INCARNATION
THERE is also a physiological principle (discovered by the author)
comprised in the doctrine of the Divine Incarnation fatal in its
practical and logical application to the divinity of Jesus Christ,
and all the other incarnate or flesh-invested Gods of antiquity. It is
evidently fraught with much logical force. It is based upon the law of
mental and physical correspondence. As is the physical conformation, so
is the mentality, is a law of analogy which pilots us to nearly all our
practical knowledge of the natural world. A knowledge of either serves
as an index to the other.
When we observe an animal possessing that physical form and construction
peculiar to its species, we expect to find it practically exhibiting
the nature, character, disposition, and habits peculiar to that class of
animals. If it possesses, for example, the conformation of a sheep, we
infer at once that it has the disposition of a sheep, and we are never
disappointed in this conclusion. And when we encounter an animal with
the tiger form, we expect to see exhibited the tiger spirit. If it
possesses the well-known physical conformation of the tiger, we are
never deceived or misled when we assign it a predatory disposition. If
it is a tiger form, it is sure to be a tiger in character and habits.
And so of all the genera and species of animals that range upon the face
of the globe. We may travel through the whole field of animated
nature, and observe the infallible operation of this beautiful law
of correspondence till we come, however, to the crowning work of God,
called Man. Here we find this law, this beautiful chain of analogy,
broken by the doctrine of the "divine incarnation." God becomes a man,
at least is made to exhibit every external appearance of a man. All
external distinction between God and man is thus obliterated. So that
the very first being we meet in the street or on the highway possessing
the form, size, and physical conformation of a man, and presenting every
other external appearance of being a man, may nevertheless be a God. And
no less is this objection practically exemplified, and not less is the
infraction of this beautiful law of analogy observable in the case of
Jesus Christ, than in the numerous other incarnate Gods and demigods of
antiquity. Being in appearance a man, how was he to be, or how could he
be, visually distinguished from a man? Or how could those men who
were cotemporary with him, know, as they approached him, or as they
approached each other, whether they were meeting a man or a God? Seeing
that "he was found in fashion as a man" (Phil. ii. 8), either he might
be mistaken for a man, or they for a God. They were constantly liable to
be confounded. If, then, the infinite deityship was lodged in the person
of Jesus Christ, it is evident that that important fundamental law of
nature--"as is the form, so is the character"--was utterly annulled,
prostrated, annihilated, and banished from the world by the act. So
that all was, and is henceforth and forever, chaos, confusion, and
uncertainty. For if the principle can be violated in one instance, it
may be in another, and in thousands of cases, ad infinitum. If one case
could be allowed to occur, the principle is established, and nature's
universal chain of analogy is broken and destroyed; for to intercept the
law is to "break the tenth and ten thousandth link alike."
Hence it is evident that if a being resembling a man may be a God, an
animal resembling a cow may be a horse, and yonder stick a poisonous
adder; and fatal may be the consequences, in thousands of instances, in
judging or inferring the nature and character of an animal by its form
and size. A supposed innocent animal might be a deadly enemy, or
vice versa. Can we then believe, or dare we believe, a doctrine
so atheistical in its tendencies as that the Infinite Diety was
incorporated in the person of the meek and lowly Jesus, when it would
thus set at naught, violate, prostrate, and utterly cancel from the
world one of God's own fundamental laws, and one of the essential
principles of natural science, and banish forever the co-ordinate
harmony of the universe, and thus inaugurate a state of universal
disorder, incertitude, anarchy, and misrule into the otherwise
beautifully law-governed, well-regulated domain of nature? Certainly,
most certainly not! If the incarnation of the Deity, should or
could take place, there should be something strikingly peculiar, ay,
infinitely peculiar, in his figure, size, and general appearance, in
order to make him susceptible of being distinguished from the human.
Otherwise, men would be liable to be constantly mistaking and worshiping
each other for the Great Almighty and Ubiquitous God, and thus
constantly blundering into idolatry. And we actually find several cases
reported in the Scriptures (mark the fact well) of men, ay, the
saints themselves, being led into this error; being led to commit "the
high-handed sin of idolatry" in consequence of their previous acceptance
of the belief in a man-God--that is, a God of human size and type. St.
John, in two instances, was in the act of worshipping a being possessing
the human form, whom he mistook for the omnipotent and omnipresent God.
(See Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 4.) Having, perhaps, been taught that
"the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ Jesus," he probably
mistook the being he met for Him, and hence offered to worship him. If,
then, Christ's own "inspired disciples" could thus be betrayed into "the
sin of idolatry" by having abolished the infinite distinction between
the divine and the human, we surely find here a very weighty argument
against such a leveling and equalizing doctrine. And certainly nothing
could be better calculated to promote "the sin of idolatry" than thus to
obliterate the broad, the infinitely grand line of demarkation between
the infinite God and his finite creature man. Indeed, may we not here
find the very origin and the cause of the now general prevalence
of idolatry in pagan countries? Is it not directly traceable to the
demolition of the broad, high, and insurmountable wall of distinction
which ought forever to stand between a God of infinite attributes, and a
being caged up in the human form? Certainly, most certainly it is. Hence
here I would ask, How can Christians, after subscribing to the doctrine,
"that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in the man Christ Jesus"
(as Paul very appropriately calls him), condemn the people of any age or
nation for worshipping as God their fellow-beings--that is, beings with
the human form? Certainly the man who could believe that the infinite
God could be comprehended or incorporated in the person of Jesus, could
easily be brought to believe that the Grand Lama of Thibet is a proper
object of divine worship. He only lacks the substitution of names.
Substitute the Grand Lama for that of Jesus Christ, and the thing is
done. And idolatry thus becomes an easily established institution, and
its abolition in any country an absolute moral impossibility.