DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0506
162 FINAL APPEAL
ask the Editor, if one's being made by another any thing
whatsoever that he was not before, does not tend to
prove his mutable nature, what nature, then, can be called
mutable in this transitory world ? The Editor again
advances, that Jesus " was Jehovah before he became
incarnate,'' &c. This is a bare assertion which I must
maintain to be without any ground, unless he means to
advance the doctrine, that souls are emanations of God
and proceed from the deity.
As to Jerusalem being called, " Jehovah our righte-
ousness," the Editor says, " We may observe, that it is
the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem, who bears
this name, to the honour of her glorious head and
husband, who is, indeed, Jehovah her righteousness."
(Page 581.) Let us reflect on this answer of the
Editor. In the first place, the term Jerusalem, in Jer.
xxxiii. 16, from its association with the term " Judah,"
is understood as signifying the well-known holy city in
that kingdom, having no reference to the church o
followers of Christ. In the second place, if the Editor
understands by the term " Jerusalem" here, the churc
of Christ, and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively calle
"Jehovah our righteousness," on the ground that Chris
is its head, and that, consequently, it bears that name " t
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 " Jehova
our righteousness" to Jesus, on the same ground and
same principle, which is, that as Jehovah is the head I
of Christ, consequently Christ bears this name "to the e
honour of his head" though, in reality, different fromr
and subordinate to God ? Vide 1 Cor. xi. 3 : " But I wouldb
z
dt
ask the Editor, if one's being made by another any thing
whatsoever that he was not before, does not tend to
prove his mutable nature, what nature, then, can be called
mutable in this transitory world ? The Editor again
advances, that Jesus " was Jehovah before he became
incarnate,'' &c. This is a bare assertion which I must
maintain to be without any ground, unless he means to
advance the doctrine, that souls are emanations of God
and proceed from the deity.
As to Jerusalem being called, " Jehovah our righte-
ousness," the Editor says, " We may observe, that it is
the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem, who bears
this name, to the honour of her glorious head and
husband, who is, indeed, Jehovah her righteousness."
(Page 581.) Let us reflect on this answer of the
Editor. In the first place, the term Jerusalem, in Jer.
xxxiii. 16, from its association with the term " Judah,"
is understood as signifying the well-known holy city in
that kingdom, having no reference to the church o
followers of Christ. In the second place, if the Editor
understands by the term " Jerusalem" here, the churc
of Christ, and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively calle
"Jehovah our righteousness," on the ground that Chris
is its head, and that, consequently, it bears that name " t
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 " Jehova
our righteousness" to Jesus, on the same ground and
same principle, which is, that as Jehovah is the head I
of Christ, consequently Christ bears this name "to the e
honour of his head" though, in reality, different fromr
and subordinate to God ? Vide 1 Cor. xi. 3 : " But I wouldb
z
dt