Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

my reader to three or four places amongst a great number, Exod. VI. 6 Deut. VII. 8. and XV. 12. and XXIV. 18 But if any one will, from the literal signification of the word in English, persist in it, against Paul's declarations, that it necessarily implies an equivalent price paid, I desire him to consider to whom and that, if we will strictly adhere to the metaphor, it must be to those, whom the redeemed are in bondage to, and from whom we are redeemed, viz. Sin and Satan. If he will not believe his own system for this, let him believe St. Paul's words, Tit. II. 14. "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all in quity." Nor could the price be paid to God, in strictness of justice (for that is made the argument here ;) unless the same person ought, by that strict justice, to have both the thing redeemed, and the price paid for its redemption. For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ; Rev. V. 9. "Thon wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood."

Note upon the word mercy-seat verse 25. thatngo signifies propitiatory, or mercy-seat, and not propitiation, as Mr. Mede has rightly observed upon this place, in his discourse on God's house."

The Editor fills about a page and half (a part of 550 and the whole of 551) with quotations from the writings of the apostles, to substantiate the doctrine of the atonement, beginning with Rom. III. 21. already quoted by me; but as those teachers merely illustrated the sayings of their gracious Master, their writings must be understood with reference only to what had been taught by Him. I will therefore not prolong the present subject of discussion by examining those passages separately, especially as I have already noticed some of them in the course of the examination of the Psalms and prophets. Being desirous to shew that my interpretation of these is fully supported by scriptural authorities, I will only refer to a few texts explanatory of the terms, sacrifice, ransom, offering, and the taking away the sins of the world as ascribed to Jesus. Rom. V. 10. Heb. II. 17. Eph. V. 2. Heb. V. 1. VIII. 3. IX. 23 26. Heb. IX 14. Tit. II. 12 13 and 14. Heb. XIII. 12. Rev. 1. 5. Eph. I. 7. Luke 1. 77. Math. XX. 28. Mark. X. 45. 1. Tim. II. 6.

Now I beg that my reader will be pleased to determine whether it would be more consistent with the context, and with the benevolent spirit of the Christian dispensation to under

1

stand such words literally, and thus found the salvation attainable by Christianity upon flesh and blood human or divine; or whether it would not rather be thoroughly reasonable and scriptural as well as consistent with the religion of Jesus to take them in a spiritual sense as explained by the apostles themselves.

[ocr errors]

As the Editor's illustrative remarks upon the atonement (pages 552 and 553 ) rest entirely on the arguments previously adduced I will leave them unnoticed, having already examined those in the preceding chapters; except only his queries "what shall we say to his impugning (page 108) the doctrine of Christ's divine and human nature even after having acknowledged it in chapter the second and to his ridiculing his intercession &c." to which I must reply. It is perfectly optional with the Editor to say for or against any one whatever his conscience may permit; nevertheless I shall from the dictates of my own conscience reject absolutely such unaccountable ideas as a mixed nature of God and man as maintained by the Editor, as I have previously rejected the idea of a mixed nature of God, man, and lion (নৃসি°হাবতার) in which Hindoos profess their

faith. I have not the most distant recollection of acknowledging Christ's divine and human

nature and shall therefore feel obliged if the Editor will have the goodness to point out in what passage of Ch. 2d. of my Appeal I acknowledged this mystery. I have never, so far as I am aware, ridiculed even in thought the intercession of Jesus for mankind, I therefore hope that Christian charity will restrain the Editor from imputing to me in future such a charge. I only intended to refute the argument adduced by Trinitarians that no being can intercede with another being for a third one, unless the mediator be possessed of the nature of the being with whom as well as of those for whom he intercedes.

To this assertion of the Editor "the blood of no mere creature could t ke away sin," [ add the assertion also maintained by the Editor that the crea or is not composed of blood and flesh," and leave to him to say if the blood of Jesus was not that of a creature whose blood it was. It is evident from the circumstance of the blood of a creature being unable to take away sin and the creator having no blood, that the taking away of sin can have no connection with blood or a bloody sacrifice.

The Editor declares (page 554) that "no one but Jehovah the unchangeable God could

atone for sin, justify the sinner, and change his heart: the father himself witnesses that it is Jehovah whom he hath appointed to this glorious work." "He humbled himself by becoming in our nature the mediator between God and men." Nothing that I can conceive but prejudice in favor ofthe Trinity can prevent the Editor from perceiving gross inconsistency between his declaring Jesus to be the unchangeable Jehovah and also to have been appointed by Jehovah, according to whose will the former Jehovah, humbled himself in becoming in our nature a mediator. How could the unchangeable Jehovah be endued with a new honor which he had not prior to his appointment by the latter Jehovah? How could the unchangeable God change his condition by assuming a new nature? If the acceptance of a new state of honour, the assuming of a new nature, or the alteration of properties such as magnitude, and other conditions, be not considered as changes in an object, all phenomena may safely, according to the Editor's maxim, be called unchangeable; and consequently, the application of the term "unchangeable" being common to Jehovah and those who are not Jehovah can imply no peculiar ground of distinction or reverence for Jehovah. The Editor says (page 555.) "nor does it (the scripture) give us the least hint that

« AnteriorContinuar »