« PreviousContinue »
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 ; bis creative powers declared in John i. and elsewhere; his being Oeds 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. i. 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 bumanæ 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 Spiritus Sancti. Bull. Prim. Trad. p. 142. i 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.
k i John iv. 19.
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 sòs from the beginning ? None for his having created 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
1 John i. 14.
things great enough to demand our tribute of honour and respect; and therefore St. John could never mean that he was to be honoured only upon that single account, as being constituted Judge of all men. This could never be the only reason why “ all men should honour the Son “ even as they honour the Father.” What then did St. John mean? Or rather, what did our blessed Lord mean, whose words St. John recites ? He meant what he has said, and what the words literally import; that the Father, (whose honour had been sufficiently secured under the Jewish dispensation, and could not but be so under the Christian also,) being as much concerned for the honour of bis Son, bad been pleased to commit all judgment to him, for this very end and purpose, that men might thereby see and know that the Son, as well as the Father, was Judge of all the earth, and might from thence be convinced how reasonable it was, and how highly it concerned them, to pay all the same honour to the Son, which many had hitherto believed to belong to the Father only. And considering how apt mankind would be to lessen the dignity of the Son, (whether out of a vein of disputing, or because he had condescended to become man like themselves,) and considering also that the many notices of the divinily of his Person might not be sufficient, with some, to raise in them that esteem, reverence, and regard for him, which they ought to have; for the more effectually securing a point of this high concerninent, it pleased the Father to leave the final judgment of the great day in the hands of his Son : men therefore might consider that this person, whom they were too apt to disregard, was not only their Crealor, and Lord, and God, but their Judge too, before whose awful tribunal they must one day appear: an awakening consideration, such as might not only convince them of his exceeding excellency and supereminent perfections, but might remind them also, how much it was their interest, as well as duty, to pay him all that honour, adoration, and ser
xix. OF SOME QUERIES. 199 vice, which the dignity and majesty of his Person demands m.
Let us but suppose the present Catholic doctrine of the coequality and coeternity of the three Persons to be true, what more proper method can we imagine, to secure to each Person the honour due unto him, than this; that every Person should be manifested to us under some peculiar title or character, and enforce his claim of homage by some remarkable dispensation, such as might be apt to raise in us a religious awe and veneration? This is the case in fact; and on this account, chiefly, it seems to be that the Son, rather than the Father, (whose personal dignity is less liable to be questioned,) is to be Judge of all men, that “ so all men may honour the Son,” xatus τιμώσι τον πατέρα. The learned Doctor η pleads that καθώς often signifies a general similitude only, not an exact equality : which is very true ; and would be pertinent, if we built our argument on the critical meaning of the particle. But what we insist on, is, that our blessed Lord, in that chapter, draws a parallel between the Father and himself, between the Father's works and his own, founding thereupon his title to honour; which sufficiently intimates what xatws means; especially if it be considered that this was in answer to the charge of making himself o "equal with God.” This is what I intimated in the Query; upon the reading whereof, you are struck with samazement at so evident an instance, how prejudice “ blinds the minds,” &c. But let me persuade you to forbear that way of talking, which (besides that it is taking for granted the main thing in question, presuming that all the prejudice lies on one side, and all the reason on the other) is really not very becoming in this case, considering how many wise, great, and good men, how many churches of the saints, through a long succession of ages, you must, at the same time, charge with prejudice and m Vid. Jobium ap. Phot. Cod. ccxxii. p. 604. * Reply, p. 260.
• John v. 18.