DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0512
i68
FIXAL APPKAL
Supreme God by any sect that believe in revealed
religion.
He quotes Heb. iv. 13, "Neither is there any creatu-
re that is not manifest in his sight ; but all things are
naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we
have to do," in order to corroborate the idea that Christ
knew all the secrets of men. Supposing this passage to
be applicable to Jesus Christ, it does not convey any
other idea than what is understood by Rev. ii. 23, which
I have already noticed. But the Editor must know that
in the immediately preceding verse, the word of God,
or Revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-
edged sword, &c, is in the same allegorical sense declar-
ed to be " a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart." There is, therefore, no inconsistency in as-
cribing the knowledge of the intents of hearts to him
through whom that Revelation is communicated, and who
is appointed to judge whether the conduct of men is re-
gulated by them in conformity to that Revelation.
The Editor says (page 584) that " in Ezekiel xxviii.
God says respecting a man who arrogated to himself the
honors of Godhead, 'Son of man, say unto the prince of
Tyrus, thus saith the Lord God, because thy heart is lift-
ed up, and thou hast said 1 am a God—behold, thou
shaft die the death of the uncircumcised, &c.' How
different the Father's language to the Son : ' Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever' ! Why this
different language to the prince of Tyrus and to
Jesus ?" Had the Editor attentively referred to the
scriptures, he would not have taken the trouble of
putting this question to me ; for he would have easily
found the reason for this difference ; that is, the king of
FIXAL APPKAL
Supreme God by any sect that believe in revealed
religion.
He quotes Heb. iv. 13, "Neither is there any creatu-
re that is not manifest in his sight ; but all things are
naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we
have to do," in order to corroborate the idea that Christ
knew all the secrets of men. Supposing this passage to
be applicable to Jesus Christ, it does not convey any
other idea than what is understood by Rev. ii. 23, which
I have already noticed. But the Editor must know that
in the immediately preceding verse, the word of God,
or Revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-
edged sword, &c, is in the same allegorical sense declar-
ed to be " a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart." There is, therefore, no inconsistency in as-
cribing the knowledge of the intents of hearts to him
through whom that Revelation is communicated, and who
is appointed to judge whether the conduct of men is re-
gulated by them in conformity to that Revelation.
The Editor says (page 584) that " in Ezekiel xxviii.
God says respecting a man who arrogated to himself the
honors of Godhead, 'Son of man, say unto the prince of
Tyrus, thus saith the Lord God, because thy heart is lift-
ed up, and thou hast said 1 am a God—behold, thou
shaft die the death of the uncircumcised, &c.' How
different the Father's language to the Son : ' Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever' ! Why this
different language to the prince of Tyrus and to
Jesus ?" Had the Editor attentively referred to the
scriptures, he would not have taken the trouble of
putting this question to me ; for he would have easily
found the reason for this difference ; that is, the king of