Page images
PDF
EPUB

that were unable to fave their deluded votaries; but yet this general truth is plainly and strongly implied, That God only can fave the ends of the earth. The immediately preceding verfe, in the latter of these texts, puts this beyond a doubt. For thus it is written, "There " is no God elfe befides Me; a just God and a SAVIOur, "there is NONE BESIDES ME." And yet Jefus Chrift not only profeffes to fave finners, but he calls himfelf THE SAVIOUR, by way of eminence, and in contradiftinction to all others. Is it not manifeft, then, that he affumes a character, in the most emphatical way, which the God of Ifrael had challenged and appropriated to himself?—When the prophets reproved the folly and wickedness of them that put their truft in idols, by faying, there is no Saviour but the God of Jacob; they either intended to lay down a principle for the inftruction of men in all fucceeding ages, or only for the time then prefent. If the latter, the reason that God ufed in ancient times, by which to confound idolatry, is no longer of any force on fuch an occafion: nay, which is more extraordinary, an oracle becomes falfe, at the very time in which it is accomplished. For this divinely gracious declaration, "Look unto Me and be ye faved, all "the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there " is none else;" refers to the calling of the Gentiles, and was not fulfilled till after the Meffiah appeared: and yet it is fince his appearance, that we hear of a SAVIOUR and LORD, befides the God of Ifrael, who delivered that oracle. If the former, and if this declaration be a perpetual truth, "There is no God befides Me, a juft God and a Saviour, there is none befides Me ;" then I demand, whether he ought not to be accounted a blafphemer, who, though he be not the God of Ifrael, yet calls himself THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD?

[ocr errors]

He calls himself, it will be faid, a fubordinate Saviour.' What, then, does Jehovah mean when he fays, "I am a juft God and a Saviour, there is NONE BESIDES ME- -I, even I am the LORD, and

befides Me there is NO SAVIOUR!" Does he not exclude, fubordinate gods and faviours? Suppofing the ancient Ifraelites had confidered Mofes as a fubordinate god and faviour, and worshipped him after his death, because they were delivered by his miniftry out of Egyptian bondage; would they not have acted contrary to the meaning of thefe declarations? It is abfurd to imagine, that the prophets did not intend to exclude all fubordinate gods and Saviours; because the far greater part of Pagan deities were confidered, by the dupes of idolatry, under those characters. It is, at the fame time, evident, that the penmen of the ancient Scriptures teach us to acknowledge but one God, and one Saviour, even the God of Ifrael. Confequently, he who calls himfelf THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, does not only affume the name, GOD; but also annexes to it, one of the most gracious, endearing, and glorious ideas, that are included in it in the ancient oracles; or that can be affixed to it by men or angels.

The prophets, to diftinguish the true God from all other beings, call him, "THE FIRST AND THE LAST." This character they apply to JEHOVAH, as peculiar to him and incommunicable. Yet, in the Revelation of John, it is repeatedly affumed by Jefus Chrift.-It is agreed, on all hands, that this very fublime title was never given to any but the God of Ifrael, till after the incarnation it was, therefore, become peculiar to Him by ancient and univerfal cuftom. Nor can it be questioned, if any creature had dared to apply it to himself, before the Meffiah came, but he would have been charged with impiety and blafphemy. And were either man, or angel, at this day to affume it, the fame accufation would be laid against him, and his conduct would be detefted. Confequently, our adverfaries themselves, were it not to ferve an hypothefis, would not hesitate a moment to allow; That as this character was peculiar to God, before the Meffiah came, fo it is now, and fo it muft ever be; and that it is abfurdly blafphemous,

to think of applying it to any other.-Should it be faid, If any person were to affume this title now, he would be guilty of impiety; because he would wrong Jefus Chrift, to whom it belongs :'.-I anfwer, He would injure God much more, to whom it really appertains. And if any man, who fhould ufurp it at this day, would rob Chrift of his honour; he, who fhould have dared to affume it before the Redeemer came, would have committed facrilege on the true God. Hence it appears, that this character is peculiar to the Great Supreme.

Again: This title ftands among the praifes of the Moft High; even in those paffages where he profeffedly difplays his glories, and afferts his fovereign majesty. Now if it be not adapted to answer fuch a defign, why fhould it ftand in connection with thofe magnificent defcriptions of JEHOVAH's glory? But if it be fitted to exprefs the eternity and majefty, the grandeur and glory of God, it must be peculiar to Him-fo peculiar, that it cannot, without blafphemy, be affumed by any mere creature. It is fo connected with other characters and attributes, which are confeffedly peculiar to God, that it is impoffible, without rendering the fineft oracles of the prophets nonfenfical, to diftinguish it from them. Sometimes, for instance, it is connected with his power: "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations "from the beginning? I the LORD, the First and with "the Laft, I am He." Sometimes it is joined with the characters of his grandeur and majefly. "Thus "faith the Lord the king of Ifrael, and his redeemer "the Lord of hofts; I am the First, and I am the “Last, and besides me there is no God." Here it is obfervable, that after the Moft High has taken to himself this truly fublime title, he adds, " befides Me "there is no God;" to inform us, that none but He poffeffes the dominion and glory implied in it, and in thofe which attend it. At other times, he connects the glory of this title with that which attends his

character as Creator.

"Hearken unto me, O Jacob

and Ifrael, my called: I am He, I am the First, I Mine hand alfo hath laid the

"alfo am the Laft.

"foundation of the earth."

to exprefs the unity of God.

Once more: It is ufed
For thus it is explained;

"Before Me there was no God formed, neither "fhall there be after Me."

But if this title were not

peculiar to the eternal God, how could it fignify his unity?

Further: When Jefus calls himself, "The First and "the Laft," he either applies the auguft character in in the fame fenfe, in which it was ufed by the prophets, or in one that is different. If the latter, he leads men, by ambiguous expreffions, into error and idolatry. Nay, on the principles of our opponents, he is guilty of blafphemy; because he affumes a title, in an abfolute manner, which does not agree to him but with a restriction. He alters, by his own authority, the fignification of terms, confecrated by a divine ufe. He does what no honest and sensible man ever did; for he changes the known and ordinary meaning of words, relating to matters of the greateft importance, without giving us the leaft notice of it; and, by fo doing, he opens a door for impiety and blafphemy, to the whole world. For as he attributes to himself such titles as are given to the true God, by changing mentally the eftablished fignification of words, in the Old Teftament; why may not I, or any other man, after his example, affume the principal characters of the Meffiah, by changing mentally, according to my fancy, the moft known fignification of expreffions, in the New Teftament? But if he apply the character in the fame fenfe, in which it was used by the prophets; then he defcribes himself by a title which they confidered as expreffing, the eternity and unity, the dominion and glory of God. And, by fo doing, he practically declares, that it is not peculiar to the God of Ifrael, to whom only the prophets applied it; and, confequently, the, language

of the prophets is falfe. For if the God of Jacob be He, before and after whom no God has been formed; how can Jefus be God, and a God alfo before whom no God exifted, or shall be formed? The confequence is, either Chrift is the true God, or he is guilty of blafphemy; in attributing to himself a title, which, in the language of the prophets, is peculiar to the infinite God.

If Jefus Chrift be a mere man, one cannot imagine how this title can poffibly belong to him. For, either First and Laft must be understood of a priority and and pofteriority of time; or, of a priority and pofteriority of dignity; or, of both. If the firft, the fenfe will be; I am the First and the Laft in duration. But how could one that was born in the fulness of time, be the firft in duration? If the fecond, the meaning must be s I am the First and the last in dignity. But how can Jefus be the laft in dignity, when John the Baptift, who was greater than any of the ancient prophets, confidered himself as unworthy to loose the latchet of his shoe? If the third, then the fignification of the words muft either be; I am the First in time, and the Laft in dignity; which is manifeftly falfe: Or thus, I am the Firft in dignity, and the Laft in time; which is equally falfe. For how can Jefus be the Laft, in time? Was he the laft man that was born? That cannot be. Nor was he the laft of God's fervants; for there have been many who ferved God faithfully, and were the honoured inftruments of his glory, fince the afcenfion of Christ. Or thus, I am the First and the Laft, in time and in dignity; which is yet more glaringly falfe. For if he be not the First and the Laft, in time; nor the First and the Laft, in dignity; it is doubly false to say that he is fo, in both the one and the other.-But our business here, is not fo much with the truth of his words, as with the impression they were adapted to make on the minds of the Jews, who were taught by the prophets. On hearing Jefus repeatedly and folemnly apply this title to himself, they

« PreviousContinue »