RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS. THE ESSAY OF BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, (Continued from vol. ix, p. 541. ) The divinity of Christ is not only denied, in our day, but this doctrine is regarded by many as of no importance in the Christian system. I shall not stop, at present, to give any reason, why MANY more passages from the Christians suppose this doctrine Old Testament might be adduc- to be so important, and so saed, which, being read without cred. Our third division is apprejudice or partiality, would appropriated to the consideration pear pretty clearly to teach the doctrine of a plurality in the Godhead; although some assert that this doctrine cannot be found at all in the Jewish Scriptures. But since we have other testimonies, which are more clear and full, what have been already adduced may suffice, for this part of our proof. Let us proceed, then, to a view of the more express testimonies to the doctrine in question; viz. to those, which ascribe true divinity to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and yet speak of them as different persons. No one, who believes in the personality and divinity of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, denies the divinity of the Father. It is impossible to deny the divinity of the Father, who is represented as the person by whom the Son is begotten, and from whom the Spirit proceeds, or, (if I may use the expression,) as the ground of the existence of the Son and Spirit; the source of divinity. But the divinity of the Son and Spirit is opposed by many. It is necessary, therefore, to confirm this by more particular and copious evidence, of this subject. I hope to make it apparent, that it ought to be matter of astonishment to all enlightened and impartial inquirers, that any one should represent it as doubtful, whether the Scriptures actually support the doctrine in question. According to the testimony of the prophets of the Old Testament, the promised Redeemer of the world must be God. The Lord God shall feed his flock; Is. xl, 10, 11. From the stock of David a righteous king must come, whose name should be Jehovah, our righteousness; Jer. xxiii, 5, 6. The anointed of God is his Son, begotten by him; the Son whom the nations must honor with divine worship; Ps. ii, 7, 12. He is Lord of his progenitor David, who was an independent king, and inferior to no man; Ps. cx, 1. According to the Hebrew, Is. ix, 6, he is the mighty God. His goings forth are from the beginning, even from everlasting; Mic. v, 2. He is the Jehovah, whom Israel sought, and who would suddenly come to his temple; Mal. iii, 1. With regard to the testimony of Jesus respecting himself; he not only calls himself the Son of God, but asserts God to be his Father, in a sense which is peculiar, and appropriate to him alone. He is the Son who came from heaven; who is in the bosom of the Father; whom the Father loved before the foundation of the world; and by whom mankind obtain a right to become the sons of God, when they believe on his name. Still stronger expressions occur, in the work of that Evangelist, who records more of the words of Jesus than of his deeds; I mean,in the Gospel of John. As the Father hath life in himself, so also hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John v, 26. I and the Father are one; John x, 30. Philip, whoever seeth me, seeth the Father; John xiv, 9. All things which the Father hath are mine; John xvi, 15. Before Abraham was, I am; John viii, 58. fy me with the glory, which I had with thee, before the world was; John xvii, 5. I am with you always, even to the end of the world; Mat. xxviii, 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; Mat. xviii, 20. The son of man, who is in heav. en; John iii, 13. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; John v, 17. As the Father raise eth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom he will; John v, 21. I give to my sheep eternal life; John x, 28. Ye believe in God and ye believe in me; John xiv, 1, (as the Greek may be properly rendered.) All men should honAll men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father; John v, 23. Glori Besides these expressions, let one also consider the miracles which he performed; not like Moses and the other prophets, by saying, 'The Lord will do wonders among you;' not like the apostles, who, by virtue of authority derived from him, in his name commanded the natural world, and then ascribed all their miraculous operations, not to themselves, but to him. He, on the contrary, operates by his own almighty power: I say to thee, arise. Consider, moreover, the prom. ises which Jesus made to his disciples, and engaged himself to fulfil them; though God alone is competent to do this. Whosoever believeth in me shall not see death: The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church; I will raise you up at the last day: I will send the Holy Spirit, &c. We must, also, take into the account, the unbounded love which Jesus requires from all men; a love which is due to God alone. Whosoever forsaketh not father, and mother, and all that he hath, for my sake, is not worthy of me. The transactions at his trial before Caiaphas are, also, wor thy of notice. This High Priest exacted of Jesus an oath, according to the custom of his age and nation;, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God; Mat. xxvi, 63. Jesus replied; Thou hast said; i. e. I am the Christ the Son of the kving God, and I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Now if, contrary to the real fact, we suppose that Caiaphas by the expression, Son of God, did not mean a di vine person, would not Jesus have defined or explained the question, before he took the oath? Would he not have declared it, had he not in fact been the Son of God, in the strict, or peculiar sense of that term? Especially so, when he did explain, and define the sense of the question put to him by Pilate, whether he was the King of the Jews, before he gave answer. Would he not have done it when he was under an oath, which was too sacred and important, not to be strictly regarded? With such expressions before him, can any one mistake the intention of Jesus to be acknowledged as divine? Let them be uttered by any other person, and see if any doubt would arise, whether he meant to ascribe divinity to himself. The Jews, who were cotemporary with Jesus did understand him as claiming divine honors; a satisfactory proof, that his language in that day appeared to them, as it now does to us, to assert this claim. He hath spoken blasphemy, said Caiaphas, and then passed sentence of death upon him; Mat. xxvi, 65. Art thou greater than Abraham and the prophets? Whom makest thou thyself? said the Jews, and took up stones to stone him; John viii, 53. The Jews eagerly sought after him to kill him, because he made himself equal to God; John v, 18. For blasphemy, said they, will we stone thee, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God; John X, 33. In the answer of Jesus, to this expression of the malice of the Jews toward him, which swer was intended to defend and vindicate himself, many sup an pose a disclosure is made, which shews that all his exalted expressions concerning himself amount merely to the cold position, that he was a teacher sent from God. It is somewhat peculiar, to be sure, that a single passage, and of this kind, should outweigh a multitude of other passages, and confine the sense of them. But as this passage is often urged, as an irrefutable argument against Trinitarians, and is much cried up as putting an end to the controversy in question, it may be proper to dwell with some degree of particularity upon it. The answer of Jesus is as follows: 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? John x, 34-36. According to our Anti-Trinitarians, the meaning of this is as follows: 'In the Mosaic law, they are called gods, to whom a revelation was given by God, and whom he chose and commissioned as the extraordinary teachers of mankind; consequently, I, who am an extraordinary teacher endowed with more exalted and divine illumination, may lawfully call myself God, and the Son of God.' Now, in order to determine whether this be the meaning of the passage in question, let the following considerations be first duly weighed. 1. If Jesus attached to his expressions, which were judged to be blasphemy worthy of death, only the assertion, that he was a divine teacher, did he not afford reason for the accusation to his face, that he denied his own clear, and express words? and must he not have expected it to be made? The controversy did not here respect the appellation of God, or Son of God, but the phrases, I give, (not I barely procure, but) I give to my followers eternal life; I and the Father are one. 2. Jesus shewed plainly, and quite intelligibly to his opposers, that he did not at all explain away the exalted meaning of his previous assertions, nor limit the elevated rank, which he had ascribed to himself, to the dignity of a person divinely commission ed, but still a mere man; for after this explanation of his meaning, as some will have it, the Jews still sought to take and kill him; John x, 39. Jesus does not say, To me the word of God has come; but, The Father hath sanctified me-distinguished me. with peculiar dignity-constituted and exhibited me as one more exalted, more holy, more worthy of respect than others and sent me into the world. He adds, (v. 37, 38,) If I do not the works of my Father, then believe me not: but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. These are words, which neither Moses, nor any other prophet, ever ventured to utter, or ever could venture to utter, respecting himself; much less to say, that nothing more was meant, than to assert, that he was a divinely commissioned teacher. VOL. X. 3. If any one insists on translating the words of Jesus, thus; If then, he calls those gods, whom God honored with his Revelations, &c. then he ascribes to him a palpable untruth; for Moses hath not called prophets gods. This might, indeed, pass without being discovered by the New Theologians of our day, many of whom have not studied the Mosaic revelation so much as to know, whether the passage in question be in it or Among the Jews, however, to whom the writings of Moses were all familiar, this circumstance could not have passed unnoticed. not. Ex. iv, 16, Aaron shall be instead of a mouth to thee, and thou shall be to him instead of God, does not constitute a proof to the contrary of what I have asserted. Here is a comparison of the connexion in which Moses and Aaron were mutually to stand, with the connexion of which one is reminded, with regard to a prophecy, between the Divini ty who gives the prophecy, and the man who delivers it. Moses is likened unto God, not because he was a prophet, (for in comparison with Moses, this character was rather to be ascribed to Aaron,) but because he sent a man, who served under him, as a prophet serves God, by whom he is sent. Still less does Moses use the word, gods, in the sense pretended, in those passages, Ex. xxi, 6; xxii, 28; which are the passages referred to in Ps. lxxxii, 6, from which last passage our Savior makes his quotation. For in these passages, not teachcis, but magistrates, are called Elohim, gods, i. e. worthy of hon- guilty of a capital offence: such or, entitled to reverence. To translate, then, the verses in question, thus: "In the law, they are called gods, to whom the divine Revelations were made," is undoubtedly an error, and expresses what is contrary to the true state of the fact. Those are called gods in the law, who are intended in the passage now in question, or to whom the words, Ye are gods are addressed, in the 82d Psalm; i. e. magistrates. The meaning of the passage may be rendered unequivocal, by translating it thus; If he called them gods, to whom this word or command of God came; i. e. if those are called gods, who are addressed in the passage cited from the Old Testament, Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, &c? 4. The design of Jesus was, plainly, to convince his Jewish hearers at that time in a brief manner, that his assertion, which had been so offensive to them, gave them no right to take away his life. The occasion did not permit his adducing formal proof, that he was truly God. Had he replied, 'I am equal with God, and, that this is the case, I will now produce the evidence;' they would have put him to death, if they had acted agreeably to the frame of mind in which they then were, before he could have finished his reply. If ever a reply ad hominem, a contradiction of opposers on principles avowed and maintained by themselves, be allowable, it certainly may be, in such a case as this. Every person, who proclaimed to the Jews any other God, except Jehovah, was was the law of Moses. Jesus did, in fact, proclaim no other God; but he appeared to the Jews to be guilty of this crime. On the mere appearance of this guilt, the Jews charged him with blaspheming God, and sought to kill him on the spot, without even a trial. Appropriately to the occasion, Jesus answers, 'I have done no evil, which de serves death. Whether I am in fact a blasphemer of God, on whom the law pronounces sentence of death, is a question which should be seriously investigated, and not decided hastily from mere appearances: otherwise ye must adjudge Moses himself to be guilty of a like crime, for he calls magistrates Elohim, gods; not indeed with a . design to proclaim strange gods, but you must admit that it has this appearance. A sentence of death hastily pronounced on me, would be as unjust as against Moses. Do you not inquire why he calls magistrates Elohim? And whether he does in fact oppose the unity of God? Inquire then, in like manner, with respect to my expressions before you pass and execute your sentence.' 5. The kind of reasoning, which Jesus employs in opposition to his enemies, is very apparent. If the law styles those gods, to whom it says, Ye are gods, why should I be accused of blasphemy, because I said I am the Son of God? Because I said this, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world?'. -A conclusion, evidently, a minori ad majus, from the less to the greater! A kind of reasoning, which they must |