Sivut kuvina

man spake like this Man,' &c. &c. And yet his being 'the Son of Man,' is very consistent with his being the Son of God.' He might be emphatically denominated the Son of Man, by way of distinction from all his fellow men, as being the only man who lived and died without fin, thereby demonstrating, that though God had thought fit, in the exceeding riches of his grace, or favor, love and mercy, not only to forgive mankind their fins, which they, in their respective Jewish and Gentile states, had committed, on their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or the anointed of God, to reveal his will to them, but farther to erect a most glorious dispensation of grace, far surpassing all preceding dispensations in means, privileges, and prospects, at the head of which, in reward of his complete obedience to his will, even unto death, he set this perfectly holy and good man, yet men were capable of acting up to the moral law written on their hearts, a truth, which he had exemplified in his own person, and that it was not the imperfection of that law, but the imperfection of man, who · refused to obey that law, which made an especial divine revelation necessary, and


evinced the exuberant goodness of God in vouchsafing it. His title to the glorious diftinguithing appellative of the Son of God; seems to originate in God's particular favor, in choosing him for the man to publish his will to mankind, and is likewise founded on his being 'the first fruits from the dead, declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead. Hence, agreeably to this just conception of the matter, though God be the father of all men, and in that sense all men are fons of God, ( a poet of your own', says Paul to the heathen, has said, we are his offspring,') God is emphatically stiled his father ;' and this was a mode of expression familiar to your ancestors in their sacred writings. God says of Solomon, the son of Christ's great progenitor, David, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. This means no more, than that Solomon was under God s particular favor and protection, and not, that God was his father, in the different absurd hyper-metaphysical senses, in which Athanasians and Arians erroneously fuppofe him to be the father of Jesus. This Jesus, who, agreeably to the predictions, “which went before concerning him,' was


of the feed of David,” being the son of Jofeph and Mary, who were both lineally descended from David, was your promised Messiah, who, in conformity to the prediction of Isaiah, was to be brought as a . lamb to the Naughter' to be 'numbered with the transgressors, and to give his soul an offering for fin,' before he was to see his feed, and prolong his days,' &c. Accordingly, these prophecies received their completion in his crucifixion between two thieves, in his resurrection to life eternal, and, subsequently to his ascension into heaven, in the conversion of many Gentiles and fome Jews, through the ministry of · his inspired apostles. But indeed this latter

event will be, in its utmost extent accomplished, when the fulness of the Gentiles shall be come in,' and accompanied with

the gathering together of the dispersed of Judah, and the outcasts of Israel, from the four corners of the earth, and the confequent promised restoration of them to their own land, when, the veil taken off from their hearts, your whole nation shall plainly see, and gratefully acknowledge, their long-neglected Messiah, or “the Christ of God. Moreover, the time, when the


Christians alledge that Jesus suffered, seems to correspond exactly, in point of chronology, with the expiration of the • seventy weeks' of years, when, agreeably to Daniel's prediction, the Messiah was to be cut off. This indeed is so evident, that you, when pushed hard by the Christians, about the sufferings of the Messiah, and the time of his first advent, not venturing to gainsay the prophecies, are reduced to the miserable shift of supposing two Messiahs, a suffering Jesus, Ben-Joseph, and a triumphant Lord, for which you cannot produce a single voucher, either from Moses or from the prophets; manifestly mistaking the first suffering advent, and the second glorious advent, of the same Messiah, for the advents of two different Messiahs.

But, as the Christians in general, as far as I can judge of their leading tenets, virtually acknowledge this Jesus to be, either an incomprehensible third part of the selfexistent Jehovah, whom we know to be, as well without parts as without passions ; or according to the erroneous Arian hypothesis, a pre-existent subordinate God, and a postexistent preternatural God-man; or lastly, according to the Socinian fysten, an undefinable woman-sprung creature, born from the womb of a woman, unimpregnated by the previous instrumentality of masculine generation ; it is impossible to reconcile these respective absurd hypotheses concerning the essence of Jesus with the prophea tic description of the Messiah, as given by Moses and the prophets. But, as I before observed, they are abundantly refuted by the whole tenor of genuine Christian Scrips ture, which uniformly represents the Christ of God, as a man, and supports the strict literal manhood of Jesus, and his lineal des scent from David, in conformity to the predictions of Moses and the prophets; and Luke in particular speaks of his parents, which he could not have done, if he had been destitute of an human father. And again he introduces Mary saying to her son Jesus, thy father and I have fought thee sorrowing. I must beg leave to particularly recommend it to your serious confideration, that this Jesus, the son of Joseph, and descendent of David, after his resurrection, appeals, in the following reprimand of his disciples, contained in the said Luke's Gospel, to your prophecies in testimony of




« EdellinenJatka »