Page images

the Editor. In the first place the term Jerusalem in Jeremiah XXXIII. 16. from its associ ation with the term "Judah" is understood as signifying the well known holy city in that kingdom, having no reference to the church or followers of Christ. In the second place, if the Editor understands by the term "Jerusalem" here the church of Christ, and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively called "Jehovah our righteousness" on the ground that Christ is its head and that consequently it bears that name" to the honour of her glorious head" though in reality different from and subordinate to him, how can he reject the figurative application of the phrase "Jehovah our righteousness" to Jesus on the same ground and same principle, which is, that as Jehovah is the head of Christ, consequently Christ bears this name "to the honour of his head," though in reality different from and subor. dinate to God? vide 1 Cor. XI. 3. "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD.”

The Editor shews an instance in Isaiah in which seven women wish to be called by the name of a husband to have their reproach taken away. He must also know that thousands

of sons and descendants are called by the name of one of their fathers, and servants by the name of their masters, to the honour of the father or the master. Vide Isaiah XLVIII. 1. Genesis XLIII. 6. Hosea XI. 8 snd 9. Exodus. XXIII. 21. The Editor then proceeds to divide the honorary names found in scriptures into two kinds; one given by men and the other given by God; but he must know that the names given by prophets or by common. men, if used and confirmed by God, or by any of the sacred writers, become as worthy of attention as if they had been bestowed origi pally by the Deity himself.

The Editor again uses the following words "the incommunicable name Jehovah" the selfexistent, from the verb hawah "to be or to exist" which is applied to no one throughout the scripture besides the sacred three" &c. We know very numerous instances in which the name "Jehovah" is applied to the most sacred God, but never met with an instance of applying to two other sacred persons the simple term "Jehovah." I wish the Editor had been good enough to have taken into consideration that this is the very point in dispute, and to have shown instances in which the second and third persons of the deity (according

to the Editor's expression) are addressed by this name. He further observes that "no one supposes that Jehovah Jireh "God will see or provide," given by Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac, was intended to deify that place, but to perpetuate the fact that the Lord did there provide a sacrifice instead of Isaac;-that Jehovah-nissi "God my banner? given by Moses to his altar intended any thing more than that God was his banner against the Amalekites;-that Jehovah-tsid kenu" Jehovah our righteousness" the name men should call Jerusalem, or Christ's church, was intended to deify her, but to demonstrate that her Lord and head who is righteousness, is indeed Jehovah." Here I follow the very same mode of interpretation adopted by the Editor in explaining the same phrase "The Lord our righteousness" found in Jeremiah XXIII. 6. referred to the Messiah, that is, the application of this phrase to the Messiah does not deify him, but demonstrates that his father, his EMPLOYER, his HEAD, the Most High, who is his righteousness, is the Lord Jehovah; so that the consistency can not be overlooked which prevails through all the phrases of a similar nature; for as Christ is represented to be the head of his church, so God is represented to be the head of Christ, as I noticed in the

foregoing page 213. Lastly the Editor says "compound names therefore do not of themselves express deity, but they express facts more strongly than simple assertions or propositions." I am glad to observe that he differs from a great many of his colleagues in their attempt to deify the Messiah from the appli cation of the above phrase to him; but as to the facts demonstrated by this phrase, they may be easily ascertained from comparing the application of it with that of exactly similar phrases to others, as I have just observed.

The Editor now mentions (page 583.) a few more passages which he thinks tend to "illustrate not so much the name as the divine nature of the son. In Jeremiah V. 22. we have this expostulation; Fear ye not saith the Lord? Will ye not tremble at my presence who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it, and though the waves toss themselves, yet can they not prevail.' This however is only a part of that work of creation ascribed to him who, while on earth, exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own. But what this passage of Jeremiah has to do with the divine nature of Jesus I am unable to discover. The Editor might have quoted at

[ocr errors]

this rate all the passages of the old Testament that ascribe to God the supreme controul over the whole world as evidence in favour of the deity of Jesus as he was sure to find always many persons of the same persuasion to applaud any thing offered in favour of the trinity.

As to his position, that, Jesus "exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own," I beg to quote John X. 25. to shew that what. ever power Jesus, in common with other prophets, exercised over wind and water while he was on earth, he did it in the name of God. "Jesus answered them I told you and ye believed not; the works that I do in my father's name they bear witness of me." "And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." I say Jesus in common with other prophets, because both Elijah and Elisha the prophets exercised power over wind and water and other things, like Jesus, in the name of the father of the universe. Ist. Kings XVII. 1. ch. XVIII. 44. 45. 2nd. Kings II. 21.; some times without verbally expressing the name of God; ch. V. 8-13 and 27. ch. II. 10.

Upon the assertion in my Second Appeal that the "epithet God is frequently applied in the sa

« PreviousContinue »