« EdellinenJatka »
much soooer than any other form. Thus Jehovah hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, sec Isaiah liii. It is true we did indeed esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, but this was our ignorance, for Jehovah himself was the supporter of his own external form, and appointed and provided all the means necessary for its support and the ac
complishment of the end in view. IO, Was the Being who alone is
10. No! not confined in a mortal omnipresent, and who filleth heaven body; for we cannot attach the idea and earth with his presence, once con. of confinement to an omnipresent fined in a mortal body, removable Being. If the Being who is alone from place to place ?
omnipresent, filleth heaven and earth with his presence, what ground is there for excluding this presence from Jesus Christ? The Divine presence was in Christ in a supereminent degree; “For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should ALL fulness dwell." Col. i. 19. Observe not a part of the fulness, but all fulness; it is different with man, for it is written; of his (Christ's) fulness have all we received, and grace for
grace.” John i. 16, 11. IC Christ be the omniscient 11. Christ is not the Omniscient God, to whom are perfectly known God, if he be viewed separately from all times and all events, past, present the Father. Truth, or the Son, is and to come, with what truth could nothing of itself, knoweth nothing ; he say, “of that day and hour know- for the very life and soul of Truth is eth no man, no, not the angels which the Divine Love or Father. The are in heaven, neither the Son, but very spring of Life is the will, in this the Father,” Mark xiii. 32 ?
spring all knowledge originates, and is instantly passed to the understanding. Divine Good or the Father, alone knoweth the proper time or state, when judgment should be accomplished. The knowledge of the proper time and state for judgment is perceived by Divine Truth or the Son, and by the Truth all judgment is ultimately effected. Hence it is said, “ the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son." Indeed there is such an indissoluble conjunction between the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom, the Father and Son, that Jesus Christ in describing it, says, “All things that the Father hath are mine." John xvi. 15. xvii. 10. We know that the things which the Father hath are Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence, and if Jesus Christ be a mere man, as the fooleries of Unitarianism would have us believe ; we ask, with what propriety could Christ say to the Father, “All mine are tbine! and thine are mine!" either these words are true, or they are false: if they are false, Christianity is a cheat;—if they are true, Unita
rianism is a cheat. 12. Can it be true in any sense 12. Already answered. Let us go whatever, thal the very same Being on, as tempus fugit. could be ignorant of that day and at the same time know it; and what language could Christ have used, which would more clearly have expressed both his own ignorance, and that of all other beings whatever, but the Father concerning that day? 13. If Christ be God, the ever
13. The material body, or, Son of living God, who only hath life and Mary, expired on the cross ;immortality in himself, who was it
“ And when the Son of Mary died, that expired on the cross, after pray
The Lord of Life arose !" ing, Luke xxiii. 46. “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (or deliver up my breath)?
14. Did Christ know that he and 14. The passage in Jobn viii. 17, his Father were one Being, when he 18, treats of two distinct testimonies, said to the Jews, John viii, 17, 18, not the testimony of two distinct “It is written in your law, the testi- beings; Christ or the Truth always mony of two men is true, I am one beareth witness of itself, because it that bear witness of myself, and the carries with it its own internal evi. Father who sent me beareth witness dence, and the Father or Divine Love, of me"?
which is in the Truth, as the soul in the body, also beareth witness of the Truth : thus it is most true that the Father is in the Son, not out of him; God in Christ reconciles the world
unto Himself. 15. If that saying of Christ's, 15. No. The words, “I and the Jobn x. 30, “I and my Father are Father are one,” do not treat of unione,” prove Christ and his Father to ty of person, for the word one in this be one Being, will not that other passage is expressed by ey not es, it is saying of His, also prove his Father, in the peuter gender, and means unity himself and his disciples to be all but of work or operation ; Now this unione Being, where he prays to his ty of operation can only proceed from Father, John xvii. 11, 21, 22, 23, unity of person. With respect to “ That they all may be one, as thou the supposed inference that the disFather art in me, and I in thee, that ciples may all be considered as one they also may be one in us; that they person, if Christ and the Father are may be one, as we are one; I in them so considered, nothing can be more and thou in me, that they may be silly, for of the disciples it is said, perfected in one's?
“ that they may be one in us” and “that they may be perfected in one." i. e. that their works should be all advancing in perfection, being grounded in the love and acknowledgement of the One Infinite and eternal God. But if it should be contended that the words “I and the Father are One," do not mean one Person, it is most
certain that they cannot mean two. 16. Did Christ know, or others to understand that he was God, Divine Man.
16. Most certainly ; for God is a when he said to the Jews, Jobn viii. 40, “ Ye soek to kill me a man that
17. Does not the doctrine of the 17. The doctrine of the Godhead
18. It may be said that the doctrinė 18. There is no mystery in the true is a mystery to be believed thongh doctrine of the Deity of Christ; but not to be understood; but may not the doctrine of His simple humanity, the same be said with eqnal reason of is indeed simple enough, and as mysthe popish doctrine of transubstan- terious as the popish transubstantiatiation?
tion. 19. Did the apostle Peter know 19. We cannot tell what Peter that Christ was God; when he called thought, or wbat was his distinct upon the assembled multitude to hear knowledge upon this subject: but he his words, and told them Acts ii. 22 must have been a very inconsistent to 36 verse, that Jesus of Nazareth man to baptize his bretbren into the was a man approved of God by mi- name of Jesus only, if he considered racles, &c. which God did by him, him but a mere human creature. The and that after the Jews had crucified apostles were commanded to baptize and slain him, God raised him from in the name of Father, Son, and the dead, and that the same Jesus Holy Ghost. Matt. xxviii. 19. and whom they had crucified was made yet Peter baptized in the name of by God both Lord and Christ? Jesus, Acts ii. 38, this he would not
have done, if he had not considered that in Jesus Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, and that He was the only true God and eternal
21. Was he God, or a superangelic 21. Sufficiently replied to.
22. Neither. The Jews slew the being, or a crucified man, whom the Son of Mary, (see answer to quesJews slew, but whom God exalted to tion 13) but the Son of God, the be a prince (or leader) and a Saviour, Divine Truth, Christ, and the Acts. v. 30, 31. xiii. 23?
Anointed, was, by the power of Di-
will have no weight.
ANSWERS. 24. Did the apostle Paul under- 24. All the points in this question stand Cbrist to be God, when he said, are the same sort of objectious which 1 Cor. xv. 21, “By man came (or bave been made before; all of wbich cometh) the resurrection from the vanish away, when the true distincdead;” and Acts xvii. 31, “God tion between God and Cbrist is athath appointed a day in the which he tended to. Certainly the apostle will judge the world by that man Paul understood Christ to be God, or whom he halb ordained, and raised be could not bave said that, “in him from the dead ;” and I Cor. viii. 6, dwelleth all the fulness of the God“ to us there is but one God, the head bodily.” We say with the Father ;” and again, Eph. iv. 5, 6, apostle, that, “there is one God and “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one mediator between God and man, one God and Father of all, who is the man Christ Jesus,” but wbat is above all, &c.” and again 1 Tim. ii. this meditator between God and man 5, “ There is one God, and one me- but the Divine Truth, the Christ—the ditator between God and men, the anointed? Can one mere man be a man Christ Jesus ;” and again, 1 Cor. mediator between the infinite God xv. 24, 28, “ that Christ must deliver and another mere man? preposteup the kingdom to God even the rous ! it is the Divine Trut-the Father, and be subject to him that Very Christ, wbich is the medium of put all things under him, that God all conjunction with God, and the may be all in (or among) all,” even source through which we derive all that God whom the apostle Paul, and life and blessing. Hence our Lord the other apostles so frequently de. says, “no man cometh to the Father nominale, “the God and Father of but by me,” and again, our Lord Jeaus Christ ?” See 2 Cor, cometh unto me except the Father xi, 31. Eph, i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. draw him.” Thus Love or the Father,
draws us to the Truth, or Son, and the latter introduces us to all tbe glories and delights of the former. The objector thinks that Christ cannot be God, because the apostle says, " that Cbrist must deliver op the kingdom to God even the Father !" But we ask,—what kingdom! it must be the kingdom of heaven, because
“my kingdom is not of this world,” John xviii. 36. We ask then, was the kingdom of God ever under the government of a mere man? and did the Almighty give bis glory to a buman creature, contrary to bis own sacred declaralion, “ I am Jebovah that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another ?” Is. xlii. 8. No one in his senses will suppose this. The Unitarians, although they profess not to believe in mysteries, nevertheless resort to the greatest absurdities, when their object is to promulgate their darling doctrine, the simple humanity of Christ, It is certainly simple enough to be sure, and in divine things, simple it will keep us. Observe the distinction between God and Christ, and then we shall see how the latter is to give up the kingdom to the former. Every true christian is a heaven in its least QUESTIONS.
this cannot be objected to,
ANSWERS. because our Lord
“ the kingdom of God is within you." Luke xvii. 21. When man, as this spiritual kingdom, is under the influence of Divine Truth-when Truth is the ground of all his actions and religious worsbip, then this kingdom is the kingdom of Christ, but as he advances in the regenerate life, he will, in process of time, come into a more internal state. He will be more under the influence of Divine Good than of Truth. Love will then take the precedence, and be the ground of all his actions and religious wor. ship; then it is said that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father, tbat God may be all in
al]. 25. Did the Apostle Paul under- 25. Plainly answered before. The stand Christ to be God, when he Divine Truth is God's, not God. says, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, “ all things Christ is God's. are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (not God, but God's), and in 1 Cor. xi. 13, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the bead of Christ is God.
26. Did the writer of the Epistle 26. It is evident that the writer or to the Hebrews know that Christ was the Epistle to the Hebrews considered God, or indeed more than a man, Christ to be something more than when he said that Christ was made man, or he never would have said, like his brethren in all things, tempt. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, ed in all points as we are, and made and to-day, and for ever.” Heb. xiii. perfect through sufferings, Heb. ii. 10, 8. 17, 18. iv. 15 ?
27. Did thc Apostle John (who is 27. More quibbles ! To be sure he generally supposed to be the author understood Christ to be more than a of the book of Revelation) understand mere man! for he says, that he saw Christ to be God, or more than a in his vision, one like unto the Son man, when in the book of Revelation, of man, tbat is Christ, and that such Christ is described as the Lamb that was his splendour and glory that was slain ; and when in Rev. i. 1, it John fell down at his feet as dead. is said that God gave the revelation He also says that this Son of Man to Jesus Christ, who must have been laid his right hand upon him and said, previously ignorant of it, else how “Fear not; I am the First and the could it have been a revelation to Last!” If Christ be the First and the him?
Last, the conclusion is easily drawn. 28, If Christ be not a man, truly 28. Why not take Luke's geneand properly, and no more than a alogy? this would not answer the man, how could
he be born by natural purpose of a true and honourable descent from David, according to discovery. Compare the genealogy Acts ij. 30. iii. 22. xiii. 23. Rom. of Mathew withi that of Luke, and i. 3. 2 Tim. ii. 8, and agreeably to any man whose mind is not warped the genealogy of Mathew's Gospel ? by prejudice will see, that as far as
the earthly body of our Lord is concerned the descent was from David but the Divine descent is not of or from David, but of God, see Luke iii. 23 to 38. 6. That which is born af