« AnteriorContinuar »
of the increase or decrease of the supposed number of Creators. A distinction which will amount to nothing intrinsic. I must now leave the subject to the suund judgment of my reader.
The Editor further proceeds saying “with reference to Christ, Paul adds (1 Cor. X. 25 and 26.) “ Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat. For the earth is the Lord's and the fula ness thereof.” He then concludes“ if this Psalın (XXIV. 1.) then speak of Jehovah the father, the same absolute dominion over the earth is here ascribed to the son as to the father; if the son, he is there termed Jehovah.” St. Paul here justifies the eating of whatever is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm XXIV. 1. as his reason for such justification without the most distant allussion to Jesus: I am therefore at loss to discover the ground upon which the Editor founds his foregoing conclusion. For further illustration I quote the paraphrase by a most eminent personage on the above verses of Corinthians. “Eat whatever is sold in the shambles, without any inquiry or scruple, whether it had been offered to any idol or no. For the earth and all therein, are the good creature of the true God given by him to men. for their use." (Locke vol. 8th.) If the Editor still insists, in defiance of St. Paul's reference, of cominon sense, and of the above paraphrase, that in i Corinthians X. 26. St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should take upon myself to refer him to Hebrews I. 2. (the son) “ whom he (God) hath appointed heir of ali things” and to John III. 35. “ The father loveth the son and hath given all things into his hand.". These I hope will convince him that all the power and possession of the son in heaven and on earth are derived from the gift of the father of the universe.
The Editor quotes 1 Corinthians X. 22. “ Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he”? whence he infers that “ the Lord then is capable of being provoked by the worship of idols equally with God.” Granting that St. Paul means Jesus by the term “ Lord' and by the pronoun “he” in verse the 22nd, (a position which is unsupported by proof) we still find nothing in the passage elevatiog Jesus to equality with his Father. The Apostle may, according to the Editor's interpretation, be supposed to have prohibited Christians from provoking Christ to jealousy by partaking of the cup and table of devils, instead of those of Christ of which their master required them to partake, as ap.
pears from the immediately preceding verse. 6. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils.” Is it pot natural that Jesus, who enjoined the apostles to observe the Lord's supper, would be provoked to jealousy by his fo lowers partaking both of his table and of the sacrifice offered to idols without his thereby equalizing himself with God? I find that the prophets of God are declared in more pointed terms to have been jealous of the dishonour manifested to God, but no one has ever felt disposed to ascribe to them equality with his divine majesty. i Kings XIX. 10. " And he said I have been very jealous for the Lord Gori of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant and thrown down thy altars," &c.
I will repeat verbatim the Editor's quotation of Psalm XXIV. 8. and Eph. IV. 8. and his inference of the Deity of Jesus from the comparison of the one with the other, that my reader may perceive how violently prejudice can operate upon the human mind. He says (page 561.) that “ in verse 8th one is about to enter heaven as the king of glory; who is called “Jehovah,' mighty in battle.” la Ephes. IV. “Jesus elsewhere styled the Lord
of glory ascends having led captivity captive, which implies battle and victory * Here also the son is either described as equal in might to J-hovah or as Jehovah himself." There are not in verse eightth nor in the whole Psaim XXIV. such phrases as “captivity captive” or “ascend on high” as found in Eph. IV. 8. nor are there in the whole Chapter IV. of Ephesians the terms “ king of glory' or even “ Lord of glory” or “mighty in battle” as we find stated in the above Psalm. The Psalm commences by a declaration of God's sovereignty over the earth-proceeds to state the virtues that must belong to those who seek his presence and desire his blessing --and concludes with an exhortation to Jerusalm to receive him as the king of glory-the Lord of Hosis. But the subject of the above verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians is Jesus, wh ascended on high to give divine gifts to men, after he had discended first into the middle of the grave, as is evident from the in , mediately following verse; “now that he as . cended. what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth” and so on ;-a descent which cannot be ascribed to
* This term " to lead captivity captive" is not synonimous to “ mighty in battle” nor equivalent in application. For one may be mig lady in battle without leading captives ; so ove may lead caplize by miraculous or ariful means without being mighty in battle.
God. Verse the 8th of IV. Ephes. is an obvious reference to Psalm LXVIII. 18, a fact which is acknowledged even by Mr. Brown and Mr. Jones and many other Trinitarian writers. “ Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men; yea for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” But the Editor omits here to compare the passage in Ephes. withthe last mentioned psalm, though both coutain almost the same words that he dwells upon ; perhaps in consideration of the latter phrases of the Psalm being inconsistent with his object. “ Thou hast received gifts for men that the Lord God might dwell among them,” which clearly show the subordination of the son to his heavenly father. In further explanation I repeat the note of Mr. Locke on verses 9. and 11. of Ephesians in bis paraphrase of this Epistle, page 477. Note on verses 9---10. “ St. Paul's argumen. tation, in these two verses, is skilfully adapted to the main design of his Epistle. The converted gentiles were attacked by the unconverted Jews, who were declared enemies to the thoughts of a Messiah that died. St. Paul, to enervate that objection of theirs, proves by the passage out of the Psalms v. 8. that he must die and be buried. Besides the unbe.