Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tations to the proof of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus, I would endeavour to examine the connexion between them as he has omitted to do so, and their relation to the question is certainly not obvious, I must spare myself the trouble.

[ocr errors]

The Reverend Editor says, (page 541,) "Nor does Obadiah, in his short prophecy, wholly omit the Redeemer's kingdom. He alludes thereto in verse 21: ' And saviours shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau: and the kingdom shall be Jehovah's." To justify the application to Jesus of the noun "saviours," though found in the plural form, he thus argues: "Should he" (the author of the Appeals) "reply, that as the plural number saviours' is used, this cannot refer to Christ; we ask him whether he has not (page 242) affirmed, that the plural form is often used in a singular sense, as of his masters, meaning, his master has given him a wife'"? The Editor, as a diligent student of the Scriptures, should have known that the noun in question, "saviours," being accompanied with the plural verb, "they shall come up," is by no means an analogous case to that of the term "masters," as found in Exod. xxi. 4, which is connected with the verb singular in', whereas, in Neh. ix. 27, the term "saviours" is associated with the verb in the plural form and the past tense, as well as with the pronoun plural.

I must, therefore, maintain the correctness of reading "saviours" in Obadiah as required in the former

alternative of the question put by the Editor, (page 541, line 34,) finding myself unable to " acknowledge the triune God," as proposed by him in the latter alternative for having relinquished the notion of the triune, quadrune, and decimune gods, which I once professed, when immersed in the grosser polytheism prevailing among modern Hindoos, I cannot reconcile it to my understanding to find plausibility in one case, while the same notion is of acknowledged absurdity in another. The Editor admits (p. 536) the application of the term Saviour to human individuals, as pointed out by me, (Second Appeal, pp. 289, 290.) yet he is anxious to prove the doctrine of the atonement by the application of that very term to Jesus.

The Editor says, (page 542,) that “Micah, in ch. iv., describes Christ's kingdom nearly in the same terms with Isaiah, and in ch. v., he repeats the place of his birth: Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me-whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.' The testimony to the eternal deity of Christ, given in connexion with his birth as man, it is wrong to overlook." Any testimony relating to the birth of Jesus, having nothing to do with his atonement, is not in place here; but I will examine the verse here cited in the subsequent part of this discussion, when we come to the subject of the Trinity.

He quotes again Nahum i. 15, for the purpose of proving Christ's kingdom, which is a subject totally

foreign to that of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus. "Habakkuk" (says the Editor, page 542)" was evidently no stranger to the doctrine founded on the atonement;" and he then quotes the passage, "The just shall live by faith," as corroborated by Paul, Rom. i. [17], and Gal. iii. 2 [11?]; and “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah," &c. But what faith in, and knowledge of God, as well as faith in the perfection of his attributes, and in the prophets sent by him, has to do with the atonement, I am at a loss to discover. Does the bare mention of faith by Habakkuk, or other prophets, prove his or their familiarity with the sacrificial death of Jesus?

He quotes the passage of Haggai ii. [6, 7, 9], "Thus saith Jehovah ;-The desire of all nations shall come, and [I] will fill this house with glory. -The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith Jehovah of hosts,"-which the Editor thinks affords decided proof respecting both the atonement and the deity of Christ. It is, however, too deep for my shallow understanding to discover from this passage an allusion to either of these doctrines, much less that it is a decided proof of them. Were we to understand by the word "temple," in both instances in the verse, a material one, which it is evident, from its context in the prophecy, was alone in the contemplation of Haggai, we must be persuaded to believe that the latter temple was more magnificently built by Zerubbabel and Joshua, in the reign of Darius, than the former built

by Solomon. Should the spiritual temple be understood by the latter term in the above, it would be regarded naturally superior to a material one, without the necessity of "Jehovah's coming into it clothed in our nature."

He quotes Zech. iii. 8, 9, and vi. 12, 13, wherein there is not the slightest mention of the atonement. As to his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from these passages, I will notice it in a subsequent chapter. The phrase found in the verse (" I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day") does not attribute the removal of the iniquities of the land of Israel to the sacrificial death of Jesus, so as to justify the Editor in quoting it as a proof of the doctrine of the atonement. Besides, the verse can by no means be applied to the death of Jesus, whether vicarious or accidental, since, after the day of his crucifixion, the Israelites, so far from being freed from sins, continued, more vehemently than ever, to pursue sinful conduct in their violent persecution of Christians. So the Jews have been punished to this day, as Christians believe, on account of their outrages upon the body of Jesus, and their disobedience to him. The remaining passage of Zechariah, (pages 543548,) and verse 1st of ch. iii. of Malachi, (page 548,) quoted by the Editor in support of the deity of Jesus, I will notice afterwards.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the Editor in his assertion, (page 549,) that " had our Lord himself made no direct declaration respecting the design of

his death, his referring his disciples to those predictions already named, would have been sufficient, particularly in their circumstances;" for it would be strange to suppose that Jesus should have omitted to inculcate so important a doctrine, and so fundamental for salvation, (according to the Editor,) both before and after his resurrection, while he was constantly enjoining love to God, to neighbours, and to each other, and also repentance, in case of failure in obedience. How is it possible to think, unless 'biassed by early prejudices, that a teacher, a truly divine teacher, who, by declaring himself publicly the Son of God and the King of the Jews,* as predicted, brought death upon himself, should have kept concealed the doctrine of the atonement, if such were the main source of salvation, from his own apostles, even after his resurrection, and have left them to deduce so material a point from the obscure predictions of the prophets, which are susceptible of so many different interpretations?

The Editor then affirms, that "it is evident that direct intimations of his nature were not withheld: such were, his declaring to them" (his apostles) "that he came to give his life a ransom for many― his conversing with Moses and Elias, (Luke ix. 31,) -his declaring that the Son of Man should be betrayed into the hands of men, and be killed, and rise again the third day-that he was about to give

* John xix. 7, 12.

« AnteriorContinuar »