« AnteriorContinuar »
is omnipotent-This may be inferred from his words. But we have
than inferential evidence-We have positive assertion. I am (saith Jesus) the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending saith the Lord, which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And now, if Jesus Christ be the Almighty, he must of necessity be omnipotent-He is omnipotent. When two or three are gathered together in my name (saith he) there am I, in the midst of them. There are probably thousands and thousands of such assemblies at the same moment of time, scattered over the wide world, yet Jesus Christ is in the midst of every one-then surely he is omnipresent. He is omniscient, also—For it is declared that in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. But if there were no express passage, going to prove his omniscience, the bare fact of his being the final judge would be sufficient to establish the doctrine—“We must all appear before the judgment” &c. saith the apostle. To sit in judgment upon a world, and to determine the final doom of every individual, certainly requires omniscience, for, to judge righteously, there must be a perfect knowledge of every thought, word and action of every individual, together with all the aggravating and palliating circumstances, connected with every thought, word and action of every individual. Now, who but an omniscient being is equal to this ? Christ is equal to it, therefore Christ is omniscient. We might mention other attributes equally indicative of a divine nature, but these being the incommunicable attributes of divinity, are sufficient to prove that Jesus Christ in possessing them, must possess a divine nature. 4th. The divine worship given to Jesus Christ also proves that he must have a divine nature. It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, and the whole history of the Jews goes to prove that it was considered extremely impious, for anyone to give or receive that worship due to God only-accordingly when divine worship has been offered to good men or angels, they have rejected it with abhorrence. At Systra, Paul and Barabas, miraculously cured a cripple. The people astonished at the miracle, cried out the Gods have come down to us in the likeness of men—and the priest of Jupiter, which was before the city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates and would have done sacrifice with the people. And how was this received ? When Paul and Barabas heard of it, they rent their clothes and ran in among the people, crying out—Sirs, why do ye these things ? We also are men of like passions with yourselves and preach unto you, that you turn from these vanities to the living God. And so also in the case of the Angel, when John was in Patmos, an angel of light appeared unto him. John supposing it to be the Lord, fell at his feet to worship him. How did the Angel receive it ? See thou, do it not (said the Angel) I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, that heard the testimony of Jesus, worship God--Here we may remark in both of these cases, three things. 1st The proffered worship was instantly rejected. 2d. They to whom it was offered revealed their own character. And 3d. They pointed out God, as the only object of worship
Now in cases where worship was offered to the saviour, we find none of these particulars—Thus in Matthew, And as they went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them saying: All hail, and they came and held him by the feet and worshipped him. How did he receive it? As his due, for he rebuked them not, but said : "Be not afraid." When Thomas addressed him, in this strange language of adoration. “My God, my God.” Jesus rebuked him not. What did I say? He did rebuke him, but it was because he had not sooner believed in him. “Thomas because thou hast seen me, and hast believed, blessed are they that have not seen me yet have believed.” Jesus, then received, divine worship without expressing the least disapprobation. May more, in commanding his disciples to baptise in his name, he enjoined this worship. He must then either have been entitled to it, or he must have been a wicked man--but he was not a wicked man, for we are expressly told, that he was holy and without sin.-Then he must have been entitled to it, and if entitled to it, he must have been God-for it is written—Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”—But the remarks already made, prove that he received divine worship before his ascension, and how was it afterwards. In the epistles, this ascription of praise is frequently given to Christ, “Unto whom, be glory and dominion for ever, Amen." Nothing surely can be more completely in the strain of divine worship-and we know that the spirits of the just, and the very angels of heaven, are represented before his throne, as joining in the sublimest acts of worship, saying Worthy is the lamb, that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory and blessing.” It is worthy of remark, then when John fell at the feet of the angel, the angel said “I am thy fellow servant” but when John fell at the feet of Jesus, Jesus said “I am the first and the last-I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold am alive for evermore, and have the keys of hell, and of death.” The case then is clear, the Saviour before and after his ascension received and encouraged divine worship. I repeat it then, he must be an impious creature, or a divine being. None say he was an impious creature, therefore we conclude he was divine.
We have now shown from scripture testimony, that Jesus Christ has a human nature and also a divine. The scriptures also shew that these natures are in union, for they tell us— _That God was manifest in the flesh. That he, who thought it no robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant—and in our text "That the word was made flesh,” &c. These passages are certainly expressive of this union, and will appear strikingly so, if viewed in connection with certain correspondent facts. In the facts, to which I allude, circumstances of humanity and circumstances of grandeur are strangely blended, and cannot be well accounted for, except on the supposition that the divine and human natures, are united in the person of Christ. Thus, in Bethlehem, Mary brings forth her first born, and lays him in a manger. This is indicative of poverty—but mark the other circumstances of his Advent A star appears to the wise men of the East-goes before them to
Bethlehem, and hovers over the place, where the young child is laid -An angel too, descends, and announces his birth to certain shep. herds, who were keeping watch, over their flocks by night. This is not all-the sweet melodious songs of angels, fill the air, for a multitude of the beavenly host, sung glory to God, in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men. What a strange assemblage of circunstances is here ! A child, laid in a Manger-Yet we see the hovering star-the adoring Magi— Whilst on high, we hear the notes of Angels, who sweetly sing his natal song.-In Bethany we see Jesus, at the grave of Lazarus—he wept-like a nan-raised the dead-like a God ! During a storm on the sea of Tiberias, ke lay in the hinder part of the ship, and with his head upon his pillow, he slept—like a man-being called
upon he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea-like a God. Approaching the barren fig-tree, he hungered—like a man—with a word withered the fig tree away--like a God.-After miraculously feeding the multitude, he went into a mountain apart to pray-like a man—at the 4th watch of the night he went unto his disciples, walking upon the water-like a God. On the cross he suffered—like a man-yet opened the gates of Paradise to the dying thief-like a God. At the ninth hour, he cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost-like a man-yet rent the veil of the temple, caused the earth to quake, the rocks to burst, and the graves to be opened -like a God. In the sepulchre he lay in his winding sheet, pale in death-like a man-on the third day, by his own immortal energies, he burst the bars of death, and rose triumphant-like a God. After his resurrection in the midst of his eleven disciples, he took a piece of broiled fish, and of an honey comb, and did eat before themlike a man-after that he led them out as far as Bethany, and he listed
his hands and blessed them, and as he blessed them he ascended in majesty and glory far above all heavens-like a God. These things are truly remarkable; some bespeak the human and others the divine nature, and all are sweetly blended in the person of Christ. Surely then Jesus Christ is very God and very man, is possessed of two nitures, the human and divine, in mysterious, yet all harmonious union: This union is mysterious--we grant it freely, is & not the union of soul and body likewise mysterious ? The soul is spirit, the body matter, the one is mortal, the other immortal ; and yet they unite and constitute one individual. This is mysterious, grant it freely, but it matters not, having evidence of the faet, we are satisfied.-Precisely so with the doctrine before us. We prove, 1st, that Jesus Christ has a human nature, 2d, that he has a divine nature, and 3d, that these natures are so unit.d as to constitute one person. Is this mysterious ? It matters not, having evidence of the fact, our belief is firm. It is mysterious ? We never denied it, nor did Paul. “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness” &c. We shall now make three uses of this doctrine. 1st use, To explain certain passages of scripture which seem to be at variance with each other. in one place our Saviour says “my father is greater than I." In another “I and my father are one." In one place it is written
of that great day and hour knoweth no man, nor the angels, neither the Son, but my father only.” In another place, “In Jesus are laid als the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” In one place he is called David's Son, in another David's Lerd. In one place, man ; in another, God. In one place, a servant ; in another King of Kings, and Lords of Lords. In one place a lamb slain, in another the Prince of life, who only hath inmortality. Now, my learers, de. ny the doctrine of our text, and how can you reconcile these passages. Admit our doctrine, and they sweetly harmonise. In his human nature, Jesus Christ could say, “My father is greater than I.” In his divine nature, “I and my father are one." In his human na. ture he was David's Son, in his divine nature David's Lord. In his human nature, he was man ; in his divine nature, God. In his human nature, servant; in his divine nature, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In his human nature, a lamb slain ; in his divine nature, “The Prince of life, who only hath immortality 2d use. To sound a seasonable alarm in the ears of those, who reject our glorious creator-our final judge. You reject him, who holds your destinies in his hands, and can raise you to heaven, or sink you to bell. You reject your best friend—your great redeemer. The worlds last and only hope. In rejecting Christ, you incur his wrath, his burning wrath ! And can you brave his wrath ? You may brave the sweeping whirl-wind, but not the wrath of the lamb! Behold, he cometh, with clouds and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail, because of him, even SC “Amen.
3d use, To encourage penitent sinners to come to their gracious redeemer.—Trembling sinner! behold your Saviour, high in glory, looks kindly upon you—he calls you, he bids you come.--As man, he can be touched with a feeling of your infirmities--As God, he can save to the very uttermost. He is eat, the heaven of heavens cannot contain him.-Yet his heart is compassionate, is still full of love.-See him arrayed in glorious majesty, fear not.—This is he, who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor.-Yes this is the good shepherd, who gave his life for his sheep.--Precious Shepherd, when he beheld a hundred worlds, rolling around his father's throne, and one was lost, he left the ninety and nine, and came to seek and save that which was lost. Amen.
DR. M. LUTHER'S SERMON ON SUNDAY SEPTUAGESIMÆ.
Mr. Editor,-I hereby serd you for publication a sermon of Luther. Ever since I became acquainted with the standard works of English theological literature and English doctors of divinity, it was a matter of great astonishment to me, to see the false representations contained in the former and the inexcusable ignorance displayed by the latter with reference to the doctrines taught and held by the great Reformer Luther, and the Church that bears his name. To adduce
but one Author among many, Buck in his theological dictionary under the article “ Lutherans” says,
Luther believed the impanation or consubstantiation.” This is erroneous. He did not believe and maintain a corporeal or material presence of the body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. He never used such language. And again Buck says “it is in this article of consubstantiation that the the main difference between the Lutheran & the English church consists;" but this is entirely groundless. The doctrine of absolute predestination and reprobation constitutes a far greater diflerence than the one mentioned. Buck
“ Luther maintained predestination.” This is a third error, for Luther did not believe in such a predestination as Buck defines it. Is it to be wondered at, that the English clergymen have such an imperfect knowledge of the Lutheran Church, if the works from which they derive their information abound in misstatements ? They betray an ignorance of the fact, established by ecclesiastical history, that the publication of Calvin's Institutes in 155), (in which he first made known to the world his opinion with respect to absolute predestination) gave rise to an unhappy controversy between him and the Lutheran divines and finally was the principal cause of that separation (in 1560) that still exists between the Lutheran and Reformed churches. From the assertions in the writings of the English divines, and from their expressions in conversation, we are led to believe that they know not the fact, that it is from this period (1560) we mu t date the ever to be lamented division of the Protestants into Lutherans and Reformed or (Calvinists) and that ever since that time those who adopted the opinion of Calvin with respect to absolute predestination were called (in Germany—the country in which the separation took ; place and where they have the hest right to know how to make the proper distinction) Die Reformirten, the Reformed, that is to say, the followers of Calvin, and those who hold the opposite views, viz: that the kingdom of Heaven was open to all,-Lutherans. With this fact before us, what idea can we form of the literary acquirements of those who ask us : Are the Lutherans no Calvinists? Was not Luther a Calvinist? What would we think of the state of that man's reason who would ask us : Is water, fire ? is light, darkness ?
Is it not passing strange, that some divines are so utterly ignorant of the distinctive characteristic of the oldest Protestant Church, that they know not that a Calvinistic Lutheran would be an anomaly in the Church, and just as absurd as to speak of a triangular circle in Geometry. There are Calvinistic Baptists, Calvinistic Methodists, Calvinistic Episcopalians, but there never was such a distinction heard of in the Lutheran Church from the time of Reformation to the present day.
1-16. Refutation of the erroneous explanation of the passage : “ Many are
called, but few chosen. From the last words, “ many are called, but few chosen” some inquisitive heads conceive very strange and ungodly notions, and reason after this manner: he, whom God has chosen, will be saved with