Page images
PDF
EPUB

used by me as by others, but of which no definite idea was conceived, any more than of that in bodies which is called the principle or power of attraction; excepting when, by the aid of analogy, the Son of God was viewed as a distinct intelligent Being. But as this was contrary to the theory, when that occurred my mind was necessarily confused. But on the present theory, the natural import of Scripture language, in view of analogies, affords me ideas of the Majesty, the Glory, the Dignity, and the Love of Christ, far more distinct, exalted, and impressive, than any which ever entered my mind on Athanasian ground.

It is not, however, Sir, my intention to intimate that your views, and the views of other Athanasians, respecting Christ, are not greater, and in some respects much more clear, than my own present views. My object has been simply to state the effect of the present theory on my own mind. And for this reason-it is perceived that some have apprehended that the character of the Son of God must have been depreciated in my own view.

Here it may be proper to notice more particularly the self-contradiction and inconsistency, in which it has been supposed God must be involved if his Son be not selfexistent―The parts of the supposed contradiction are of the following tenor, viz.

On the one hand, God has positively prohibited the worship of idols, or any god but himself. He has said, "I am God, and there is none else. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” "I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

On the other hand, God said respecting his Son, "Let all the angels of God worship him"-And he has given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.

In view of such passages, it has been inferred that Christ is personally the same God who has made these declarations, or there must be a contradiction.-To show that neither of these inferences is correct, is the design of the following observations.

1. If Jesus Christ be truly the Son of the self-existent God, he is neither a graven image, an idol, nor a false god. Hence,

2. A prohibition respecting the worship of graven images, or idols, or false gods, amounts to no prohibition of paying Divine honors to the Son of God, as the Son of God, or the constituted Lord of the universe.-Therefore,

3. Consistently with all that God has said in the Bible against the worship of graven images, of idols, or of false gods, he might exalt his Son, and require men and angels Divine honors to his name.

to pay

It may still be thought, that if the Son be not the selfexistent God, but has been exalted by the self-existent God as an object of Divine honors, then God has given his glory to another, contrary to his own word. It may therefore be observed,

4. For God to give his glory to another, in the sense of the text alluded to, must imply doing something respecting another or authorizing something to be done respecting another, which is dishonorary to himself. To glorify another, or to cause another to be glorified, in a manner which contributes to his own glory, is perfectly consistent with his declaration that he will not give his glory to another. To make out, then, that there is so much as the shadow of a contradiction in the case, it must be made to appear, that to pay Divine honors to the Son of God, as the SON OF GOD, and the one in whom the Father is ever well pleased, is dishonorary to the Father. But to prove this, will be a task which probably very few will venture to undertake.

By those who have urged this supposed contradiction, has it not been taken for granted, that the Son of God may be a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet the selfsame Being? And should this, Sir, be taken for granted? But if it be, still the texts which they rely upon for the support of the supposed contradiction, do as fully import a prohibition of Divine honors to any other Person but the one who made the declarations, as to any other Being.In those texts God does not represent himself as three Persons, but as one individual Person-" I am God, and there is none else-Thou shalt have no other gods before me→ I am the Lord, and my glory I will not give to another." Therefore, if these passages amouut to a prohibition of paying Divine honors to the Son of God, as being truly the SON of God, they equally prohibit paying Divine honors to the Son considered as a distinct Person from the Father, whether self-existent or not. The self-same Person is repre

sented as saying at one time, I am the Lord, and my glory I will not give to another... At another time he says respecting the Person who is called his only begotten Son, "Let all the Angels of God worship him." And, if these passages would involve a contradiction on the hypothesis that the Son is a Person truly DERIVED from the Father, they involve precisely the same contradiction on the hypothesis that the Son is a self-existent Person DISTINCT from the Father.

Having thus endeavored to show, from the Scriptures, that Divine honors are due to the Son of God, and the grounds on which they are due, and also to obviate what has been viewed by some as insurmountable objections to the theory, you will suffer me now to appeal to your own conscience, and ask, whether my views of the honors due to the Son of God do not harmonize with your own practical views and feelings, and with your usual forms of speech in prayer and praise? Reflections on my own former views and feelings, and observations in regard to the prayers of my Athanasian brethren, encourage me to do this.

In respect to my own experience, adopting the present theory has given no occasion to vary my forms of speech from what was natural and usual with me before, in regard to the Son of God. And it is observed, that the prayers of my Athanasian brethren, so far as the Son is mentioned, agree with my present views; excepting when they appear to wish to introduce some particular expressions to communicate or support their particular theory. It may not then be amiss to class myself with you and them, and observe how we pray.

We occasionally address petitions to Christ as the Son of God, the Lord of all, the Redeemer of our souls, or the Head of the church. We sometimes distinctly thank him for his kindness and mercy in laying down his life for our redemption; and for the benefits we receive through his mediation and atonement. But in this particular, perhaps we are generally deficient ; and much less frequently bring the Son into view in our prayers than would be proper. In our ascriptions of praise, at the close of our prayers, we frequently and properly mention the Father and the Son as two distinct Persons, or intelligent Beings.

But in general, we address our prayers to God as one distinct Person and Being. We bless the name of this ONE

1

GOD for his kindness and love in giving his own Son to die for our offences. And the forms of speech which we use clearly convey the idea that God is one distinct intelligent Being, and his Son another; as distinct as any other father and son, We beseech God to bestow favors through the mediation and atonement of his Son. We plead with God on the ground of what his Son has done and suffered for We adore God for having exalted his Son as LORD of all, and making him HEAD over all things to the church. And, in conformity to the language of Scripture, we make use of thousands of expressions which denote as clear a distinction between GOD and HIS SON, as are ever made between Abraham and Isaac.

us.

And, however inconsistent such a distinction may be with the Athanasian theory, it is a distinction to which we are naturally led by our intimacy with the language of the Bible. And these forms of speech are, it is thought, a correct expression of the habitual and practical views even of Athanasians themselves, in their devotional exercises.Believing this to be the case, and that it is consistent with the manner in which Divine honors are paid to the Son of God by saints and angels in heaven, who can believe that the Christian church have been guilty of" idolatry” in the homage they have paid to the "LAMB of God?"

In considering him as the self-existent God, it is thought my brethren have been under a mistake; but not in considering him as an object of Divine honors; nor is it apprehended that in their habitual and devotional feelings they have ascribed more honor than is due to his name. And so far as they have fallen short of believing, feeling, and acknowledging the awful realities of the personal abasement, suffering, and death, of the Son of God, so far they have, in my opinion, in one particular, fallen short of giving him due praise.

The ten times ten thousand, and the thousands of thousands, who were observed by John as paying honors to the Son of God, did not say, Worthy is the Lamb who united himself to a man that was slain; nor did they say, Worthy is the "Messiah's humanity" that was slain: but, "Worthy is the LAMB, that was slain, to receive," &c.

In a preceding verse, the Redeemed do not say, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof; for the man to whom thou wast united was slain:

but, "Thou art worthy-for THOU WAST SLAIN, and hast redeemed us to God by THY blood."

Must it not, Sir, appear on your hypothesis, either that Divine honors were paid to the "Messiah's humanity," or that the self-existent GOD was personally slain? As you will deny both these positions, let me ask, how can you consistently join the song of the redeemed, till you renounce your theory? Can you ever, consistently, say, Worthy is the LAMB that was SLAIN?

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER VIII.

So far as I have had opportunity to be acquainted with the views of others, it has been, in general, professedly conceded by Athanasians, by Arians, and by Socinians, that there can be but one object of Divine honors; and that if Christ be not personally the self-existent God, to worship, or to pray to him, must be idolatry.

But, Sir, are not GOD, and the Sox at his right hand, two distinct objects? Are not GOD, and the LAMB, two distinct objects? When God said respecting his Son, "Let all the angels of God worship HIM," is the meaning the same as though he had said, Let all the angels of God worship ME? Suppose an earthly King should exalt his own son, and give him the right hand as a co-partner with him on the throne, and require all his subjects to" bow the knee" and pay royal honors to the son; would not the father and the son be still two distinct objects? And have we not reason to believe, that it is in allusion to such events that we have it represented in the Scripture, that God hath exalted HIS SON with his own right hand?

If God has, in very deed, given all things into the hands of the Son, and exalted him to be LORD OF ALL, can it be idolatry to worship him according to the rank assigned him by God? Can it be improper or criminal to pray to him who is thus able to help us, and to praise and thank him for what he is, and for what he has done for our sakes?

When you say that it must be idolatry to worship or pray to Christ, unless he be the self-existent God, do you not implicitly accuse God of establishing idolatry? For the Divine honors to be paid to the Son are instituted by God. Besides, do you not arbitrarily attach ideas to the terms worship and prayer, which do not necessarily or naturally

« PreviousContinue »