Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the testimony which God hath given of his Son," &c. As all revelation centres in this point, it is vain for a man to pretend that he believes other parts of it, whilst he rejects its principal doctrine. His opinion may indeed accord with the testimony of God in some particulars; he may assent to Scripture truths, because he thinks they may be otherwise proved; but if his own reasonings, or those of some philosopher, lead to conclusions opposite to the word of God, he hesitates not to treat that as a lie. So that, in fact, such men do not believe God, but other witnesses, when they assent to Scripture truths; for they treat him as a false witness, when he contradicts their preconceived opinions. Whence it is evident, that no man's belief of the Bible, or of any thing contained in it, can be genuine, whilst he rejects "the testimony which God hath given of his Son." This also illustrates all those other passages in which it is declared, that "he that believeth not shall be damned:" that he who believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him," &c. ; because it hence appears, that they treat the truth of God as a lie, and so exclude themselves from that salvation which is in Christ Jesus for sinners, that by faith apply for an interest in it. And a man cannot believe the Son, if he refuse to credit what he says of himself, as One with the Father, &c. The same important caution is again inculcated by the apostle, (2 John 7-11), who declares the man" to be a deceiver and an antichrist, who confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," and that "whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." Now the doctrine of Christ must have relation to his person, either as God and man, or merely man. But if he that abode not in that doctrine had not God, and if the Christians were forbidden to receive him into their houses, or bid him God speed, or at all to sanction his delusions, (though they might doubtless have relieved his urgent wants, as an enemy in distress), it must follow, that the doctrine concerning the person of Christ is essential to Christianity, and a rejection of the true doctrine is an antichristian departure from the faith. And I appeal to every impartial man to determine, whether such language, if we had first used it, would not have excited the sneer of numbers, and an outcry of bigotry against us. The reader must observe, that the texts here quoted are not brought as direct proofs of our Lord's Deity, (though many of them do prove it), but to show that a right faith in this respect is essential to salvation by Christ; and they doubtless so far establish this point, that they who treat such questions as immaterial, will find it most convenient wholly to overlook them, or to deny them to be the unerring dictates of the Spirit of Truth.

II. The peculiar nature of our Lord's mediation warrants the same conclusion. The office of mediator, between two parties who are at variance, seems to imply, that the person performing it stands in some relation to each party; is likely to take care of the interests of both in an equitable manner; and possesses influence (either from excellency of character, dignity of rank, or services performed) to give weight to his interposition. Now Jesus is Mediator between the great Creator and holy Governor of the universe, and his unholy, rebellious creatures; and it is supposed, that there are those things in his character, &c., for the sake of which the Father is pleased to pardon and bless them in behalf of whom he mediates. But (not. to anticipate the subject of a future Essay,) it suffices to observe at present, that if the Father saw it necessary for the display of his glory in the salvation of sinners, that the Mediator should be Emmanuel, his co-equal Son in human nature, God manifest in the flesh; and that it was wholly improper for any other person to sustain this office, or approach him in this character, except his well-beloved Son in whom he is well pleased; and if sinners pertinaciously reject his authenticated testimony to this divine Mediator, and will regard him as a mere man, they must exclude themselves from the benefit of this gracious constitution, and exceedingly affront both the Father and the Son. And can it be supposed that they are taught by that Spirit, whose office it is to glorify Christ, when they thus studiously degrade him? And

yet, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Indeed, it will be shown, in due time, that the mediation of Christ is the grand display of the divine glory, of the honour of the law, of the evil of sin, &c.; and, in this view of it, the personal dignity of Christ, (like the centre stone of an arch) sustains the whole; take that away, the whole must fall, either at once, or by degrees. And do not facts prove, that they who deny the Deity of Christ, soon learn to explain away the doctrine of the atonement? And that of his intercession and priestly character is proportionably disregarded the evil and desert of sin then seem to vanish from their view; they have little fear of future punishment, but object to the plain language of Scripture on that subject; this makes way for doubts about the authenticity or divine inspiration of the sacred oracles, and often terminates in rejecting them and, when such men are still pressed with difficulties from undeniable facts, they proceed to deny the providence, and then the very being of a God. It is manifest, that this hath been the unhappy progress of many when the Deity of Christ is denied, his mediation cannot consistently be maintained; and when that is rejected, the book, in which it is the principal subject, must soon sink into insignificancy at least, and be treated with neglect.

III. The peculiar nature of the faith, love, &c., which the word of God requires us to exercise towards the Lord Jesus, confirms the point in question. The prophet says, (Jer. xvii. 5, 6), Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm," &c. And the Psalmist (Psalm cxlvi. 3) says, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" yet nothing can be plainer, than that we are required to put our trust in Christ; and if he were only the son of man, and had only an arm of flesh, I cannot see how we could trust in him, without in heart departing from the Lord. The form of baptism, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, implies a professed dependence for salvation on the Son, and on the Holy Ghost, and a devoted, faithful attachment to them, as well as to the Father. The expression, "believe in the Son of God," implies not only an assent to his truths, but a reliance on him for all the blessings which he is exalted to bestow. The apostle describes Christians as those "who trusted in Christ," (Eph. i. 12). Faith, or its inseparable effect, is commonly described by "coming to Christ," "receiving him," "abiding in him," &c.: and such expressions must imply application to, and habitual dependence on him, even now he is invisible to us, and not present in his human nature. We are commanded to "walk in him," which must include a constant reliance on his power, truth, and love, as well as a regard to his authority, (Col. ii. 6, 7). "He suffered being tempted, that he might be able to succour us when tempted," (Heb. ii. 17, 18). Does not this teach us to apply to and rely on him in our temptations? He promised his disciples a mouth and wisdom, (Luke xxi. 15): ought they not, therefore, to rely on him to fulfil that promise? Can he be our life, unless we depend on him for the life of our souls? (Col. iii. 1-4). Does he forgive sins? (ver. 13) and ought not the sinner to rely on him for pardon? Does he send the Holy Spirit to teach, comfort, and sanctify his people? and ought we not to depend on him for that blessing? Hath he all power in heaven and earth? and shall we do wrong to trust that power in all circumstances? Has he engaged to be with his assembled disciples? and should they not expect and depend on his gracious presence? (John xiv. 20-24). In short, the believer can do nothing of himself, and "can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth him."" He has communion with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:" and how can this be, unless he habitually relies on, and applies to him for every thing? If men do not trust in' Christ, they can experience no communications from him, nor maintain any intercourse with him; and it is no wonder that they deride those as enthusiasts, who experience what they despise. But surely it would be idolatry to rely on a mere creature, in the manner that hath been stated; if then such a dependence on

Christ be essential to faith, the doctrine of his Deity must be essential also ; for no man can reasonably rely on a mere creature to forgive his sins, to sanctify his soul, to raise his body from the grave, and to give him eternal life. To form such expectations from him, we must believe that he is "God over all, blessed for evermore ;"" the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever" (Heb. xiii, 8; Rev. i, 4; xi, 17). In like manner, the love, which Christ demands of us, cannot belong to any mere creature; we are required to love him more than our nearest relatives, or even than our own lives; nay, to hate all these, when they come in competition with our love to him, otherwise we are not worthy of him, and cannot be his disciples (Matt. x, 37; Luke xiv, 26). Now, what is this but to love him supremely, and as we should love the Father? Nor are we once cautioned not to let our love of Christ interfere with "that love of God with all our hearts" which the law requires: it is not intimated, that there is any incongruity, disparity, or even distinction, between our love of the Father, and of the Son: nay, the more we love Christ, the greater our love of the Father is supposed to be, and the more shall we be loved of him (John viii. 42; xiv. 21-24; xv. 23.) The decisions of the great day of account are represented as to be awarded by this rule; they, who have loved Christ, and shown their love to him by kindness to his disciples for his sake, will be considered as true believers and righteous persons: they, who shall be proved not to have loved him, by their neglect of his poor disciples, will be considered as unbelievers, and impenitent sinners, and condemned to have their portion with the wicked (Matt. xxv. 31-46.) But can we suppose, that no mention would on this occasion be made of the love of God, if the love of Christ had been entirely distinct from it, or if it were not certain, that the more we love the Son, the more we love the Father that sent him? Thus the apostle's benediction includes all "that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity;" he denounces an awful curse on every man who does not love him (Eph. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 22:) and he represents the love of Christ as the constraining principle of all his own devoted labours and services (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.) Another apostle speaks of the love of an unseen Saviour, as the universal experience of all Christians (1 Pet i. 8:) and when that apostle denied his Lord, he was thrice interrogated, whether he loved him, before he was re-instated in his pastoral office (John xxi. 15-17.) But no such special and pre-eminent love towards any one of the mere servants of God is required of us; nay, the apostle was afraid lest he or his brethren should be put in Christ's place, when he inquired, "was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor. i. 13.) Yet our Lord never intimated that there was any danger, lest his disciples should love him, in a degree, that would be derogatory to the rights of God the Father, who is a jealous God, and cannot endure a rival in our affections, but demands our whole heart. How then can Christ dwell in our hearts, as Lord of our affections, if he and the Father be not One? As therefore we ought to love Christ, even as we love the Father; it must be necessary that we believe him to be the adequate object of that love; both for what he is in himself, and what he hath done for us; and thus the doctrine of his Deity, if true, must be essential; and unless we believe it, how can we keep clear of the apostle's anathema?

Moreover, we are constantly reminded, that we are not our own but the Lord's; we are his property, because he made us: and, when by sin we had alienated ourselves, we became his again, "bought with a price, to glorify him, in body and spirit, which are his” (1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; x. 31.) Yet the apostles always speak of believers as belonging to Christ; they are his servants, his purchased flock, his espoused bride (though the Lord of Hosts is called the husband of the church, Isa. liv. 5,) the members of his body, &c. St. Paul says, in one place, that "he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God; in another, "that he lived no longer to himself, but to him who died for him and rose again ;" and that "Christ died and rose again, that he might be the Lord, both of the living and of the dead" (Rom. xiv. 8, 9;

[ocr errors]

2 Cor. v. 14; Gal. ii. 19). And he observes, that the Lord Jesus" redeemed us from all iniquity, and purifies us unto himself, to be a peculiar people," &c. (Tit. ii. 14). Could such language as this be properly used concerning services to be rendered to a mere man? Surely this would be an idolatrous alienation of ourselves from the service of our Maker to devote ourselves to that of a fellow-creature. But if Christ be truly God, one with the Father, then our dedication of ourselves to his service is the same as our devoted obedience to the Father that sent him; and is no other than the prescribed manner in which, as redeemed sinners, we are required to render it. In short, it must be evident to all who reverence the language of Scripture, that we honour, obey, and worship the Father, when we honour, obey, and worship the Son; and that all the glory rendered to the Son redounds to the glory of the Father, "who is glorified in the Son," (John xiii. 31, 32; xvii. 1-10; Phil. i. 20; ii. 11). Who can believe that it should be the of- . fice of the Holy Spirit to "glorify Christ,” if it be of little or no consequence what men think of his person, or if proper views of it are not essential to Christianity? or that the apostle, in this case, would have spoken of his name being glorified" in and by his saints, both now and at the day of judgment? (2 Thess. i. 10-12). If Jesus were only a mere creature, Jehovah would give his glory to another, if he inspired his servants to use such language: so that the confidence, love, gratitude, devotedness of heart, and the honour which the Scriptures require us to render to Christ, must be impracticable, unless we have a proper judgment of his dignity and excellency; and we must either rob him of the glory due to his name, or give Jehovah's glory to another, if we mistake in this fundamental matter.

IV. The nature of heavenly felicity evinces this. The language of the apostle is emphatical, “To depart hence, and to be with Christ, which is far better;" for this implies, that the presence of Christ, the discoveries of his glory, and the enjoyment of his love, constitute the happiness for which he longed, (Phil. i. 23; John xvii. 24); and wherein does this differ from the beatific vision? But in the last chapters of Revelation, which describe the heavenly state, this is still more plainly declared. He whose name is Alpha and Omega," says, "I will give him that is athirst of the water of life freely he that overcometh shall inherit all things: and I will be his God, and he shall be my Son," (xxi. 6, 7). If any person should explain this passage of the Father, it would only prove, that the Father and the Son are one;" for the Son is doubtless called Alpha and Omega, &c. Again, the apostle saw no temple" in the New Jerusalem, "for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it: and the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb was the light thereof," (xxi. 22, 23). He next saw a "pure river of water/ of life proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb,"-" neither was there any more curse, but the throne of God, and of the Lamb, shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him; and they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their foreheads,” (xxii. 1—5). Cạn any thing be plainer, than that the writer of this book believed the Son was one with, and equal to the Father: the fountain of light, life, purity, and felicity; in whose presence is fulness of joy, and pleasures at his right hand for evermore? (vii. 16, 17). It is also manifest, that the worship of heaven is represented as a constant ascription of praise and honour to Christ together with the Father: yet we cannot sing on earth the very words of the heavenly choir, with apparent fervour, and unreserved approbation, without danger of being deemed enthu'siasts; as is manifest from the care taken by many persons to expunge every expression of this kind from their books of psalms and hymns for public worship, as well as from their other services. Will there then be discordant companies of worshippers in heaven? Or, if all must be harmonious, are we never to learn the song of the redeemed till we come to heaven? Or how can we learn this song, if we never come to a settled determination in our minds, whether the Lamb that was slain be worthy of all worship and ho

nour, or not? or if it be indifferent whether we adore and expect felicity from him as God, or only respect his memory as a good man?

[ocr errors]

V. Lastly, the language of authority, which we are certified that our future Judge will use at the last day, should not pass unnoticed in this argument. As the happiness of heaven is represented under the idea of entering into his joy, and beholding his glory, &c. (Luke xii. 37; Matt. xxv. 21): so the misery of the wicked is spoken of, as a banishment from his presence, and the endurance of his wrath. He will not say, Depart from God," but "Depart from me," (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Thess. i. 9, 10). And in a figurative description of the great consternation of his enemies, in which is an evident reference to the day of judgment, they are introduced as calling on the rocks and mountains "to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb; for the day of his great wrath is come, and who is able to abide it?" (Rev. vi. 16, 17). If then we believe that "he shall come to be our Judge," it must be of the greatest importance that we know who he is, by whom our eternal state is to be decided. For surely it will be very dreadful for those to meet him arrayed in glorious majesty, who, during their whole lives, refused him the honour he demanded, treated his declarations of his personal dignity as false or unmeaning, and continually uttered hard speeches against him! (Jude 14, 15; Rev. i. 7). If then the season of his coming be “the day of God," (2 Pet. iii. 12), it behoves every one of us to prepare to meet our God,' that we may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless."

[ocr errors]

But to all these scriptural demonstrations of the truth and importance of this essential doctrine, some objections are opposed, which are considered as insurmountable-a few of them shall here be very briefly noticed. It is objected, that the Deity of Christ is inconsistent with the unity of God; or else, that it is irrational, unintelligible, and contradictory. But doubtless something more than confident assertion is requisite to prove the doctrine of the Trinity to be inconsistent with the Divine Unity. The apostle speaks of the body, soul, and spirit, as constituting the same individual man (though some perhaps may object to his language;) but if a man may be three in one respect, and one in another; do we know so much of God, as to assert it is impossible that somewhat similar, but far superior, and more entire, both in the distinction, and in the unity, should take place in his incomprehensible nature? And ought not men to speak more reverently and cautiously on a subject, about which we know nothing more, than what God himself hath taught us? Especially as so much is spoken in scripture, which appears to have this meaning, that the most of Christians in every age have thus understood it. We do not say, that the Deity is Three and One in the same sense; nor do we pretend to explain or comprehend how God subsists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but we would humbly believe his testimony concerning himself, and adore his incomprehensible majesty.

One would scarce have expected that the doctrine should have been objected to, because it is so mysterious; when the apostle expressly calls it the great mystery of godliness. But indeed till we can comprehend ourselves, it is absurd to object to mysteries in those things which relate to the infinite God! The power of mind over matter is mysterious in the highest degree; yet our will moves our tongues and limbs continually; and we know not how so that our own existence, as well as that of God, must be denied, if we admit it not. Mysteries are found in the production of every plant and animal, yea, in the growth of every blade of grass, which philosophy can never explain. The style of God, in all his works, is mystery; and shall we suppose that his own nature is not, above all, mysterious? Experiment is allowed to be the proper standard of our discoveries of the powers of nature: should not, then, the testimony of God concerning himself, terminate our inquiries concerning his incomprehensible Essence? For can we "by searching find out God? Can we find out the Almighty to perfection?" If men object Christ's inferiority as Man and Mediator to the Father; or his growth

« AnteriorContinuar »