saith the Amen, the beginning of the creation of God." The Editor insinuates, that I have contradicted myself by "ridiculing the idea of Christ's having two natures," after I had declared that Christ "lived with God before the creation of the world," and that "it would have been idle to have informed them, ́(the Jews,) that, in his mere corporeal nature, Jesus was inferior to his Maker, and it must, therefore, have been his spiritual nature, of which he here avowed his inferiority to God." I cannot perceive what contradiction there is in the assertion, that Christ lived in the divine purpose and decree* be-` fore the world was, and that he, not merely as a man, before the assuming of the office of the Messiah, was inferior to his Creator, but that he was so even after he had been endowed with the Holy Spirit in the river of Jordan, and with the power of performing miracles, which is said to be a spiritual gift.Supposing he, like Adam, lived with God be 1 * On John xvii. 5. He had it (the same glory) with the Father before the world was, that is, in the Father's purpose and decree. In the language of scripture, what God determines to bring to pass, is represented as actually accomplished; thus, the dead are represented as living, Luke xx. 36-38. Believers are spoken of as already glorified, Rom. viii. 29, 30. Things that are not, are called as though they were, Rom. iv. 17. And in verse though he was 12 of this chapter, Judas is said to be destroyed, then living, and actually bargaining with the priests and rulers to betray his Master. See also verse 10; Eph. i. 4; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8; Heb. x. 34. (Improved Version.) fore his coming into this world, (according to the doctrines maintained by some Christians,) and afterwards was sent to the world, in the body of Jesus, for effecting human salvation, as John the Baptist was esteemed to be Elijah, even this doctrine does not preclude us from rejecting the idea of a two-fold nature of God and man. The Editor says, that when "he (Jesus) emptied himself of his glory, did he lay aside his divine nature, of which his glory was merely a shadow?" and then he recommends me to reflect, for a moment, on what the term glory implies; "understood either of praise or grandeur, it is merely the reflection or indication of a glorious nature." I have reflected, for some years past, and do now seriously reflect, on the divine nature, but I find it inconsistent with any idea I can admit of the eternal and unchangeable Almighty, that he should empty himself of his glory, (call it praise or grandeur, which you like,) though for a season, and should afterwards offer supplications for the same glory to himself, as if another being; addressing that otherself as his own father; since God is often declared to have hardened the heart of men so [as] to disqualify them from perceiving his glory, instead of having degraded himself by setting aside his own title to praise, or the grandeur which is inherent in his nature. The Editor adds, "If it was deserved glory, it was that of which his nature was worthy, and the Father's giving it to him, when no being existed beside the sacred three, was the Father's attestation to the Son's eternal Godhead." If the Father's giving to Jesus deserved glory, should be acknowledged as amounting" to his attestation to the Son's Godhead," we must be under the necessity of admitting the attestation of Jesus to the eternal deity of his apostles, from the circumstance of his having given them the same deserved glory; - John xvii. 22, "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them," &c. The Editor twice says, that "Micah informs us that the Son is from everlasting." I wish he had mentioned the chapter and verse to which he alludes, that I might have examined the passage. He perhaps alludes to the phrase "everlasting," found in the English version, in Micah v. 2, "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." I will, therefore, quote Parkhurst's explanation of the original Hebrew word by which is translated in the English version "everlasting;" and then notice the translation of this very Hebrew word, in many other instances, by the authors of the English version; and lastly, I will repeat the context, that my readers may be able to judge whether any stress can be laid on the phrase alluded to by the Editor.-First, from Parkhurst's Hebrew and English Lexicon, "by and by are used both as nouns and participles, for time hidden and concealed from man, as well indefinite, Gen. xvii. 8, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, 2 Sam. xii. 10, and eternal, Gen. iii. 22, Psalm ix. 8, as finite, Exod. xix. 9, xxi. 6, 1 Sam. i. 22, comp. ver. 28, 1 Sam. xxvii. 12, Isaiah xxxii. 14; as well past, Gen. vi. 4, Deut. xxxii. 7, Josh. xxiv. 2, Psalm xli. 14, cxiii. 3, Prov. viii. 23, as future. It seems to be much more frequently used for an indefinite, than for infinite, time. Sometimes it appears particularly to denote the continuance of the Jewish dispensation or age, Gen. xvii. 13, Exod. xii. 14, 24, xxvii. 21, and al. freq., and sometimes the period of time to the Jubilee, which was an eminent type of the completion of the Jewish and typical dispensation, by the coming and death of Christ." 2ndly, the author of this Lexicon (though devoted to the cause of the Trinity) gives the translation of the term found in Micah v. 2. In the course of explaining the force of the word sr says he, "Micah v. 1, or 2, vnsr and his (the Messiah's) goings forth have been from of old, "' from the days of antiquity." 3dly, from the English version, Isaiah Ixiii. [11], "Then he remembered the days of old," or'', exactly as is found in Micah v. 2. 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, "Those nations were of old," for the same Hebrew term bir. Deut. xxxii. 7, "Remember the days of old," for the same Hebrew word. Gen. vi. 4, " Which were of old, men of renown," for the same term. Psalm lxxvii. 5, "I have considered the days of old, and the years of ancient times." Here the term p which is rendered in Micah v. 2, " of old," and the term translated in the same verse "everlasting," are both mentioned. 4thly, the context is verses 2-4: "Whose goings forth have been from [of] old, from everlasting; therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; [then] the rem nant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel: and he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God," &c. Can the phrases, "his God," "in the strength of the Lord," and "his brethren," be consistently used for one who is the everlasting God? If so, how can we reconcile to our understanding the idea of the everlasting God's reigning in the strength of another, having the Jews as his brethren, and looking up to another superior, who is designated by "his God"? If a body of men, distinguished for their talents, learning, and situation in life, from time to time, be determined to support their longestablished inventions, in defiance of scripture, reason, and common sense; how can truth make its appearance, when so violently resisted? In fact, verse 2d of Micah thus correctly stands: "Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall he (the last expected Messiah) come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose sources✶ of springing forth have been from of ancient, from the days of old." *These are the seed of Abraham and that of David, through which God declares, by the mouths of the ancient prophets, that he will raise the Messiah to save the world.-Vide Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, " 3, The place whence any thing comes. Job |