Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

66

their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king," i. e. they bowed their bodies in testimony of reverence both for the God and for the king of Israel. Nay, in one of our Lord's parables, Matt. xviii. 26, it is said, that the servant falling down before his Master, "goEUVE OUT." But the advantage which the Unitarians derive from this ambiguous use of the Greek word is more apparent than real. For besides that circumstances will almost always clearly indicate whether the action marked by gooxvew expresses, in that case, religious homage, or merely the highest degree. of civil respect, we derive our warrant for worshipping Christ not simply from the application of that word, but from a variety of acts which, although they are by no means implied in the literal sense of goozuvεw, go to make up the general notion of worship, and in which there is nothing equivocal. We say that there are in Scripture many instances of praise, thanksgiving, and prayer, being addressed to Jesus, all of which imply a conviction in the worshippers that his knowledge and power are not limited, and that he is everywhere present: and from these instances, taken in conjunction with the command to honour him even as we honour the Father,* and with the revelation of the glory of his character, and his relation to us, we infer that it is not only lawful but proper for Christians to worship him.

The Unitarians endeavour to invalidate this conclusion by a laboured attempt to explain the Scriptures in a consistency with their own system. They say, that the thanksgivings which we quote are mere effusions of gratitude; that the prayers are only wishes; that the invocation of Stephen in the book of Acts and the doxologies in the book of the Revelation were addressed to Jesus when he was present, and do not warrant us to pray to him or praise him when he is absent. It is impossible to enter into the detail of their criticisms. But if you take the instances of worship being paid to Jesus, which Dr. Clarke has very fairly collected in his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, and read at the same time the commentaries upon these texts, which Mr. Lindsey has inserted in the sequel to his Apology, and in a separate dissertation upon

* John v. 23.

this subject, you will have an excellent specimen of that kind of Scripture-criticism which the Socinians are often obliged to employ in defence of different parts of their system, and which, in giving a sense of Scripture far from being obvious, requires such an expense of ingenuity as has always appeared to me to be of itself a sufficient proof that their opinions are not founded in Scripture.

The controversy between the Athanasians, the Arians, and the Socinians, upon the points of which we have been speaking, may be thus shortly stated. The Athanasian syllogism is, none but God ought to be worshipped: Jesus Christ is worshipped in Scripture; therefore he is God. The Arian syllogism is, supreme worship is due to God, but inferior worship may be paid to a creature: It is only inferior worship that is paid to Jesus Christ in Scripture; therefore, although he be worshipped, he is a creature. The Socinian syllogism is, none but God ought to be worshipped: Christ is not God; therefore all the passages of Scripture, which seem to ascribe worship to him, are to be explained in such a sense as to be consistent with this conclusion. The Socinians adopt the major proposition. of the Athanasian syllogism, that Christ is not to be worshipped. The Arians deny it.

The manner in which the Arians attempt to evade the force of the major proposition is by a distinction which, we say, has no foundation in Scripture. The manner in which the Socinians attempt to evade the force of the minor proposition is by a kind of criticism which, we say, does violence to Scripture. If it shall appear to you, upon examining the subject, that we are right in saying so, you will be struck with the simplicity and consistency of the Athanasian system. According to that system, the Scriptures having ascribed to Jesus the names, the attributes, and the actions of God, and having expressly declared that he is God, give us a practical proof that those, whom the Spirit guided into all truth, considered him as God, by their paying him that worship which the Scriptures declare to be the incommunicable prerogative of the Supreme Being. Here is a chain of argument in which nothing appears to be wanting. All the parts of it hang together, and support one another. It produced a conviction of the divinity of our Saviour in the minds of those 6

to whom it was first proposed; and the authority of example, the respect which it is natural for us to pay to the opinions of those who were placed in a most favourable situation for judging, is thus superinduced to warrant that conclusion which the declarations of Scripture appear to us to establish, that Jesus Christ is truly and essentially God.

495

CHAP. VIII.

UNION OF NATURES IN CHRIST.

It is one part of the third opinion concerning the person of Christ, that he is truly God. But the whole history of his life exhibits him as a man; and the constant language of Scripture upon this head, which has led the Socinians to consider him as merely a man, is the ground of the other part of the third opinion concerning his person, that he is not only truly God, but also truly man.

The proofs of the human nature of Christ found in the Scriptures are obvious to the plainest understanding; and whatever difficulties may occur to those who attempt to speculate upon the subject, the opinion itself has been generally held in the Christian church. Although Jesus upon some occasions assumes this exalted title, "the Son of God," he generally calls himself by a name most significant of his humanity, "the Son of Man." We found by an analysis of the beginning of John's Gospel, that "the Word," who "in the beginning was with God, and was God," is called Jesus Christ; and we read elsewhere of Jesus Christ, that he was "wearied with his journey,' that "he was hungry," + that "he ate and drank," that his soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death,"§ that "he gave up the ghost, that he was buried, and that he rose from the grave." ||

66

These propositions, so opposite to one another, imply a corresponding difference of nature in the person concerning whom all of them are affirmed. There is an illusion throughout the New Testament, if he who made the worlds, and he who "was an hungered," is not the same person; and yet we have seen that he who made the worlds was God, and we cannot doubt that he who was an hungered

* John iv. 6.
§ Matth. xxvi. 38.

+ Mark xi. 12.

John xix. xx.

+ Mark ii. 14.

was man. The inference thus clearly drawn, from laying different passages together, is confirmed by an examination of those places which present in one view the divine and the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. Of this kind are the three following.

John i. 14. Και ὁ λογος σαρξ εγενετο. The Socinians, in conformity to their interpretation of the first part of the chapter, understand this phrase to mean nothing more than that the reason or wisdom of God resided in the man Jesus Christ, and might thus figuratively be said to have become flesh. But all those, both Athanasians and Arians, who consider λoyos in the first verse as denoting a person, must understand what is here said of him as meaning, "this person became flesh, or was incarnate." And all that is said of the λoyos in the former verse may be applied to the person who, at a certain time, became flesh.

Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. The apostle is recommending to Christians humility from the example of Jesus Christ, “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." In or der to explain what mind was in Christ, or what degree of humility he exhibited, the apostle describes two different states of Christ, one which he resigned, and another to which he submitted; and his humility consisted in descending from the one to the other. The first state is expressed by this phrase, ός εν μορφη Θεου υπαρχων. The Socinians, who do not admit that Jesus Christ ever was in any state more dignified than that of a man, have no other mode of explaining this phrase, but by applying it to those extraordinary displays of divine wisdom and power which Jesus exhibited upon earth, and by which he who was merely a man, appeared to the eyes of the beholders to be God. But this interpretation, besides that it is by no means adequate to the import of the phrase, inverts the order, and impairs the force of the whole passage. It represents the μορφη Θεου as posterior to the κένωσις, and the humility of Christ as consisting purely in this, that he did not employ his extraordinary powers in preserving his life. Whereas the pogon ou appears intended by the apostle to represent a state prior to the xɛvwas, by which means the whole of Christ's appearance upon earth becomes an example of humility.

« IndietroContinua »