Gambar halaman
[ocr errors]

ousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, has anointed ihee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” From this passage nothing can be more plain, than that, whatever authority belongs to Christ, he has a superior, from whom he derives it ; “God, even thy God, has anointed thee.” This could never have been said of the one true God, whose being and power are underived.

In verses 10, 11, 12, the apostle quotes an address to God, as the great Creator and everlasting Ruler of the universe, but without any hint of its being applied to Christ, from Psalm cii. 25–27. “ And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed : but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” This quotation was probably made with a view to express the great honour conferred on Christ on account of the dignity of the person who covferred it. For it immediately follows, ver. 13. “But to which of the angels said he," that is, the great Being to whom this description belongs, “Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool ?" Or, since this quotation from the Psalmist describes a perpetuity of empire in God, it' may be intended to intimate a perpetuity of empire in Christ, who holds his authority from God, and who must hold it, unless God himself be unable to support it.


Acts xx. 28. “ Feed the church of God, which he. has purchased with his own blood.” In the most ancient manuscripts this text is, “ Feed the church of the Lord;" which generally signifies Christ. Also in some copies it is, “ which he purchased with blood;" that is, the blood of his Son. As the blood of God is a phrase which occurs no where else in the scriptures, we ought to be exceedingly cautious how we admit such an expression. If Christ was God, his blood could not be his blood as God, but as man.

VI. I shalt here introduce a few texts, which are not reducible to any of the above-mentioned heads; being either interpolations or mis-translations of the scriptures, or having no relation to the subject in favour of which they have been quoted.

Matt. xxviii. 19. “ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This form of baptism seems to be intended to remind Christians of the different parts which God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit acted in the schemie of man's redemption; God sending his Son on this gracious errand; the Son faith. fully performing the work which God gave hiin to do, and being made head over all things to the church ; and the Holy Spirit confirming the word of truth by miraculous gifts. But it is quite an arbitrary supposition, that, because they are mentioned together upon this occasion, they must be equal in all other respects, partaking of divinity alike, so as to be equal in power and glory. The apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 2. 6 that


the children of Israel were baptized unto Moses :" but he certainly did not mean that Moses was their God.

Col. iji. 10. “ And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him ; where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision noruncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free; but Christ is all, and in all ;" that is, there is no other distinction to be made now, but only whether a man be a real christian.

i Cor. i. 2. “ With all that in all places call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both theirs and ours.” That adoration, such as is due to the one liv. ing and true God, was not meant by the apostle in this place, is evident from the very next words: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ;" where Christ is evidently spoken of as distinct from God. It is probable, therefore, that the apostle meant nothing more than such as call themselves by the name of Christ, or who professed christianity.

Acts vii. 59. “ And they stoned Stephen calling. upon God, and saying Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” The word God is not in the original, as our translators have signified, by their directing it to be printed in the Italic character; so that this text by no means implies that Stephen acknowledged Christ to be God, but only informs us, that Stephen addressed himself to Christ, whom he had just seen in person in a state of great exaltation and glory: as we read, ver. 55, 56. "He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked steadfastly


into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and thie son of man standing on the right hand of God.” This very language clearly implies, that he considered the son of man, and God, as distinct persons.

The word which is here, and in 1 Cor. i. 2. rendered to call upon, is far from being appropriated to invocation, as peculiar to the Divine Being. It is the same word that is rendered to appeal to, as when Paul appeals to Cæsar; and is used when a person is said to be called by any particular name; as, Judas, called Iscariot, &c. There can be no doubt, therefore, but that it has the same meaning both in 1 Cor. i. 2. and also in Acis ix. 21. “ Is not this he that destroyed them who called on this name in Jerusalem?” that is, all who called themselves christians. It is so rendered, James ij. 7. Do they not blaspheme the worihy name by which ey are called?” or, as it is more exactly rendered, which is called, or imposed, upon you? that is, by which ye are distinguished. Had it implied adoration, it would at least have been which is called upon by you.

i John v. 7. “ There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghosi ; and these three are one.” Sir Isaac Newion and others have clearly proved that this verse was no part of John's original epistle, but was inserted in later ages. It is not to be found in any ancient manuscript, and has been omitted in many printed copies and translations of the New Testament, at a time when



the doctrine which it is supposed to contain was in a manner universally received. I say supposed to contain, because in fact it expresses no more than that these three agree in giving the same testimony, which is the only kind of union which the spirit, the water, and the blood, in the verse following can have. · 1 Tim. iii. 16. “And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Sir Isaac Newton has fully demonstrated that, in the original, this text was not God manifest in the flesh, but who was manifest in the flesh, and a very small alteration in the manner of writing Greek is sufficient for that purpose. The oldest manuscript in the world, which I have examined myself, has been manifestly altered from the one to the other, as appears by the difference in the colour of the ink. Be. sides, it is even literally true, that God was manifest in the flesh of Christ ; since he himself acknowledges, that “the very words which he spake were not his own, but the Father's who sent him, and that the Father, who was in bim, did the works.” It was therefore with the greatest propriety that our Lord said, John viii. 29. “ If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also,” the wisdom and power of God being conspicuous in him. They who will have this text to be a proof of the godhead of Christ, must suppose him to be the Father, or the first person in the Trinity, and not the Son, or the second. : Zech. xiij. 7. “ Awake, O sword, against my shep


« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »