« AnteriorContinuar »
determination whether they tend to prove the omniscience of the Son or not. The Editor however adds here, that omniscience is essential to the act of judging mankind : as I have already dwelt much on this subject in the preceding paragraph page 136 and also in page 19.1, I beg to refer my readers to them, wherein they will find that the Son's knowledge of the events of this world extends no farther than as respects the office of judging mankind ; that others are declared to be vested with the power of judge ing the world as well as the Son; and that the Son positively denies his omniscience in Mark XIII. 32. The Editor concludes by saying, that “ his (Father's) giving him to have life in . himself' refers wholly to his being the mediator in human flesh.” It settles the question at once that whenever and in whatever capacity Jesus is declared to have had life, he had it as a gift of the Father, and the object of our inquiry and reverence is the Son endowed with life and not one destitute of it.
SIXTH POSITION. The Editor begins by observing that “ to the sixth position that Jesus accepted worship due to God alone, our author objects, that the word “ worship” both in common acceptation and scriptural writings, is used sometimes as inply
ing an external mark of religious reverence paid to God, and at other times as signifying merely the token of civil respect due to superiors; that those who worshipped Jesus did not believe him to be God or one of the three persons of the Godhead, and Jesus in his acknowledged human capacity, never prayed to himself or directed his followers to worship or pray to bim:'Granting that ". worship ” in English and PoskuvỆw in Greek are sometimes used to denote civil respect and that the worship paid by the servant to his master Matthew Ch. XVIII. 26. and by the people to David meant merely civil respect, still the position is not touched in the least degree.” The reason which the Editor assigns for this position not being touched, is that s whether the blind man, the lepers, the mariners and others, knew what they did in worshipping Jesus, is not so much the question, as whether Jesus knew; for if he suffered them even through ignorance, to yield him divine worship, when Peter did not suffer it in Cornelius for a moment, unless he were God, he must have had less discernment or less piety and concern for the divine honour than his own disciples.” P. 618.
. As the Editor agrees that the term “ worship in English and pooxuyêw in Greek are sometimes used to denote civil respect,” it is of course
necessary to ascertain whether the blind man &c. knew what they did in worshipping Jesus : that is, whether they meant to bestow civil respect or to offer religious reverence. But from: all the local circunstances which I pointed out in the Second Appeal P. 49. it is evident that they as well as Jesus knew that they were manifesting civil respect only by worshipping him, in the same way as it is evident, from the cir. cumstances of David's not declining to receive worship from the people, and Daniel from King Nebuchadnezzar, that the people and King intended merely civil respect to them. As to Peter's rejection of the worship offered him by Cornelius, it may easily be accounted for, since as Jesus was endowed with the power of knowing things connected with his divine commission; so Peter had the knowledge of secret events concerning his apostolic duty. From the language which the blind man and others used and from his knowledge of their thoughts, the Saviour like other ancient prophets gave a tacit? consent to the worship (or properly speaking civil reverence) offered by them, while Peter rejected the worship offered bim by Cornelius, knowing that he meant it as an external mark of religious reverence, which was due to God alone, as is evident from the language of Peter, “ I myself am a man.” Having already noti
ced the exclaimation of Thomas in page 290 & Heb. I. 10. in page 122, I shall not recur to the subject in this place.
The Editor says " was Stephen (ignorant) when he committed to him his departing soul in language similar to that in which Christ on the cross had committed his spirit to the Father ?"
The language of Stephen alluded to by the Editor and that of Christ bears little resemblance. Among the many expressions attributed to Jesus on the cross, none of them resemble the invocation of Stephen, except that given Loke XXIII. 46. “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit” which is natural for every buman being having any idea of God or feelings of devotion on the approach of death. Stephen's exclamation (Acts VII. 59.“ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'') was merely an application to Jesus in preference to the Angels of death, whom he exa' pected to receive his soul and convey it. to the bosom of the divinity. The notion of Angels of death receiving and conveying away the spirit at the time of dissolution is familiar to the Jews, in common with other Eastern nations, as appears from their traditions and from Proverbs XVI. 14. “ The wrath of a King is as messengers (in the Hebrew, properly angels”) of death. i. e. in a despotic country, the displeasure of the tyrant is equivalent to death. From
Stephens saying that he saw " the son of man standing on the right hand of God,” we may, easily perceive the notion which he had formed of the nature of Jesus Christ.
As to Christ's offering prayers and worship to the Father and directing his Apostles to do so, the Editor attributes, them to the “ state of humiliation, on which his infinite love to sinners hạd placed him.” If Jesus deemed it necessary in his human capacity to offer up prayers, thanks giving and worship to God the Father alone, notwithstanding he was filled bodily with God the Son (according to the Editor) and direct his apostles to follow. bis example; is it not incumbent upon us also in following his pattern to thank, pray to, and worship the Father, alone as long as we are human? But the truth is that the assertion of the Editor,attributing Christ's devotion towards God to his human nature is entirely unsupported by scriptural authority.
The Editor further says that if Jesus were not God, the apostles, the primitive saints, and the angels in heaven would be guilty of idolatry and the eternal Father of encouraging it.
. To quit the Father and Jesus Christ of the charge of encouraging Idolatory and the apos.