is any argument which proves more conclusively the perfection of the Deity, than that deduced from the creation. We may regard it, therefore, as established, that the work of creation could only be performed by a being endowed with infinite intelligence and power. One of two things must follow either God, by the immediate exercise of his own. power, created all things but himself; or else, the work of creation was performed by a being distinct and separate from God, inferior to him, and dependent on him, yet possessed of infinite perfection. That the latter hypothesis is inadmissible, will be clear, on a slight consideration of the indissoluble union which subsists between the attributes of God. For whether we adopt the notion of existence entertained by Leibnitz and Descartes or not, it is certain from the very nature of the Deity, that his necessary self-existence and his infinite perfection are inseparable, so that the rejection of either involves that of the other.* The world could not, therefore, possibly, be made by the delegated power of any inferior and dependent being, but only by an immediate act of the Deity himself. The conclusion, thus established by a train of abstract reasoning, may also be derived by induction from the scrip tures: For, in the first place, the Old Testament abounds in revelations, obviously intended to impress the hearts and understandings of the Jews with a deep conviction of this very truth. There are some passages,† in which the work of creation is ascribed to God, in terms so unambiguous and explicit, that no one acknowledging the prophets' inspiration, could for a moment think it possible that it was, or could have been been performed by any but Jehovah. Of like import are all those passages which demonstrate the glory and perfection of the Deity, from the wonders of the visible * See note VV. † See note WW. * creation, to which may be added, such as declare that Ged alone is worthy of implicit confidence; that he alone had power to free the Hebrews from oppression; that he alone had knowledge of the future;t and others of like import. For of all these assertions not one could possibly be true, were any other being possessed of such perfection, as the exercise of creative power presupposes.‡ That the doctrine thus promulged by the ancient prophets, was abrogated by Christ and his apostles, is a supposition which involves, as a necessary consequence, that the prophets, the apostles, and even Christ himself, are open to the charge of the grossest inconsistency. Nay, assuming, what is explicitly declared in the New Testament, that the religion of the early Jews was a divine institution, we charge the Deity himself with inconsistency, if we suppose, that an article of faith, established with such pains and at such expense, and not at all local or temporary in its nature, was annulled by a posterior revelation.§ The apostles would also have been inconsistent, had they admitted and maintained the divine authority aud origin of the doctrines taught by the prophets to the Jews; and, at the same time, required them to abandon, not a mere ceremonial rite, but a fundamental article of faith, by transferring to an inferior being the worship due to the one true God alone. Above all the rest, would Paul have been inconsistent, in thus representing the Creator of the world as inferior to the Father. In the Epistle to the Romans, 1. 20)|| he aflirms that the exisence and attributes of the Supreme Being,¶ are so apparent from the works of nature, that the heathen who either know *Ps. xix. Is. xl. 26, &c. + Is. xliii. 10, 11. xliv. 6, 8. xlviii. 11, &c. See note XX. See note YY. See Zacharia's Biblical Theolog. P. I. p. 78, and Koppe's remarks on Rom. i. 20. See note ZZ. him not, or knowing him, refuse to worship him aright, are wholly inexcusable. Now all this is fair, and perfectly consistent,* upon the supposition, that the visible creation was produced by the immediate act of the Supreme God himself. But, on the contrary hypothesis, how can it be true, that a contemplation of effects produced by the operation of a power subordinate to that of God, affords so clear a knowledge of the latter, as to render those, who overlook it, inexcusable? Can the mass of men t be expected to infer from the mighty works of a being merely finite, the existence of one infinite? or be blamed for falling short of the Most High, and paying their devotions to a Spirit, subordinate indeed, but gifted with all the stupendous qualities required in the creator of a world? Surely not. How, then, can we suppose, that Paul here ascribes the creation of the universe to any finite being? Shall we have recourse to the hypothesis, that the creating Spirit is infinite in power, yet dependent upon God? what then, shall be said of other passages, in which the same apostle ascribes this infinitude of power to the Most High God, and him alone? And how can we believe, that the apostle, would, in that case, have held him inexcusable, who conscientiously adored, the Infinite Creator, though of secondary rank, believing with the greatest philosophers of Greece, that the worship of mankind is due to the Creator of the world, as such. At the same time, it must be confessed, that in the words, which ascribe the creation of the world to Christ, there is something, which, at first sight, may appear to favor this hypothesis. We are told in John, i. 3, and Colossians, i. 16, that the word was made dia 48 λ078; and in Heb. i. 2, it is said, that God diα 48 υις τες αιώνας εποίησε. Now I admit that the preposition δια, in itself considered, may be understood to indicate the relation * See note AAA. † See note BBB. See Meiner's Histor. Doctr. de Vero Deo. P. II. 5. F of an instrument to him who uses it. But I maintain, that no principle of interpretation requires that meaning to be here attached to it; and, what is more decisive, that the phrase cannot be so interpreted, except on the presumption of an inconsistency in the apostle's doctrine. That the words d'aurs in John i. 3, and ev aurut in Col. i. 16, may be understood to denote a principal efficient cause, will scarcely be disputed; and as to Hebrews, i. 2, we can no more infer from the phraseology there used, that the creative power, exercised by Christ, was specifically, or numerically different from that inherent in the Father, than we can infer from the language of Hosea, i. 7, that there are two distinct Jehovahs, one inferior to the other. Nor will the context suffer the words Δι' αυτ8 τας αιώνας εποίησε, to be understood of a subordinate and instrumental cause. In the tenth verse, Paul himself explains his obscure expressions in the second, by making a direct application to the Son, of the words of the 102 Psalm, which ascribe the work of creation to Jehovah; at the same time setting him in marked opposition to the angels, considered as God's ministering Spirits, Finally, and above all, any explanation of the words in question, which would represent the son as a ministerial agent, in the process of creation, is utterly repugnant to the uniform language of the prophets and apostles.§ It appears, therefore, as well from the principles of sound philosophy, as from the authority of scripture, that the work of creation. could not have been performed by any being inferior to God, but only by an immediate act of the Deity himself. Assuming this as proved, we must either abandon the unity of God, a doctrine most clearly and uniformly taught throughout the Sacred Scriptures, or admit, that * See note CCC. See note EEE. Rom. i. 20, Acts xvii. 24. + See note DDD. Christ (who has already been proved to be the Creator of the world, by the evidence of two apostles*) is possessed of the same invisible power and godhead with the Father. Such are the legitimate conclusions, to be drawn from the testimony of the two apostles, John and Paul. I proceed, as was proposed in the next place, to inquire, how far their statements are confirmed, by those of Christ himself. The question is, did Christ, in any case recorded by the Evangelists, claim the honors due to the Most High God alone? A sufficient proof of the affirmative, is, perhaps, afforded by the fact, that, although habitually reverent towards God the Father, and accustomed to view all things in relation to his glory, yet, when accused by the Jews, of impiety and blasphemy, in arrogating to himself, what exclusively pertained to God, or, in other words, making himself equal with God, he neither evaded nor denied the charge. But this is not all: there are instances, in which he explicitly ascribes to himself, what could not be ascribed to any being inferior to, and separate from God. For example, in John v. 19,‡ be attributes to himself such an intimate participation in the acts and honors of the Deity, that the Jews could not but understand him, as asserting his equality with God. And that the active power, to which, in this last passage, he lays claim, is to bé considered as identical with that of God the Father, is apparent from several other passages, particularly, John xiv. 16,6 where he represents the Father as abiding and operating in him; and operating to produce the same effects, which, in another place (John v. 19, 21, 26,) he professes to perform, by his own independent power. I agree, therefore, with those who think, that, in these and other passages, * See note FFF. + Matt. ix. 3. Mark. ii. 6. Luke iv. 21. John v. 18. I See Storr über den Zweck, &c. p. 197. To which may be added, John xv. 14, 15, ♦ id. p. 196. |