Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Of the Opinion of the Jews concerning Christ. 53

', how the apostles could continue to call Chrift

6

[ocr errors]

a man, as they always do, both in the book " of Acts, and in their epistles, after they had ' discovered him to be either God, or a fuper

2

angelic being, the maker of the world under God. That the apostles speak of Chrift as a being above angels, and ascribe the making of the world to him, is manifest from their writ ings; nor is their doing so, in any respect, inconsistent with their calling him a man, as they frequently do. Their calling him a man was both proper and neceffary. It was proper, be cause he was truly and properly a man; con fifting of an intelligent nature, united with fiesh and blood, which are the constituent parts of a man. It was necessary, to prevent their hearers or readers from supposing he was not truly a man, because they ascribed such characters and actions to him, as belong to none who are def cended from Adam by ordinary generation.

To whom, besides the Lord Jesus Christ, did ever the Father say, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? or, Let all the angels of God worship him? or, Thy throne, O God, is for ever? or, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool? To whom, befides Christ, did ever the apostles give the title of, Image of the invisible God? or, Firfiborn of every creature? or, Only-begotten of the Father? What other visible being was ever the apostles allowed to worship or address as their Lord and God?

Upon the whole, what Dr Priestley hasemploy54 Peculiar characters given to Chrift in Scripture.

ed to overturn thepre-existenceand pre-eminence of Jefus Chrift before and above all things, dothall concur to fupport that pre-eminence, and clearly proves that he was before all things, and that by him all things confift.

In his History of Opinions, Dr Priestley endeavours to fupport what he had alledged in his History of Corruptions, against Christ being before all things, and all things being created by him; and proceeds still farther, so as pofi tively to deny the miraculous conception of the Son of God, by maintaining that he was begotten by Joseph and Mary in the fame manner as other children are of their father and mother.

6

So he fays, 'As the Jews expected that their Meffiah would be a mere man, and even be born as other men are, the doctrine of his having had any existence or sphere of action, before he came into the world, as that of his having been the Maker of the world, the giver of the law, the medium of all divine commuft

*munications to the patriarchs, * have been quite new and extraordinary doc'trines.' (Hist. of Opin. Vol. I. p. 23.) But how could he imagine that the doctrine of Chrift, being the Maker of the world, and the giver of the law, &c. would appear new or ex-.. traordinary to the Jews? When in the fame history he has informed us, that Philo, a Jew, held the Logos, or Word, to be, 'the visiblemedium of all communications of God to man, that by which he both made the world, and alfo conversed with the patriarch of the Old

Testa

Of Dr Priestley's History of Opinions.

55

Teftament. (Vol. II. p. 3.) That the divine Logos is the First-Begotten, is called the

6

ηρχα (beginning)_ having no visible form, as 'not falling under the senses; but is the express

6

image of God; his first-begotten Son, fuper' intending all things as an officer under him.' (p. 10, 11, 12.) The Chaldee paraphrafts also represent the Logos, or Word of God, as a being distinct from him. In the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, the Logos is represented as coming down from heaven against the ene mies of the Ifraelites; and the Jewish commentators in general, are faid to have held that the Meffiah being created before the world, God entered into covenant with him, that he should redeem the world, and the Jews especially. How then could these doctrines appear new or strange to the Jews? The opinions of the Jews, according to Dr Priestley's own account of them, are fo far from oppofing the idea of Christ's pre-existence, and all things being created by him, that they are most directly in favour of the doctrine.

[ocr errors]

He says, 'For any thing that we certainly • know, God might have created one being of such extraordinary power, as should make it unnecessary for him to exert any more crea ' tive power; so that all that remained of crea' tion might be delegated to that great derived 'being. But it is highly improbable that this • should be the cafe.' The idea here suggested is very different from the idea the scriptures convey; for the exertions of the power of God

is here supposed to be suspended by the existence of a being poffefsed of an extraordinary power; whereas the fcriptures represent the power of God as exerted through the existence of a being poffeffing extraordinary power. What extraordinary power God might have endowed a derived being with, we certainly know not; nor can we know what extraordinary power he actually endowed his only-begotten Son with; fince our Lord himself has given us to know, that, 'No one knoweth the Son but the Father: But this he gives us to know also,

That the Son can do nothing of himself." From which it appears, that the Father exerts his power through his Son, both in the creation, prefervation, and government of the world.

There is something (he says) in the doc'trine itself; which if we were not accustom-> 'ed to it, would appear exceeding revolting. Such certainly is the idea of any being in human form, who was born, grew up, and died like ' other men; requiring the refreshment of food, reft, and fleep, &c. having been the Maker, and while he was on earth, and afleep, the fupporter and governor of the world. Had fuch an opinion, been first proposed in the present state of philosophy, it would have been • rejected without further examination.'

To a perfon who believes the infinite power of God the Father, and the unlimited love, condescension, and refignation of Chrift, his humiliation from fo high to fo low a state will indeed

1

i

[blocks in formation]

indeed appear exceedingly amazing; but the mind, instead of revolting, will thereby unite more closely in confidence and love, to the Father and the Son, who have done fuch wonderful things in favour of fallen creatures.

It seems difficult to perceive what philofophy has to do, or how it can determine in this cafe; either in its present, or in any other state. Philofophy can determine nothing about creation, nor can it lead to a cause or caufes 2bove what is called the laws of nature; fo that no argument can be drawn from thence, against God's creating all things by Jefus Chrift. And as to the idea of the mediation, or the mediatory influence of Christ extending through the whole universe, even in his lowest state of humiliation; no philofophical experiment will ever be found to disprove this, but the idea might perhaps rather be illustrated and confirmed, by attending to the operations of fome natural causes.

L

It was an observation that one philofopher (Hutchinson) made on the opinion of another, (Newton) that he attributed more to matter. than he would allow to. God, that is a power of acting where it was not; fol Dr Priestley allows powers of this kind to inanimate matter, but feems to deny them to his Lord and Saviour. His strongest objection to the doctrine that holds all things were created, and are up. held, by the mediation of Christ, seems to ly int this, that he is limited to a small space; and was sometimes in an inactive state; that there. fore

« ZurückWeiter »