« AnteriorContinuar »
ther's name they bear witness of me" V. 43. " I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not, if another shall come in his own name him ye will receive” Here Jesus rests his divine commission on the name of God and rejects the claims of any one who coines in his own' name. He certainly sent his disciples to work miracles in his own name as the Messiah sent from God, that his apostles might procure faith in him from Jews and Gentiles, whereby they both might have th-ir access to God through him. Matt. X. 40. 41. 42. " he that receiveth you, réceiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him thựt sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous map in the name of a righteous man shall receļve a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." These shew evidently that man should be rewarded for any act that he may perform in the name of a disciple, even in the name of a righteous man. How much more is he to be approved in the sight of God if he acts in the name of the Messiah of the Most High.
I do not wonder at the idea of Christ's em. powering his apostles to work miracles when we find other prophets doing the same at their own choice as I have often noticed. The Editor says, “if it be declared in scripture that the Father created all things by and for the Son, it proves only that the Son is equal to the Fa. ther” and that the passages •he bath given to the son to have life in himself,'--the first born of every creature' “ place the equality of the Son with the Father beyond all dispute.” This must be a new mode of proof invented for the support of the trinity founded on mystery far beyond my understanding. For, if a creature's being endowed with life by, or employed as an instrument in the hands of another, puts them both on a footing of equality, then, in the Editor's estimation, the clay is equal to the potter; the rod with which Moses performed his miracles was equal to that gre:t prophet; and Moses himself, by whom and for whom God exhibited so many wonderful works, was equal to the Deity.
Remarks on the replies to the arguments found
in Chapter the third of the Second Appeal.
The Editor now comes (P. 602) “ to the last and by far the easiest part of his work,” that of meeting my objections to the seven positions formerly advanced in support of the deity of Christ. The first of these is, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, deduced from John III. 13. " No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven.” The ubiquity of Jesus is by the Editor grounded on the phrase - who is in heaven" found in the present tense while Jesus ivas at that time on earth. I in the first place observed in my Second Appeal (P. 32) that “ this argument might perhaps carry some weight with it, were not the frequent use of the present tense in a pretérite or future sense observed in the sacred writings; and were not a great number of other passages to determine that the term “ is” in this instance must be understood in the past tense: And to support this assertion I quoted several passages, a few of which the Editor has discussed, leaving the rest quite unnoticed. One of these is John VIII. 58 ^ Jesus said unto them, Verily, VeriIy: I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” To weaken its force the Editor says “ why must this declaration, «before Abraham was I am” be taken in a preterite sense ? because if it be not our author's cause dies." No, but because it would bear no sense unless thus understood - Before Abrabam was, I was." The Editor further says “ Did the Jews however understand it thus? So far from it that they esteemed it a decided declaration of Jesus's equality with the Father and took up stones to stone him as a blasphemer.” The Jews understood Jesus as declaring himself to be more ancient than Abraham, which they first inferred from his assertion “ your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad” (John VIII. 56). But there is nothing in the context that can convey the least idea of the Jews having esteemed the phrase "s before Abraham was, I am" a " decided declaration of Jesus's equality with the father," or of their hav. ing, in consequence, taken up stones to stone hum. Nor can the circumstance of their attempt to stone Jesus be considered as a proof of
tħeir viewing the above declaration respects ing bis priority to Abraham, as blasphemy against God, for they sought to slay Jesus once on 'account of his having healed a man on the Sabbath day, which they considered as a breach of their law and not as a claim to equality with the Deity (John. V. 16.); and they wanted again to destroy Jesus merely from his affirming “ [. know hiin, for I am from him and he hath sent me” (John VII. 29 and 30); and finally from inotives of political safety, as far as regarded their connection with the Romans, the Jews rcsolved to kill him (John XI. 47 & 48 53.)
The Editor says that “ Jesus himself meek and lowly as he was, although he knew preciselý in what sense they onderstood him, rather chose to work a miracle for his own safety, than. to deny his divinity.” From what I have just. stated and from all that I mentioned in p. 285,253 it obviously appears that neither the Jews understood his deity from the assertion “ before Abra-: ham was I am" nor was it usual with Jesus to correct them whenever they mistook his meaning. The Editor might further perceive in John V. 20 and its context, that Jesus, though charged with having a demon, omitted to correct fully their mistaken potion; and also in John VIII. 48 and 49 that on the Jews reproaching him with: