Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

time is eternal. Christ, therefore, must have existed from eternity. 3. It is said, that "all things were made by the Word." The meaning of this phrase is, that he was the Creator of all things, as it is explained Col. i. 16: "By him "were all things created that are in heaven and "that are in earth." Now, in the Old Testament, God's making the heaven and the earth is the character frequently given of him, to distinguish him from idols and false Gods. Christ, therefore, must be infinite in power. 4. It is said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This text, therefore, plainly asserts the true Deity of Jesus Christ. 5. A contrary interpretation of this text exposes St. John to the imputation of extreme temerity. The enemies of our Lord's divinity represent him, as well as the other Apostles, as magnifying Christ in terms

a

a In order to avoid this conclusion, the following objection is alleged by Socinians: in the second clause, the word God is used with an article, (πρоç тov Oɛov,) and in the third, the article is wanting. (Oɛos kaι o λoyos, not o 0ɛoc.) Now it is said, that no instance can be found, in which 0ɛog, without the article and the predicate of a proposition signifies the true God. If the reader, however, will refer no farther than v. 18. of this chapter, he will find an example of the required form, θεον ουδεις εώρακε πώποτε. "No man hath seen God at any time." See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 2. p. 206. note: Wardlaw's Unitar. Incap. of Vindic. p. 157. Howes' Critical Observ. v. 4. p. 38. Archbishop Laurence's Dissertation on the Logos. Griesbach in loc. and Dr. Waterland's Sermons on the Divinity of Christ.

that appear to import his being the true God, while they suppose they had in these another and a far different sense, which all the ingenuity of criticism can scarcely make them bear. Such dealing would be considered unfair and dishonest even in common writers. It cannot therefore be imputed to the inspired evangelists. 6. This interpretation also is confirmed by the peculiar circumstances in which St. John wrote his Gospel. There were three ranks of persons at this time, into whose hands his Gospel would be likely to fall, and whose prejudices therefore he was particularly called on to regard. These were the Jews, the Ebionites and Cerinthians.

Gentiles, and the The Jews were re

markable for their abhorrence of idolatry. Is it likely then, that St. John would have begun his Gospel with an assertion that implied the divinity of a mere man, if this were not strictly true? The Gentiles were inclined to Polytheism. Would St. John then even in appearance have encouraged this inclination, by asserting the existence of a subordinate Deity, in contradiction too, to the general tenor of Scripture, which expressly discountenances the worshipping of saints or angels? The Ebionites and Cerin

a

The Ebionites and Cerinthians were heretics of the 1st century. Their opinions may be found in Lardner's Works, V. 2. p. 307. and v. 9. p. 325.

thians denied the divine nature of Christ. Would St. John then have written by inspiration on this very subject, and avowedly declared his opposition to their doctrine, while in reality he never intended that opposition? Even among ordinary writers, controversy superinduces caution. Men who on common occasions may give way to carelessness of style, will correct that carelessness when the subject of discussion is matter of dispute. Yet the supposition of our adversaries would deny even such worldly prudence to the writer of this Gospel, and impute to him a degree of heedlessness, of which mere uninspired authors are seldom guilty.

The same truth is declared in Phil. ii. 6. "He being in the form of God, thought it not "robbery to be equal with God, but made him“self of no reputation, and took upon him the "form of a servant, and was made in the like"ness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe"dient unto death. Wherefore God also hath

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

highly exalted him, and given him a name "which is above every name." On this text it

a It has been generally supposed, that St. John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of confuting these heretics. See Michaelis Introd. to N. T. v. 3. Part 1. c. 7. sec. 3. Ed. Marsh. Camb. 1801. Dr. Lardner, however, makes a contrary assertion.-See Works, v. 6. p. 211. and v. 4. p. 225.

may be observed: 1. It proves his pre-existence. For he was in the form of God before he took on him the form of a servant, in the same way as he humbled himself before he became exalted. His existence is represented as antecedent to his humiliation, as the latter was rewarded by his exaltation. 2. It proves the dignity of his person in that pre-existent state. For in the preceding verses, the Apostle is exhorting Christians to humility, and supports his exhortation by an argument drawn from our Saviour's example. He begins with the dignity of his person, and shows that notwithstanding it, he yet laid it aside, for which he had been rewarded by God. It was this which put the value on his humiliation, and entitled him to the possession of his glory. 3. That dignity consisted in his being truly God. For it is said," he was in the form of God," which is set in opposition to his " being in the form of a servant," (in both which phrases the same word is used to denote form.) Now he was really a servant, for he was obedient to his parents, and submitted to the authority of the Romans, of Herod, and of the Sanhedrim. The parallel phrase, therefore," he was in the form of God," must import that he

a The strength of this passage is considerably increased by a literal translation: "He made himself of no reputation, taking on him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 2. p. 207. and Whitby in loc.

66

66

was really God. But further, it is said, that " he thought it not robbery to be equal (or to be held equal) with God."a Now this could not be true of any subordinate Deity. Christ, therefore, must be the true God. 4. Socinian writers explain the words "in the form of God," as signifying "One acting in the name of God, and performing miracles in support of his mis"sion." They also explain the words," he "he thought it not robbery," as signifying " he did "not vehemently desire to be held equal with "God." But according to this interpretation, St. Paul is supposed to treat of one of the most sacred doctrines in a pompous and unused rhetoric. And further, it would destroy the Apostle's argument. For no example of humility could be deduced from Christ's conduct, if being a mere man, he did not aspire at an equality with God. Such an attempt occasioned the overthrow of Lucifer, and could only be the effect of blasphemy and pride.c

Again, he is called God in Acts xx. 28. "Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."d

a See Turretin's Inst. Theol. L. 3. Q. 28.

b See Belsham's Epist. of St. Paul in loc.

C See Schleusner in verb. ɛKεvwσεv, and Middleton on the Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 537.

d If the reader desire further information on these texts, he may refer to the commentators who have written expressly on them,

« ForrigeFortsæt »