The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1872-04-18
SERMON
DELIVERED IN THE CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH, BY REV. II HITCH
COCK, ON SUNDAY EVENING,
APRIL I4rH 1872.

Rom 9;5 !'Of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came, who is over ALL God blessed for
/ ever. Amen"
These two verses you will observe, present
the divinity o! Christ 10 two distinct ways,
suggesting two grand modes of Scripture re.
presentation, and two grand divisions of tbs
argument tor the establishment of the doc
Lrlne. In one he is called the Son OF Goa, in the
other he Is called God Taken together
therefore, the two passages may serve as g
bridge over which we may pass from our last
discussion to the one which we propose to
| night. For last Sunday evening, as you will
| remember, We considered the import of the
phrase Son Of God ~ III the way of reply to
the Rev. Mr.. Simmons, whose reasoning, we
thought, had tended TO despoii that expires
sion of its origina! and peculiar meaning, as
applied to Christ. To night we enter upon
The second department OF the discussion, not
In the way OIL reply to my brother, however,
tor the simple reason that his printed dig
course has nothing here to reply to. He
seems to have ignored this department en-
tirely, which is ali the more + markabIe, in
view OF the TACT that here lies the historic
field whereOn the great battle has been
| fought, and WhGreon have been mustered the
grand forces OF the Trinltarlan argument. o.
course it is not to be demanded OF q preacher
| hat he shall 90 everything IN q single ser
mon. But inasmucn as my brother was pro-
fessedly sketchlng tie history OF the doctrine,
| it seems hardly laIr that he should have given
|
a department. OF proof which evangelical
| chrlstend0m has always relied on as the one
OF chief Importance.
In entering now upon this second discussion
of the argument, am embarrassed by the
very extent OF the field and the abundance OF
material. To admit into our discussion to-
| night ali the form OF proof which here crowd
| themselves upon ue, would be impossible.
| TO barely name them would be ali that we
could do and that would be TO give you
nothing but dry catalogue of statements,
with no chance tor specification or ilIustra.
| zion. | find myself unable TO give more than
single sermon on tDlS department of the
discussion, lor other themes are pressing upon
The heels OF this. So that shall be compelled
! 10 leave untouched arguments lying right
| before me, as good and conclusive as those
which shall adduce' Yielding to this ne
cessIty, propose TO contiue the discussion
| TO night to four points, which you will at
| once recognize Rs among those which stand
out most clearly on the lace OF the inspired
testimony respecting the person OF Christ,
namely, the fact that Christ Is called Goa,
| that ne is represented as being in the condi
| ton OF God, as preterrlng the works OF God,
as being WorsApped as God--these tour.
| wish then, to emphasize the fact that our
treatment can be only partial at best, and
must fail ut erly tg give the tull strength oil
the divine testimony on the subject. Still
think it Will afford US pretty deci1ed hint
as TO the direction IN which that testimony
tGn&S.
LIST. My first proposition tonight, then,
is this, that the Scriptures present Christ 10
MS not simply as the Son OF God, as we had
il in The former discussion, but as God, and
In such a way as TO make it obvious that the
Supreme God himself is being introduced TO
our notice Read Oh this point Is. 9 =; g. Jno.
Is, 10; Rom. 9; 4, 5,(whlch forms parl
OF our tex0; Heb S'9 compared With
Tim. 8 10, 16 ; Jno. 5 (; %; Acts 20; %.
Not only ad these passages, but compare
them together. For though, taken singly,
one may be stronger than another as PROOF,
Eyet there is not one which does NOT add
strength to all the rest. DR.. Chanting admlLs
that two or three o: these passages may as
crlbe the title OF God to Christ, but thinks
that in the case of the Others the Original
reading may have been different; that the text
may have been changed. But 1t les not oeen
demonstrated in the case OF one OF these pass
| ages, that the text has been changed and
W. have no right to resort to conjecture
| reading until we are absolutely COM eiled 10
| do o. We are bound to assume the purity
| G. the leXt as we have it we are not allow
| ed 10 change the text to suit OurargumenC The
| very fact OF this Straning after oLher read
| Ings shows that these passages in their pre-
sent reading do teach that Christ Is God.
| But in the case of two or three OF these pas
sages, it would seem. DR.. Claiming himself
gives up the hope OF finding any other read
the carefully prepared nots to the second
edition OF his famous Baltimore sermon, 81
| have thus collected all the passages in th,
| New Testament in which Jesus is supposed 10
be called God, and the result H. that in two
or three passages this title may be given 10
him." Now, ii Christ is directly ca led God
in two or three passages, why labor so har.
to change the reading of other passages In
which he is also called God. The Bible is
| harmonious with itself, and there is u strong
presumption that the other passages lid come
| from the pen of IDspiratIon in the form in
which we now have them, and that thew d.
all teach one and the same doctrine Al All
events we will stand by every one of them
till we have some positive proof against
Ifhem.
But DR.. Charming does not reason in this
way. After going as far as he could IN pro
posing changes of readings, and finding after
all his efforts that there were few stubborn
passages left in which THAI method woutd
not work OF ALL he gives up the chase on
that line. and whas do you think be does
next? Why, there was ust one thing left
~hIch he could do without yielding tue
whole point in controversy. and thatis what
he does. He grants that the title is gwen.
that Jesus actually seems to b. called God III
two or three pi sssges, but thinks they can
not mean God Sin the highest and most literal
sense ~ Oh no, that would be too much
We should be tempted to smile here, il we
fdid not remember what q great and good
man DR.. ChanniDg was. Why did it not oc
cur to him to employ this Argument at the
start He might have applied it TO all the
passages at the outset, and thus he would
| have saved himself his arduous critical
| abors' How easy it would have been to say
Certainly, all OF these passages do seem to
call Jesus God but then OF course they do
not mean God-not God in the highest and
most literal SeraSe." Now, it is alwaya po>.
sibe, indeed, TO fall back upon this style OF
argument, when one finds himself driven
thereto !; but when a man does this, he
adopts principle which would render It
impossible to prove anything from the Bible
I-c,n.. 49,, tlalIr hcnl J. 4 -