« PreviousContinue »
sense, they would have paid him no more respect than they paid to angels; and would certainly never have worshipped him. But I pass on: “ Creation,” you say, “ is " no act of dominion;" and therefore is not a sufficient foundation for worship. The same reason will hold with respect to the Father also; for creating is one thing, and ruling another. Yet you will find that Scripture makes creation the ground and reason of worship, in so particular and distinguishing a manner, that no person whatever, that had not a hand in creating, has any right or title to worshipy upon Scripture-principles; to which Catholic antiquity is entirely consonant, as we have observed above. I did not found his right of worship on creation only, but preservation too; referring to Coloss. i. 17. “ By him all things consist;" to which may be added, Heb. i. 3. “ Upholding all things by the word of his “ power.” The titles of Creator, Preserver, Sustainer of all things, sound very high; and express his supereminent greatness and majesty, as well as our dependence; and therefore may seem to give him a full right and title to religious worship; especially if it be considered, that they imply dominion, and cannot be understood without it. Besides that Creator, as hath been shown, is the mark, or characteristic of the true God to whom all honour and worship is due. Add to this, that by Job. i. 1. the Son was Ocòs before the foundation of the world; which implies, at least, dominion, upon your own principles : and when he came into the world, “ a He came unto “ his own,” (Joh. i. 11.) having been their Creator, ver. 20. and, as is now explained, Governor from the first. Wherefore, certainly, he had a just claim and title to adoration and worship from the foundation of the world, even upon your own hypothesis. As to his creating ministerially only, I have said enough to that point, under the eleventh Query, whither I refer you.
a Unus Deus Pater super omnes, et unum Verbum Dei quod per omnes, per quem omnia facta sunt, et quoniam hic mundus proprius ipsius, et per ipsum factus est voluntate Patris, &c.—Mundi enim factor vere Verbum Desi est. Iren. p. 315.
Verbum autem hoc illud est, quod in sua venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Mundus enim per eum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. Novat. c. xiii. p. 714.
Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo veniens in hunc mundum in sua venit, cum homo nullum fecerit mundum? Novat. p. 715. Vid. et Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. xii. p. 14.
From what hath been observed, it may appear sufficiently, that the divine Aózos was our King and our God long before; that he had the same claim and title to religious worship that the Father himself had; only not so distinctly revealed; and that his enthronization, after his resurrection, was nothing more than declaring the dignity of his person more solemnly, and investing him as b God-man, in his whole person, with the same power and authority, which, as God, he always had; and now was to hold in a different capacity, and with the addition of a new and special title, that of Redeemer. They therefore who endeavour to found the Son's title to worship, only upon the powers and authority of the Mediator, or God-man, after the resurrection, (alleging John v. 22. Phil. ii. 10. Heb. i. 6. and the like,) give us but a very lean and poor account of this matter; neither consistent with truth, nor indeed with their own hypothesis. You quote Phil. ii. 6. in favour of your notion; and say, that Christ " was from the beginning in the form of “ God; yet he did not assume to himself to be honoured 6 like unto God, till after his humiliation.” But this position can never be made out from that text. Allowing you your interpretation, about assuming to be honoured, yet this can mean only, that he did not assume during his humiliation, without any reference to what he had done before. It is very clear from John xvii. 5. that our blessed Saviour was to have no greater glory after his exaltation and ascension, than he had “ before the world
bei di voolus nigerun, xai iv metsa rapiouctos pò érie stāv õvap.dizer.hu, sis izcīvo drdovéto feste sagros ivarérett, sis örug ño xai diya ragxos. Cyril. Aler. Thes. p. 130.
c Clarke's Script. Doct. Prop. 48, 50, 51. Clarke's Reply, p. 239.
“ was. Glorify me with thine own self, with the glory “ which I had with thee, before the world was.” His glory had, to appearance, been under an eclipse, during the state of his humiliation : but after that, he was to appear again in full lustre; in all the brightness and splendor of his divine majesty, as he had done ever before. You think, that “our worship of him, in his own distinct person “ and character, commenced after his resurrection from " the dead.” I might allow this to be so in fact; and yet maintain, that he always had the same just right and title to religious worship; which must have had its effect, had it been clearly and distinctly revealed sooner. This is enough for my purpose; inasmuch as I contend only, that the worship due to him is not founded merely upon the power and authority supposed to have been given him after his resurrection; but upon his personal dignity and essential perfections. He might have had the very same right and claim all along, that ever he had after; only it could not take effect, and be acknowledged, till it came to be clearly revealed. Thus, God the Father had, undoubtedly, a full right and title to the worship and service of men, or of angels, from the first : but that right could not take place before he revealed and made himself known to them. This, I say, is sufficient to my purpose; and all that I insist upon. Yet, because I have a religious veneration for every thing which was universally taught and believed by the earliest Catholic writers, especially if it has some countenance likewise from Scripture; I incline to think that worship, distinct worship, was paid to the Son, long before his incarnation.
Irenæus is d express, that the Abyos was worshipped of old, together with the Father. And this must have been the sense of all those Fathers, before the Council of Nice, who understood and believed that the person who ap
« Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur Deus vivus, hic est vivorum Deus et Verbum ejus—. L. iv. c. 5. p. 232. ed. Bened.
See also Novatian, c. 15. Deum et angelum invocatum.
peared to the patriarchs, who presided over the Jewish Church, gave them the law, and all along headed and conducted that people, was the second Person of the ever blessed Trinity. Now, this was the general and unanimous opinion of the Ante-Nicene writers, as hath been shown at large, under Query the second. And it is observable, that Eusebius and Athanasius, (two very considerable men, and thoroughly versed in the writings of the Christians before them,) though they were opposite as to party, and differed as to opinion, in some points; yet they e entirely agreed in this, that the Son was worshipped by Abraham, Moses, &c. and the Jewish Church. And herein, had we no other writings left, we might reasonably believe that they spake the sense of their predecessors, and of the whole Christian Church, as well before, as in their own times. You will say, perhaps, that the worship, supposed to have been then paid to the Son, was not distinct worship. But it is sufficient that it was (according to the sense of the Christian Church) paid to the Person appearing, the Person of the Son, and he did not refuse it; which is the very argument that f some of the Ante-Nicene writers use in proof of his divinity. The Patriarchs worshipped that Person, who appeared and communed with them; supposing him to be the God of the universe, to whom of right all worship belongs. Had he not been what they took him for, he should have rejected that worship, as the angel in the Revelations rejected the worship which St. John would have offered him. In a word, since the Son received that worship in his own Person, (according to the ancients,) it must be said, he was then distinctly worshipped, and in his own right, as being truly God. However that be, my argument is still good, that the Son (having been in “ the “ form of God,” and God; Creator, Preserver, and Sustainer of all things, from the beginning) had a right to worship, even upon your principles, (much more mine,) long before the commencing of his mediatorial kingdom : and therefore his right and title to worship was not founded upon the powers then supposed to have been given him: consequently, those texts which you refer to, for that purpose, are not pertinently alleged; nor are they of strength sufficient to bear all that stress which you lay upon them. This point being settled, I might allow you that, in some sense, distinct worship commenced with the distinct title of Son, or Redeemer : that is, our blessed Lord was then first worshipped, or commanded to be worshipped by us, under that distinct title or character; having before had no other title or character peculiar and proper to himself, but only what was 8 common to the Father and him too. Though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all jointly concerned in creation, redemption, and sanctification ; yet it may seem good to Infinite Wisdom, for great ends and reasons, to attribute each respectively to one Person rather than another; so that the Father may be emphatically Creator, the Son Redeemer, the Holy Ghost Sanctifier : and upon the commencing of these titles respectively, the distinct worship of each (amongst men) might accordingly commence also. Excellent are the words of h Bishop Bull to this
• Euseb. E. H. 1. i. c. 2. See also Comm. in Isa. p. 381, 386. Athanas. vol. i. p. 443, 445.
Vid. Fulgent. ad Monimum. I. ii. c. 3, 4. &c.
f Novatian may here speak the sense of all. On Gen. xxxi. be comments thus : Si angelus Dei loquitur hæc ad Jacob, atque ipse angelus infert, dicens : Ego sum Deus qui visus sum tibi in loco Dei: non tantummodo hunc angelum, sed et Deum positum, sine ulla bæsitatione conspicimus; quique sibi votum refert ab Jacob destinatum esse, &c. Nullius alterius angeli potest hic accipi tanta auctoritas, ut Deum se esse fateatur, et votum sibi factum esse testetur, nisi tantummodo Christi C. 27.
8 Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum, ut coram jam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum prædicatus non intelligebatur. Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 30.
ha Profecto admiranda mihi videtur divinarum personarum in sacrosanctissima Triade oitovouía, qua unaquæque persona distincto quasi titulo humanum imprimis genus imperio suo divino obstrinxerit, titulo illi respondente etiam distincta uniuscujusque imperii patefactione. Patrem colimus sub titulo Creatoris hujus universi, qui et ab ipsa mundi creatione hominibus