« AnteriorContinuar »
with the Son, commits all judgment to the Son as the incarnate mediator between God and man, because he is the son of man.” My readers may observe that if Jesus received all power of judging, men in his human nature, he must have quickened whom he pleased as the consequence of that power in his human capacity; how, then, could the Editor infer the deity of Jesus from one circumstance, (quickening the dead), which entirely depends upon another (the power of judging) enjoyed by him in his human nature. Lest it should be supposed that individual instances of the dead being raised by Jesus is here meant, I may just mention that he exercised this power in common with other Prophets.
• As to his assertion that the work of judging mankind belongs by nature equally to the Son and to the Father, I only refer the Editor to Matthew XIX. 28. and Luke XXII. 36. 30. in which the apostles are represented as invested with the power of judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel and to 1 Cor. VI. 2. which ascribes the power of judging the world to righteous men; and I hope that the Editor will be convinced from these authorities that the “ work of judging mankind” does not so belong by nature to the Son and to the Father.” He introduces in
the course of this argument John VIII. 58. and Rey. I. 8. which I have often examined in the preceding pages, 310. 150.
He at last comments on verse 23, “that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father” saying that, “ to this glorious declaration of the Son's Godhead, our author merely objects that this means likeness in nature and quality, and not in exact degree of honour. But what are the nature and quality of the honour paid to God the Father? divine honour of the highest kind and such as can be given to no creature?” The pharses “to honour God” and “to adore God” are used in quite different senses; the latter being peculiarly applicable to God, but the former generally implying only such manifestation of reverence as one may bestow on his Father or on another worthy of respect. Malachi I. 6. “A son honoureth his father and a servant his master; if then I be a Father where is mine honour" &c. Here God requires the same kind of honour to be paid him as is due to a Father, Does God here bring himself, in consequence, to a level with a parent? I Samuel II. 30. “ But now the Lord saith. Be it far from me; for them that honour me, I will honour.”-Here the manifestation of honour between God and men is reciprocal; but in any
sense whatsoever no worship can be reciprocally offered by God and his creatures. The Editor again advances that “the fact is that this phrase "i as” really refers to degree as well as to nature; see Mathew XX. 14. “I will give - unto this last even as unto thee' that is, pre.
cisely as much as one penny.” I deny the accuracy of this rule of the Editor, since “as” : in almost all instances refers either to degree or nature or to some kind of resemblance, a few of which I shall here notice, Gal. IV. 15. Paul says to the Galatians, “but received me as an angel of God even as Christ Jesus.” Did Paul permit the Galations to receive him with precisely the same kind of honour both in kind and degree as was due to Christ Jesus? Matthew X. 25. “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master and the servant as his. Lord," &c. Did Matthew mean here precise equality in kind and degree between a disciple and his master, and a servant and his Lord? XIX. 19. “ thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”. Did the Saviour mean here that precisely the same quality and degree of love which one entertains towards himself should be entertained towards others ? Genesis IHI. 22. « Behold the man is become as one of us.” Did Adam then become both in nature and degree equally wise with the Omniscient God? Now my readers
will judge whether or not sueh a phrase as s man should or may honour the Son as they honour the Father” equalizes the Son in nature and degree with the Father? As to the verse above quoted (Matthew XX. 14). It implies sameness in degree and not necessarily sameness in kind, for the same sum may be given in different currency. The Editor quotes Heb. III. 3. 4. in order to shew " in what sense the Prophet to be sent was like Moses." As I examined this verse in page 153 I will not recur to it again. I only remind the Editor of Deut. XVIII. 15. and 18, where he will perceive in what sense Jehovah himself drew a likeness between the Saviour and Moses, which passage is repeated in Acts 111. 22. and also of St. Matthew XVII. 3. as well as of Mark IX. 4. wherein they express a wish to manifest the same reverence to the Saviour as to Moses and Elias, but it is quite optional with the Editor to treat Moses in any manner he pleases.
In answer to his inquiry " why should it of. fend our author, that when the Son for the suf. fering of death took upon him the form of a servant,” &c. my reply is that it does not offend me in the least; but I must confess that such an expression as when God “ for the suffering of death took upon him the form of a servant,". seems to me very extraordinay, as my idea of God is quite at variance with that of a being subjected to death and servitude.
The Editor overlooked several other passages quoted by me among which there was Matthew XX. 23“ to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”
He perhaps hesitated to rely on the sophistry used by the orthodox, that Jesus denied being possessed of Almighty power only in his human capacity: The Editor, it is possible, perceived that as the gift of all power to Jesus, mentioned in Matt. XXVIII. 18, is explained by the orthodox of his human capacity; the denial of almighty power could not therefore he understood · of that very human nature in which he is said to have possessed it.
FIFTH POSITION. The Editor says that "i our author's objections to the fifth position that Jesus's having all judgement committed to him, proves bis omniscience, have been so fully inet already that scarcely any thing remains to be added.”
In answer to which, I have only to say that the arguments adduced by the Editor having been previously noticed, it is therefore left to my readers to examine them and to come to a