« AnteriorContinuar »
throne; and the counsel of peace shall be be. tween them both”-that is between Semuh and Joshua mentioned in the immediately pre. ceding verse 11th. In the English version the meaning of the name of Semuh is used, viz. “ Branch," instead of Semuh itself both here and in ch. III. 8, and the commentators chuse to apply the name thus translated to Jesus, though no instance can be adduced of Jesus Christ's having been so called, and though the prophet expressly says in ch. VI. 12. “ whose name is Semuh.” He is speaking of the seEOND building of the temple which began in the reign of Darius king of Persia long before the birth of Christ. Vide the whole book of Zechariah.
The second quotation is “ for thus saith the Lord of hosts after the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you, for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.” II. 8. The prophet here communicates to the people the words of God, that “ after he has sent me with his will to the nations who tyranpize over Israel, that* he who touches Israel touches the apple of his own eye.” Zechariah very ofien in his book introduces himself as .
* The word en in the origioal Hebrew signifies “ that” as well as for.” Sco Parkhurat'ı Hebrew Lexicon.
being sent by God; but how the Editor from these circumstances infers the separate personality of the son, or his equality with the father he will I hope explain. If he insists upon the equality of the Most High, with that of him who says in the verse in question “after the glory hath he sent me.” (upon some ground that we know nothing of,) he would be sorry to find at last that he equalizes Zechariah instead of Jesus with God. I will according to the plan already adopted notice the third quotation " Awake O sword” (XIII. 7.) in a subsequent chapter among the other passages ailuded to in the second chapter of this work.
On the Editor's replies to the arguments con· tained in chapter 2nd. of the Second
- To my inquiry in the Second Appeal “ have we not his (Christ's) own express and often repeated avowal that all the powers he manifested were committed to him as the son by the father of the universe” the Editor thus replies in the negative (page 588.)“ No-That he was appointed by the father to act as mediator between him and sinners, we have already seen; for without this he could have been no mediator between his father and his offending creatures." Every unbiassed man may easily pronounce whether it is consistent with any rational idea of the nature of the Deity that God should be appointed by God to “ act the part of a mediator," by “ laying aside his glory and taking on himself the form of a servant;" and may discern whether it is not most foreign to the notion of the immutable God, that circumstances could produce such a change in the condition of the Deity as that
he should have been not only divested of his glory for more than thirty years but even sube jected to servitude? Are not the ideas of supreme dominion and that of subjection just as remote as the east from the west? Yet the Editor says that while he was stripping himself of his glory and taking upon himself the form a servant he was just as much Jehovah as before,
The Editor in common with other trinitarians conceives that God the son eqnally with God the father (according to their mode of expression) is possessed of the attributes of perfection, such as mercy, justice, righteousness, truth &c., yet he represents them so differently as to ascribe to the father strict justice or rather vengeance, and to the son unlimited mercy and forgiveness, that is, the father, the first person of the Godo head, having been in wrath at the sinful con. duct of his oftending creatures, found his mercy so resisted by justice that he could not forgive them at all, through mercy, unless he sa. tisfied his justice by inflicting punishment upon these guilty men; but the son, the second person of the Godhead, though displeased at the sins of his offending creatures, suffered his mercy to overcome justice, and by offering his own blood as an atonement for their sins, he has
obtained for them pardon without punishment; and by means of vicarious sacrifice, reconciled them to the father and satisfied his justice and vengeance. If the justice of the father did not permit his pardoning sinful creatures and reconciling them to himself in compliance with his mercy, unless a vicarious sacrifice was made to him for their sins; how was the jus. tice of the son prevailed upon by his mercy to adınit their pardon, and their reconcilation to himself, without any sacrifice, offered to him as an atonement for their sins ? It is then evident that according to the system of trinitarians the son had a greater portion of mercy than the father to oppose to his justice, in hav. ing his sinful creatures pardoned, without suffering them to experience individual punishment. Are these the doctrines, on which geniune Christianity is founded ? God forbid !
If the first person be acknowledged to be pos. sessed of mercy equally with the second, and that he, through his infinite mercy towards his creatures, sent the second to offer his blood as an atonement for their sins, we must then confess that the mode of the operation and manifestation of mercy by the first is strange and directly opposite to that adopted by the second, who manifested his mercy even by the