« AnteriorContinuar »
quently mistook his meaning. But Jesus often forbore to repel their charges, some instances of which I have already pointed out in page 252. As to Jesus's knowledge of the human heart as far as it respects his divine commission and fu. ture judgement and his power of performing miraculous deeds even sometimes without verbal reference to God, having often noticed these mat. ters in p. 109 & 221 I shall not recur to them here..
The Editor denies the apostles, having been impressed with a belief that it was the almighty Father that empowered Jesus to forgive sins and to perform miracles. I therefore refer the Edi. tor to the very phrase “ who had given such power unto men” and to Acts XXXII.32 « Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (XIII 38) “thro'. this man (meaning the Saviour) is preached un. to you the forgiveness of sins," Do not these verses shew beyond a doubt that Jesus received from God the power of forgiving sins on sincere repentance ?
The Editor makes no direct answer to Luke XXIII 34, in which Jesus prays to the father for the pardon of the murder perpetrated by the Jews upon him, nor to Luke XI. 4. Matthew VI. 14, which I quoted in my Second Ap
peal page 40. The Editor alludes to the impor. tance of the expression " that thy son may glority thee.” But by referring to the scriptures he will find that similar terms are as common in the language of the Jews in their address to God as any other expressions of reverence for the deity.
FOURTH POSITION. With a view to substantiate his fourth positi. on that Almighty power is claimed by Jesus in the most unequivocal manner, the Editor thus comments on the passage John V. 19.-36. quoted by me in my Secood Appeal. “ Jesus, when persecuted by the Jews for having healed a man on the sabbath day, said, 'my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. This provoked the Jews still inore, because he had now said that God was his father, making himself equal with God”. The Editor adds, “ this observation sliews us that not only the Jews but John himself understood Christ's calling God his Father, to be making himself God.” It would have been a correct translation of the original Greek, if the Editor had said. “making himself equal with, or like God," instead of “making himself God” (vide the original Greek). It is obvious that one's calling another his Father gives apparent ground to understand that there is an equality of nature
or likeness of properties between them, either in quantity or quality of power in performing works. But to know what kind of equality or likeness should be meant in Ch. V. 18. we have luckily before us the following texts, in which Jesus declares, that his likeness with God consisted in doing what he saw the Father do, and quickening the dead; avowing repeatedly at the same time his inferiority to and dependence on God, in so plain a manner that the Jews who heard him, abstained from the measures of persecution that they had intended to adopt, although the Savi. our continued to call God his Father through the whole of the remaining chapter in the hear. ing of the Jews. Nay, further, from the whole of his conduct and instructions so impressed were the Jews with his dependence upon and confidence in the Father as his God, that when he was hanging on the cross they fixed upon this as a ground of taunt and reproach saying “ He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him, for he said · I am the Son of God," Matt. XXVII. 43..
The Editor then proceeds to say, “ this (charge of equality) Jesus neither denies nor corrects, but adds the son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do' which must necessarily be the case, if, as our author affirms, the Father and the Son are one in will and design." I ask the Editor, whether this. be the language of one who is Almighty ? If the Father and the Son be equally Almighty, why should the Son wait until the Father acts and then imitate him? If a subordinate officer having been accused of equalizing bimself with his superior, thus declares “I cannot march a single step myself, but where I see him march, I do march," ---would this be considered an avowal of his equality with his superior? My readers will be pleased to judge. The Editor then says that “Jesus adds further, ‘for whateverthings he doth, these also doth the Son likewise,'a more full declaration of equality with the Father cannot be imagined: How could the Son do whatsoever the Father doth, if he were not equal to him in power; wisdom, truth, mercy, &c.” The Editor here omits to quote the very next line "FOR the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doth " in which the preposition “ for” assigns reasons for the Son's doing what the Father doth i. e. since the Father loveth the son and sheweth him his works, the Son is enabled to do what he sees the Father do. To the Editor's query " what finite being could understand all that God doth, if shewn him?" I reply: divine wisdom will of course not show any thing to one whom it has
not previously enabled toc omprehend it. How could the following passages escape the memory of the Editor when he put the question : Amos III. 7. “ Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but reyealeth his secret unto his servants the Prophets" Psalm XXV. 14. - The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his covenant.” Did not they understand all that was shewn and revealed unto them? If they did, were they, in consequence, all infinite beings; as the Editor argues from this circumstance Jesus is!
The Editor proceeds to say, “ Jesus adds, For as the Father quickeneth the dead, even : so the Son quickeneth whom he will, Here then he declares hinself equal with the Father in sovereignty of will, as well as in almighty power,” The Editor again omits a part of the
sentence which runs thus!ro So the Son · quickeneth whom he will; FOR the Father
judgéthi no man but hath committed all judge ment unto the Son," Does not the latter part of the sentence shew clearly that the power which the Son enjoyed in quickening those whom he chose, was entirely owing to the com. mission given him by the Father? In order to weaken the force of verse 22nd. the Editor says, “ the Father however, whose it is equally