be more than man. He says,*They who think that Jesus was a man, and being chosen of God, was anointed Christ, appear to me to advance a more probable opinion than yours. For all of us expect that Christ will be born a man from man, (avdewπrus & avg) and that Elias will come to anoint him. If he therefore be Christ, he must by all means be a man born of man.' "We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr, who from being a philosopher became a Christian, but always retained the peculiar habit of his former profession. As to Clemens Romanus, who was cotemporary with the apostles, when he is speaking in the highest terms concerning Christ, he only calls him the sceptre of the majesty of God. Whether Justin Martyr was the first who started the notion of the pre-existence of Christ, and of his superangelic or divine nature, is not certain; but we are not able to trace it any higher. All the evangelists," says Irenæus, have delivered to us "the doctrine of one God, and one Christ the son of God;" and invoking the Father, he calls him the only God; and according to several of the most considerable of the early Christian wri ters, a common epithet by which the Father is distinguished from the Son, is that he alone is 5, God of himself. 66 in Origen, quoted by Dr. Clarke, says, 'to them who charge us that we believe two Gods, we must reply, that he who is God of himself (aus) is the God (); for which reason our saviour says, his prayer to the Father, that they may know thee, the only true God. But whatever is God besides him who is so of himself, being God only by a com • Ibid, p. 235. † Epistle, Section 16. p. 5. munication of his divinity, cannot so properly be called (i) the God, but rather (s) a God.'The same observation had before been made by Clemens Alexandrinus, who also calls the Son a creature, and the work of God.* "Novation says, that the Sabellians make too much of the divinity of the Son, when they say it is that of the Father, extending his honour beyond bounds. They dare to make him not the Son but God the Father himself. And again, that they acknowledge the divinity of Christ in too boundless and unrestrained a manner. "Arnobius says, 'Christ, a God, under the form of a man, speaking by the order of the principal God. Again, then at length did God Almighty, the only God, send Christ." Such language as this was held till the council of Nice. "Origen candidly acknowledges these adherents to the doctrine of the strict unity of God, pious persons (ps). Hence, says he, we may solve the scruples of many pious persons, who through fear lest they should make two gods, fall into false and wicked notions." These wicked notions, I apprehend, were the simple truth, but a truth which did not suit the philosophical turn of Origen.) "He endeavours to relieve them in this manner. 'This scruple of many pious persons may thus be solved. We must tell them, that he who is of himself God (auloeos) is God with the article, (,) but that Christ is God without the article, (,)' as was observed before. How far this solution of the difficulty was satisfactory to these pious unlearned Christians, does not appear. It does not seem calculated to remove a difficulty of great magnitude." (It is *Sandii Nucleus Hist, Eccl. p. 94. See also cap. 23. and cap. § P. 57. very well known, however, to the learned, that, in John, i. 1, is used without the article; as Deos nv ò xogos and the word was a God.) But, lest I should swell this work beyond my proposed limits, I must omit many quotations which would be to the point, referring my readers to the work from which they are taken: and shall close this lecture which is already too long, in the words of Lacantius; who says,* "Christ taught that there is one God, and that he alone ought to be worshipped; neither did he ever call himself God, because he would not have been true to his trust, if, being sent to take away gods, (that is, a multiplicity of Gods,) and to assert one, he had introduced another besides that one. Because he assumed nothing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpetual priest, the honour of sovereign king, the power of a judge, and the name of God." Here I shall dismiss this subject: and now, let the reader judge for himself. * Institutionum, lib. 4. cap. 13. 167 LECTURE VII. Because the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. ROM. viii. 21. As has been proposed, we are now prepared to speak fully of the salvation of man, in the highest sense of the word; or, as it is expressed in our text, the deliverance of the creature (which was made subject to vanity, &c.) from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.But I regret that I am now obliged to abridge what I have written on this subject, as the proposed limits will not admit of my inserting the whole. I cannot dispense, however, with inserting here a few thoughts (which were written several years ago) on the justice of God; as they have an immediate reference to this subject, and therefore may not be an improper introduction to this lecture. For if they should contain a recapitulation of some of the ideas in the foregoing lectures, it is thought to be ~not only excusable, but perfectly admissible and proper in this place. Serious Thoughts on the Justice of God respecting the Fall and Restoration of Man. GOD is ONE and INDIVISIBLE: and it is conceived, that a Being infinitely perfect must be infinite in all his attributes:-yea, this is a self-evident proposition and if such a Being be infinitely GOOD, as well as PERFECT, no one attribute can be opposite to another; for each attribute is consistent with the infinite perfection of all the rest. There can be but one NATURE in the DEITY, though that nature may be variously modified, or have various qualities, or proper ties, as it operates on different beings, or on the same being in different circumstances; but all those modifications spring from infinite goodness, as their source, and tend to promote the best good of each individual object in the great system of universal being; for as nothing can act contrary to its own nature, so as the nature of God is infinitely good, every act of his, whether it be considered an act of wisdom, mercy, benevolence, or justice, must be considered an act of infinite goodness. Infinite goodness, or benevolence, (which are about, if not quite, synonymous, has been defined, and I think justly, thus: "Infinite benevolence consists in a constant determination in God, to do that, in all cases, by which the greatest possible good and happiness of the universe may be promoted. If therefore the above definition be correct, and if it be conceded that God is infinitely benevolent, which none will deny, then all that can be rationally inferred from "a constant determination in God, to do that, in all cases, by which the greatest possible good and happiness of the universe may be promoted," rationally results from the nature and character of God. And, furthermore, as justice is an attribute of Deity, as well as mercy, the exercise of justice, in God, as well as mercy, is an exercise of a constant determination"-to do good; therefore, all that would be inconsistent with such a constant determination," would be as inconsistent with the justice as it would be with the mercy of God. In treating, therefore, on the justice of God, let it be remembered that we are treating on an attribute that springs spontaneously from a constant Dr. Strong in answer to Dr. Huntington. |