« PreviousContinue »
creature as any other being that God hath created. -From the plain scripture account the conclusion is, that Jesus Christ who appeared in the character of an angel, a man, &c. in the old testament, and appeared in flesh and blood in the new, was the God, LORD, JEHOVAH, &c. mentioned in all the ancient appearances, prophecies, and promises, and afterwards in the fulness of time was God manifest in the flesh, and is still God over all blessed for ever, Amen.
I would here put an end to this essay, as well knowing that it is sufficient to the humble christian, that he sees it evident from scripture that his SAVIOR is the TRUE GOD, though we do not fully consider all the inconveniences, inconsistencies, or absurdities which are necessarily connected with our author's different opinion ; this would be to write a book, not an appendix. Notwithstanding of being too long already, I must beg the reader's patience till I notice only two things, wherein the author thinks he is certainly right; and indeed he must be excused for being so positive in these, because if he be wrong in any one of them, his whole scheme, with which he has taken such pains, must fall of course.
patience hinks he is er being s
It was asserted in behalf of. CARIST's proper Deily in the Clear Display of the Trinity, That where he is called the ANGEL OF JEHOVAH, it should be read, the ANGEL JEHOVAH; the author saw that if this were admitted, his doctrine was made void : but I think what he has said against it is so weak, that the substance of his may be admitted, and yet it inay be true. As a matter of fact he dares not deny it; but he goes about to give reasons for its being so. •Hebrew nouns,' says he, ‘are not declined by cases,' &c.—Then translators are left at liberty to use what case they please, or may use, or not use them. But does not this gentleman know that there are many places with the possessive sign : why do others that express the same language want it? If this loose argument of his be admitted, it would make the bible one of the most vague and uncertain books in the world. He says, “The of is always expressed in the translations. This is trifling, as the argument was taken from the Hebrew text; and there it must stand, till some better reason is given than that men have pleased to translate so and so.
He says the observing of this rule would make other texts speak nonsense, as the ark of JEHOVAH,
Moses the man of God, &c. Consider reader, what a curious method of reasoning this is.—The possessive sign is left out betwixt ANGEL and JEHOVAH, where Christ is spoken of and called Jehovah, where he calls himself JEHOVAH,—and receives the worship of JehovAH :-but it is also left out betwixt ark and JEHOVAH, and Moses and JEHOVAH, which cannot be the same ;-therefore the angel and Jehovah are as much different, as the ark and Moses are from JEHOVAH. The sum of the author's reasoning is, it would be blasphemous to call the ark or Moses Jehovah, because the possessive sign is wanting between them; therefore it is blasphemous to call the ANGEL JEHOVAH for the same reason. Our author says, • The possessive sign is easily supplied from the obvious sense and scope of the passage.'-1 agree with him. And in these texts, which he mentions,
it must be supplied. But it is far from being so safe to supply it, when the sacred writers, the persons spoken to, and the ANGEL himself, without any exception, explanation, or limitation, call him JehovAH. This would be too much like adding to God's words. And I am persuaded, that had the translators of our English bibles attended to the evidence in favor of Christ's proper Deity, which the omission of this possessive exhibits so plainly, they would not have supplied one of where he was the subject spoken of.*
* When we say the parliamant house, it is easy to see that the possessive case must be understood, i. e. the house of parliament, or the parliament's house ; properly meaning the house where the parliament meet, and cannot mean the parliament but by a figure of speech, as we sometimes say, the house is sitting. But none will conclude from this manner of speech, that the house is, or can be called the parliament; or that there are two names which signify the same thing.
But when we say king George, the two names belong to and inean the same person without any figure of speech. The obvious meaning is, that a man who is called George is king; or that the king we speak of is called George. There is no room for a pos. sessive case here. There are many called George, but only one of these is king. So there are mauy called angel, or messenger, but only one who is called JEHOVAH,—the ANGEL JEHOVAH, without the genitive case, which is necessary to be expressed or understood from the obvious meaning of the passages in other cases.
Should it be said, that this is a dishonor to God, to call him a messenger,--and if he is so, who could send him ?--But here it should be considered, that JeHOVAH may be a messenger to us, without having any superior to send him, yea, without being sent at all. He who informs us of what we do not know, is, to us, a mes. senger of knowledge. The word malech, which is commonly ren' dered angel, or messenger, does not always imply a superior that
The author cites Stephen calling him who appeared to Moses in the bush an angel of the Lord. Acts vii. 30. But the reader will see that even in Stephen's account the angel says, “ I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Christ appeared as an angel calls himself God -" I AM that I AM," &c. He speaks to Moses and sends him.-Stephen says, ver. 35. God sent him-by the hands of the angel which appeared in the bush. Here it is plain there was the appear. ance of the angel, and the authority of God speaking by the angel; what appeared is called the angel, and when he would identify himself, or tell who he was, he calls himself by all that is called GOD.
The other sentiment of this author on which his scheme seems much to depend, is, that the names, Father, Son, and Spirit, are names of nature, not of economy or office. I wonder how one of his penetration, and freedom in thinking upon religious subjects, did not consider this subject with more attention. For though it be necessary in support of his scheme ;-contrary to a doctrine he does not like,-and appear plausible at first view; yet, when properly considered in its several parts, it is evidently absurd in itself, and even destructive to his own doctrine in the same book. This sentiment he states as the criterion of doctrine between him and such as he calls Sabellians and Hutchinsonians, that is, those who think these names belong to economy or office, on whom he imposes the names , which are likely to be misunderstood, or the espousers sustained, without examination to be erroneous sects. But he should have considered, that by his own rule of giving names, he must be called an Arian. An erroneous sect may hold some truths with their errors, and because I hold these truths, must I be called by the name of that sect? If it must be so, then Arians are called by that name because they deny the proper Deity of CHRIST; but Mr.
sends the messenger; but is used to signify a person performing an office, or a piece of work, whether he is sent or vot. Thus the word is used Job xxxii. 23, 24. where the messenger says, “ Deliver bim from going down to the pit, for I have found a rapsom."The messengers who brought Job the news could have none to send them, for there were none left but themselves. When JEHOVAH receives the character of an angel, or messenger, it is not on account of any commission that he receives, but on account of the thing he reveals, that he bears that character. When he made a revelation, he was no less JEHOVAH, for being a messenger, nor less a messenger for being JEHOVAH. This is the name he assumes when he reveals his favors to sinuers in CHRIST, the MESSENGER JEHOVAH. Coming and sending, are, in this respect, the same with him ; for suppose it be not good English to say, that one sends himself, yet, when he comes of bis own accord to deliver a message, he does the same thing, and it is vain to dispute about words, when we knoty the sense. But the whole of this is easy, wben we rightly understand this valuable christian maxim, “That there is no true knowledge of God but as he is revealed in Jesus CHRIST."
E t denies the proper Deity of CHRIST; therefore he is an Arian.
All I can do at present is briefly to point out the absurdity of the doctrine. It is not necessary here to shew how these names are to be applied in the scripture sense of them, that is fully done in the Clear Display of the Trinity from Divine Revelation, &c.-I can understand in what sense the author says the Spirit is a name of nature; “ we believe, (says he) that the Spirit is included in God the Father, and essential to his being; whereby he worketh all our works in us and for us." --I can also understand how necessary it is for those who deny the proper Deity of Christ, to