Page images
PDF
EPUB

praise to "the Lamb that was slain," in union with "Him "that sitteth on the Throne * :" no words can possibly be more emphatical than those used on these occasions. Can any man, therefore, after reading them, assert that Christ is a mere created being? or that it is idolatry to worship him? Or will he pretend to believe that Book to be "the "unerring word of God?" or can he disapprove its divine inspiration; when its prophecies have been so remarkably accomplished? This shows that our version is faithful in another place †, and that every Christian ought to join the saints of old, in saying, "Unto him that loved us, and "washed us from our sins in his own blood,-be glory and "dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

VII. Lastly, our doctrine is confirmed by the absurdities into which its most able opposers have been driven. Such men have principally laboured to invalidate those texts, that seem most explicit on the subject: though we could prove our doctrine, even if these evidences were set aside. For this reason I have omitted one testimony, which is decisive, if genuine, (as upon the whole I suppose it to be ;) because its authenticity has been so much disputed .-A short specimen, however, may show with what success they who deny the Deity of Christ have laboured. The Psalmist, and from him the Apostle says of the Messiah," Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ||." To elude the obvious inference from this text, it hath been said, that the words may be rendered, "God is thy throne

for ever and ever." We read that heaven is God's throne, and the earth is his footstool; but who can conceive God himself to be the throne, on which a creature should reign to eternity?-Instead of "God was manifest "in the flesh;" some would read it," who was manifest❝ed in the flesh;" in which case God must be the antecedent, as the context shows; and then the sense remains

* Rev. v.7.
# 1 John v. 7, 8.

† Rev. i. 5. 6.

Ps. xlv. 6, 7. Heb. i. 8, 9.

563352 A

precisely the same *. Others would read it "which (mystery) was manifested in the flesh;" and then which mystery must be the nominative case to all the subsequent clauses in the verse: but whatever may be thought of the other propositions, "which mystery was received up into glory," will scarcely be deemed the language of inspiration, by any who do not prefer nonsense to orthodoxy.But sometimes these persons seem disposed to retain our reading, and to explain the expression to mean, that the

wisdom and power of God were conspicuous in Christ ;' which would be also true of Peter, or Moses; and so this great mystery of godliness at length is found to be no mystery at all!

When incredulous Thomas was at last convinced of Christ's resurrection, he exclaimed, "My Lord and my "God!" And it cannot seem wonderful to those, who consider that he knew the Messiah was to be called Emmanuel, and had heard him say, " he that hath seen me, hath seen the "Father," that he should be convinced of his Deity by his resurrection from the dead †. To set aside this testimony, it hath been said, that the Apostle's words were the language of astonishment, and not of adoration, as men often exclaim, my God, when greatly surprised. But are not such exclamations manifest violations of the third commandment, and certain proofs of men's irreverent contempt of the name of God? Who then can believe, that the Apostles used such profane language before Christ, without meeting with the least reproof for it ? Surely such a solution must be improbable in the highest degree; and they, who can admit it, have no right to despise other men's credulity! But indeed, the words cannot admit of any such construction, consistently with the idiom of the original language.

That most august passage, with which John opens his gospel, has been so construed, in order to evade our infe

• 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16.

John xx. 26-31. Rom. i. 2, 3.

+ Matt. v. 37.

rence from it, that the nominative case to the verbs used in it must be changed again and again, without the least intimation given of it; contrary to all the rules of grammar. By others, the word is supposed to mean nothing more, than the energy or power of God, which was eternally with him and essential to him, by which he made the world, and which was manifested in the man Jesus: but can any one in his senses suppose, that this was all the meaning of the Apostle's introduction to his gospel, of the sublime things he says of the word, and of his becoming flesh and dwelling among us? If any one should think so for a moment, a second attentive perusal must surely convince him of his mistake. Aware of this, it is now deemed convenient to set it aside as no part of revelation!

The interpretation, given of another decisive evidence *, is grounded on a proposed different translation, implying 'that Christ did not think of such a robbery, as that of being equal with God.' But not to mention the various expressions used by our Lord, which certainly were thus understood by the Jews; who can believe that the Apostle should propose to his brethren, as a perfect example of humility, the conduct of a mere man or creature, who barely did not claim equality with the eternal God; when at best this could be no more than an exemption from the very summit of all possible pride and ambition? His argument, (as well as the meaning of the words,) proves that “in the "form of God," signifies, being truly God and appearing so; even as the form of a servant and the fashion of a man signify being truly man: and how could a mere creature "take upon him the form of a servant," seeing he must always have been a servant of his Maker?

The Apostle, speaking of the patriarchs, (Rom. ix. 5.) said, "of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who " is over all God blessed for ever, Amen." To evade this decisive testimony, it has been proposed to render the lattér clause, "God be blessed for ever, Amen." But where then is the meaning of the preceding expression, " as con

* Phil. ii. 5-10.

"cerning the flesh ?" Did ever a sensible writer use such language concerning the descent of any prince or hero? Does not the energy and propriety of the passage depend on the contrast between the clauses, "of whom as con"cerning the flesh Christ came ;" and "who is over all "God blessed for ever?" And do you not convert it into unmeaning absurdity by such a change in the version?

Stephen's dying address to Christ has lately been considered, as the words of a man, in an extacy of devotion, or in the agonies of death,' and therefore not of much weight in the argument; as if modern reasoners could better direct our faith and worship, than this protomartyr, when full of the Holy Ghost, favoured with the visions of God, and replete with the light of Heaven!" ye know the 66 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; that though he was rich yet for your sakes he became poor ?" What shall we say to Paul's words *? Could he, who was born in a stable, had not where to lay his head, and died on a cross, be rich before he was poor; if he had not existed before he became a man?-The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain, "I came forth from the Father, and am come in

[ocr errors]

to the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Fa "ther," (John xvi. 28.) and many other declarations he made," that he came down from heaven," so pressed the ancient Socinians, as to induce them to feign that Jesus, like Mahomet, went to heaven to receive his instructions, previously to his entrance on his ministry. But modern Socinians have given up this figment; they seem conscious of their inability to maintain their old ground; and therefore, they now intimate that Apostles and Evangelists were mistaken, and that several books or parts of the Scripture are not authentic, or not divinely inspired. Thus they save themselves much trouble by answering all our witnesses at once; and doubtless, they act prudently in imitating the church of Rome; constituting themselves judges of the Scriptures, determining what parts of it are divine, and making their own scheme the standard, by which it is to be interpreted; for neither of their systems can subsist, * 2 Cor. viii. 9.

except by a proportionable disregard to and degradation of the word of God.

I feel a confidence, that each of the arguments here adduced, are separately conclusive: how great then must be the united force of them? Yet only a small part of the evidence can be contained in so brief an essay. I would, therefore conclude, with observing, that the Scriptures were written to recover men from idolatry, to the worship of the true God; and that idolatry consists in worshipping such as by nature are no gods. What then shall we think of all the texts here adduced, if Christ be not God? or what shall we say to John's conclusion of his first epistle? Having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (culos)" is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, "keep yourselves from idols." (1 John v. 20, 21.)

ESSAY VII.

Showing the Doctrine of our Lord's Deity to be essential to Christianity; with a brief Answer to some objections.

WE are not in all cases capable of determining exactly

The

what things are essential to our holy religion, and what are not; yet the Scriptures most evidently declare some particulars to be so; and I cannot but consider the doctrine of our Lord's Deity as one of these essentials, nor hesitate to say that Christianity itself must stand or fall with it. greater decision is proper on this subject, as our opponents seem lately to have shifted their ground. 'They used to 'maintain that Christ's divinity was the master-piece of 'absurdities-directly contrary to every part of natural ' and revealed religion, and to all the rational faculties God has given us :' that by making more gods than one, it was a breach of the first commandment,' and much more to the same purpose. This was a direct

« PreviousContinue »