Sidor som bilder

totally distinct from him, as was Isaac from Abraham ; and is as dependent, as a creature. This Being, who they teach is a God by nature, and is constituted a real God, is the soul of Christ. He came down, and took only a human body, when he was born of the virgin.

This view of the soul of Christ, I think, is refuted in the preceding section. I now purpose to show that the Logos, the second in the divine Trinity, did take into personal union with himself, manhood, a human soul and body; and is hence really man as well as God. I will attempt to exhibit some of the evidence that this sentiment is clearly taught in the word of God.

Jesus Christ himself says, “I am the Root and offspring of David.”. Could he, accord. ing to any known sense of language, be David's offspring, without possessing a human soul ?"An assertion in the use of language, contrary to its known import, with unknown mental re-ervations, has ever been esteemed falsehood. Christ assures us, he is David's offspring. And in a multitude of instances he calls himself the Son of man. Do we find the offspring,--the sons of man,-without human souls? Have we ever been taught to affix to the terms, offspring, and son of man, the idea of a human body only? If not, what right have we so essentially to vary from the common use of language, without express warrant thus to do, when the words are applied to Christ? At such a rate, man

may construe any sentence in the Bible in any way, which his fancy may suggest.

We are informed, that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.This may seem at first view (or taken most literally) to favor the idea of the opponent, that Christ took only a human body. But this is indeed "judging after the outward appearance.”

Let the word of God explain itself. What is the common use, in the Bible, of the word flesh, when used in such a connexion ? Let this point be ascertained by the following passages.

Relative to the flood, we are informed, “ All flesh died.” God afterward said, “Nor shall all flesh be cut off any more."

66 For who is there of all flesh, that heard the voice of the living God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as ye have, and lived ?" “ If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto him the spirit, and his breath, all flesh shall perish togeth. er, and man shall turn again unto dust." “ Unto thee shall all flesh come.” “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.”, “ All flesh is as grass." “ All flesh shall know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.” " By fire and by sword will the Lord plead with all flesh.**All flesh shall come and 'worship before me.” “ No flesh shall have peace." “ Cursed is the man, that trusteth in man, and mak. eth flesh his arm.” “ The Lord hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with

all flesh." “I will bring evil upon all flesh.“ All flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled it.” “ The gods, whose dwel. ling is not with flesh." "Be silent, o all flesh before the Lord.” “Except those days be shortened, there shall no flesh be saved.” “ I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.6 Thou hast given him power over all flesh.' “ By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.” “That no flesh should glory in his presence.” 6 We wrestle not with flesh and blood." I might proceed, in quoting such texts : But it is needless. We learn from these quotations the language of the Bible upon this particular; that by the word flesh, in such a connexion, is meant, not merely the body of man, but the whole of

And whenever the word imports oth- . erwise, notice, is clearly given of it, in the sense of the passage.

When we therefore read of Christ's being made of the seed of David, according to the flesh; and of God's being manifested in the flesh ; what right has man to exclude from the term the human soul, and say, that Christ took only a human body ? This must be merely arbitrary, and not according to the general language of the

Bible. Of Christ we read, “ The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." « Of whom (i. e. of Israel) as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed forever." “ Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, (David) that of the fruit of his


loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.” Can we, in the view of the above quotations, feel warranted to say, that those expressions, of Christ's coming in the flesh, import that he took only a human body? As the word flesh, in the general language of the Bible, when applied to man, imports soul and body; why is not this the import of the word, when applied to Christ's coming in our nature? It is arbitrary, and unprecedented in the Bible, to say, that the word flesh, in such a connexion, relates to Christ's human body only.

But this point is settled by the apostle to the Hebrews, in various passages.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” Jesus then, was made a little lower than the Angels." A preceding passage ascertains, that the words are in allusion to the exclamation of David, in Psalm viii. 4, 5, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him ?-For thou bast made him a little lower than the Angels.'' From this, the inspired writer infers, that Christ was made a little lower than the An. gels. But the deduction rests on this ground, that Christ is a real MAN. For if be be not a real man, then it does not follow from man's being made a little lower than the Angels, that Christ was made a little lower than the Angels.

The same apostle further decides the point. “For both be that sanctifieth, and

they that are sanctified, are all of one ; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." How are Christ and his people oney in the sense here expressed, if he have no human soul? His assuming proper humanity, is the very point on which the oneness rests. 66 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.But can a human body, without a human soul, constitute this oneness with his human brethren? Most certainly it cannot. The apostle proceeds.

« Forasmuch then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” Inasmuch as they were human; he likewise became human. He partook of flesh and blood, in the same sense in which they partake of them. But surely they have not only bodies, but souls. The sense of the passage under consideration, is not this, that Christ took a part of what they had; or took a body without a soul : But the sense is, that he fully participated with them in their nature. In the Greek it is more emphatically expressed ;—“ Himself also, in like manner, participated of the same." The Greek adverb here used (parapleesioos) is more emphatical than the English rendering “in like manner." It indicates, with the adjoining words, that Christ fully participated with his brethren in their nature. But if he took only a human body, he was very far from fully participating with bis brethren in their nature; and the assertion in the text appears

« FöregåendeFortsätt »