DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0449
TO THE CHRISTIAN" PUBLIC
10;
g employed by the Editor, than the resurrection of
Christ after his death on the cross ?
In case the Editor should have recourse to the
generally-adopted argument, that Jesus was possessed of
a two-fold nature, the nature of God and the nature of
man ; the former, because he is termed God in scripture,
and the latter, because he was in the shape of man *
I would ask, is there any authority in the sacred writings
for alleging that Jesus was possessed of such two-fold
nature ?—-a question which, indeed, I took upon myself
to put to the Editor in the Second Appeal, (page 211,)
but which he has avoided to answer. Are not Moses
and the chiefs of Israel termed, in like manner, Gods, *
as well as men ?t Did not they perform wonderful
miracles, as raising the dead and commanding wind and
water, X as well as the sun and moon ? § Did not some
of them talk of themselves in a manner suitable to the
nature of God alone ? || Are we, from these circum-
stances, to represent them as possessing a two-fold
nature, divine and human ? If not, let us give up such
an unscriptural and irrational idea, as attributing to
Jesus, or to any human being, a double nature of God
and man, and restrain ourselves from bringing
Christianity to a level with the doctrines of heathenish
polytheism. Is it not a general rule, adopted to preserve
concordance between all the passages of scripture, and
to render them consistent with reason, that when termsr
phrases, or circumstances, which are applicable to God
alone, are found ascribed to a created being, either man
* Exod. vii. 1. f Deut. xxxiii. i ; Ezek, xxxiv. 31,
% I Kings xvii. I, xviii. 44, 45 ; and 2 Kings ii. 22.
§ Joshua x. 12, 13. || Deut. xxvii. I, xxxii. I.
10;
g employed by the Editor, than the resurrection of
Christ after his death on the cross ?
In case the Editor should have recourse to the
generally-adopted argument, that Jesus was possessed of
a two-fold nature, the nature of God and the nature of
man ; the former, because he is termed God in scripture,
and the latter, because he was in the shape of man *
I would ask, is there any authority in the sacred writings
for alleging that Jesus was possessed of such two-fold
nature ?—-a question which, indeed, I took upon myself
to put to the Editor in the Second Appeal, (page 211,)
but which he has avoided to answer. Are not Moses
and the chiefs of Israel termed, in like manner, Gods, *
as well as men ?t Did not they perform wonderful
miracles, as raising the dead and commanding wind and
water, X as well as the sun and moon ? § Did not some
of them talk of themselves in a manner suitable to the
nature of God alone ? || Are we, from these circum-
stances, to represent them as possessing a two-fold
nature, divine and human ? If not, let us give up such
an unscriptural and irrational idea, as attributing to
Jesus, or to any human being, a double nature of God
and man, and restrain ourselves from bringing
Christianity to a level with the doctrines of heathenish
polytheism. Is it not a general rule, adopted to preserve
concordance between all the passages of scripture, and
to render them consistent with reason, that when termsr
phrases, or circumstances, which are applicable to God
alone, are found ascribed to a created being, either man
* Exod. vii. 1. f Deut. xxxiii. i ; Ezek, xxxiv. 31,
% I Kings xvii. I, xviii. 44, 45 ; and 2 Kings ii. 22.
§ Joshua x. 12, 13. || Deut. xxvii. I, xxxii. I.