a perfect unity of counsel, will, and operation (x. 30; xvi. 15, &c.). And there is the same unity subsisting between the Holy Spirit and the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and the Son (xvi. 13).

We are further taught, that Christ came upon earth to save mankind, by dying for them upon the cross (iii. 14, 15); that he was the Messiah sent from God, who had been promised to the holy men of old; and spoken of by Moses and the Prophets. That he did nothing without the direction and consent of the Father (v. 19); and taught nothing but what he had heard, not by divine inspiration, like the prophets, but by intimate communication with the Father in heaven (viii. 38); that he laid down his life, by the command of, his Father; and yet that he had power of himself to lay it down, and to take it again (x. 17, 18). That the same credence is to be given to the Son as to the Father; that it is the Son who has the power of conferring eternal life upon believers (vi. 39-xvii. 2), and that he is to be the Judge of mankind.

These are the leading points of that faith, which is described in the Gospel of St. John as being necessary to salvation; to illustrate and establish it was the object of his writing. Some of the ancient heretics, at a very early period, finding it impossible to evade the force of that testimony which this Gospel affords to the divinity of Christ, rejected it altogether, as containing erroneous doctrines. This is a striking evidence of the impression which it is calculated to produce upon the mind; and the very fact of its being calculated to produce such an impression, affords a strong argument in behalf of our interpretation; since it is highly improbable, that at a time when the church had begun to be distracted by heresies concerning the nature of Christ, an Apostle should have employed expressions, which to all appearance assert the divinity of our Saviour, if he had known that doctrine to be unfounded.

The great and sublime truths which this Evangelist proclaimed in his Gospel, he reiterated in his Epistles; he there describes

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Christ as the Word of Life; the Son of God,
and eternal life (1 John, i. 2); as cleans-
ing us by his blood from all sin (ver. 7); as
having laid down his life for us (iii. 16);
as having "come in the flesh" (iv. 3); as
"sent by the Father to be the Saviour of
the world" (ver. 14); and as "born of
God" (v. 1); as an advocate with the
Father, and the propitiation for our sins"
(ii. 1). He warns us, and it is indeed an
awful warning, that "whosoever denieth
the Son, the same hath not the Father."
(ii. 23.) And he concludes with those
words which, if I have succeeded in ex-
plaining his views, you will now without
hesitation adopt in their literal and unqua-
lified sense; "we know that the Son of
God is come, and hath given us an under-
standing, that we may know him that is
true; and we are in him that is true; even
in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE
TRUE GOD, AND ETERNAL LIFE."-Pp. 82
-86.

It will obviously appear, that the design of these two publications is somewhat different. Mr. G. takes up the whole subject of the Divinity of Christ, Dr. B. expounds the doctrine as stated by St. John. Both these writers exhibit a clear arrangement, a lucid and convincing argument, a thorough acquaintance with the original Scriptures and those biblical questions which are so important in the present controversy. The conclusions, how ever, of Dr. B. are somewhat cold and inefficient; while there is a warmth of feeling about Mr. G.'s statements, which evidently show, that he is not merely discussing a theological question, but is deeply and experimentally acquainted with the importance of the doctrine which he has undertaken to esta

blish. The different line in which these two eminent scholars have been called upon to move may account for the difference of animation which they evince. While, however, we must regard Mr. G.'s publication as the most valuable, we cannot part with either of these respectable authors without acknowledging our obligations, and expressing a hope that we may shortly meet with them again.

A Letter to the Rev. H. H. Norris, A. M. By the Rev. John Paterson, D. D.-Pp. 88. Hamil- *

ton. 1823.

A Letter to the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, occasioned by the Strictures on Bible Societies, contained in his late Charge to the Convention of New York. By a Churchman. Pp. 80.

York. 1823.

New

WE have no inclination to waste our time about Mr. Norris. His demonstrations, reasonings, and

sooner

and respectful letters, no
appear, than their fallacy, ab-
surdity, and impertinence, are im-
mediately detected. We have,
therefore, merely placed the title
of Dr. Paterson's pamphlet at the
head of this article, that our read-
ers may be aware there is such a
publication; and that if any one
amongst the many thousands who
monthly peruse the Christian Guar-
dian, has been in the least impress-
ed by Mr. N.'s slanders, with re-
spect to the Russian Bible Society,
or the London Missionary Society,
or Mr. Knill, or Dr. Paterson, &c.
&c. he may once for all be inform-
ed, that the pamphlet before us
contains a full, sufficient, and deci-
sive answer to such insinuations.

Mr. Norris may, however, find a little consolation in some parts of the second publication here adverted to. He may there learn, that the respectful Letter to Lord Liverpool has actually been reprinted in America! Nay more, that there is ONE Protestant Bi

shop in a foreign country who agrees with himself and another distinguished personage, in regarding the Bible Society as a "most crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are under

mined * !

Here, however, Mr. N. will do well to stop. The other parts of this Letter will be any thing rather than consoling; for it shows, in a

* See Bull of Pope Pius.

very decided manner, the weakness and absurdity of all those pretexts on which the Bible Society has been opposed.

Our readers are aware that Dr. Maltby, in the face of those Articles and Homilies which he has so often subscribed, has long since asserted, that out of sixty-six books which form the contents of the Old and New Testaments, not above seven in the Old, nor above eleven in the New, appear calculated for the study or comprehension of the unlearned; and one O'Callaghan declares, that the supposition, that the contracted mind of an ignorant peasant can comprehend, in any tolerable degree, the high import of these sublime and sacred books, is not only unfounded but mischievous. Bishop Hobart, however, has gone one step further than his predecessors; they have ventured to intimate, that a large part of the Bible is to mankind in general useless, or somewhat worse; and he has kindly found out a substitute for those Scriptures which they reject. We," says he, "distribute then the Holy Scriptures in the manner best calculated to diffuse a knowledge of their sacred contents when we distribute the Book of Common Prayer."

66

Now, what would the compilers of our Liturgy-what would the writers of the first Homily of our church-what, in short, must every pious and considerate churchman say to such a position as this? Surely it is great impiety, as well as most intolerable arrogance, for any individual to insinuate that a book which, except the Psalter, does not contain more than six entire chapters, is calculated to diffuse an adequate knowledge of the whole of the inspired volume. The impiety and dangerous consequences of such insinuations are well shown in the pamphlet before

us.

Bishop Hobart has endeavoured to support his opposition to the Bi

ble Society by the countenance not of his episcopal brethren in America, for he appears to be the only American Bishop weak or wicked enough to take that side of the question, but by the authority of FORTY-FIVE English and Irish Bishops. The writer of the Letter clearly shows, that instead of fortyfive Bishops, only seven have in any respect appeared hostile; some of these have merely expressed a preference of other societies, and others have described this Society as a point on which good men may differ, nay, have spoken with high commendation of its foreign objects. Thus the episcopal opponents are in this country reduced to a very small number; while at one period the Bible Society was supported by a clear majority of the prelates of the Established Church of England and Ireland.

But where will the opponents of the Bible Society look for support in foreign countries? Pope Pius and his clergy engage on their side. But who else? There is one Bishop Hobart, it is true. Cannot we find another to support him? No; for the honour of Episcopacy be it recorded, that the Bishops of Protestant Europe and of Protestant America, and of the Greek church, step forth with eagerness in the Bible cause; and that the thousands who are thus engaged in its support are opposed by some three or four, who depend on second-hand information-who have no experimental acquaintance with the actual proceedings either of Bible Committees or Bible Societies-and who therefore ground their opposition not on what they know, but on what they have heard, suppose, or imagine.

We beg leave to acknowledge our obligations to the unknown author of this valuable Letter, and the equally unknown friend by whose kindness it has been forwarded from New York for our perusal.

« EdellinenJatka »