Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of God, (or an omniscient being, according to the orthodox creed,) though well aware of the slow apprehension of Nicodemus, instructed him in a language far from being clear and comprehensible to him, both in the preceding and following verses. Vide verse 3: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Ver. 8: "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." Ver. 13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven," &c. Ver. 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up"-foretelling him of his death on the cross by these ambiguous words. Nay, moreover, he, in his discourse with the Jews and the multitude, very often expressed his ideas in such a manner, that not only the Jews, but his own disciples, mistook his meaning; but he always regulated his instructions as he was guided by his and our heavenly Father. It would be, therefore, presumptuous in us to lay down rules for his conduct, maintaining that "common humanity, therefore, demanded that in further discourse with him, no word should be used but in its direct and proper sense."

In answer to his assertion, "If, then, he would only tell us how Jesus was regarded in those realms of light and truth previously to his descent on earth, he would himself settle this point,”-I beg to refer the Editor to such authority as no Christian can ever deny; I mean 1 Peter i. 20: "Who verily

was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times for you." And also to 2 Tim. i. 9: " Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." If this plain explanation fall short of convincing the Editor of the real sense in which the pre-existence of Jesus and of his followers was meant, my endeavour to correct his notion on this head must be of no use.

In order to weaken the force of the argument I founded on John vi. 62, "The Son of Man ascend up where he was before," shewing the absence of Jesus from heaven while he was talking to men on earth, the Editor quotes Gen. xi. 5, xviii. 33, xxxv. 13, in which Jehovah is stated to have moved from one place to another, though possessed of omnipresence. But the Editor overlooked, or thought it judicious to omit to notice, the real point of my argument in the Second Appeal, which I now repeat: "For the attribute of omnipresence is quite inconsistent with the human notions of the ascent and descent effected by the Son of Man." It is not impossible for the omnipresent God that he should manifest himself wherever he chooses without violating his omnipresence; but the notion of occupying two very distant places at one time by a son of man, is, of course, contrary to the ideas acquired by

human experience, unless this extraordinary circumstance be ascribed to the power of performing miracles bestowed on man by God.

Jesus, however, took every precaution in wording his discourse with Nicodemus, by the use of the term man in the very same verse, (13,) thus establishing his humanity; but, notwithstanding this, the prejudices of a great number of his followers have induced them to infer his ubiquity, and thereby his deity, from the same verse.

I will not recur to the examination of such passages as "who made all things," "who upholds all things," &c., alluded to here by the Editor, having often noticed them in the former part of this work.

Let us now come to the real point, and ascertain whether or not the word, in the original Greek, which is rendered "is" in the English version, in the phrase "who is in heaven," actually signifies the present tense, as a candid inquiry into this very point will bring us to a satisfactory decision at once. The word in the original is wv, a participle, and not a verb; and all that I said in my Second Appeal may be compressed into three remarks. In the first place, that the time of the participle is referred to the time of the verb found in the sentence; and to corroborate this opinion, I quoted Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, Part i. p. 42, Note: "We are to refer the time of the participle to the time of the act, &c. implied in the verb; for past, present, and future, cannot be meant otherwise than

in respect of that act." * And I also cited John i. 48, Οντα ειδον σε, "I saw thee when thou wast;" literally, "I saw thee being," in which the present participle implies the past in correspondence with the verb sidov, or "I saw," found in the same verse. I now also beg the attention of the Editor to the common usage of almost all the languages that have the use of a present participle, in which he will find the participle generally referring to the time of the verb related to it. In English, for example, in the following phrase, “Being ill, I could not call upon you," the time of the present participle "being," refers, I presume, to the verb "could not call," implying the past tense.

In the second place, I quoted Levit. vii. 33, xiv. 47, in which the present participle is accompanied with the definite article, observing, that "these present participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs connected with them, but future, with respect to the command of God”— that is, when the definite article is prefixed in Greek to a present participle, it has reference to the verb connected with it in an indefinite manner. So we

find many instances in the New Testament similar to those quoted from Leviticus. In the third place, I said, Moreover, we frequently find the present

* The Editor has given, in p. 607, a quotation from Bishop Middleton, with some remarks of his own; but I am perfectly willing to leave it to the discerning reader to judge whether it corroborates my opinion or makes against it.

participle used in a past tense, even without reference to the time of the verb. John ix. 25: Tupros wv αρτι βλεπω, σε Being blind, now I see;" that is, "Having been blind, now I see."

The Editor, omitting to notice the second and third arguments adduced by me, makes remarks only on the first, saying, that "were this criticism" ("being in heaven," instead of " is in heaven") perfectly correct, it would not be of the least service to our author, as, he being in heaven, is precisely the same as, he who is in heaven."-I positively object to the accuracy of this assertion of the Editor; for the verb " is," generally affirms an act or a state at the time present when spoken; but the present participle wv, or "being," even when preceded by the definite article o, or "the," implies time indefinitely, though the article is often rendered by a relative pronoun "who" or "which," and the participle by a verb, for the sake of elegance in English composition. I beg to refer the Editor first to those texts quoted in my Second Appeal. Levit. vii. 33: '0 προσφερων αυτῳ εσται ὁ βραχιων ὁ δεξιος, « The offering (person) for him shall be the right shoulder." Although the participle "offering" is found here in the present tense, yet it indisputably implies, that at any time in future in which the offering may be made," the offerer shall be entitled to the right shoulder.” Lev. xiv. 47: Ο εσθων-πλύνει τα ἱματια αυτού, "The eating (person) shall wash his clothes." The word "eating," though found here in the pre

« AnteriorContinuar »