Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

I view as rational and consistent. This, we know, is not an uncommon fact. In reading a book then, that respects the subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself bound to construe it, so as to save all that appears to you contradictory, or absurd; I interpret it, just as its language obviously means, by the common laws of exegesis, which do not depend on my philosophy. This book then, may have two different meanings, according to us, in the same pas sages. Is this so? Can it be? Or rather, are not the laws of interpretation independent of you or me? If not, how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained?

You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the first chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him, with the full conviction that I cannot determine a priori, in all respects, what the nature of God and Christ is ; and with the belief that John wrote what is a revelation from heaven. I read John, and interpret him just as I do any other author ancient or modern, by the general rules of exegesis, modified by the special circumstances and dialect in which he wrote. I am as well satisfied, that he meant to assert the truly divine nature of the Logos, as I am that he has made any assertion at all. I receive this assertion therefore, as declaring a fact, which I ought to believe; and which, if I admit his inspiration, I must believe. In the same manner I treat all other passages, which respect this subject. I come in this way to the conclusion, that Christ is truly divine; that he has a human and divine nature so united, (I undertake not to tell in what manner,) that he speaks of either nature as himself. The passages which seem to imply his inferiority to God, I find to be capable of explanation without contradiction, or doing violence to the language, by the obvious fact that he has two natures united, which the sacred writers seem to me so plainly to inculcate. In this way, I find one consistent whole. I save the laws of exegesis. I admit, indeed, on the authority of revelation, doctrines which natural religion never taught ; but why should not a revelation teach something, which natural religion did not?

Here then I take my stand. I abide by the simple declarations of the New Testament writers, interpreted by the common laws of language. My views reconcile all the seem

ing discrepancies of description in regard to Christ, without doing violence to the language of any. I can believe, and do believe, that the sacred writers are consistent, without any explanation but such as the laws of interpretation admit and require.

On the other hand; when you read the first of John, you say, The known properties of Christ must modify the description. How then are those properties known? By the same writer; the same authority; the same revelation. But what can give to one part of John's book, any morė credit than to the other part? You will say, you can understand better how Christ can be inferior to God, than how he can be divine. Granting this might be the case→→ is a revelation merely to teach us things which are obvious or may it disclose those which are more difficult, and cannot be discovered by unassisted reason? If the latter; how can you aver, that Christ may not be revealed as a divine person? To show a priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really out of the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing for or against this fact. The simple question then is, What has John said? not what your philosophy may lead you to regard as probable, or improbable. And I must be allowed to say again, If John has not taught us that Christ is truly divine, I am utterly unable by the laws of exegesis, to make out that he has asserted any thing in his whole gospel.

If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a human and divine nature, is "an enormous tax, on human credulity," I should certainly reject the authority of John. To violate the laws of exegesis in order to save his credit, I could regard, with my present views, as nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do; and what no man ought to do. It would be impossible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all, about giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspiration and authority of the sacred books. How can they be divine, if they teach palpable absurdites? And that they do teach, what you call palpable absurdities, 1 feel quite satisfied can be amply proved from the simple application of the laws of interpretation.

You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your meth

od of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the necessity of interpreting several seemingly unlimited assertions, in respect to Christians, in the same way as you do many in respect to Christ. "Recollect," you say," the unqualified manner in which it is said of Christians, that they possess all things, know all things, and do all things." And again in order to show how we may "modify and restrain and turn from the obvious sense," the passages that respect the divinity of Christ; you say, "It is our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness."

I have already examined the manner, in which the Bible calls men gods. There is and can be no mistake here; for instead of attributing to them divine attributes, it always accompanies the appellations with such adjuncts, as guard against mistake. It does not call any man God; and then add, that the God is meant, who is the Creator of the Universe.

Nor does the New Testament, any where call men God. Will you produce the instance; unless it be in the case of Christ, which is the case in question? But that the appellation here is bestowed under circumstances totally diverse from those, in which it is applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too obvious to need further explanation. The Hebrew word 'ns [Elohim] had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it was capable of a greater variety of use than the Greek word εOS. Can you produce from the Greek Scriptures, i. e. the New Testament, an instance where Oros is applied to any man whatever?

In regard to the assertion," that Christians are made partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. i. 4 :) a mistake about the meaning is scarcely possible. "Whereby (i. e. by the gospel,) are given unto us," says the apostle, "exceeding great and precious promises, that BY THESE ye might be partakers of the divine nature." But how? He answers this question. "Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." That is, by moral purification you will become assimilated to God, or partakers of that holy nature, which he possesses. Does the con-text bere afford any ground for mistake?

In 1 John ii. 20, Christians are said to have an unction from the Holy One, and to know all things." In the preceding verse, the apostle had been describing apostates, who forsook the Christian cause, because they were not sincerely attached to it. The case of real Christians, who have an unction from the Holy One is different. They "know all things." And what means this? The sequel explains it. "I have not written unto you," says he "because ye know not the truth; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.' To "know all things," then, plainly means here, to know all that pertains to Christian doctrine and duty, so as to persevere, and not to apostatize from the truth, as others had done.

66

Is this however asserting, (as you affirm in your Sermon,) in an unqualified manner, that Christians know all things?"

In John xiv. 26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles" to teach them all things, and to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever Christ had said unto them." Again, John xvi. 23, the "Spirit of truth is promised to guide the disciples into all truth;" and in 1 John ii. 27, the anointing which Christians have received, is said to" teach them all things." In all these cases, the context leaves no room to doubt, that "all things essential to Christian doctrine and practice " is meant. No person, I presume, ever understood these passages as meaning, that the apostles or Christians should be endowed with omniscience.

Ι

Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to be God, the context is such, that the great body of Christians, in every age, have understood the sacred writers as asserting that he was truly divine. Is there no difference between the two cases? You make them indeed the same, in respect to the principle of interpretation. To my mind, the difference is this; that in the one case, the adjuncts prevent you from ascribing omniscience to Christians; in the other, they lead you necessarily to ascribe divine properties to Christ, unless you 66 turn their meaning from the obvious sense," so far as to transgress the fundamental maxims of interpreting language.

In 1 Cor. iii. 22, the apostle says to the Corinthian churches, "All things are yours;" and the same apostle

speaks of himself, (2 Cor. vi. 10) as "having nothing, yet possessing all things." In the first case, the context adds, Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come-all are yours; and ye are Christ's;" i. e. simply, (when the phraseology is construed as elsewhere,) let no man glory in this or that particular teacher; all teachers belong to the Church, and all things in the present and future world will minister to the good of the Church; why should you covet exclusive, individual possessions, when you have an interest in the whole? Refrain, therefore, from the spirit of jealousy and contention.

The second case is merely antithesis. The apostle evidently asserts, (compare the context,) that although he has little indeed of this world's good, yet he possesses a far more excellent and satisfactory good, in comparison of which all else is nothing. In the same sense, we every day speak of a man's all; meaning that which he most desires and loves best.

I can no more see here, than in the other instances already discussed, why you should affirm, that Christians are said" in an unqualified manner to possess all things."

One expression still remains. In Eph. iii. 19, the apos tle exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians of Ephesus might be filled with all the fulness of God." By comparing this expression, as applied to Christ in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, with John i. 14, 16, and Eph. i. 23, it appears evident, that by the fulness of God, is meant the abundant gifts and graces, which were bestowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples; John i. 16. Eph. i. 23. When Paul prays therefore, that the Church at Ephesus might be "filled with the fulness of God;" he prays simply, that they might be abundantly replenished with the gifts and graces, peculiar to the Christian religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the principle of exegesis in question?

I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in which you have embarked, and the principle, now in question, by which you explain away the divinity of the Saviour, must lead most men who approve of them, eventually to the conclusion, that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obedience. I do not aver, that

« PreviousContinue »