Page images
PDF
EPUB

you

tented myself with fewer. I told you how these arguments were, and would be answered. " These passages are not to be applied to our Saviour wholly, but only partially. They only mean one half of Jesus Christ.'. We maintain that there is not one single expression in the whole of the New Testament, which states that are not to understand these expressions in the full, definite, absolute sense in which you would understand them as applied to any other human being, but that it is merely your own assumption, in order to explain away a difficulty, which, upon your principles, is otherwise insurmountable. I know not whether I shall yet be understood. I will try to be more clear. I maintain, that to all those passages which I adduced, you have but one answer. To the first you say, 'It does not mean the whole of Christ, but only a part.' To the second you say the same. To the third, the same. To all the rest the same. I maintain, that you cannot produce one single passage in the New Testament, which tells you, that the expressions are to be understood differently when applied

to Jesus Christ, from their common meaning when applied to other men. I maintain, that this is a mere assumption on your part to explain away a difficulty. And I assert, that it is your business to prove positively, that Jesus Christ was more than a human being. I maintain, that if you fail of this absolute proof, no man is justified in paying religious adoration to him. The whole of the proof rests with you. Unless you can absolutely prove that Jesus Christ was God, when you worship him, you derogate from the honour and majesty of God. Your bare assumption is not sufficient. In the presence of my God, I have no right to act upon it. To him I must answer for my conduct. Absolute proof I must have, else, O my God, how shall I appear before thy throne, if I have bent my knees to others besides thee, the Supreme Jehovah, who hast declared that there is none other God besides thee!!

6th, Whenever our Saviour has occasion, in his discourses, to allude to the day of judgment, he appears to take peculiar pleasure in designating himself the

Son of Man. The idea is so consoling and delightful, that the appointed judge of human beings shall be one of their own species, one who has experienced all the frailties and imperfections of human nature, and been exposed to all its temptations, that our Saviour seems purposely to have exhibited to his disciples that awful day in this point of view. Otherwise it is astonishing that, with one single exception, I believe, whenever he alludes to the grand transactions of that day, he never styles himself the Son of God, but always the Son of Man. That single exception is also exceedingly remarkable for the explanation which succeeds it.

66

Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live; for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also because he is the Son of Man.' John v. 25-27.

7th, It has been allowed that the mystery was not disclosed at first; it has been

granted, that none of the three first evangelists alluded to it, nor the author of the book of Acts; but it is asserted that John stepped forward to supply the deficiency, and make public this important article of a Christian's creed. You must first grant

me, that my former proposition was true, that even John does not tell us plainly and positively, that there is a Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead, or that there were two natures in Jesus Christ, a divine and a human. I say, you must grant me that even John does not plainly and positively tell us so, but only that you infer it from some of his language; the reasoning therefore under the former head stands good here. But I beg leave to add that the gospel of John does not differ from the rest in this respect, but only requires a more patient investigation of some passages. Most of these passages have already been referred to.

For the sake of asking one question, let me for a moment suppose that John's gospel does differ from the rest, by plainly stating that Jesus was God, I ask, Is there a man living who will tell me that the

belief of it is essential to salvation? It is universally allowed that John did not write his gospel till long after the rest; indeed the general opinion is that he lived to be near a hundred years of age, and did not compose his history till a year or two before his death, about ninety-seven or ninety-eight of the Christian æra, long after all the other apostles were dead. Here then is a doctrine essential to salvation, first published near one hundred years after the birth of Christ. Jesus Christ did not teach it to his immediate followers, the apostles did not teach it to any of their immensely numerous converts; all these, unless they lived till nearly the hundredth year died unsaved!! Nay, we have shewn that if the other apostles were honest men they died without believing it themselves. In the language of the Athanasian Creed, they therefore, without doubt, have perished everlastingly!! Truly, it appears to me that this inference is unavoidable.

8th, This argument may perhaps receive further illustration, by inquiring, Who was the object of religious adoration

« PreviousContinue »