« FöregåendeFortsätt »
is had to Christ's glorified humanity ; that it is the infinite God, who glorified the man Christ, and put all things under his power. Compare this with Phil. iij. 21 ;-" the Lord Jesus Christ—who is able even to subdue all things to himself.” The word in the original, in the former of these texts, (importing the putting of all things under Christ) is the same with that in the latter text translated to subdue. Christ, in the latter text is said to be able to do the very thing, which God, in the formed text, is said to do. The former text then, alludes to Christ's humanity; the latter to his Divinity.
I might multiply evidences of Christ's proper Deity, till almost the whole scripture would pass in review : But it is needless. A few more sacred testimonies however, I must beg the reader's patience to peruse, before I close this section. The great truth before us does not rest on a few obscure hints, or detached passages ; but it is interwoven through the Bible, and forms the essential basis of its glorious scheme.
Many scriptures, which I esteem divine testimonies to this point, I omit, because the decision is not carried so clearly upon their face. I do not mean to inake a quotation, which I do not believe is decisive in favor of the real Deity of Christ.
Paul tells the Corinthians, that he was determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. But was not the glory of God his object? Jesus Christ then, in Paul's view, was God. To preach Christ, was to preach God. To know Christ, was to know God. Christ was Paul's only object. Yet God was his only object. This accords with the words of Christ, “ He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
Paul again speaking of Christ, who will appear in judgment, the King of kings, adds, “ Who only
hath immortality; dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto ; whom no man hath
seen, Jor can see ; to whom be honor and power everJasting. Amen."* "If Christ only hath immortality; then surely he is God, the only living God; or else there is no God of immortality. The Father is not, in this text, excluded, but included. But the passage shows the unity of God and Christ. Each of them only hath immortality.
Paul says ; “ I am dead unto the law, that I might live unto God." Yet he tells us, to live is Christ ;"__" that we should live to him, who died for us, and rose again.” “ Ye are bought with a price ; therefore glorify God. with your bodyand spirit, which are God's.” Thus with Paul, Christ was God. God and Christ, in point of real Divinity, were with Paul convertable terms.
Man is commanded to rejoice and glory only in God. 66 In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” “ As it is written : He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
66 We also joy in God.”* But yet Paul says, “ God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”" Your rejoicing being more abundant in Christ”'_"in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with oy unspeakable and full of glory." There is no avoiding the conclusion, that in those passages, God is Christ; and Clarist is God.
If Christ be not the living God, but a derived, dependent being, in his highest nature, why did the apostles work their miracles in his name, and not in the name of God ?—Should they not have performed them in the name of that divine Power,
* 1 Tim. vi.16,
who actually did the work? Would they be divinely directed to perform their miracles in the name of a derived, dependent being ? and to have the praise ascribed to such an one? This would be most unaccountable. All power belongeth unto God; yea unto the Lord our God belongeth the issues from death. The praise of God's works ought to be given to him, and not to the instruments of his operations. It is one great object of Revelation, to teach creatures devoutly to distinguish between instruments of good, and God the infinite giver. And would Christ have directed his aposties to vio. late this principle? Yea, would he have violated it in his own Person and examples ?
It is true, Christ repeatedly gave notice, that all he did was from God; and of himself he could do nothing. But it is as true, that he is as abundantly represented as being himself the great, the living, and true God; and operating as such. How shall we dispose of this seeming contradiction? The elew has already been hined ; Christ has two natures in his Person. He is God; and he is man. And he is constituted a Mediator. And in passages concerning Christ, reference is sometimes had to the one of his natures; and sometimes to the other. This is a most evident fact. 66 I am the root and offspring of David.” Here, in the pronoun 1, are contained God and man. As God, he wrought by his own power; as man, he wrought by the power of God.
In the various communications of Christ, and in the records given of him, this seeming paradox is abundantly exhibited, for the trial of man's faith, that Christ was God; and he was man; that he was independent; and was dependent, and the essential attributes of God, and of man centered in him, This stumbled the Jews; and has stumbled
thousands. “ Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. “ Unto you, therefore, who believe, he is precious : But unto them, who are disobedient, the stone, which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them, who stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed."
“ No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son; and he, to whom the Son will reveal him.” This appears to indicate, that those two Persons in the Godhead are equally incomprehensible; and thus equally divine. No wonder then, that when God was manifested in the flesh, his name should be called Wonderful; that it should be declared a great mystery; and that it should be to many a stumbling block, and foolishness.
Jesus Christ is the Life. 61 am the resurrection and the Life." "I am the way, the truth, and the Life." 6 In him was Life." 66 This is the true God, and eternal Life." Christ is not merely the way to life ; but is himself said to be eternal Life; the Prince of Life. Christians have eternal life. But they cannot be called the Life. Christ as a man and Mediator speaks of this pow. er of Life being given him. But if nothing appertained to Christ, but a derived nature, which received this gift of the Father to have life in him. self, surely Christ could never, with such emphasis, be called the life. If the person of Christ had no life, but a given life, he would not have said, “ Because I live, ye shall live also :" But, because God lives ye shall live also. The Life of their lives must be in God. Yet it was in Christ; who therefore is God.
Christ, upon promising the Comforter, said, "He shall glorify me ; for he shall take of mine, and show it unto you." Do we not here learn, that Christ is God, one with the Father? Would the Holy Ghost have it as a first object, to glorify a derived dependent being ? “He shall take of mine, and show it unto you." But what does the Holy Ghost show to Christians ? He shows them the character and glory of God; and the way of salvation. The following is the result of this discovery, as the apostle decides relative to all the new-born; “ And rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” The Comforter then, in order to glorify Christ, glorifies God.
John remarks, that Christ's miracles manifested forth his glory. Again ; " Of his fulness we have received, and grace for grace.". If Christ had no nature, but what did in fact receive divine commupications, why is it said to be his glory, that was manifested forth ? and his fulness, from which Christians receive their divine aids and consolations? Do they not receive these things from God? And did not Christ's miracles manifest forth the glory of him, who said “ My glory I will not give unto another ?" Did Paul's miracles manifest forth Paul's glory? Or was it of Peter's fulness, that the healed Eneas, and the raised Dorcas received ? Surely not. And if Christ, in his whole Person, were as dependent as was Paul, or Peter; does it not as really give the glory to another beside God, to ascribe it to Christ, as to ascribe it to Paul or Peter ?
Paul said, " I can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth me." But was not Paul's sole dependence on God? “The Lord stood by me and strengthened me." “ Now he, that hath wrought us for the self same thing, is God;"! 6 For