« AnteriorContinuar »
be true, he plainly has more than barely a balance of evidence against him.
Among the many remarks, by which he has endeavored to strengthen himself in this subject, the following are worthy of particular notice. "I have not,” says he, "considered the truth of the proposition under consideration, to rest merely on Christ's being call. ed God, Lord, &c. knowing that there be gods many and lords many; that these terms are frequently applied to men, called to act in God's stead, or as his messengers; but I have endeavored to ascertain the meaning of these terms by their adjuncts, and the connection in which they are found. I have noticed that Christ is not simply called God, Lord, &c. but that God by whom the worlds were made; that LORD who in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth; that he is LORD of all, LORD of life and glory: LORD of Lords. Now he that builds all things is God.
Is it not therefore evident that Christ is God ? If he be the I AM, the only Savior of whom it is said, neither is there salvation in any other ; if he be the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the Almighty, can he be less than Jehovah ?”
Here we come to one of the Elder's strong holds, and unfortunate for his views, almost all these explanatory adjuncts we have already shown do not maintain the position to which he has applied them. He says, he finds Christ to be that God by whom the worlds were made, alluding to Heb. i. 2. By a recurrence to the Greek text, we learn that these worlds are not systems of the universe, but ages, periods, or periodical dispensations. The same word is translated ages in Eph. ii. 7, and iii. 21. The Greek word naturally denotes duration of time; but it has other figurative significations. Elder P. further says, Christ is that LORD who in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth ; but we have not found it so, tho we examined the words of the apostle and the psalm from which the passage was taken. For Christ to be Lond of all, Lord of lite and glory, and Lolld of
lords, is not at all inconsistent with his mediatorial ofAce as a redeemer, and his character as the Son of God. Elder P. proceeds, "Now he that built all things is God. Is it not, therefore, evident that Christ is God?" What a syllogism this! with only one proposition! Where has he proved that Christ has built all things, so that the conclusion should be unavoidable? We can offer the Elder a stronger syllogisin than his, and yet the .conclusion shall be fallacious. See Heb. iii. 4. “Eve. ry house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God.” Conclusion. Every man that builds a house is God. Had the Elder proved that Christ had built every house or all things that the Father has built, still it must be explained in what sense he has built them, or the argument will hold as good in favor of the deity of man as of Christ. Possible or doubtful conclusions are by no means calculated to carry conviction to the mind. Give us a few unavoidable ones, and our subject is put to rest for ever.
“Another reason,” says Elder P.“which has occurred to me in favor of the divinity of Christ is, that all the attributes of Jehovah are ascribed to him." He then proceeds to show that omniscience, divine power, omnipresence, eternity, and divine honors or worship, are ascribed to the Son as well as to the Father. To show that Christ possesses omniscience, he quotes the following passages.-"In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." "He knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man.” “All the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you
accord ing to your works." It must clearly appear that Elder P. has extended the meaning of these passages beyond their original design, when we call to mind and compare the testimony of Jesus himself. See John v. 19, 20, 21. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the
Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth ; and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." The doctrine of Christ's omniscience is directly opposed by his own word, in Mark xiii. 32. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” When we consider that all things are given unto Christ, which gift destroys the idea of his possessing them from all eternity, we understand by bis having all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, those treasures of wisdom and knowledge which are Aeedful to communicate to 'man, and which distinguish him as the Son of God. The words may be well accommodated to this sense, and, indeed, to understand them to comprehend the idea of omniscience, would be to the violation of the meaning of other express testimony. We may, therefore, eonsider this a good rule of interpretation, that what a text may mean without violating the natural import of its language, and what it must mean as limited or explained by other express testimony, must be the true sense of the same.
Elder P. quotes the words of Christ to prove his omnipresence, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It seems our friend P. must labor under some very peculiar embarrassment, to suppose these passages maintain the omnipresence of Jesus Christ. St. Paul speaks to his brethren of being absent in body, but present in spirit. What would people think, if we Bhould undertake to show that St. Paul in his divine nature was omnipresent, but in his human nature, confined to a little spot? Is it not much more reasonable to suppose Christ was, and is, with his disciples by the divine energy of his spirit, and the power of his doctrine, than to conclude he meant to promise a lite
ral presence? His expressions, we may safely say, are not clear in favor of what Elder P. quotes them.
“Divine honors or worship,” says Elder P. “is ascribed to the Son, as well as to the Father, and undoubtedly for the reasons already offered; because he is possessed of the same attributes It is written, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;"' but it is also written, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” Worship sometimes means obeisance or respect offered to man, and it is probable that in some instances where persons are said to worship Christ, they were ignorant of his divine nature.”
The reader will perceive, that we hardly need to offer any argument on the above, as our opponent has offered us the ground himself, which is calculated to weaken the position he has taken. That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, no inore proves the Son to be the Father, than man's being perfect (Matt. v. 48). even as his father in heaven is perfect, proves his being the Father, or proves that he possesses attributes of equal magnitude with the God of heaven. Man may be perfect as God by imitating his communicable perfections, in manner but not in degree. The only Lord God is the high and holy above all intelligences.
Wat Elder P. has written of the eternity of Christ and his possessing divine power, we have not particuJarly noticed, because we conceive there is little in it to oppose. The former he rests on the ambiguous phrase, forever ; to the latter we have no objection in the sense in which we understand the terms.
REMARKS ON REV. XXII. 11. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still?"
'This is another passage among the number, which are used to confute the faith of universal salvation. Perhaps it is as frequently employed for this purpose, as any other passage whatever. It may, therefore, justly call forth, at this time, a few remarks.
It has long been a sentiment in which many acquiesce with undoubting submission, that the day of judgement will close with the sentence of endless and unal. terable woe on the heads of a great portion of the human family, while the smiling approbation of heaven will forever illume the blest abodes of the selected and happy portion of our race. The above passage is supposed to refer to that period, when the wheels of old time shall have ceased' to roll, and the slumbering nations awaked from their dusty beds ; when every dark cavern and hidden depth of the ocean shall have been drained of human relics ; and when the destinies of all will be fixed in eternity.
To show that the text does not support this idea, it is only necessary to observe, that it does not stand connected with passages that can reasonably be applied to such a period; allowing the scriptures to maintain it according to the common idea of the future day of judgement. We may also notice again, that there is nothing in the text which necessarily imports an endless duration, either of injustice, Althiness, righteousness, or holiness.
Leaving each one to interpret the description of the new Jerusalem, begun in the 21st chapter, and continued in the 22d, according to his own understanding, the reader, by carefully attending to the subject, will perceive that this description ends with the fifth verse of the last mentioned chapter. Notice, for instance, the preceding verse, “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book ; for the time is at hand.” Should we unite this passage in prophetic history to the future day of judgement, admitting the common sentiment of a fixed state at death, the book may as well be sealed as otherwise ; for it would be too late to benefit a single soul. All the verses from the 6th to the end of the chapter, ap