Gambar halaman

and virtue more at large, we cannot but conclude that they considered every man's own determination as final with respect to his future state ; and it is 10 be observed, that neither the obstinacy of Pharaoh nor even the infidelity of the Jews had any necessary connection with their state after death. The former might be hard-hearted with respect to the Hebrews, and either rewarded for other virtues, or punished for orher vices, in a future state; and if the unbelieving Jens were in other respects such men as Paul, who had a zeal for God, though not according to knou ledge, they may find mercy in the day of judgement. There is not a single passage in the scriptures uhich represents the future misery of any individual of mankind as determined by an arbitrary decree of God; but a thousand passages in which it is expressly said, that the future state of all mankind depends entirely upon their own voluntary actions. : After these observations, short remarks on another passage may suffice for the purpose of this section.

Rom. viii. 28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he jus. tified, them he also glorified.” All that we can fairly infer from this. passage is,

that that the end of the christian dispensation, or of the calling of mankind to the faith of the gospel, is their sanctification and future glory; for it is manifest that all who are called are not justified. If this term called be restricted in its ineaning, let it be restricted by St. Paul himself, viz. to those who love God; which is sufficiently represented as depending upon men themselves, by being the subjects of precept and exhortation. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” &c.


Nothing can be more evident, from the whole tenor of the New Testament, than that the person who is distinguished by the name of the Father is the only true God, exclusive of the Son, or any other being whatever. Nevertheless, there are some single and unconnected passages, especially in our translation of the Bible, which seem to favour the contrary opinion, namely, that of the divinity of Christ. The intimate union which subsisted between God and Christ, the powers communicated to himn by God, especially after his resurrection and ascension, and the distinguished honours conferred upon him, easily lead us to the genuine sense of the most considerable of these expressions, and make it evident that nothing was meant by them in the least derogatory from the sole proper divinity and absolute supremacy of the Father.

I. Christ, being appointed the king and judge of men, has powers given him adapted to those offices,


especially a knowledge of the human heart, and the prerogative of declaring the forgiveness of sin, which always accompanies regal authority; but being assisted by divine wisdom and discernment, as well as by divine power, in the exercise of this high office, it is in effect the same thing as the judgement and mercy of God displayed by the instrumentality of Jesus Christ. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised at such expressions as these, Matt. ix. 4. " And Jesus knowing their thoughts." John ji. 25. “ He knew what was in man.” Matt. ix. 2. “ Thy sins be forgiven thee.” The multitude, who saw Christ exerting a miraculous power upon this occasion, and heard him ex. press himselfin this manner, had no idea of his claiming any extraordinary power, as naturally inherent in himself; for it is said, ver. 8. that “when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men.” The scribes and pharisees, indeed, said within themselves, upon this occasion, ver. 3. “This man blasphemeth.” But the Jews called it blasphemy to pretend to be the Christ; for when the high priest solemnly adjured our Lord by the living God, Matt. xxvi. 63. that he would tell him « whether he was the Christ, the son of God,” and our Lord expressly replied that he was the Christ; we read, ver. 65.“ then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy."

Col. ii. 9. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” This is a very proper expression, being strictly and literally true, though Christ himself


was a mere man, since the wisdom and power of the one true God, the Father, were manifest in and acted by him, agreeably to his own declarations, that “the words which he spake were not his own, but the Father's who sent him, and that the Father within him did the works.” Nay, this very expression, that the fullness of the godhead dwelled or resided in him, seems to imply that it did not naturally belong to liim. Besides, phrases similar to this are applied by. way of figure to christians in general. They are said to be “partakers of the divine nature,' 2 Pet. i. 4. to be filled with all the fulness of God,”. Eph. iii: 19. and to " be the fullness of him, that filleth all in all,” Eph. i. 13.

These observations will easily help us to understand what is meant by Christ being called “the image of the invisible God,” 2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15. and the exs press image of his person,” Heb. i. 3. and also his being “in the form of God,” Phil. ii. 6. for they all allude to the divine power and wisdom which were di. splayed in him when he was on earth, but more especially now that he is ascended into heaven: at the same time, Christ being called only the image of God, is a sufficient intimation that he is not God himself. Indeed, if this expression was to be allowed to be any proof of the divinity of Christ, it would follow that Adam was God; for it is said, Gen. i. 26, 27. that “God made man in his own image, and after his likeness."

It is with as little appearance of reason that Christ is argued to be very and eternal God, because he is


styled the Son of God; for all christians have the same appellation, 1 John iii. 2. “ Now are we the sons of God.” We are also called not only the children, but also “ the heirs of God,” and joint heirs with Christ," Rom. viii. 17. Adam is more especially called the "son of God,” Luke ii. 18. and Ephraimis called “his dear son," Jer. xxxi. 20.

John x. 30.“ I and my Father are one.” xiv. 10. “I am in the Father, and the Father" that is, ne are one in design and interest. But whatever be the union between the Father and the sun; it is of such a kind, that his disciples are capable of it with respect 10 them both; for, in Christ's prayer for his disciples, he says, John xvii. 20. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shail believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one : 1 in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast. sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me."

John v. 23. “That all men should honour the son, eren as they honour the Father;" that is, as well as the Father. The same word is used, where it can have no other sense, in John xvii. 23. “And hast loved them as thou hast loved me;" that is, not in the same degree, but likewise. To explain the sense of the entire passage in which the words above mentioned occur, let it be observed, ibat the Jews had persecuted Jesus, because


« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »