網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

self a redemption for all." Acts xx. 28, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over whom the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops, to rule the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."

To all these clear testimonies of the Scriptures, I shall subjoin but one observation of St. Ireneus ; lib. iii. adv. hores. 6th chap. "therefore neither the Lord, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the Apostles would have ever called him (Christ) God, absolutely and definitively, if he had not been true God. Neither would they have called any one Lord, as being such from his own person, but him who rules over all things, God the Father und his Son, who received dominion from his Father over all things. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son is truly Lord, it is with great reason, that the Holy Ghost has designated them with the appellation of Lord."*

FIFTH ARGUMENT.

CCXIV. From the Worship, which is due to God only, and which is also paid to Jesus Christ.

In the book of Deuteronomy, vi. 13, this first and highest commandment is imposed, "Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;" the same is repeated, Matt. iv. 10, and Isaias xlv. 23, "I have sworn by myself, for every knee shall be bowed to me."

But every religious worship, even that of Latria or adoras tion both outward and inward is due to Jesus Christ, and was always paid to him. John v. 22, "The Father has committed all the judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as they honour the Father," you hear that the same honour or worship is to be paid to the Son, as to the Father.

"Neque igitur Dominus, neque Spiritus sanctus, neque Apostoli eum, qui nos esset Deus, definitive et absolute Deum nominassent aliquando, nisi esset Verus Deus: Neque Dominum appellassent aliquem ex sua persona, nisi qui domina¡ur omnium, Deum Patrem et Filium ejus, qui dominium accipit a Patre suo omnis conditionis. Vere igitur cum Pater sit Dominus, et Filius vere sit Domiaus, merito Spiritus Sanctus Domini appellatione signavit eos."

[blocks in formation]

Philip ii. 9, "wherefore God has also exalted him, and has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell." Heb. i. 6. “And again when he introduceth the first begotten into the world, he saith: and let all the Angels of God adore him;" faith likewise, or the subjection of the mind is due to Jesus Christ. John, xiv. 1. "You believe in God, believe also in me." In Christ also we are to place all our hope and confidence. 1 Timoth. i. 1, “Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of God our Saviour and Jesus Christ our hope." In psalm lxxxiii, "blessed is the man called, that hopeth in him;" on the other side it is said, Jeremiah, xvii. 5, "accursed is the man that confides in man;" Christ, therefore, in whom we are to confide, is true God made man. In fine, we invoke Christ, we directly beg of him grace and other heavenly gifts. Acts, ix. 14, 1. Corinth. i. 2, "And they stoned Stephen invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus receive my spirit;" "Lord lay not this sin to their charge." Acts vii. 58, 59. And what else but the actual and implicit invocation of Jesus Christ was meant, when St. Peter said, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Acts iii. c. From whom did the Jewish exorcists learn "to invoke over them, that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches," Acts xix. 12, but from the example of the Apostles? Therefore Christ is true God.

SIXTH ARGUMENT.

CCXV. In support of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, drawn from the general tenour of the Sacred Scriptures.

It is not possible to read the Sacred Writings, without being made sensible nearly at every page, that such things are said there of Christ, and to Christ, as are not consistent with the general ideas of men and the principles of human language, if Christ be not God; in a word, things which are irreconcilable with the notions of a mere man. For,

I. God is Father from all eternity, and has a Son from all eternity. This is undeniable from psalm ii. 7, "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." And from psalm cix. 3, "From the womb before the day star, I begot thee;" reason alone dictates that he that says a Father, says a Son; and he that says a Son, says one that is of the same nature with the Father. If of the same nature with the Father, he must have the whole nature of the Father; for the divine nature being essentially inseparable and indivisible, cannot be communicated but whole and entire: the Son, therefore, is necessarily consubstantial with the Father; he is therefore the same with the Father, and still distinct from the Father; for he that says Father, says not the Son, but a person essentially distinct from the Son, and vice versa; the Father and the Son are therefore distinct from each other, not in nature, because they are one and the same God; therefore, in person; the Father is eternal, the son is eternal, because "begotten from the womb before the day-star, therefore both are God, one in essence, distinct in persons.

II. Any person that is acquainted with Unitarian publications, and especially he who has read the two last letters of Mr. Sparks, must have observed, that whenener Jesus Christ is unqualifiedly called God, or proved to be such by any Scripture passage, the Unitarian imagine to have got clear of every difficulty by remarking that the word God cannot be taken in its strict and proper signification, since the same who is thus styled God, is called in the context the Son of God, and, of course, if we listen to their logic, he cannot be the Supreme. God; any upright mind, that is a stranger to the Unitarian system, would be naturally led to draw the opposite inference, as the Christian world has actually done to this day. Let us investigate how far this Unitarian mode of reasoning: Jesus Christ is called and styles himself the Son of God, therefore he is not true God, be correct.

III. God has a Son, called by the name of the Son of God, in the singular number, without any epithet or restrictive clause, (both in the New and Old Testament ;) he is called the Son

of God in such circumstances, and in an association with such other transcendant titles, as manifestly go to show, that an only Son, a unique Son, a Son entirely distinct from all other Sons of God, a Son in fine natural and consubstantial with the Father is meant. This proposition is unquestionable from the psalms just quoted: next from Daniel iii. 92, psal. ii. 12, Kiss the Son." Prov. xxx. 4, "What is his (God's) name, and what is the name of his Son, if thou knowest?" Thus much we read of the appellation of the Son of God in the Old Testament.

In the new law Christ is called the Son of God so repeatedly so emphatically, with so much solemnity, that it is inconceivable how all this could be said of one, that has no other relation to God, than that of being the work of his hands, his extraordinary Messenger, the special object of his favour.

Christ seems to have been, in a particular manner, concerned that men should believe him to be the Son of the living God, and believe in him as such, as they believe in the Father, "You believe in God, believe also in me." "Dost thau believe, Christ said to the man born blind, whom he had cured, in the Son of God? He answered and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he who talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down he adored him." John ix. 35-38.

From the question put to the Apostles, Matt. xvi. 13—19, it is undeniable that Christ pretended to be believed to be something more than what he outwardly appeared to be to men; that is, something more than a mere man, something more even than the most distinguished adopted Sons of God, such as John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias, or any of the other prophets were; he pretended to be thought something, which neither flesh nor blood, but the revelation of the heavenly Father only could make known to men. Now what was this important truth? It was this, according to the Fathers of the Church, and especially of St. Hilary, that he should be known

:

Some say that thou art

and believed to be the Son of the living God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, the Son begotten from the womb before the day-star it is to this eternal generation of the Son by the Father, the faith of the true believers of all future generations was to extend. Here is the passage, "What do men say that the Son of Man is? And they said: John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: Thou art Christ, Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said so him: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Men believed Jesus Christ to be an adopted Son of God, and that in an eminent degree too, since they believed him to be John the Baptist, Elias, &c. Jesus Christ, by the second question put to the Apostles, clearly indicates, that he is more than that, and that that which he is more, is something so hidden and so sublime that nothing less than the particular revelation of the Father was necessary to manifest it. What is that?"Thou art-the Son of the living God" the explicit belief and solemn confession of which was so important, that Christ deemed it worthy of the greatest immediate recompence, that of establishing Peter the everlasting foundation of his everlasting church. This passage is unintelligible, and leads naturally into error, if Christ meant to be thought nothing more than an adopted Son of God like the Prophets.

"And Philip said (to the Eunuch of the Queen of Candace :) If thou believest with thy whole heart, thou mayest be baptized. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This, by the bye, shows how ungrounded the Unitarians are when they pretend that the Apostles did not instruct at the first outset of their preaching their catechumens on this fundamental dogma of the Godhead of Jesus Christ. The fallacy of which gratuitous assertion is moreover evinced from what is said of the very first preaching of the Apos

« 上一頁繼續 »