C. But he did not contradict the Jews, when they accused him of making himself equal with God. U. He did contradict them virtually. He said if the men of old unto whom the word of the law came were called Gods, it was not blasphemy, that he whom the Father had sanctified and sent should call himself the Son of God. Moreover, by looking at the passage you will find that the point of accusation among the Jews, which Christ answered, was not that he called himself directly God, but the Son of God. Look at John x, for yourself. C. But did not Thomas call Jesus "My Lord and my God?" U. No. He merely exclaimed, My Lord and My God, when the reality of Christ's resurrection was proved to him. What more natural for him, than to speak the name of God, as in ejaculatory prayer, in view of so wondrous a display of Divine Power, in raising the Son from the grave. C. You will at least allow, that Jesus said to his disciples, He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also? U. Of course I allow it, but I should doubt your inference from that passage of Scripture. I believe Christ to have been the moral image and representative of God. He, therefore, who saw the Son, in a spiritual sense, saw the Father. Put what interpretation you please upon this passage, it will not favour your view. If they, who looked on Christ, saw the Father in person, then Christ was not the second person in the Trinity, but was the Father himself,-a doctrine which our Swedenborgian friend here asserts, and which you deny. C. But without urging this point further, let me ask you, if Christ is not called the Alpha and Omega? U. Yes. But the passage in the Book of Revelation, which declares this, by no means declares him to be God. Christ was indeed the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega of the new dispensation, the Christian Religion. C. You seem to have some ingenuity in explaining the Scriptures your own way, but you cannot explain away the declaration in Hebrews 1, 2, that Christ made the world. 6 It is U. No such thing is stated in the book of Hebrews. said there, that God made the world through his Son. God works by inferior agents, and the very fact of God using the Son as an instrument of creation shows the Son's inferiority. Moreover, the word translated,' worlds' means rather ages,' and we of course allow that God ordained the new ages, or Christian dispensation, through Christ. None of your alleged texts do anything to shake the doctrine of Christ, "My Father is greater than I.” C. But my dear sir, be careful how you talk. Did not Christ exercise Supreme power, raise the dead, and control the elements? U. Yes. But the power was given him. Does he not say, The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works? C. He surely knew all things, and therefore was the Omniscient God. U. He denies knowing all things, and says he did not know the time of the judgment. C. Ah, but it was only in his human nature, that he was ignorant of this event. In his Divine nature he knew all things. U. Of course in so far as he was God, he was Omniscient, but since he expressly tells us, that he was ignorant of an important future event, we must conclude of course that he was not wholly God. S. The whole of this difficulty is obviated by remembering the distinction between the revealed and the unrevealed God. The Father was the unrevealed God, who manifested himself in the Son. The Father unrevealed knew all things. But the Son did not know all things. U. As far as I comprehend your obscure language, you but repeat my doctrine. Of course the Father knows all things, and the Son knows as much as the Father revealed to him. But it appears by the Scriptures, that he did not reveal to the Son the day of judgment. The Son was not Omniscient, therefore, and was not God. S. But Christ was full of Wisdom and Love-filled with all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. U. True, but that does not make him God. We are all called on to aspire to a fulness of Divine Grace, yet it is not expected we shall become God himself. C. But you must remember, that without the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, there can be no infinite atonement. The infinite sin of mankind requires an infinite sacrifice-the sacrifice of Deity himself. S. and U. That doctrine is an absurdity. U. Yes. You now see I have an advocate in my brother, who has just been on your side. He rejects, as I do, the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice-or the sacrifice of the second person in the Godhead, or any sinless being, as an equivalent or substitute for the sins of mankind. C. But don't you feel the need of an atonement? Are not all sinners? U. Yes, all are sinners, and the great motive to reconciliation or atonement, or union with God, is found in the mission of his Son, especially in the love of Christ, as shown on the Cross, and the power of God in raising him from the grave. I see in all this no sacrifice of Christ to God's wrath, but an offering of the sinless Jesus for the benefit of sinful men. He sealed his truth by his blood, and the eternal life was confirmed by his resurrection. His death is thus the great fact that should touch the heart with sense of its sin, and kindle the hope of eternal life. C. But the whole Old Testament is full of the doctrine of sacrifice. S. Yes. But we choose to judge of the great sacrifice upon New Testament principles, and not by the narrow ideas of the Jews. It is the motive that hallows a deed in the sight of God. Even in regard to sacrifices under the old dispensation, it was the motive that rendered them acceptable. Of course, then, the sacrifice of Christ is important only as it showed his Divine Love. It was not the mere drops of blood, but the Love, that poured out its blood in attestation of the truth. It was by this, that humanity was glorified in the dying Saviour, and the union of man and God, or the Atonement, was made complete. U. Let us end here, for we can all agree that the great aim of Christ's death was to touch the human heart, and lead to a union of human hearts with God. C. Do your preachers tell men of their sins and insist on the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ? U. We assuredly do. I defy you to point out more strict preachers in insisting on the necessity of repentance of sin and a living faith in Christ, than are to be found in our pulpits. C. I had mistaken you then altogether. This conversation has given me some new ideas. And although my creed is unshaken, I trust I have taken some useful lessons in charity. Quaker. Friends, I have listened to your conversation, and while you differ so much in doctrine, have been pleased to find so much kindliness of spirit. Let us remember, that charity is chief of the graces. U. Our friend seems to be orthodox indeed. Christian Love is after all the main point, and without charity all knowledge is a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbol. Let us bear this faith to our pillows, and pray our Heavenly Father to give us all needful light concerning truth and duty. It is already late and we are disturbing our fellow-passengers, who have gone to their berths and are seeking sleep.* * This is the substance of a dialogue between a Unitarian, a Calvinistic and a Swedenborgian minister, around the stove of a steamboat cabin a few months since on the Ohio river. S. O. |