INCARNATION
THERE is a philosophical principle underlying the doctrine of the Divine
Incarnation, whose logical deductions completely overthrow the claim of
Jesus of Nazareth to the Godhead, and which we regard as settling the
question as conclusively as any demonstrated problem in mathematics.
This argument is predicated upon the philosophical axiom, that two
infinite beings of any description of conception, cannot exist, either
in whole or in part, at the same time; and per consequence, it is
impossible that the Father and Son should both be God in a divine sense,
either conjointly or separately. The word infinite comprehends all; it
covers the whole ground; it fills the immensity of the universe, and
fills it to repletion! so that there is no room left for any other being
to exist. And whoever and whatever does exist must constitute a part of
this infinite whole.
Now, the Christian world concedes ( for it is the teaching of their
Scriptures), that the Father is God, always and truly, perfect,
complete, and absolute; that there is nothing wanting in him to
constitute him God in the most comprehensive and absolute sense of the
term; that he is all we can conceive of as constituting God, "the one
only true God" (John xvii. 3), and was such from all eternity, before
Jesus Christ was born into the world; and Paul puts the keystone into
the arch by proclaiming, "To us there is but one God, the Father." (
1 Cor. viii. 6.) Hence we have here a logical proposition (despite the
sophistry of Christendom) as impregnable as the rocks of Gibraltar, that
the Father alone is or can be God, which effectually shuts out every
other and all other beings in the universe from any participation in the
Godhead with the Father. And thus this parity of reasoning demonstrates
that the very moment you attempt to make Christ God, or any part of the
Godhead, you attempt a philosophical impossibility. You cannot introduce
another being as God in the infinite sense until the first-named
infinite God is dethroned and put out of existence, and this, of course,
is a self-evident impossibility. It it were not such, then we should
have two Gods, both absolute and infinite. On the other hand, if that
other being (who with the Christians is Jesus Christ, with the Hindoos
Chrishna, with the Budhists Sakia, &c. ) is introduced as only a part of
the infinite and perfect God, then it is evident to every mind with the
least philosophical perception, that some change or alteration must
take place in the latter before such a union can be effected. But such
a change, or any alteration, in a perfect infinite being would at once
reduce him to a changeable and finite being, and thus he would cease to
be God. For it is a clear philosophical and mathematical axiom, that a
perfect and infinite being cannot become more than infinite. And if
he could and should become less than infinite, he would at once become
finite, and thus lose all the attributes of the Godhead. To say or
assume, then, that Christ was God in the absolute or divine sense, and
the Father also God absolute, and yet that there is but one God, or that
the two could in any manner be united, so as to constitute but one God,
is not only a glaring solecism, but a positive contradiction in terms,
and an utter violation of the first axiomatic principles of philosophy
and mathematics. It also asserts the illogical hypothesis, that a part
can be equal to the whole; it first assumes the Father to be absolutely
God, then assumes the Son also to be absolutely God, and finally
assumes each to be only a part, and has to unite them to make whole and
culminates the theological farce. Such is Christian ratiocination.
Again, it is conceded by Christians, that the Father is an omnipresent
being; and we have shown that it is a mathematical impossibility for two
omnipresent beings, or two beings possessing any infinite attributes, to
exist at one and the same time. Hence the clear logical deducsequence,
not God. Again, we have another philosophical maxim or axiom familiar
to every schoolboy, that no two substances or beings can occupy the same
place at the same time; the first must be removed before the second can
by any possibility be introduced, in order thus to make room for the
latter. But as omnipresent means existing everywhere, there can be no
place to remove on omnipresent being to, or rather there can be no place
or space he can be withdrawn from in order to make room for another
being, without his ceasing to be omnipresent himself, and thereby
ceasing to be God.
It is thus shown to be a demonstrable truth that the omnipresence of
the Father does and must exclude that of the Son, and thus exclude the
possibility of his apatheosis or incarnated deityship. In other words,
it is established as a scientific principle upon a philosophical and
mathematical basis, that Jesus Christ was not and could not be "the
great I AM," "the only true God."
We will notice one other philosophical absurdity involved in the
doctrine of the divine incarnation--one other solecism comprehended
in the childish notion which invests the infinite God with finite
attributes. It is a well-established and well-understood axiom in
philosocomplete God; and thereby that the Son could not be
omnipresent, and that "the less cannot be made to contain the
greater." A pint bottle cannot be made to contain a quart of wine. For
the same reason a finite body cannot contain an infinite spirit. Hence
philosophy presses the conclusion that "the man Christ Jesus" could not
have comprehended in himself "the Godhead bodily," inasmuch as it would
have required the infinite God to be incorporated in a finite human
body. We are therefore compelled to reject the doctrine of the incarnate
divinity, the belief in the deityship of Jesus Christ, because (with
many other reasons enumerated elsewhere) it involves a direct tilt
against some of the plainest principles of science, and challenges, ay,
virtually overthrows, some of the fundamental laws of both natural and
moral philosophy. No philosopher, therefore, does, or can believe in
the absolute divinity of Jesus Christ.