Jesus, Prophet of Islam - The Islamic Bulletin

Later Unitarians in Christianity 241

reconàledwith the idea, that the manifestation of Christ,

as God, was a primary object of Christianity, our adver­

saries must determine.

If we examine the passages in which Jesus is distin­

guished from God, we shall see, that they not only speak

of him as another being, but seem to labour to express

his inferiority. He is continuaHy spoken of as the Son of

God, sent of God, receiving all his powers from God,

working miracles because God was with him, judging

justly because God taught him, having daims on our

belief, because he was anointed and sealed by God, and

was able of himself to do nothing. The NewTestament is

filled with this language. Now, we ask, what impres­

sion this language was fitted and intended to make?

Could any, who heard it, have imagined that Jesus was

the very God to whom he was 50 industriously dedared

to be inferior; the very Being by Whom he was sent, and

from Whom he professed to have received his message

and power?

Trinitarians profess to derive sorne important advan­

tages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnishes

them, they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it

showstheman infinite being suffering for theirsins. The

confidence with which this fallacy is repeated astonishes

us. When pressed with the question, whether they re­

ally believe, that the infinite and unchangeable God

suffered and died on the cross, they acknowledge that

this is not true, but thatChrist's humanmindalone sus­

tained the pains of death. How have we, then, an infi­

nite sufferer? This language seems to us an imposition

on common minds, and very derogatory to God's jus­

tice, as if this attribute could be satisfied by a sophism

and a fiction ... 61

Thus, even though Channing mistakenly believed that Jesus was
crucified and was resurrected, he was still able to illustrate the ab­
surdity of the doctrine of the Atonement and Redemption of 5ins,
despite his ignorance of the fact that the alleged events on which
this doctrine is based never took place. Channing further refuted
the doctrine on the following grounds: