Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

comprehensible," understands a total impossibility of being comprehended in any degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a perfect knowledge of God? If the former, we must be under the necessity of denying such a total in comprehensibility of the Godhead; for the very passage cited by the Editor declares God to be comprehensible not to the Son alone; but also to every one who should receive revelation from the Son and in John XVI. 16 and 17, Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge of the Holy Ghost whom the Editor considers one of the persons of the Godhead, possessed of the same nature with God. But if the Editor understands by the passage he has quoted the incomprehensibility of the real nature of the Godhead; I admit the position,' but deny his inference that such an incomprehensibility proves the nature of the object to be divine, as being peculiar to God alone, for it appears evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of a common leaf or a visible star surpasses human comprehension. The Editor although he filled one page (610) in examining that part of the reply, yet made no direct answer to the foregoing question but repeats his inference from these passages, "that Jesus himself can comprehend the nature of the Father and that his own nature is equally inscrutable, but the verse in question does not con

vey one or other of these positions. As to the first, we find the latter part of the sentence ("neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him") declaring an exception to the general assertion, made in the former part of it: (“neither knoweth any man the Father") that is, the Son and those to whom the Son reveals God, were the only individuals that knew the nature of the Father. Would not this exception be distinctly contrary both to the sacred authorities and to common sense? As the scripture declares positively that the nature of God is incomprehensible to men.-Job XXXVI 26" God is great, we know him not ;" and common sense teaches us every moment that if the real nature of the works of God is incomprehensible to the human intellect, how much more must the nature of God himself be beyond human understanding? As to' the second, if the circumstance of the Son's declaring himself (according to the Editor) to be inscrutable in nature, be acknowledged as equalizing him with God, similar declarations by his Apostles would of course raise them to the same footing of equality with the deity. I. John III. "Therefore the world knoweth us not, 1 because it knew him not," coroborated by John XVII 25 "O righteous Father; the world hath not known thee" &c. It is therefore evi

dent that neither can an impossibility of com prehending God, in any degree, be meant by this passage, the apostles having known God by revelation; nor can the comprehension of the real nature of God be understood by it, as such a knowledge is declared to be unattainable by mankind. The verse in question must be thus understood; as the meaning evidently is,

that no one but the Father can fully compre hend the object and extent of the Son's commission, and no one but the Son comprehends the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to the instruction and reformation of mankind, it is impossible that Jesus can be speaking here of the person and nature of the Father; for this he did not, and could not reveal, being essentially incomprehensible. Neither, therefore, does he mean the nature and person of the Son. What Christ knew and revealed "was the Father's' will" corresponding to this; that which the Father and the Father only knew, was the nature and extent of the Son's commission" IMPROVED VERSION.

THIRD POSITION.

As the Editor expressed his opinion that " Jesus exercised in an independent manner the prerogative of forgiving sin, which is peculiar to God, founding this opinion upon the authori

ty of Mark II 5 Matthew IX. 2 " Thy sins be forgiven thee" I enquired in iny Second Appeal "Does not this passage (" But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled and glorified God who had given such power unto men," Matthew IX. 8) convey an express declaration that Jesus was as much dependent on God in exercising the power of forgiving sins and healing the sick as the other prophets who came forth from God before him?" To which the Editor replies answer; only in the opinion of the multitude who knew him not, but took him, for a great prophet."

6 we

I feel surprized at the assertion of the Editor that it was the ignorant multitude who knew not of the nature of Jesus that made the following declaration" who had given such power to men"; since it is the Holy Spirit which speaks by the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew saying "when the multitude saw it they marvelled and glorified God who had given such power unto

men.”

I wonder how the Editor could allow his zeal in support of the Trinity so far to bias his mind that he has attempted to weaken the authority of the Holy Evangelist by ascribing his words to. the ignorant multitude of Jews. I wonder still

[ocr errors]

more to observe, that notwithstanding the Editor declares the apostles and primitive Christians, (whom he does not esteem as persons of the Godhead, but admits to be mere men), to have been possessed of the power of pardoning sins through the influence of Jesus, vet he maintains the opinion that none except God can forgive sins even through the gift of the deity himself.

[ocr errors]

The Editor says "Not however in the opinion of the scribes who were better acquainted with their own scriptures and who although they glorified him not as God, could not restrain themselves from acknowledging the display of his Godhead by accusing him of blasphemy on that very account."

The Jews were so ill-disposed towards Jesus that this is not the first instance in which they sought a pretence for destroying him under the charge of blasphemy; for in John V. 16 they resolve to slay him merely on pretence of his having healed a man on the sabbath day as I noticed before; and in chapter XII. 10-11 they came to a determination under the cloak of religion to kill him and Lazarus also whom Jesus raised after death, though they knew that many of their prophets raised the dead, without offending. God or the people. And they also very fre

« AnteriorContinuar »