DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0428
84
FINAL APPEAL
this ? The only difference that he can shew between
his notion and that of avowed polytheists, must consist
only in respect of the increase or decrease of the sup'
posed .number of Creators—a distinction which win
amount to nothing intrinsic. I must now leave tfti
subject to the sound judgment of my reader.
The Editor further proceeds, saying, " With reference
to Christ, Paul adds (i Cor. x. 25, 26,) "Whatsoever J5
sold in the shambles, that eat : For the earth is the Lord'5
and the fulness thereof. " He then concludes, " If thi§
Psalm (xxiv. 1 ) then, speak of Jehovah the Father, the
same absolute dominion over the earth is here ascribed t°
the Son as to the Father ; if the Son, he is there termed
Jehovah."—St. Paul here justifies the eating of whatever
is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm xxiv. 1, as hi5
reason for such justification, without the most distant
allusion to Jesus : I am, therefore, at a loss to discover
the ground upon which the Editor founded his foregoing
conclusion. For further illustration I quote the para'
phrase by a most eminent personage on the above verses
of Corinthians : " Eat whatever is sold in the shambles,
without any inquiry or scruple, whether it had been
offered to any idol or no. For the earth and all therein
are the good crertures of the true God, given by him to
men for their use."—( Locke, Vol. viii.) If the Editor
still insists, in defiance of St. Paul's reference, of common
sense, and of the above paraphrase, that in 1 Cor. x. 26,
St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should take upon myself to
refer him to Hebrews i. 2, (the Son) " whom he ( God)
hath appointed heir of all things " ; and the John hi. 35'
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand." These I'hope will convince bim that afij
FINAL APPEAL
this ? The only difference that he can shew between
his notion and that of avowed polytheists, must consist
only in respect of the increase or decrease of the sup'
posed .number of Creators—a distinction which win
amount to nothing intrinsic. I must now leave tfti
subject to the sound judgment of my reader.
The Editor further proceeds, saying, " With reference
to Christ, Paul adds (i Cor. x. 25, 26,) "Whatsoever J5
sold in the shambles, that eat : For the earth is the Lord'5
and the fulness thereof. " He then concludes, " If thi§
Psalm (xxiv. 1 ) then, speak of Jehovah the Father, the
same absolute dominion over the earth is here ascribed t°
the Son as to the Father ; if the Son, he is there termed
Jehovah."—St. Paul here justifies the eating of whatever
is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm xxiv. 1, as hi5
reason for such justification, without the most distant
allusion to Jesus : I am, therefore, at a loss to discover
the ground upon which the Editor founded his foregoing
conclusion. For further illustration I quote the para'
phrase by a most eminent personage on the above verses
of Corinthians : " Eat whatever is sold in the shambles,
without any inquiry or scruple, whether it had been
offered to any idol or no. For the earth and all therein
are the good crertures of the true God, given by him to
men for their use."—( Locke, Vol. viii.) If the Editor
still insists, in defiance of St. Paul's reference, of common
sense, and of the above paraphrase, that in 1 Cor. x. 26,
St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should take upon myself to
refer him to Hebrews i. 2, (the Son) " whom he ( God)
hath appointed heir of all things " ; and the John hi. 35'
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand." These I'hope will convince bim that afij