« 上一頁繼續 »
saw him and the works performed by him witnessed proofs of the entire concord of his words and actions with the will and design of the Father, and ought therefore to have admitted the truth of his mission from God. John, ch. xiv. ver. 9: “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. How sayest thou then, Shew us the Father ? ” Ver. 10: “ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Ver. 11: “Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.” We have already seen in what sense the expression “ dwelleth in me" must be understood, unless we admit that all true followers of Christ are admitted as portions of the Godhead. John, ch. vi. ver. 56: “ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” i John, ch. iv, ver. 12: “ If we love one another, God dwelleth in us."
For my conviction, and for the satisfaction of those who consider the Precepts of Jesus as a guide to peace and happiness, his word, “They may be one as we are,” (John, ch. xvii. ver. 11,) in defining the nature of the unity between God and Jesus, fully suffices. Disgusted with the puerile and unsociable system of Hindoo idolatry, and dissatisfied at the cruelty allowed by Moosulmanism against Nonmoosulmans, I, on my searching after the truth of Christianity, felt for a length of time very much perplexed with the difference of sentiments found among the followers of Christ, (I mean Trinitarians and Unitarians, the grand divisions of them,) until I met with the explanation of the unity given by the divine Teacher himself as a guide to peace and happiness. Besides, when the Jews misunderstood the phrase used by the Saviour, “I and my Father are one,” and accused him of blasphemy, (ch. x. ver. 33, “But for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God,”') Jesus, in answer to the accusation, denied having made himself God, saying, vers. 34-36, “ Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are Gods ? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” How was it possible that Jesus, the founder of truth and true religion, should have disavowed the charge of making himself God by representing himself as the Son, honoured with sanctification by the Father, and sent by him to this world, if he were the true living God, possessed of everlasting sanctification, independently of another being ? From this and and all other local evidence, the Pharisees and chief priests, though inveterate enemies of the Saviour, accused him to Pilate of having made himself the Son of God and King of the Jews; but relinquished the charge of making himself equal to God, or having ascribed to himself divine nature; although the latter (i. e, making himself God) was better calculated to excite the horror of the people. Vide John, ch. xix. ver. 7: “ The Jews answered
him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die; because he made himself the Son of God.” Vide Matthew, ch. xxvii. ver. 37: “And set up over his head his accusation written, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.'” 43: “He TRUSTED IN God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him : for he said, I am the Son of God.” That the epithet God is frequently applied in the sacred Scriptures otherwise than to the Supreme Being, as pointed out by Jesus, may be shewn by the following, out of many instances to be found in the Bible. Deut. ch. x. ver. 17: “For the Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords," &c. Ch. xxxii. ver. 21: “ They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God.” Exodus, ch. xxii. ver. 28: “ Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” Joshua, ch. xxii. ver. 22: “ The Lord God of Gods knoweth.” Psalm lxxxii. ver. 1: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he judgeth among the Gods.” 6:“I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.” Ps. cxxxvi. ver. 2: “O give thanks unto the God of Gods.” Isaiah, ch. xli. ver. 23: “Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that
are Gods." Psalm xcvii. ver. 7: “Worship him, all
Zeph. ch. ii. ver. 11: “He will famish all the Gods of the earth.” Exodus, ch. iv. ver. 16 : “God said to Moses, that he should be to Aaron instead of God.” Ch. vii. ver. 5: “See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh.” See also 1 Cor. ch. viii. ver. 5: “ As there be Gods many and Lords many;" and
the verse already quoted from John, ch. x. vers. 34, 35: “Jesus answered, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came,” &c.
In none of these instances is it in any degree admissible, that by the epithet God it is implied, that the human beings to whom it was attached were thereby declared to be a portion of the Godhead. Moses was to be as a God to Aaron and a God to Pharaoh, by the express command of the Almighty ; but no Christian will thence argue the equality of Moses with the Father of all things. On what principle, then, can any stress be laid in defence of the deity of the Son on the prophetic expression quoted in Hebrews from Psalm xlv. ver. 6, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;" especially when we find in the very next verse words that declare his subordinate nature: - Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”? We cannot allow much weight to the phrase "for ever,” as establishing literally the eternal nature of the power of the Son, this phrase being often found metaphorically applied in the Scriptures to other created beings: as Proverbs, ch. xxix. ver. 14: “The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.” Deut. ch. iv. ver. 40: that thou mayest prolong thy days in the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever." Similar to this is the remarkable expression of Jesus to Mary after his resurrection, and therefore, at a time when no design can be conceived to
have existed that could have been advanced by his any longer withholding the knowledge of his true nature, if any thing remained unrevealed during the previous period of his mission on earth. John, ch. xx. ver. 17: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”
After a slight attention to the terms Lord and God being often applied to men in the Sacred Writings, can any weight be allowed to the exclamation of the astonished disciple, John, ch. xx. ver. 28, “My Lord and my God;" especially as the apostle who relates the circumstance, within a few verses concludes by saying, ver. 31, “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;" but nowhere desires the readers of his Gospel to believe that Jesus is God? Does not common sense point out the inferiority and subordination of a being, though called God, to one who is at the same time declared to be his God, his Father, his Sanctifier, and his Promoter to the state of exaltation ?
The passage, John, ch. i. ver. 1, " The word was God, and the Word was with God,” which contains the term God twice, may, according to such use of the term, be interpreted without involving inconsistence with itself, or the contradiction which it apparently implies with another most decisive passage in Deut. ch. xxxiii. ver. 39, where Moses representeth God as declaring, that with him there is no God: “ See now that I, even I am he; and there is no God with me;" if it should be understood to signify in both instances the Supreme Deity.