« PoprzedniaDalej »
and to appear in the form of a creature : Nay, to
be made in the likeness of the fallen creatures ; si and not only to share the disgrace, but to suffer the
punishment due to the meanest and vilest among them all. He emptied himself-Of that divine fullness, which he received again at his exaltation.
Though he remained full, (John i. 14.) yet he aps peared as if he had been empty; for he veiled his
fullness from the sight of men and angels. Yea, he not only veiled, but in some sense renounced the glory which he had before the world began;
taking-And by that very act emptying himself, i the form of a servant-The form, the likeness,
the fashion, though not exactly the same, are yet nearly related to each other. The form expresses something absolute; the likeness refers to other things of the same kind; the fashion respects what appears to sight and sense; being made in the likeness of men--A real man, like other men. Hereby he took the form of a servant.
8. And being found in fashion as a man-A common man, without any peculiar excellence or comeliness, he humbled himself-To a still greater depth, becoming obedient-To God, though equal with him, even unto death-The greatest instance both of humiliation and obedience, yea, the death af the cross--Inflicted on few but servants or slaves.”
Herein we understand, that our Lord voluntarily humbled himself, and became obedient. As Paul elsewhere expresses it, “ he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that ye through his poverty, might be rich.” And, as he saith again, ic he was made under the law." Here we understand the apostle, that the character which was and is, the 2d person of the Godhead, in his hu
miliation became clothed in flesh, made under the Adamic and Mosaic 'law, and became obedient to the divine law in all things, in order that it might be said, he fulfilled all righteousness, and became an example in his humiliation. He voluntarily, “emptied himself, of divine fullness,“ taking the form of a servant, becoming obedient even unto the death of the cross;” but exalted and enthroned in the glory of the Godhead. He took the cross, as an example for us to take it, and he 6 emptied himself” that he might prepare the way, to recompense our humiliation under the law, by pouring out upon us the spirit of mercy and holiness, and thereby to exalt us into a participation of his exaltation.
We would not be understood, that our Lord's divine nature underwent any change in all this, neither do we believe it is possible that the divine nature can be changed into the human, nor the human nature of our Lord into the divine nature, as we have before stated in this work.
For the further illustration of this subject we will consider the blood and righteousness of Christ as_connected in man's redemption. An eminent English writer, speaking of the expression we have already referred to in their second article, viz. the union of the human and divine nature of our Lord, “ whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man,” states, that the intention of the church in using this expression, was, to show a peculiar distinction, between the union which existed between the two natures of our Lord, and all other divine inspirations.
We think it is easy to discover, that if there is not a material and peculiar, difference between the Union, that existed between the human and di
vine natures of our Lord, and all other divine inspirations, we say, if there is not in this matter, a peculiar distinction ; we have all the difficulties to encounter, which we suppose the Socinians have to labor under, that is, we cannot make it appear that there is an infinite merit in the blood and righteousness of Christ : failing in these two points of the inquiry, we think we must inevitably fail in the whole question before us. The first point to be considered, is whether Jesus Christ in his divine nature was not made under the law ? And as such, was be the real agent, or actor, yet in perfect union, with the human ? in union, as we have before observed in this work, as the body of a man is actuated and governed by the indwelling of the soul ? this, if we mistake not, perfectly agrees with the reasonings of Bishop Pierson on this point, in our foregoing extracts from him.
In order, however, to shed further light, upon it, we will once more call the attention of the reader to one or two observations of the Bishop, viz. “ the atrociousness of the offence consists in the dignity of the party offended, so the satisfaction consisteth in the dignity of the person satisfying." We consider it evident, that the Bishop supposed that the divine nature of our Lord, as well as the human, was included under the law, broken by man; and the dignity of this character, being as we have considered it, and who as he described himse!f, “ thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" must therefore, be considered as one of the most essential points, in repairing the injury done io God's divine law. Of course, as we have before observed, the righteous obedience of Christ, and the dignity
of his nature, ought ever to be kept in view, a of the first importance in man's redemption. We will now,
for a moment, turn our attention to the sufferings and blood of Christ. As to the blood of Christ, although in some sense it may be called human, yet, when we consider it as united to the divine nature, in the sense we have considered it to be, there seems, at least, to be a kind of dignity, attached to it, that does not belong to other human bodies. And the apostle Paul seems to confirm the idea, in exhorting his fellow laborers “ to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Moses informs us," that the life is in the blood," and again, he says,
6 it is the blood that maketh atonement." And when we have said all we can imagine, on this subject, no doubt there are many points will remain untouched, and probably were we to dwell too long on this point, me might darken counsel, with words without knowledge. View the scheme of salvation by faith, as we will, "it has heights, and depths,, which surpass all” human knowledge, even the knowledge of pious believers. It is ever thus, according to the course of human inquiry respecting divine relations, and purposes. Believers know, that our Lord has opened the door of salvation," by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated," &c. And, that " as by rending the veil of the temple, the holy of holies became visible, and accessible, so by wounding the body of Christ, the God of heaven was manifested, and the way of heaven opened."
Having spent some time in searching the Scriptures, and the writings of the Fathers, who lived in the first ages of Christianity, on this subject, whether it is proper to call the Holy Ghost a person ? And having compared the early views of the Fathers, with the articles of the reformed churches, we find there has been much and long controversy, for, and against, the term person, when we speak of the Holy Ghost.
From late writers on both sides of the question, we learn that they have risqued the strength of their tenets, on the use of the personal pronouns him or his which have reference to the Holy Ghost. On the Trinitarian ground it has been contended, that these personal pronouns being so often made use of, when speaking of the Holy Ghost, amounts to a demonstration, that the Holy Ghost is a person; and on the contrary, these arguments have been resisted by the Unitarians, and those with them on the same side of the question, that personal pronouns, have been used in Scripture to express the operation of the elements, and have been applied to inanimate things, as the word it, has been used frequently to express the same things, as a neuter demonstrative pro