Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not some of them talk of themselves in a manner suitable to the nature of God alone? Are we, from these circumstances, to represent them as possessing a two-fold nature, divine and human? If not, let us give up such an unscriptural and irrational idea, as attributing to Jesus, or to any human being, a double nature of God and man, and restrain ourselves from bringing Christianity to a level with the doctrines of heathenish polytheism. Is it not a general rule, adopted to preserve concordance between all the passages of scripture, and to render them consistent with reason, that when terms, phrases, or circumstances, which are applicable to God alone, are found ascribed to a created being, either man or angel, these are to be interpreted in an inferior sense? Were we to deviate from this general rule and take these terms to be real, Judaism and Christianity would be but systems of Polytheism, and unworthy of adoption by rational beings. Such an attempt as to shew that Moses and the chiefs of Israel having been types and shadows of Jesus, are called gods, is totally inadmissible; for we find no authority in the Scriptures for such an assertion : moreover, had there been any authority declaring Moses and others to have been types of Jesus, it could not depreciate the honour which scripture confers upon them, by the application of the terms "gods" and "sons of God" to them, any more than

* Deut. xxvii. 1, xxxii. 1.

the fact, that Christ was the Saviour of mankind, in consequence of his having been of the seed of Abra ham* and house of David, as well as the rod of the stem of Jesse, could lower the dignity of the Messiah, or could exalt the rank of Abraham, or of David, above Christ.

Such an apology as ascribes birth, growth, and death, to the material body of Christ, and immortality and divinity to his spirit, is equally applicable to those Israelites that are termed gods.

The second question of the Editor is, "To whose nature is their's (Israel's) superior? only to that of the brutes!" In answer to which I refer the Editor to the passages already cited, to wit, Psalm lxxxii. 6, Exod. iv. 22, xix. 5, 6, as well as to Exod. xxv. 8, "God was dwelling among them;" Deut. vii. 6, "That he has chosen them from all the nations;" x. 15, "He loved them, he chose them only;" xiv. 1, "They are the sons of God;" and to numerous passages of a similar description, whence the Editor may judge whether Israel was superior to the brutes only, or to the rest of mankind. The third question is, "If other gods die like men, must Jehovah, who made heaven and earth, whose throne is for ever?" My answer must be in the negative, because Jehovah is not a man-god that shall die; but he, as the God of all gods, and the Lord of lords, must regulate the death and birth of those who are figura

* Genesis xxii. 18.

† Isaiah xi, 1.

tively called gods, while he himself is immutable. Deut. x. 17: "Jehovah your God, is God of gods, and Lord of lords." John xx. 17: "To my God and your God." Psalm xlv. 7: "God, thy God, hath anointed thee."-Let us now again refer to the context of John x. 34. In ver. 33, the Jews assign it as the reason for their attempting to stone Jesus, that he made himself equal to God, by calling himself the Son of God, as they supposed, in a real sense, which was, according to their law, blasphemy; Jesus, therefore, pointed out to them, in ver. 34, that even the term "god" is found figuratively applied to the chiefs of Israel, in scripture, without meaning to imply thereby, their equality with God; in ver. 35, he reminds them of their applying, according to the Scriptures, the same divine term to those chiefs; and lastly, he shews their inconsistency in calling their chiefs gods, and, at the same time, rejecting Christ's declaration of his being the Son of God, in the same metaphorical sense, as being "sanctified" and "sent" by God. Is not this argument, used by Jesus, an evident disavowal of his own deity, and manifestation of his having called himself "the Son of God," only in a metaphorical sense? I am sorry to observe, that the Editor seems to have bestowed little or no reflection upon these

texts.

* As is evident from the reply of Jesus, (ver. 36,) "Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God."

In answer to my observation on the attempt of orthodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from 1 Cor. x. 9, "Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted," the Editor quotes first, an observation of my own, to wit, "How far cannot prejudice carry away men of sense! Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by men and Satan? Can the liability to temptation, common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity of those respective subjects of temptation ?” He then declares, that I was not correct in the statement of my opponent's doctrine on this subject, and denies any one's "having attempted to prove the deity of Christ merely from his being tempted." To shew the accuracy of my statement, however, I beg to refer the Editor to Mr. Jones's work on the nature of Christ. The Editor lastly asserts, that "it is the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was tempted in the wilderness, and hence, the Most High God, described by the Psalmist as tempted, which is here adduced." But I do not find in the verse in question, nor in any preceding or following verse, "the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was tempted by Israel in the wilderness." If the Editor has met with such a declaration elsewhere, he should first point it out, and then build his argument upon it. But unless he first shew, that being tempted by the devil, and being tempted by Israel, mean the

same thing, I cannot admit any relation between the declaration of the apostle's and that of the Psalmist.

Relative to Psalm cx., [1,] "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool," I observed, in my Second Appeal, (p. 266,) "that this passage is simply applied to the Messiah, manifesting, that the victory gained by him over his enemies, was entirely owing to the influence of God!" To this the Editor replies, "After the Son had humbled himself, so as to assume our nature and be appointed to the combat, it was not to be expected that the Father would forsake him. But that Jesus had no might of his own, which our author would fain prove, is not a fact." Is it not most strange, that the Son, whom the Editor considers the immutable, almighty God, should be supposed by him again to have humbled himself, and to have been appointed by another to a combat, in which that other assisted him to obtain success? Are not these two ideas quite incompatible with each other? If such positive disavowal of his own power, by Jesus himself, as "I can of mine ownself do nothing," "All that the Father giveth shall come to me," has failed to convince the Editor that Jesus had no power of his own, no argument of mine, or of any other human being, can be expected to make an impression upon him.

The Editor afterwards endeavours to prove the omnipotence of Jesus by quoting Isaiah lxiii. 5:

« AnteriorContinuar »