Page images
PDF
EPUB

the fenfe of the terms; not that we may infer, by confequences, a truth which lay concealed. For thefe two propofitions, God was made man- -God was manifeft

in the human nature-are perfectly equivalent.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER III.

An Objection from John xvii. 3. answered.

ONE of the principal arguments in favour of the Socinian hypothefis, is formed on thofe words of our Lord; "This is life eternal, that they night know

thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou "haft fent." Nobody questions, fays Crellius, but that, by the true God, must be underflood the Supreme God. When, therefore, Jefus Chrift reprefents his Father to us, as the only true God; it follows, that none but the Father is the Supreme God.'

Before we return a direct answer, it may not be improper to make a few general remarks. Let it, then, be here obferved, That as our Lord may be confidered, either in a state of the lowest humiliation, or in a state of the highest glory; so he is variously represented to us, according to these two very different conditions." Accordingly he affumes, in reference to the former fuch characters as express his abafement; and, with a view to the latter, fuch as denote his exaltation. la the time of his humiliation, he calls himfelf "the Son "of man," much more frequently than "the Son of "God" but, after he was glorified, his apoftles conftantly call him, "the Son of God;" hardly ever, "the Son of man." Before his refurrection, his difciples thought they said a great deal in this confeffion of their faith, "Thou art Chrift, the Son of the living

[ocr errors]

"God:" but, their light increafing with his glory, when they faw him rifen from the dead, one of them faid, "MY LORD, AND MY GOD!" When Jefus taught his difciples to pray, he gave them an admirable pattern of devotion in what is called, The Lord's prayer;' yet in that excellent directory, the name of Chrift is not once mentioned. But when the Redeemer is just leaving the world, and is going to be glorified, he fays to his difciples; "Whatsoever ye fhall afk the

Father in my name, he will give it you." And, after his exaltation, the church places her hope of Divine acceptance, in devotional fervices, entirely in his interceffion; addreffing her prayer and praises to the Father, through the hands of her Divine Saviour only. Unto Him be glory in the church, by Chrift Jefus, throughout all ages-Ye are an holy priesthood, to "offer up fpiritual facrifices, acceptable to God, by Jefus "Chrift-If any man fin, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jefus Chrift the righteous."--Thefe things confidered, it is no wonder that Jefus Chrift, when speaking of himself in the time of his humiliation, fhould speak fuitably to that condition; nor that, in the evangelical hiftory, the Father is more frequently called GOD, than he; nor yet that our Mediator, on various occafions, fhould fpeak of himself, as fubject to his Father; and of the Father, as the Creator of heaven and earth, and the fovereign Manager of all events.

Arguments drawn from the filence of the Scripture, are, in fome cafes excellent; but in others impertinent and entirely falfe. Will our opponents affert, for inftance, that Chrift is not the redeemer; because he taught his difciples the duties of morality, when on the mount, without exprefsly mentioning the work of redemption? Or, dare they affirm, that He is not an interceffor with God; becaufe, when teaching his difciples to pray, he does not always direct them to afk the bleffings they want, in his name?-Crellius, then, gains no advantage to his caufe, by remarking; That Jefus

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

• Chrift, when speaking of himself on various occafions, fays nothing greater; nor yet his apoftles, when fpeaking of him, than that he is THE SON OF GOD.' For as, on fome occafions, Christ spake of himself as a man; as, on others, he fpake of himself as a prophet, without faying any thing of his kingly, or prieftly, office; and yet we cannot with any appearance of reafon conclude from hence, that he is neither king, nor priest, nor mediator between God and man: fo he might fpeak of himself, and the apoftles might represent him, as a priest and a king, as mediator and the Son of God, on certain occafions; without fpeaking exprefsly of his Divinity, and yet not militate, in the leaft, againft it.

To answer more directly. If our adverfaries mean to proge, from this paffage, that Jefus Chrift is not Gov they act inconfiftently; for they acknowledge that he bears the name in the holy Scriptures. Nay, if they would hence make it appear, that he is not the TRUE GOD, they contradict themfelves. For Socinus expreffes himself in the following remarkable words. • It is very < false that we should openly declare, Jefus Chrift is not true God. We profess to say the contrary, and declare, that HE IS TRUE GOD, in feveral of our writings, as • well in the Latin, as in the Polish language *.-Jefus Chrift, fays Smalcius, may be called, with a fovereign right, OUR GOD, and, THE TRUE GOD; and fo he really is. And, in another place, he affures us, That Jefus Chrift is God, in the MOST PERFECT MANNER: Perfeciffimo modo.'-If then, Jefus Christ be GOD, the TRUE GOD, and God in the most PERFECT MANNER; and if this be the fentiment of our opponents, what do they mean by adducing and arguing upon this paffage? Is it their intention to prove, by taking the words in their greatest rigour of fignification, that Chrift is not the true God, and that the fublime title

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

belongs only to the Father? But this is diametrically oppofite to their own declarations. Let them, then, first agree with themselves; after which it will be time enough for us to attempt a coalition with them. It is proper, however, to return a more particular answer to their objection.

Paul fays, "I determined not to know any thing among you, fave Jefus Chrift, and him crucified." Now, it is evident, if we understand this declaration in the full rigour of its literal sense, that the apostle excludes every object from the doctrine of falvation, besides his crucified Lord; but will our opposers from hence infer, that the Divine Father is excluded from that object which the apostle determined to know, in contradiftinction to all other things? No, doubtless. Both they and we mult except the Father; because we find, from other paffages of Scripture, that the knowledge of Him is abfolutely neceffary to eternal felicity. Were we to take the words of Paul in their ftrictly literal meaning, they would be diametrically oppofite to the declaration of his Divine Mafter, in the text which is now under confideration, and which our adverfaries, with fo much confidence, object against us. For the apostle fays, we muft propofe nothing to ourselves, as the object of the doctrine of falvation, but the crucified Fefus: while his Lord moft folemnly afferts the neceflity of knowing the Father, in order to our future happinefs. Confequently, thefe affertions cannot be both true, if understood in the rigour of their literal meaning; but they are eafily recon ciled by fuppofing that Paul, when he determines" to "know nothing but Jefus Chrift and him crucified," does not mean to exclude the Father; who, being one with the Son, is revealed by him, and known at the fame time with him. And if our adverfaries themselves be obliged to adopt this method of interpretation, when thefe two paffages are to be reconciled; why will they not admit of it, when we are called to reconcile the text before us, which, according to them afferts, that

* the Father only is the true God;' with other paffages of Scripture which have taught them, that Jefus Chrift ⚫ is the true God?' If, when Paul fays, "I determined not to know any thing, fave Jefus Chrift and him crucified," we except the Father; becaufe we are taught, by the fame unerring Spirit, that life eternal confifts, not only in knowing Chrift crucified, but alfo in the knowledge of the Father: is it reasonable, when the Scripture calls the Father "the only true God;" that we fhould except Jefus Chrift; there being other paffages of holy Writ which declare, even by the confeffion of our opponents, that he is the true God?

[ocr errors]

It is very remarkable, that the most ingenious of our antagonists, when handling this argument, deprive themfelves of all advantage from it, by the conceffions which they are obliged to make. Crellius obferves, on the paffage, That the defign of Chrift was not to deny, that the idols, or gods of the Heathens, were really idols, or gods of the Heathens; but only to deny, that they were the true God.' And acknowledges that, if we confider the construction of the words, we ought not to connect the term only, with thee, Father. We would not, fays he, have any one charge us with fuppofing, merely on account of the grammatical • conftruction of the words, that the term only ought to

[ocr errors]

be connected with thee, or thee Father; for the article ⚫ before the adverb only will not bear it; and, therefore, ⚫ we must understand the verb, to be. For, otherwise it were as if Jefus Christ had faid, To know that that only art the true God; which, though true in itself, is very far from being the fenfe of this paffage *.

*

Such conceffions, from one who holds the first place among our opponents, are very confiderable: nay, they are fufficient to decide the question in our favour. For when we produce a text of Scripture, in proof of any particular doctrine ; we reafon, either from the bare

CRELL. De Deo uno Patre. Se&. I. Cap. I. p. 15, 19.

« PreviousContinue »