Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted, ch. xv. 7, xix. 36. It has the latter sense, Matt. v. 18, vi. 8, xxi. 42, xxvi. 6. All things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ, i. e. by his authority, and according to his direction; and in the ministry committed to his his apostles, nothing has been done without his warrant. See John xv. 4, 5, Without me ye can do nothing.' Compare vers. 7, 10, 16; John xvii. 8; Col. i. 16, 17. Cappe, ibid."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Verse 14: "Nevertheless, the Word was flesh." "Though this first preacher of the gospel was honoured with such signal tokens of divine confidence and favour, though he was invested with so high an office, he was, nevertheless, a mortal man.' Cappe. In this sense the word flesh is used in the preceding verse. Flesh,' says Mr. Lindsey, Sequel to the Apology, p. 136, 'is frequently put for man. Psalm lxv. 2; Rom. iii. 20. But it frequently and peculiarly stands for man as mortal, subject to infirmities and sufferings; and as such, is particularly appropriated to Christ here, and in other places. 1 Tim. iii. 16; Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 18, iv. 1. Ὁ λογος σαρξ εγενετο, the Word was flesh, not became flesh, which is Newcome's translation, or, was made flesh, which is the common version. The most usual meaning of γινομαι, is to be. In this sense eyeveto is used in this chapter, ver. 6; also in Luke xxiv. 19. The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, ós eyevero, who was, not who

became a prophet. See Cappe, p. 86; and Socinus in loc."

Now my readers may judge which of these interpretations of John i. 1, is consistent with scriptural authority and conformable to the human understanding.

The Editor denies, positively, the charge of admitting three Gods, though he is in the practice of worshipping God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I could wish to know what he would say, when a Hindoo also would deny Polytheism on the same principle, that if three separate persons be admitted to make one God, and those that adore them be esteemed as worshippers of one God, what objection could be advanced, justly, to the oneness of three hundred and thirty three million of persons in the Deity, and to their worship in different emblems? for, oneness of three or of thirty millions of separate persons is equally impossible, according to human experience, and equally supportable by mystery alone.

The second passage of John, quoted by the Editor, which I have not yet noticed, is John xvi. 30, "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things." I admit that Jesus knows all things concerning his ministry and the execution of final judgment, but not those that bear no relation to either of them, as I noticed in pages 449, 518, and 538, since the phrase "all things," is very often used in a definite sense, both in the Old and New Testaments. In Joshua i. 17,

when the people said, "We hearkened to Moses in all things," they meant, of course, things with regard to the divine commandments. So, in Matt. xvii. 11, Elias is said to have "restored all things," that is, all things concerning his office as the forerunner of the Messiah. In Mark xiii. 23, Jesus said to his disciples, "I have foretold you all things," of course what respected their salvation. Eph. vi. 21: "Tychicus, a beloved brother, and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things," of course belonging to their salvation. Besides, the

Scriptures inform us, that those who devote themselves to the contemplation of the Deity are endued with the free gift of knowing all things; but from this circumstance they are not considered to be elevated to the nature of God, nor numbered as persons of the Godhead. Prov. xxviii. 5: "They that seek the Lord, understand all things." 2 Tim. ii. 7: "And the Lord give thee understanding in all things." 2 Sam. xiv. 20: "And my Lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth."

The Editor quotes Paul, (page 598,) "God our Saviour," and 1 Peter, "The righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," and also Jude, [25,] "To the only wise God our Saviour." He intends, perhaps, to shew, that as both God and Jesus are styled "Saviours," consequently Jesus is God.-I have fully noticed that several others, beside Jesus, were, like him, appointed by God to save people

from time to time, and named Saviours in the Scriptures; but that the use of this appellation does not serve to prove the deity of any of them. Vide pages

402 and 405.

The Editor expresses his despite of Hindoo Polytheism, triumphing in his own pure profession. I wonder how it could escape the notice of the Editor, that the doctrine of plurality in unity maintained by him, and that professed by Hindoos, stand on the same footing, since the Editor, as well as the Hindoos, firmly declares the unity of God, while at the same time both acknowledge the plurality of persons under the same Godhead, although they differ from each other in the exact number. The following passage quoted by the Editor, "The gods who have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens," is equally applicable to several of the divine persons of both parties.

In answer to the Editor's query, Where does the unity of mankind exist? I entreat to be allowed to ask the Editor, where the unity of the Godhead exists? If he say, that it is one divine nature that exists between the three sacred persons, I answer, that the unity of mankind is one human nature, and exists between so many individual persons.

In answer to his question, When were all mankind one even in design and will? I shall say that mankind has always been one, and shall be one even in will and design, in the glorious and prosperous

reign of Christ; and that present difference in will and design, or in rank and situation among its persons, does not preclude them from unity of nature, as the Editor himself admits that "one equal in nature to another may yet be subordinate in office." Besides, we find that the will of God the Father was sometimes at variance with that of God the Son. Matthew xxvi. 39: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mark xiv. 36: "And he (Jesus) said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt."

The Editor appeals to common sense, saying, that "she sees around her every day," that one man "equal in nature to another is yet subordinate in office." She sees so indeed; but when she sees one man equal in nature to another, she reckons them two men, whether one is subordinate in office to the other or not. To this part of the evidence, I beg the Editor will pay some attention. It is indeed astonishing, that in all his illustrations the Editor brings the Godhead to a level with any genus, including various species under it, but feels offended if any one should observe this fact to him.

The Editor says, (page 601,)" Nor is it true that it was the constant practice of the Saviour to pray to the Father for the power of working miracles; for he never did them in his Father's name, as was the

« AnteriorContinuar »