« AnteriorContinuar »
In the third place, the term “Son” equally with the word “ Servant" denotes the inferiority of Jesus as plainly as any expression intended to denote inferiority can possibly do. But the Editor says, that " never was there a more humble begging of the question than the assertion that the epithet 'Son’ought to be understood and admitted by every one as expressing the created nature of Christ; why ought it thus to be understood and admitted ?" I answer, because common sense tells us that a Son as well as a Servant must be acknowledged to be inferior to his father or Master. Again, we find David called the Son of God, Solomon the Son of God, Adam the Son of God, and in short the whole children of Israel denominated " Sons of God;" yet represented in scripture as inferior to God their Father; nay, morcover, Jesus the Son of God positively declares himself to be inferior to his Father - My Father is greater than 1.”
Our Editor puts again another query (p. 622) “ Can he even prove that among men a Son must be of a nature inferior to his Father?" I reply by putting another question to him. Can the Editor ever prove that among men a servant must be of a nature inferior to his mas. ter? If he cannot, are we to suppose Moses a
servant of God equal in nalure with the deity! The fact is that among men a Servant, a Son, and a Grandson, are of the same nature with their Masters or Fathers; but when creation is not effected in the ordinary course of nature, there need not be and is not, an identity of nature between one who is called Father and another called Son; so when service is performed by men to others not of their own kind, oneness of nature is not necessarily found be. tween the Servant and the person served.
The Editor concludes the proposition saying that “our author declines renewing the 'sub., ject relative to Christ's declaration lo I am with you always even to the end of the world' which however we are not aware he has ever vet discussed." The fact is in examining Matthew XVIII. 20. “ For where two or three are gathered tovether in my name there am I in the midst of them” which the Editor quoted to establish the ubiquity of the Son, I enquired in my Second Appeal « Is it not evident that the Saviour meant here, by being in the midst of two or three of his disciples, his guidance to them, when joined together in searching for the truth? We find similar expressions in the scriptures wherein the guidance of the Prophets of God is also meant by words that would imply their pre
sence.” Luke XVI. 29. • Abraham said unto. him, they have Moses and the Prophes, let them hear them' and upon the Editor's quoting Mate thew XXVIII. 20. “ I am with you always even to the end of the worlu” in all probability to esta blish the ubiquity of Jesus, I said in my Second Appeal p. 53. “I will not renew the subject as it has been already discussed in examining the first position,” having shewo there that by the presence of Christ and that of other Prophets that may be observed in any part of the Bible, their spiritnal guidance should be under: stood. My readers therefore may judge whether or not the purport of the last mentioned verse is connected with the subject discussed in examining the first position. I entreat the Editor however to reflect on the last phrase of the verse in question i. e "always to the end of the world," which so far from evincing Christ's eternal existence, implies that his influence over his disciples extended only to the end of the world, when he shall be himself subject to the Father of the universe 1 Cor. XV. 28.
CHAPTER VI. On the Holy Spirit and other subjects. . I expressed my surprise, in my Second Appeal p 83. at the Editor's having “noticed in 40 short and abrupt a manner the question of
the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost, although the Elitor esteems the Son and the Spirit as equally distinct persons of the God. head." I feel now still more surprised to observe that the Elitor, in his present review also, has noticed, in the same brief manner, the personality of the Holy Ghost; as while he fills more than a hundred pages in support of the deity of the second person, he has not allowed even a single page to the question of the third. He, at the same time, overlooks almost all the arguments I have advanced against his feeble attempt to prove the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, from page 83 to 97, and in many other places of the Second Appeal. The Editor however first says, that " if he, in whom dwelt all truth, has declared him (the Holy Ghost in Matthew XXVIII, 19). to be as distinct in person and as worthy of worship and adoration as the Father and himself, no further evidence is needed either to his personality or Godhead.” Had the Editor thought the quotation of a single verse a sufficient excuse for avoiding the discussion of the personality of the Holy Ghost, he might have, on the same ground, onnitted to discuss the subject of the deity of Jesus Christ, by noticing in like manner a single verse of Scripture, which he considered as a prout of the divine nature of the Son, and thus saved me the trouble of a long controversy. If the association of names in a religious rite were to be admitted as a proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Power of God, another divine attribute, should be considered God himself, it being also mentioned jointly with the Holy Spirit in the rite of Unction (Acts X. 38); and Fire also should he supposed to be a distinct person of the Godhead, because we find Fire associated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite of baptison as I before observed (Luke III. 16). but I shall not recur to this subject, having fully examined it in p. 349 & 350.
· Notwithstanding my plain declaration, in the Second Appeal p. 95. that " with respect to the Holy Ghost, I must confess my inability to find a single passage in the whole Scriptures, in which the spirit is addressed as God or as a per son of God, so as to affurd believers of the Trini ty an excuse for their profession of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost,” The Editor thought it ad. visable not to dwell on the subject and only observes, “ were it needfulindeed, a rich fulness of scripture proof could be adduced respecting the Holy Spirit, as well as the Son; but the se lection of a few passages will be quite suflicient." These are as follows: The first are from the Gospel of St. John XIV. 13. 26 Ch. XVI. 8 and