Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

It is only necessary to suppose that the battery of vital energy in Jesus Christ was immensely stronger than in Dr. Buchanan-different in degree, not in kind-in order to account for the principal discrepances between Christ's system of operation, and modern neurology. The vital power of Dr. Bu chanan is so feeble that he finds only here and there an individual with nerves weak enough to receive any sensible impression from him. Whereas the Spirit of Jesus Christ was so mighty, that all who applied to him were found impressible.' Dr. Buchanan has power enough to affect his subjects simply by contact, or by means of metallic conductors, without going through the long and mystical, not to say nonsensical, process of making the passes,' practised by the older magnetizers. But Jesus Christ effected his object in many cases, by a still more simple process. Though he usually laid hands on his patients, he healed many by his simple command, without the intervention of any visible conductor. The battery was so heavily charged, that its fluid passed where faith attracted it, without any vehicle, but a word. A few cases even are recorded, in which cures were performed, without either word or contact, and with a great distance between the operator and the subject. Dr. Buchanan could sensibly affect a person at the distance of forty feet, by means of a metallic conductor. But Jesus Christ healed the centurion's servant (Matt. 8: 5) at a distance probably of miles, and without any wire between. The centurion's faith, which Christ pronounced unparal leled, was the only conductor.

Perhaps in the progress of his investigation, Dr. Buchanan will find means to increase his nervous power, either by self-training, or availing himself of the power of others. But he will never approach equality with Christ, as a practical neurologist, till he establishes communication with God, the great source of vital energy. There is no danger that the miracles of Christ will ever be rivalled by mere human neurologists. The stream cannot rise above its fountain; and so long as mere human life is the fountain of magnetic influence, its effects will only be proportioned to the weakness of human nature. Ordinary animal magnetizers may cast persons into a trance, and awaken an inward sense that shall give preternatural perception. And Dr. Buchanan may, for the time being, exercise a perfect mastery over the faculties of a weak-nerved youth. But it will be found to require the vital energy of God to heal all manner of diseases-to raise the dead-to make a permanent change from sin to righteousness. These are the works of the Son of God. Nevertheless we say again, that the miracles of Jesus Christ, as recorded by the evangelists, were evidently, as to their philosophical nature, and the process by which they were performed, operations of the same kind with the experiments of Dr. Buchanan; certainly not more mysterious-different only in the degree of their power. And Owen, if he believes in Dr. Buchanan, ought to believe in Jesus Christ.

It is easy to foresee that the development of Animal Magnetism which is in progress, will ultimately turn to good account in relation to many other matters of faith, beside the miracles of Christ. The doctrines of the 'fellowship of spirits,'-of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost' of the union of God and man-of Christ in the saints-of God's working in us to will

and to do'-of the manifestation of God's righteousness' in human natureof the workings of Satan in the ungodly-and diabolical possession; in short, all the spiritual doctrines of the Bible will cease to be regarded as mystical and irrational, when the principles of neurology, as acknowledged by Owen, are admitted to be true, and are followed out to their consequences. If man can operate on his fellow man, so as to produce any variety of moral charac ter at pleasure, why should it be thought an incredible thing that the omnipotent God should take a permanent possession of the human faculties, and through them manifest his own perfect righteousness? And on the other hand if Dr. Buchanan could make his subjects thievish, or insane, by a touch of his fingers, is there any difficulty in believing that Satan is actually the father of the evil works which the Bible ascribes to him; that he entered into' Judas, for instance, and caused him to betray Christ; or that the insane wretches whom Christ exorcised, were actually possessed of devils? In a word, if human nature is an instrument, the strings of which answer to the touch of flesh and blood, may we not well believe that it is subject to the mastery of the good and evil powers of the spiritual world?

On the whole, we are persuaded that the carnal philosophers and infidels who are investigating and advocating, or giving their assent to the principles of animal magnetism, will find themselves, ere long, shut up to the faith of the gospel of him whom they now despise.

§ 12. THE DIVINE NATURE.

IN the first chapters of the Bible, we find clear intimations of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The Hebrew word which is translated GOD, in Gen. 1: 1, &c., is in the plural form. God is represented as conversing with himself, as though two persons were consulting together. Gen. 1: 26, 3: 22, 11: 7. The plural pronouns us and our, are so intermingled with the singular pronouns he and his, in Gen. 1: 26, 27, that we can see no propriety in the language except on the supposition, that there is at once unity and plurality in the constitution of God. Above all, it is declared that he made man in his own image;' (Gen.1: 27;) and from what follows this declaration, it clearly appears, that the word man in this case includes two persons, male and female. The singular and plural pronouns are intermin gled, in the language concerning the first man, in the same manner as they are intermingled in the language concerning God. Adam was the name of a male and female being, concerning which the pronouns him and them might be used promiscuously. Gen. 1: 27, 5: 1, 2. Taking this being as an image or miniature by which we are to form our conception of the nature of God, (we speak of things spiritual, not physical,) we are led to the simple conclusion, that the uncreated Creator, the Head of the universe, like

the head of mankind and the head of every family, though one, is yet 'twain;' (Mark 10: 8;) in a word, that the creation has a Father and a Mother.

[ocr errors]

The New Testament confirms and illustrates this conclusion. We there learn that as Eve was in the beginning with Adam, and was Adam, so the Word was in the beginning with God, and was God;' (Jno. 1: 1;) that as the man is the head of the woman,' 6 so God is the head of Christ;' (1 Cor. 11: 3;) that as the woman is the glory of the man,' (1 Cor. 11: 7,) so Christ is the glory of God; (Heb. 1: 3;) that as the woman is the weaker vessel,' (1 Pet. 3: 7,) so the Father is greater than the Son; John 14: 28;) that as Eve was the mother of all living,' (Gen. 3: 20,) so by the Word all things were made;' (Jno. 1: 3, Col. 1: 16, Heb. 1: 2;) that as the mother suffers for the birth of children, so Christ suffered for the birth of the church.

6

We do not find the Spirit of God represented in scripture as a distinct person, like the Father and the Son; but as an emanation from those persons-a living substance, fluid-like, (Acts 2: 17, &c.,) proceeding from the Father, (Jno. 15: 26,) bearing the same relation to him as a man's spirit bears to a man. 1 Cor. 2: 11.

Having thus in brief and general terms apprised the reader of our position. in relation to the grand controversy about the Godhead, we will now examine somewhat minutely, a single New Testament witness, whose testimony is, in our view, plain and to the point. The first epistle of John was written in the ripest period of the apostolic age, and is certainly orthodox. We will rest our case upon its testimony. What is its doctrine concerning the Godhead?

Doubtless the passage which will first occur to the reader as the strongest testimony to be found in the 1st epistle of John, or even in the whole Bible, in relation to the nature of the Godhead, is the declaration concerning the three heavenly witnesses, in chap. 5: 7,-There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.' But unfortunately for the Trinitarian theory, that passage has been abundantly proved to be spurious. Adam Clarke, a laborious critic and strong Trinitarian, says in his introduction to the first epistle of John:

"On the controverted text of the three heavenly witnesses I have said what truth, and a deep and thorough examination of the subject has obliged me to say. I am satisfied that it is not genuine; though the doctrine in behalf of which it has been originally introduced into the epistle is a doctrine of the highest im portance, and most positively revealed in various parts both of the Old and New Testament."

We extract from his dissertation at the end of the epistle, the following Summary of the whole evidence relative to the three heavenly witnesses':— "1. One hundred and thirteen Greek MSS. are extant, containing the first epistle of John; and the text in question (1 John 5: 7) is wanting in one hun dred and twelve. It only exists in the Codex Montfortii, a comparatively recent manuscript.

"2. All the Greek fathers omit the verse, though many of them quote verse 6 and verse 8; applying them to the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, and the Holy

Spirit; yea, and endeavoring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from verse 6 and verse 8, without referring to any such verse as the 7th, which, had it existed, would have been a more positive proof, and one that could not have been overlooked,

"3. The fisrt place where the verse appears in Greek, is in the Greek translation of the Acts of the Council of Lateran, held A. D. 1215.

"4. Though it is found in many Latin copies, yet it does not appear that any written previously to the tenth century contains it.

"5. The Latin fathers do not quote it, even where it would have greatly strengthened their arguments; and where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally expected.

"6. Vigilius, bishop of Tapsum, at the conclusion of the 5th century, is the first who seems to have referred expressly to the three heavenly witnesses; but his quotation does not agree with the present text, either in words or in sense; and besides, he is a writer of very little credit, nor does the place alleged appear to learned men to be genuine.

66

7. The Latin writers who do refer to the three heavenly witnesses, vary greatly in their quotations; the more ancient placing the 8th verse before the 7th; and very many omitting, after the earthly witnesses, the clause these three are one. Others who insert these three are one, add-in Christ Jesus; others use different terms.

"8. It is wanting in all the ancient versions, the vulgate excepted; but the more ancient copies of this have it not; and those which have it vary greatly among themselves.

66

9. It is wanting in the first edition of Erasmus, A. D. 1516, which is prop. erly the editio princeps of the Greek text. It is wanting also in his second edi tion, 1519; but is added in the third from the Codex Montfortii. It is wanting in the editions of Aldus, Gerbelius, Cephalius, &c. It is wanting in the German translation of Luther, and in all the editions of it published during his lifetime. It is inserted in our early English translations, but with marks of doubtfulness. "10. In short, it stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revelation professing to have come from God."

Let the reader examine the train of thought from the 4th verse to the 10th, and he will see for himself that the 7th verse has the marks of an interpolation. The subject of discourse is not the nature of the Godhead, but overcoming faith, and the power which gives birth to it in believers. Having proposed the Son of God as the object of faith in the 5th verse, the apostle, in the 6th, brings to view the influences emanating from him, which give the testimony on which faith rests. 'This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; ... And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. [Here follows the interpolation, which we omit.] For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.' This is the original form of the passage. obviously all that the subject of discourse requires. The witnesses that work faith in believers, are defined; and any extraneous discourse about the Trinity or about witnesses in heaven and earth, would be a senseless digression.

It is

Setting aside this spurious text, we find that the epistle clearly teaches that the Godhead consists of two persons-the Father and the Son. The divinity of Christ is every where insisted on. He is called 'the Word of Life

which was from the beginning, that eternal life which was with the Father,' (1: 1, 2,) the true God and eternal Life.' (5: 20.) He is coupled with the Father in a multitude of instances as the co-ordinate partner in the work of salvation; e. g., 'Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;' (1:3;) 'The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin;' (1: 7;) We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins;' (2: 1, 2;) "Ye shall continue in the Son and in the Father;' (2: 24;) God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him;' (4: 9 ;) "The Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.' (4: 14.) His preexistence is recognized in all those passages which speak of him as having been with the Father from the beginning,' as having been "manifested,' 'sent into the world,' as having 'come in the flesh.' His distinct personality is recognized in the appellation which is constantly given him of 'Son,' or 'Son of God; as also where he is called our 'advocate with the Father." Indeed, the main labor of the epistle is to establish the faith of the church in the divinity of Christ, and his incarnation, as being the very corner-stone of salvation. The antichrists against whom the apostle chiefly warns believers, are they who 'deny the Son,' (2: 24,) who 'confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh;' (4: 3;) and he makes the recognition of Christ's sonship and incarnation, the very test-mark of the true believer: e. g., 'Hereby know ye the spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God;' (4: 2, 15;) 'Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (5: 1, 5.) On the other hand there is not an intimation in the whole epistle that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person of the Godhead. It is spoken of as an 'unction from the Holy One; an 'anointing received from Him;' (2: 20, 27;) 'the spirit which he hath given us.' 3: 24, 4: 13. In all these expressions the idea manifestly is, that the Holy Ghost is not itself a divine person, but an emanation from a divine person. In ch. 4: 2, 3, the spirit of God is contrasted with the spirit of Antichrist; and it might as well be said that the spirit of Antichrist is a person distinct from Antichrist, as that the spirit of God is a person distinct from God. So in ch. 5: 8, the spirit is classed with the water and blood of Christ; and any one of the three may as well be called a divine person as the first.

6

The discourse of Christ in the 14th, 15th and 16th of John, where he speaks of the Holy Ghost as a personal instructor and comforter,' applying to it the pronouns he, him, &c., (see John 14: 16-26, 15: 26, 16: 7, &c.,) has perhaps as strong an appearance of favoring the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Ghost as any part of scripture. And yet on comparing 1 John 2: 20, 27, with that discourse, we perceive that the apostle had in mind the very agency which Christ promised under the appellation of the comforter;' and there calls it an 'unction from the Holy One'-an anointing received-and applies to it the pronoun it. There is no good reason why John should have used impersonal language, if he had regarded the

« VorigeDoorgaan »