« AnteriorContinuar »
belief of his simple humanity, and in no way indicates that his nature was superior to that of man,— as he speaks of God as HIS GOD,-and as the distinction is most strictly and uniformly observed between him (the grand subordinate agent in the Christian scheme, and therefore, in reference to the kingdom of the Messiah, the greatest of all beings under God,) and that Great Being who, throughout the whole, is alone called God, and who alone is represented as truly and properly God, I consider it as a very strong corroborative proof of the doctrine of the proper or simple humanity of Jesus: for it is to me almost inconceivable, that such a vision should contain no intimation, (or even no positive proof,) of his superior nature, if he possessed such nature; and absolutely inconceivable, that it should contain no positive proof that he was truly and properly God, God over all blessed for ever, such were the fact.
As I have extended my view of the evidence for these doctrines far beyond my original intention, I shall now briefly recapitulate it in the order which I have followed, requesting my readers to interpret any expressions which, from their conciseness, may appear ambiguous, by the paragraphs to which reference is made; and premising the following ex
rod from the stem of' David, a scion from his roots, is obvious from Is. xi. 10, compared with vs. 1, of the same chapter; and I think that it farther implies such a shoot, as itself takes root and becomes a tree,-a root arising from the trunk of David. That the word gila root is several times used in the Apocrypha in the sense of offspring, see Schleusner, No. 6.
planation of terms. 1. By the Equality of Jesus with the Father, I refer to the doctrine so extensively adopted by the Christian world, and expressed in the Articles of the Church of England, viz. that he was "the very and eternal God," "of one substance, POWER, and eternity," with the Fatherb. 2. By the proper Deity of Jesus, I refer to the opinion that our Lord, though inferior to the Father, was very greatly superior in nature to man, that he possessed attributes which rendered him truly and properly God, and that he was the Creator of the world. 3. By the Pre-existence of Jesus I mean the opinion that he existed before he came into this world, in a state of great glory and happiness, without supposing that he possessed any of the essential attributes of Deity. And 4, by the
› This doctrine is favoured indirectly by the general evidence for the proper deity of our Lord; but it is opposed by much of what is contained in this evidence. On the other hand, whatever opposes the doctrine of the proper deity of Jesus, still more opposes that of his equality with the Father. The reader is therefore requested to refer to the second column as well as to the first, for the evidence against the last mentioned doctrine.
Many of those passages which the Arian can fairly adduce, in favour of his opinion of the proper deity (and conse quently pre-existence,) of our Lord, either prove the proper deity, or are in no respect contrary to the simple humanity. The evidence appearing to favour the simple pre-existence, is very slight indeed; and, while those who maintain it, agree with the Unitarian in the opinion, that the evidence for the proper deity of our Lord, is totally inadequate to prove a doctrine so inconsistent with the general tenor of the New Testament, they do not seem to be aware, that it is, in a great measure, on the same evidence, (which proves more or nothing,) that their own doctrine rests.
simple or proper Humanity of Jesus, I understand the opinion, that this Representative of the Most High, this illustrious Revealer of his gracious purposes to mankind, was strictly and properly a human being, having no existence before his human birthd.
The six following pages contain, I trust, a faithful summary of the evidence of each separate book in the New Testament, in favour of the principal opinions respecting the person of Jesus Christ. I believe no explanation will be found necessary respecting the plan adopted.
If the evidence for the proper deity, or pre-existence of our Lord, be inadequate, the doctrine of his proper or simple humanity follows of course. Hence where Jesus Christ is spoken of, silence as to any supposed superior nature is positive evidence in favour of his simple or proper humanity.
OF THE EVIDENCE OF EACH
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PRINCIPAL OPINIONS RESPECTING THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.
MARK (2) A. D. 64.
LUKE (3) A. D. 63 or
(4) A. D. 63 or 64.
(5) A. D. 64.
Thess. (6) A. D. 52
(8) A.D. 56.
Equality with the Father.
Nothing in favour of it; and directly opposed by ch. xxiv. 36. xxvi. 42. xxvii. 46, &c.
(9) A. D. 56 or
Gal. (7) Nothing-Directly opA. D. 52 or posed by i. 1. iv. 4, &c.
Nothing-Absolutely con tradictory to viii. 6. xi. 3. xv. 28; and directly opposed by several other passages.
Nothing. Absolutely contradictory to i, 17. ii. 5. vi. 15, 16.
Favoured by obscure inferenes from ch x1. 27. i. 23; but directly opposed by the general tenor of the whole.
Inference from xiii 32; but directly opposed by the general tenor of the whole.
Inference from x. but directly opposed by the general tenor of the whole.
Nothing-Directly op- Nothing.Directly opposed by i. 10.
posed by i. 9, 10.
Inference from the common rendering of ix. 14. 21, and a fulse reading in xx. 28.- Directly opposed by the general tenor
of the whole.
Nothing but an unjustifiable rendering of 2 Pet. i. I.
Inference from the comrendering of i. 2. Absolutely contradictory to
False reading of iii, 16.— Absolutely contradictory to i. 17; and directly opposed by i. 1, 2. ii, 5. vi. 15, 16.