Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

66

the verb importing to be; literally thus ; Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be, equally with God, i. e. equally with the Father, Christ possesses independent existence. Perfectly this accords with the title which Christ took to himself in the burning bush, "I AM THAT I AM." And to the Jews; "Before Abraham was, AM. This title, with the name Jehovah, and Jah, ascribed to Christ, imports necessary existence. Surely then, it was not robbery in Christ to exist, equally with the Father.

[ocr errors]

The Jews understood Christ as claiming equality with God, notwithstanding all the notices he gave, of the dependence of his humanity: "Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.". Again; "Making himself equal with God." Christ was so far from correcting this, as a mistake, that he told them plainly, "I and my Father are one." "I dwell in the Father; and the Father in me." "He that bath seen me, hath seen the Father." "If ye had known me, ye had known my Father also." Would the meek and lowly Jesus have said such things as these, and have put himself before the Father, ("I and my Father are one,") if he had been as much inferior to the Father, as is a derived, dependent being, to the infinite, eternal Jehovah? It appears impossible! What! the faithful and true Witness speaking most impious falsehoods?

It is said by some, that Christ and the Father are one, only as Christians are one with God and Christ, and one another. As Christ intercedes ; "That they all may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us." The oneness here is only a moral oneness; or being of one spirit, and one design. But is there nothing more of equality, between God and Christ, than 2

moral oneness? called the blood of God? Does the oneness between Christians and God, render the blood of the martyrs the blood of God? or of any avail to atone for sin? Why not, as well as the blood of Christ, if the martyrs had all the oneness with God, which Christ possesses? There is both a moral and a natural oneness between God and Christ. And to the moral oneness, and not to the natural, that clause in the intercession of Christ relates. But this by no means disproves an essential oneness between the two first Persons in the Godhead. Such a oneness other scriptures teach does exist. And this clause in the intercession, hints nothing to the contrary. It relates to that kind of oneness, which exists among Christians.

How then is the blood of Christ

The following divine testimony establishes the equality of Christ's Divinity with that of the Father. "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." How is the Father honored? He is honored as the independent eternal God. How then must the Son be honored, in order to be honored as the Father? Surely as the independent, eternal God. Or else he is at an infinite remove from being honored, as is the Father.

The following passages evince the proper Divinity of Christ. 1 John iii. 5; "And ye know that he was manifest to take away our sins, and in him is no sin." Who was manifest to take away our sins? God is the only antecedent to the pronoun HE in the text. Verse 1,-" Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him;

(God) for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he (God) is pure.-And ye know that he (God) was manifest to take away our sins."

Again, "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."-There is and must be an overwhelming mystery, to short-sighted creatures, in the union of Christ's two natures, that he is Immanuel, God with us: "Which things the Angels desire to look into."-Those, who would attempt to divest this subject of mystery, do violence both to the spirit and the letter of the testimony of God himself upon this subject. For God informed that Christ's name should be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace." And he asserts, that "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." Here, the Logos, in the first of the Gospel of John, who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us," is, as he was by John, called, God. Here he was manifested in human nature. And here we are divinely taught, that without controversy it is a great mystery. *

* Some inform us, that this text is, in our reading, incorrect. It is said that, in some ancient Greek MSS. it reads, "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh." And in one MS.-" which was manifest in the flesh." I will now assign my reasons, why I am well satisfied with the present reading in our Bible.

1. We have much authority in favor of it. Many Greek MSS. it is confessed, have the passage, as we have it. And it is said, that "only two undisputed testimonies, among all the Greek MSS. exist in favor" of the reading, "who was manifest in the flesh." (See Panoplist for April, 1811, page 310-) The noted Alexandrian MS. in the British Museum, "has been the subject of much doubt and dispute, owing to the controverted word having been in some of the lines (essential to determine its character) touched by a modern

David says, "Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The apostle, alluding to the same pas sage, says, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, to whom coming, as to a living stone,

hand." (Ibid.) Mill, Walton and Barriman declare in favor of this MS.'s containing our present reading.

Good authorities are found among the fathers in favor of our present reading. The Apostolic Constitutions, in the second century, have the text as it is in our Bible. Lactantius, in the fourth century likewise: and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, of the fourth century, have it thus, very clearly. And Thedoret of the fifth century.

2. I can, to my satisfaction, account for the alteration of some of the ancient MSS. from "God was manifest in the flesh," to "who was manifest in the flesh." For this alteration, in Greek MS. was very small, and might be the effect of innocent mistake; while the alteration from who, to God, must have been more likely to be the effect of wicked design. This I will now show. In the ancient Greek manuscript-writing, the word for God was written thus, C. (Ths, for Theos.) And the word for who, thus, OC, (Os.) The Greek letter Sigma being written like the English C. The only difference here between the word for God, and the word for who, is a dash in the middle of the Omicron, or O, to convert it into the letter Theta, having the sound of Th. How easily then might this small dash, in the centre of the O, have been by some transcriber omitted through mistake? and the mistake overlooked? Yea, how easy to conceive, that this dash, in the OC, in the text under consideration, might, in some original, from which a transcriber was copying, be effaced, by age or use; so that, in glancing his eye upon it, he might mistake OC for C? But to suppose so important a dash inserted in the copy, when it was not in the original, and thus to convert it from who, to God, must appear much more like the effect of design, and much more improbable.

3. The reading "who was manifest in the flesh," is ungrammatical; and it utterly obscures the sense. With what antecedent can the who agree? Not with godliness; for that, in the original, is in the feminine gender; and who is masculine. And it cannot agree with mystery. For that in the original is of neuter gender. It therefore has no antecedent. Neither does it make sense. It informs not, who was manifest in the flesh. It is like the following broken sentence; What an astonishing visit! Who come here to-day, was a singular character. Thus obscure is the text rendered, by reading who, instead of God.

disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious." Here Christ is chosen of God, and precious. In some sense then, he is a different Person from God the Father. Yet he is the Lord (Jehovah) in those words of David, who is the very God. Hence they are two Persons, and yet one God.

In Isai. liv. 5, we read, " For thy Maker is thy husband; the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the holy One of Israel: The God of the whole earth shall he be called." But is not Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the husband of the Church ?--The affirmative is undeniable. And it follows, that Christ is the Person, who there speaks, and who is the Maker of the Church, the Jehovah of hosts, the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth. In the Song of Solomon, Christ is the Bridegroom of his Spouse. And in the New Testament the Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. Says Paul, "I have espoused you to one Husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the bead of the Church; and he is the Saviour of the body." Here is the very Redeemer, the holy One of Israel, in that passage in Isaiah. Most evidently the Being in all these passages is one and the same. Christ then, is the true and living God, though in some sense a distinct Person from the Father.

4. The text, in our present reading, perfectly accords with the language of the Bible. It has been made to appear, that Christ, in the language of the Bible, is God, the true God, the great God, the mighty God. And Christ was manifested in the flesh. The sentiment then is true, whether the text speak it, or not. And the opponent has done but little towards carrying his point, even could he prove, that the text ought to be read, "who was manifest in the flesh;" and thus that it has no meaning; which yet cannot be proved.

« AnteriorContinuar »