Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

προτόγονος,

'the perfonification of the Logos,' for he calls the Logos or Word of God, his goтoyovos, < or his first born, and the image of God. He alfo fays, that he is neither unbegotten, like "God, nor begotten as we are, but the middle • between the extremes.' Dr Priestley likewise fays, "We also find that the Chaldee paraphrafts of the Old Teftament often render the word of God, as if it was a being diftinct from • God, or fome angel who bore the name of 'God, and acted by deputation from him.' Thus the prophets, commentators, and learned writers among the Jews are clearly in favour of the pre-existence of Chrift, and agree that he existed in the character of the Word, or Angel of Jehovah, under the Old Teftament-difpenfation, or from the beginning. And if the common people be appealed to, on whofe judgement Dr Priestley feems to lay the greatest flrefs, it appears that in the days of our Lord's humiliation, they held not only the pre-existence of the Meffiah, but also of all perfons, as is evident from the question propofed by the disciples, who faid, John ix. 2. Mafter, who did fin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' They could never have afked if the blind man finned before he was born, if they had not believed that he had existed in fome former state.

[ocr errors]

.

Dr Priestley alfo fays, 'It is acknowledged by early writers of the orthodox perfwafion, that C two kinds of herefy exifted in the times of the apostle, viz. that of those who held that Chrift was fimply a man; and the other, that

• he

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

• he was man only in appearance. Now the a'postle John animadverts with the greatest fe⚫ verity upon the latter; and can it be thought probable that he should pass over the former • without cenfure, if he thought it to be an error? On this it may be observed, that if by being fimply a man be meant a denial of the exiftence of Chrift as the Son of God, before he became the Son of man, the apostle is far from paffing over it without cenfure, for he mentions two or three things concerning Chrift, namely, his being the Son of God, his coming in the flesh, and his being the Chrift. John iv. 15. 'Whofoever fhall confefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.' If therefore there were any who profeffed to be Chriftians, and denied, either exprefsly or implicitly, that Jefus Chrift was the Son of God, in fome peculiar manner in which no other perfon was, the apoftle reproves this opinion, by fetting forth the duty and advantage of confeffing, in oppofition to this, that Jefus is the Son of God. If this confeffion did not imply fomething peculiar in the generation of Chrift, by which he stands more immediately related to the Father, than any other being whatever; and if it did not diftinguish him from all others, more than Socinians feem to allow when they call him fimply a man, it could be no fuch proper and peculiar character of Christ as the apoftle here represents it to

be.

D

The

J

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The fame apoftle fays, 1 John iv. 2, 3. Every fpirit that confeffeth that Jefus Chrift is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confeffeth not that Jefus Chrift is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that fpirit of antichrift, whereof ye have heard that it fhould come, and even now already it is in the world.' This feems to be a fevere animadverfion on those who then held, or who now hold, that it was not the Word as a diftinct perfon that was made flesh, but an attribute of God, or God himself. The apoftle's words apply as much against the opinion that denies the real existence of a perfon coming in the flesh, as the flefh in which he came. However unfavourable it may be to the doctrine of philofophical neceffity, materialism, and the denial of the preexistence of Chrift, which according to Dr Priestley are all neceffarily connected with one another I fay, however unfavourable it to thefe, the fcriptures do conftantly declare, may be -that he received nothing but flesh and blood, or Ja material body, by being incarnate. Hence in the epiftle to the Hebrews, he is reprefented as faying, chap x. 5. A BODY haft thou prepared me. Agreeable to this, the apostle Pester speaking of David, fays, Acts ii. 30. That God had fworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Chrift to fit on his throne.' The apostle Paul also fays, Rom. i. 3. Concerning Jefus Christ our Lord, who was made of the feed of David according to the flesh.' And again

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

again, Rom. ix. 5. Of whom, as concerning the FLESH, Chrift came.

• Who is a

It is also faid, 1 John ii. 22. liar, but he that denieth that Jefus is the Chrift? In fo far as this hath a reference to a fect of Chriftians, it may perhaps refer to thofe who are faid to have held, that Jefus, who was born of Mary, was a diftinct perfon from Chrift who came down from heaven and dwelt in him; who being of a fuperior nature, fupported Jes fus, but felt none of his fufferings, and left him about the time he expired on the crofs. Very fimilar to this is the opinion of fome who now hold, that a true body and a reasonable foul (which certainly make a perfon,) was born of the Virgin Mary, and that a perfon who exifted before, defcended into this true body and rea fonable foul, or was united thereto; that thefe were fo diftinct, as the one to know all things, while the other was ignorant of feveral things; that this fuperior nature, or being, felt none of the fufferings of the inferior, and that after fupporting the inferior for a time, became quiefcent, or forfook him, when he cried, My God, my God, why haft thou forfaken me?'

In oppofition to thefe falfe opinions, the apoftle John teaches, that Jefus was the Son of God, by a real and proper, though peculiar and ineffable generation; and that this Son of God who was with him in the beginning, did actually come in the flesh. Being made lower than the angels, and partaking of flesh and blood as the children of men do, he was as truly made

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

flefh, as human spirits are by ordinary generation, though his generation was miraculous and extraordinary.

Upon the whole, the language of the prophets, the opinions of the Jews, and the doctrines of the apostles, are all clearly in favour of the pre-existence and pre-eminence of Jesus Chrift, before, and above all things.

[ocr errors]

But against all things being created by Jefus Christ, and against his being with the Father in the beginning, Dr Priestley alledges that creation is afcribed to God alone, and therefore the agency of Chrift could in no refpect be concerned therein. It is very true, that there is one God who created all things; but it is no lefs true, that he created all things by Jefus Christ; and therefore his agency was concerned therein moft certainly. There is alfo one God, to whom vengeance belongs, but that does not set aside the agency of Chrift in the execution of judgment. Since we are informed, not only that all judgment is committed to him, and authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man; but also that he will be revealed from heaven, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gofpel; and that those who suffer will suffer the wrath of the Lamb. It might also be obferved, that creation is not more uniformly and exclufively afcribed to God, than the working of miracles, and the falvation of finners; yet we know moft certainly, that the agency of Chrift is not excluded from thefe. Thus it is faid, Pfal.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »