« PreviousContinue »
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 rea-sonably 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
Euseb. E. H. 1. i. c. 2. See also Comm. in Isa. p. 381, 386. Athanas. vol. i. p. 443, 445.
Vid. Fulgent. ad Monímum. 1. ii. c. 3, 4. &c.
f Novatian' may here speak the sense of all. On Gen. xxxi. he 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 hæsitatione 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.
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
6 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.
Profecto admiranda mihi videtur divinarum personarum in sacrosanetissima Triade oixovopía, 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
purpose; which I have thrown into the margin.. I shall only add, that while you endeavour to found Christ's right and title to worship solely upon the powers 'supposed to be given him after his resurrection, you fall much below the generality of the ancient Arians, (whom yet you would be thought to exceed,) and are running into the Socinian scheme, not very consistently with your own. Thus you seem to be fluctuating and wavering between two, (at the same time verbally condemning both,) certain in nothing, but in opposing the Catholic doctrine; which when you have left, you scarce know where to fix, or how to make your principles hang together. To explain this a little farther: I found the Son's title to worship upon the dignity of his Person; his creative powers declared in John i. and elsewhere; his being Ogos from the beginning; and his preserving and upholding all things (according to Colos. i. 16, 17. and Heb. i.) antecedently to his mediatorial kingdom : you, on the other hand, found it entirely upon the powers given him after his humiliation, (alleging such i texts as these, Matt. xxviii. 18. John v. 22, 23. Phil. ii. 10, 11. Rev. i. 5,6. v. 8, 9, 10.) as if he had no just claim or title to worship at all, before that time: for, though you put in the equivocal word distinct, (very ingeniously,) yet your meaning really is, and the tendency of your argument requires it, that.no worship, distinct or otherwise, was due to him, till he received those full powers. This pretence, I say, might come decently and properly from a Socinian or a Sabellian, who either makes creation metaphorical, or interprets such 'texts as John i. 1. Col. i. 16, 17. and the like, of the reason or wisdom of the Father; that is, the Father, indwelling in the man Christ Jesus. But in you it must appear very improper, and very inconsistent with your other principles : wherefore I must again desire you to be more consistent, and to keep to one constant scheme. Take either Arian, Sabellian, or Socinian, and abide by it; and then I may know what I have to do : but do not pretend to hold two schemes at a time, utterly repugnant to each other.
innotuerit; Filium adoramus sub titulo Redemptoris ac Servatoris nostri, cujus idcirco divina gloria atque imperium non nisi post peractum in terris humanæ redemptionis ac salutis negotium fuerit patefactum ; Spiritum denique Sanctum veneramur sub titulo Paracleti, Illuminatoris, ac Sanctificatoris nostri, cujus adeo divina majestas demum post descensum ejus in Apostolos primosque Christianos donorum omne genus copiosissima largitione illustrissimum, clarius emicuerit. Nimirum tum demum Apostoli, idque ex Christi mandato, Gentes baptizabant in plenam atque adunatam Trinitatem, (ut cum Cypriano loquar) h. e, in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spi. ritus Sancti. Bull, Prim. Trad. p. 142. See Dr. Clarke's Reply, p. 239, 249.
As to Scripture's seeming, in some places, to found Christ's title to worship, not so much upon what he is in himself, as upon what he has done for us; 'a very good reason may be given for it, if it be well considered by what springs and movements moral agents are actuated, and that we love even God himself, with reference to ourselves, k« because he first loved us." Abstracted reasons of esteem, honour, and regard, are unaffecting, without a mixture of something relative to us, which ourselves have a near concern in. The essential dignity of Christ's Person is really the ground and foundation of honour and esteem, (and consequently of worship, the highest expression of both,) which ought always to bear proportion to the intrinsic excellency of the object : but his offices relative to us, are the moving reasons which principally affect our wills; and without which we should want the strongest incitement to pay that honour and worship which the essential excellency of his Person demands. Scripture has sufficiently apprised us of both, discovering at once both his absolute and relative dignity; that so we being instructed as well concerning what he is in himself, as what he is in respect to us, might understand what honour justly belongs to him, and want no motive to pay it accordingly. Add to this, that Christ's office, relative to us, naturally leads us back to the antecedent excellency and perfection of that Person, who was able to do so great and so astonishing things for us : besides that it must appear in the highest degree probable, that no creature whatever (supposing him to have suitable abilities) could have been intrusted with so great and so endearing a charge; such as must inevitably draw after it a larger share of our love, respect, and esteem, than seems consistent with our duty to God, and the rules laid down in Scripture for our behaviour towards the creatures. But enough of this : I proceed.
* 1 John iv. 19.
QUERY XIX. Whether the Doctor hath not given a very partial account
of John v. 23. founding the honour due to the Son on this only, that the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son; when the true reason assigned by our Saviour, and illustrated by several instances, is, that the Son doth the same things that the Father doth, hath the same power and authority of doing what he will ; and therefore has a title to as great honour, reverence, and regard, as the Father himself hath ? and it is no objection to this, that the Son is there said to do nothing of himself, or to have all given him by the Father ; since it is owned that the Father is the fountain of all, from whom the Son derives, in an ineffable manner, his essence and powers, so as to be one with him.
IN answer to this, you say, “The only honour due to our “ Saviour is plainly supposed by St. John to be given him, “ upon account of his being appointed by the Father Judge “ of the world,” p. 96. This is very strange indeed! What! was there no honour due to him on account of his having been @eds from the beginning ? None for his having crealed the world ? None on account of his being the “ only "begotten Son,” which St. John represents as a circumstance of exceeding great 'glory? Surely these were
John i. 14.