« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
I will strengthen them in Jehovah, or God the Son, and they shall walk about glorifying, as the Septuagint, and hoping, as the Syriac, in his name; which is literally true of us, who glory in the name of Christians, and hope in the name of Christ. Thus we see there is but one Jehovah; and that Jesus Christ is that Jehovah, or Lord. So he is every where called in the New Testament by that Greek word kvpios, from kvpw, I am, which the Septuagint always puts for Jehovah; so he styles himself, John xiii. 13, Ye call me Master, and Lord; and ye say well; for so I am.' So St. Thomas styles him, in the confession of his faith, 'My Lord, and my God;' John xx. 28. That, by the word Lord, applied in these, and so many other places, to Christ, we are not to understand that common title of masters, or princes, is every where plain at the first sight; nay, that it signifies the great, the only Lord, or Jehovah, is manifest from the second of the Epistle to the Philippians, where we are told, that, although he thought it not robbery to be equal with God,-he took on him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ;' on account of which God the Father bestowed on him the sole government of that kingdom which he held in partnership before, highly extolling him, “and giving him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord,' that is, the only Lord, or Jehovah, 'to the glory of God the Father.' That the word Lord is to be understood here in this high sense, appears from the import of the whole passage, which represents Christ exalted to the monarchy of the universe with two views; first, that the whole creation might adore him; and secondly, 'that every tongue might confess him to be the Lord.'
If, while the respect for this incommunicable name was at the highest, our Saviour assumed it to himself before an audience made up of disciples, and unconverted Jews, we must conclude he was that very God who revealed himself, and the law, to Moses, and who spoke by all the prophets. It is in vain to say he called himself at the bush, and was elsewhere called, an angel. We have already seen, that the word angel implies no particular nature, but only an office.
As such, it might be well applied to Christ, who was the angel or messenger of his father, in all he did, and who therefore in that sense, and that only, is styled · Messenger of the covenant,' Mal. iii. 9, whereof he was also the Mediator,' Heb. viii. 6, in which very Epistle he is more than once styled God. May not a son, who is of the same nature with his father, be nevertheless his messenger ? Christ, then, having called himself by the name Jehovah, and being often so called by the writers of the Old Testament, and by those also of the New (for the word curios, there used, is put for Jehovah by the Septuagint, which the apostles, for the most part, quoted), we must believe in him as the God of Israel, who gave the law, the first moral commandment whereof is this, Thou shalt have none other gods before me;' that is, Thou shalt neither believe in, nor worship, any other god with me, nor in my sight; or, Thou shalt worship me, and me only; for the negative implies and contains in it the positive. But the commandment is worded negatively, because God knew his people were in much greater danger of falling into the worship of subordinate gods in conjunction with him, according to the custom of all the Gentile nations, who adored one supreme and many inferior gods, than of totally relinquishing his service.
Is Christ, then, who wrote these words with his own finger on the table of stone, who delivered them to his people, and, through them to all men, with such pomp and terror from mount Sinai, who denounces such dreadful judgments against the transgressors of this law; is he but a subordinate god? Is he but a deified creature? And, having so absolutely prohibited the worship of all other gods but himself, hath he actually forbid the worship of the one true, eternal, supreme God? Can a man be a Christian-can a man have common sense, and believe this? The Arians of old and the SemiArians of our own times, compelled by the citations concerning Christ in the New Testament from the Old, whereof I have given you but a specimen, have always acknowledged Christ to have been the God of Israel, who delivered the law; yet held him to be an inferior, a delegated god. But you see in what their shocking hypothesis terminates. This angel, this creature, this inferior god, forbids, absolutely, with dreadful threatenings, forbids, the worship of his Almighty Master, of the true God, of his God! Horrible indeed! But these refining adversaries of the truth tell us, he spoke not in his own name, but in the name of him who sent him; and that the worship he demanded was not to terminate in him the representative, but in God his principal. How could he have so absolutely forbidden the belief or worship of all other gods, whether superior or inferior to himself, by words so totally excluding all shadow of representation, subordination, delegation, or even co-ordination? If he was a son only by creation and favour, how came he so positively to forbid the worship of his father? If he was a God only by delegation, and to be worshipped merely as the representative of the real and true God, why did he, instead of transmitting the worship he demanded, stop it, and centre it wholly in himself, by expressly prohibiting all other objects of worship, and consequently his great supreme constituent? On the contrary, why did not he, so ready on all occasions to express his duty and fidelity to the Father, as the Arians, ever watchful to turn those expressions to his dishonour, very well know; why did he not, I say, on this great occasion, when the object of all worship, all duty, all morality, was to be fixed, give an Arian preface to his commandments? Why did he not say, 'O Israelites, I am appointed to act between God and you; and, as the representative of God, in my own proper person to receive those sacrifices, devotions, and obedience, wherewith you are to honour him ? Or why this pazzling, this amusing subtlety, tending to the worship of a creature? Why did he not rather say, ‘I, your fellow-creature, and your fellow-servant, am commissioned by the great Creator and Master of us all, to forbid you, under the severest penalties, the worship of any being but him? This, surely, was necessary, if Christ was not God himself. How different was his conduct from this! Mark his awful words : 'I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me;' no concomitant, no subordinate, no delegated gods. There is but one God. I am that one God; and thou shalt worship me alone. Thus he speaks himself; and Moses, who speaks his words, delivers what he had received precisely to the same effect : Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord [Jehovah).
It is, I know, objected bere, that the worship prescribed in the first commandment is not appropriated to him who immediately spoke the law, that is, to an angel, but to him in whose name the angel spoke it. And it is insisted, that it was an angel, or angels, that spoke it, because St. Paul says, Gal. iii. 19, it was ordained by angels ;' and argues, Heb. ii. 3, that the gospel is entitled to higher veneration than the law, inasmuch as the one was spoken by angels, whereas the other was spoken by the Lord himself.
And what then? Is not the Lord, in this very Epistle to the Hebrews, sufficiently distinguished from the angels who spoke the law, and from all other angels, by being set forth, chap. i. 6, as an object of worship to all the angels of God ? Now, is not all worship appropriated to the Lord by the first commandment? And is not Christ the Lord ? Does he not take the name of Jehovah, or Lord, to himself? It cannot, surely, be inferred from this passage of Scripture, that he is only a representative ; since the passage sets him forth as the principal, and even the objection owns it. If this Arian argument, therefore, does any thing, it only shews that none of the angels, angels I mean by nature, concerned in delivering the law was Christ, but that they were all his inferiors and substitutes ; being clearly represented as such, and, as such, distinguished from him in the very place of Scripture referred to. Let no man, therefore, presume to say, because Moses speaks of an angel conducting the Israelites, and interfering at the burning bush, that this angel was Christ; for Christ, it is manifest, was the Lord, or Jehovah, himself, in whose name the law was delivered by the ministry of angels, and who, by that law, restrains all worship to himself. The truth is, had it not been for this argument of St. Paul, though intended for another purpose, it would not have been so easy as it is to prove, against the Arians, that Jehovah, and the angel at the bush, were distinct beings. That Christ was he who gave himself the name of Jehovah at the bush, is plain from John viii. 58. That there was an angel present at the bush, who formed the voice, and delivered the words, in the name of Jehovah, is also plain from Exod. iii. 2. and that this angel was not Cbrist, is as plain from Heb. ii. 2, 3. where the Lord is clearly distinguished from all the angels employed in the
delivery of the law. But, whatsoever part the angel is supposed to have acted at the bush, or in the delivery of the law, it is certain Jehovah speaks the ten commandments in his own person, and confines all worship to himself. Now, granting that the angel delivered these commandments to Moses, and even that he wrote them on the two tables of stone, against the express words of Scripture ; Exod. xxxi. 18. yet all men must own they are the very
words of Jehovah himself, as truly and properly as those which the prophets wrote, when they said, “Thus saith the Lord.'
After all that hath been said, it may seem almost superfluous to insist, that Christ is set forth in Scripture as the true, the proper, the only object of adoration, he having, as was observed, appropriated all worship to himself by the first commandment. However, I will, for this purpose, just remind you of two or three passages. St. Paul, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, applies these words of the ninety-seventh Psalm to Christ: “Let all the angels of God worship him. If the angels worship him, surely we must; 'for to them and us there is but one God.' St. Paul tells us, in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Philippians, that at the name of Jesus every knee must bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.' And Christ himself, as you may read, Rom. xiv. ll, compared with Isa. xlv. 22, 23, appropriates all adoration to himself : ‘Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. As not only we, but the whole creation, is in duty bound to adore our blessed Saviour, we accordingly find, Apoc. v. that when this Lamb of our salvation, who stood in the midst of the throne, had opened the book which none else was able to read, the four beasts, and the four-and-twenty elders that were about the throne, fell down before the Lamb,' and sung his praises in a hymn re-echoed by all the hosts of heaven, and continued, as represented already, from the second of the Epistle to the Philippians, by every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea, saying, Blessing, and honour, and