« AnteriorContinuar »
i. 18. “ The Lord grant that he may find “ mercy of the Lord in that day," which some of the orthodox have dignified with the title of loca efficacissima, in settling the doctrine of a godman. (See the Unitarian Tracts, 4tó. 1691. vol. i. tract Brief Hist. of Unitarians, p. 15. 21.) And it confirms this reasoning from Exod. iii. 14, to prove the divinity of Moses, that this very kind of language is elsewhere unequivocally applied to Moses : “ The Lord commanded
Lord “ to give the land,” &c. Numb. xxxvi. 2. Moses may be proved to be God, 11. From his being the Son of God. All advo
cates for a godman hold, that the son of God is God himself, though they deny that the son is the father, because that would be to “ confound the persons” of the godhead. This is a mystery ; but that is so much the better, as long as it is orthodox. Now that Moses was the son of God, appears clearly from Hosea xi. 1. “ I called my son out of “Egypt,” compared with Exod. iii. 4. Heb. xi. 27. Commentators, I know, understand the words in Hosea as spoken of the whole body of the Israelites; but then it ought to have been plural, my sons : or, if it means them all, yet Moses was one, and the most distinguished one of them. Or it may refer to Moses primarily, and to the nation second. arily, and that may be the reason for using the singular number in the particular con
nection and context in which it stands in
purpose of his finally quitting that coun-
had a divine and a human nature.
his birth, death, and resurrection. No man
he was buried by the Lord, which, perhaps, from what we have before seen, may mean himself. However that be, no man could ever find his sepulchre. Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6. And that he came to life again, appears from Matt. xvii, 3. And it seems from Deut. xxxiv. 7, as if he had this life in himself; and to confirm this, we are no where told that God raised him from the dead, but, on the contrary, that God buried him. He also wrote the account of his own death, for he wrote the book of Deuteron in which we read that account. No man, nor I think any other being, except a godman, could be capable of doing this. To such a being, no. thing can be easier. He relates in his divine nature, what he undergoes in his human nature. It is said, in Jude 9, that “ Michael “ the archangel contended with the devil “ about the body of Moses.” This I think every body must see to be a symbolical representation of the two natures in Moses contending with each other : the one, the divine, which was heavenly, spiritual, angelic; the other, the human, which was “ earthly, “ sensual, devilish.” Jam. iii. 15. Jannes and Jambres too (2 Tim. iii. 8.), who are such mysterious personages, that the commentators could never find out who they were, or properly identify their existence, seem, some how or other, to typify the opposition made to Moses in his twofold capacity: whether they
are to be considered as types or anti-types, I do not take upon me to decide, having but
little skill in that sort of theology. Moses may be proved to be God, 13. From its being blasphemy and sin of the
highest kind to speak against Moses. Acts vi. 11. Numb. xxi. 5, 7. Observe, that in the text from the Acts, the words Moses and God are joined together in the same case, by the copulative xos, and that the preposition is, which is prefixed to the first noun, is omit
ted before the second; and, therefore, by -- Mr. Sharp's rule, which I have shewn to
be equally applicable to prepositions as to articles, (see Letter the second, page 32.), Moses and God refer to the same person. Observe too, that Moses stands first, a cir. cumstance which, the fathers as well as some of their sons, consider as going a great way towards proving a person to be equal with God. In the two passages from Numbers, Moses being mentioned “jointly' with God, the sin most certainly amounts to supreme,'
i. e. to blasphemy. Moses may be proved to be God, 14. From the Israelites believing in him, in the
same manner as they did in the Lord. Exod. xiv. 31.; and from the Lord's coming down from heaven, for the express púrpose of making them so believe in Moses for ever. Exod. xix. 9. Our version has believe only, in these passages; but in the hebrew it is bea licve in.
Moses may be proved to be God, 15. From his having a prophet. Exod. vii, 1. Now
there are no prophets mentioned in scripture but those of the Lord, or those of a false God. Moses, therefore, not being a false God, must be the true. Also, from his having angels and ministers at his command. Numb. xx. 14. Deut. ii. 26. Exod. xxiv. 13. Josh. i. 1. In our common version the two first texts read messengers, but in the hebrew the words, in all the four texts, are the very same as those in Psal. civ. 4. So that if we could but get a corrected version,' by some good, sound, believer, we should here have some new proofs' and 'testimonies in fa
vour of Moses's divine nature, which ought not to be with-held from the mere
english reader.' (Sharp's Rem. p. 44.) Moses may be proved to be God, 16. From the Israelites being baptized into [sis,
the same as in Matt. xxviii. 19.] Moses. 1 Cor. x. 2. To be baptized into any one, is the same as to be baptized into his name, as appears clearly from comparing Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27, with Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. Now, all sound divines hold,* that he into whom, or into whose name, any one is baptized, be
* And among these, the present bishop of London, Dr. Por. teus, who has unadvisedly asserted, that the baptismal form (Matt. xxviii. 19), is “one principal ground of the doctrine of “ the trinity.” See his Lectures, vol. ii. p. 335. If this be the principal ground, may we not ask-what can be the weak ground?