Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

adds further, For whatever things he doth, these also doth the Son likewise;' a more full declaration of equality with the Father cannot be imagined. How could the Son do whatsoever the Father doth, if he were not equal to him in power, wisdom, truth, mercy?" &c. The Editor here omits to quote the very next line, " FOR the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doth," in which the preposition "for" assigns reasons for the Son's doing what the Father doth; i. e. since the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him his works, the Son is enabled to do what he sees the Father

do. To the Editor's query, "What finite being could understand all that God doth, if shewn him ?" I reply, Divine wisdom will of course not shew any thing to one whom it has not previously enabled to comprehend it. How could the following passages escape the memory of the Editor, when he put the question: Amos iii. 7, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets;" Psalm xxv. 14, "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his covenant"? Did not they understand all that was shewn and revealed unto them? If they did, were they, in consequence, all infinite beings, as the Editor argues, from this circumstance, Jesus is?

[ocr errors]

The Editor proceeds to say, "Jesus adds, For as the Father quickeneth the dead, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.' Here, then, he declares

himself equal with the Father in sovereignty of will, as well as in almighty power." The Editor again omits a part of the sentence which runs thus: "So the Son quickeneth whom he will; FOR the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." Does not the latter part of the sentence shew clearly, that the power which the Son enjoyed, in quickening those whom he chose, was entirely owing to the commission given him by the Father? In order to weaken the force of verse 22, the Editor says, "The Father, however, whose it is equally with the Son, commits all judgment to the Son, as the incarnate mediator between God and man, because he is the Son of Man." My readers may observe, that if Jesus received all power of judging men in his human nature, he must have quickened whom he pleased, as the consequence of that power, in his human capacity; how, then, could the Editor infer the deity of Jesus from one circumstance, (quickening the dead,) which entirely de pends upon another, (the power of judging,) enjoyed by him in his human nature? Lest it should be supposed that individual instances of the dead being raised by Jesus is here meant, I may just mention that he exercised this power in common with other prophets.

As to his assertion, that the work of judging mankind belongs, by nature, equally to the Son and to the Father, I only refer the Editor to Matt. xix. 28, and Luke xxii. 29, 30, in which the apostles are re

presented as invested with the power of judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and to 1 Cor. vi. 2, which ascribes the power of judging the world to righteous men; and I hope that the Editor will be convinced, from these authorities, that the "work of judging mankind" does not "belong, by nature, to the Son and to the Father." He introduces, in the course of this argument, John viii. 58, and Rev. i. 8, which I have often examined in the preceding pages 611, 475.

He at last comments on verse 23, "That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father," saying, that "to this glorious declaration of the Son's Godhead, our author merely objects, that this means likeness in nature and quality, and not in exact degree of honour. But what are the nature and quality of the honour paid to God the Father? Divine honour of the highest kind, and such as can be given to no creature?" The phrases, "to honour God," and "to adore God," are used in quite different senses; the latter being peculiarly applicable to God, but the former generally implying only such manifestation of reverence as one may bestow on his father, or on another worthy of respect. Mal. i. 6: "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a Father, where is mine honour?" &c. Here God requires the same kind of honour to be paid him as is due to a father. Does God here bring himself, in consequence, to a level with a parent? 1 Sum. ii. 30: "But now the Lord

saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me, I will honour."-Here the manifestation of honour between God and men, is reciprocal; but in any sense whatsoever, no worship can be reciprocally offered by God and his creatures. The Editor again advances, that "the fact is, that this phrase 'as, really refers to degree as well as to nature; Matt. xx. 14: 'I will give unto this last even as unto thee,' that is, precisely as much as one penny.” I deny the accuracy of this rule of the Editor, since

see

as," in almost all instances, refers either to degree or nature, or to some kind of resemblance, á few of which I shall here notice. Gal. iv. 14, Paul says to the Galatians, "But received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." Did Paul permit the Galatians to receive him with precisely the same kind of honour, both in kind and degree, as was due to Christ Jesus? Matt. x. 25: "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his Lord," &c. Did Matthew mean here, precise equality in kind and degree, between a disciple and his master, and a servant and his Lord? xix. 19: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Did the Saviour mean here, that precisely the same quality and degree of love, which one entertains towards himself, should be entertained towards others? Gen. iii. 22: "Behold the man is become as one of us." Did Adam then become, both in nature and degree, equally wise with the Omniscient God? Now, my readers will judge whether or not such a phrase as

“men should, or may, honour the Son as they honour the Father," equalizes the Son, in nature and degree, with the Father. As to the verse abovequoted, (Matt. xx. 14,) it implies sameness in degree, and not necessarily sameness in kind, for the same sum may be given in different be given in different currency. The Editor quotes Heb. iii. 3, 4, in order to shew "in what sense the Prophet to be sent was like Moses." As I examined this verse in page 478, I will not recur to it again. I only remind the Editor of Deut. xviii. 15, 18, where he will perceive in what sense Jehovah himself drew a likeness between the Saviour and Moses, which passage is repeated in Acts iii. 22, and also of St. Matthew xvii. 3, as well as of Mark ix. 4, wherein they express a wish to manifest the same reverence to the Saviour as to Moses and Elias; but it is quite optional with the Editor to treat Moses in any manner he pleases.

In answer to his inquiry, "Why should it offend our author, that when the Son, for the suffering of death, took upon him the form of a servant?" &c. My reply is, that it does not offend me in the least; but I must confess, that such an expression as when God, "for the suffering of death, took upon him the form of a servant," seems to me very extraordinary, as my idea of God is quite at variance with that of a being subjected to death and servitude.

The Editor overlooked several other passages, quoted by me, among which there was Matt. xx. 23, "To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is

« AnteriorContinuar »