satipieee 
 
 Spit emewna awn 
 Genoa 
 
 Sora ere tere rene 
 Sen = 
 
 ene 
 
BT 111 .B336 1831 
 
 Bagot, Daniel. | 
 A synopsis of the Scripture. 
 proofs of the Trinity | 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/synopsisofscript0Obago 
 
al 
 
 ? >) 
 J. 
 
ries AN) 
 yee 
 
. SYNOPSIS OF THE SCRIPTURE PROOFS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE TRINITY, 
 | : : at r ‘ wnt 
 * « he | £ A. REPLY 
 /~* 0 THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THAT DOCTRINE, ~ 
 CONTAINED 
 
 IN “SERMONS LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE REV. 
 ? JOHN MITCHEL, OF NEWRY. 
 
 8 
 
 ~ 2 
 ae. 
 
 BY THE. REV. DANIEL ‘BAGOT, AnB. 
 
 = 
 CHAPLAIN OF ST. PATRICK’ Ss 5 CHURCH IN NENG Ns 
 
 eo wine cee ieacialaiaaionlne 
 
 i se Dublisn; 
 PUBLISHED BY MARTIN KEENE & SON, 
 COLLEGE-GREEN ; 
 AND SOLD BY OLIPHANT, EDINBURGH; JELLETT, ARMAGH ; M‘COMB, 
 
 4 ; 
 
 : ‘BELFAST 35 AND GREER AND BAILIE), NEWRY. 
 
 1831. 
 = a 
 
) eae 
 
 we ah te ti Lt 
 
TO 
 jel ADVOCATES OF SCRIPTURAL TRUTH, 
 ESPECIALLY TO THOSE 
 WHO HAVE RENOUNCED 
 THE SENTIMENTS WHICH THE FOLLOWING 
 TREATISE HAS BEEN WRITTEN 
 
 TO REFUTE, 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY 
 
 DEDICATED, BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
at , i" 3 
 b 
 
 Moe 
 a 
 4 
 ”, 
 
 EE 
 
 ee 
 
ge ogOPER! poo ee 
 tidak, “ta 
 7 on NORTON | 
 | REC. ‘UN 15601 
 D mm LY % f) 1. ELC BL 
 y 
 
 4 
 PITT Ws ees 
 KK * bd ncity 
 aN : ar he 4 
 4 a’ 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 —~e— 
 
 Nearly four years have elapsed since the Sermons, 
 to which the following treatise refers, were published ; 
 and during that time it has Srequently been a matter 
 of surprise to some, and of triumph to others, that 
 
 they have elicited no reply. 
 
 The Author has hitherto been unwilling to engage 
 in the undertaking, with the hope that some person 
 of more experience and information would have done 
 so, but as this does not appear likely, and as the 
 Sermons alluded to have arrived at a second edition, 
 and have been industriously and extensively circulated, 
 he now ventures to present this volume to the public. 
 
 To the first three Sermons of Mr. Mitchel, he has 
 little objection to offer. In them he stands upon 
 an elevation high above Socinianism, and from the 
 'yantage ground of Scripture refutes the errors of that 
 destructive system, as ably and successfully as any 
 
 Trinitarian could desire. 
 
Vie 
 
 In the first chapter of the following work, the Author 
 has given a general view of the entire system which 
 he maintains, and which Mr. Mitchel has attempted 
 to oppose, in order to show how very partially he has 
 attacked that system. It may at once be seen that 
 he has not alluded to the one-tenth of the arguments by 
 which the doctrine of the Trinity is maintained, and 
 that those which he has left unnoticed would, by 
 themselves, be a sufficient support for that doctrine, 
 
 even if he had successfully overturned the rest. 
 
 There is one characteristic in Mr. Mitchel’s publica- 
 tion which the Author would be anxious to emulate—the 
 spirit of mildness and apparent candour which pervades 
 a. dt unquestionably exhibits a greater amount of 
 liberal and coneiliating charity than any other publi- 
 cation which has hitherto emanated from the system 
 with which he stands connected. He has well and 
 Sairly observed the legitimate distinction between persons 
 and opinions ; and invariably acted upon a principle 
 which ought ever to pervade a controversy of a religious 
 character, that though truth can be only on one side, 
 sincerity may be on both. This must give to the defence 
 of his sentiments an advantage which the Author would 
 
 not wish to leave him the sole possession of. 
 
 The only object which the Auihor has had in view in 
 
 the publication of the following treatise, is the main- 
 
Vil. 
 tenance of what he conceives to be important Seriptural 
 
 truth ; and with this feeling he begs leave to entrust 
 
 it to the indulgence of his readers. 
 
 Newry, 1st November, 1831. 
 
‘nega 
 
A SYNOPSIS, &c. 
 
 PARE 
 The doctrine of the Trinity (or Tri-unity) is this, 
 
 that the Scriptures reveal to us one Burne as the 
 
 Supreme God, and that this Divine Being subsists in a 
 
 plurality of Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 
 Ghost. 
 
 To demonstrate this doctrine it will be necessary to 
 establish the following propositions : 
 
 1. That there is but one God. 
 
 2. That there isa plurality in the Divine nature. 
 
 3. That there are three Persons mentioned in 
 Scripture, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to 
 whom this plurality is confined. 
 
 4. That the essential attributes of Supreme Deity 
 are ascribed to these three persons, in consequence of 
 which we must believe the Supreme Deity of each. 
 
 And 5. That we must believe the Deity of each 
 
 Person in consistency with the unity of the Divine 
 
 Being ; or that, in other words, we must believe the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 We shall endeavour to prove each of these propo- 
 sitions in order. 
 1, THERE IS BUT ONE GOD. 
 Deut. vi. 4, “ The Lord our God is one Lord.” 
 John, xvii. 3, “ Thee, the only true God,” &c. 
 
2 
 
 Ist Cor. viii. 6, “ There is but one God, the Father,” 
 &C. 
 Ephs. iv. 6, “ One God and Father of all,” &c. 
 
 fl. THERE IS A PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE: 
 
 Gen. i. 1, “God created,” in which the Hebrew 
 term for * God” is in the plural number, and for 
 - “created” in the singular. 
 
 Gen. i. 26, “ And God said, let us make.” 
 
 iii. 22, “ One of us.” 
 xi. 7, “Let us go down.” 
 xix. 24, “ The Lorp rained from the Lorp.” 
 
 Deut. vi. 4, “The Lord our God is one Lord,” 
 or, as it is in the original, “ The Lord our Gons is one 
 Lord.” 
 
 Psalm cx. 1, “ The Lorp said unto my Lord.” 
 
 Isaiah, vi. 8, “ Whom shall I send, and who will 
 go for us.” 
 
 III. THERE ARE THREE PERSONS MENTIONED IN 
 SCRIPTURE, THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE 
 HOLY GHOST, TO WHOM THIS. PLURALITY IS 
 CONFINED. 
 
 These three persons are constantly referred to in 
 Scripture ; for instance, in Mathew, iii. 16 and 17, the 
 Fatuer and the Hoty Srrrir are represented as 
 giving their distinct sanction to the undertaking of the 
 Son. In Math. xxviii. 19, each person is repre- 
 sented as presiding over the Christian Church, and the 
 Apostles are directed to dedicate every member of that 
 Church respectively to each. In John, xiv. 16, the 
 Son is represented as interceding, the FATHER as 
 
3 
 
 granting, and the Hoty Guost as coming. And in II. 
 Cor. xtii. 14, the three persons are prayed to by the 
 Apostle as the authors and sources of spiritual blessings. 
 And it is further evident that the plurality which we 
 have proved in the last section is to be referred to these 
 three persons, from the fact that whenever the works 
 referred to in the passages we have quoted are taken 
 notice of in other parts of Scripture, they are expressly 
 ascribed to these three persons ; for instance, the work of 
 creation is frequently ascribed to the Father—is 
 ascribed to the Son, in John, i. 3, and Coll. i.16. &c. 
 —and to the Holy Ghost, in Gen. 1.2, and Job, xxvi. 13, 
 &c. ; and the mission of Isaiah, spoken of in Isaiah, vi. 
 8, is ascribed to the Father on the admission of all 
 Christians—to-the Son, in John, xii. 41—and to the 
 Holy Ghost, in Acts, xxviii. 25 and 26. 
 
 & 
 
 IV. THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SUPREME DEITY 
 ARE ASCRIBED TO THESE THREE PERSONS, IN CON- 
 SEQUENCE OF WHICH WE MUST BELIEVE THE 
 SUPREME DEITY OF EACH. 
 
 (1.) We need not adduce proofs to shew that the 
 essential attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed to 
 the Faruer, for the Deity of the Father is admitted 
 by all Christians. _ 
 
 (2.) The essential attributes of Supreme Deity are 
 ascribed to the Son in the following passages : 
 
 The TITLEs in 3 
 
 Isaiah, vi. 5, explained by John, xii. 41, “* The King, 
 the Lord of Hosts.” A 
 
 Isaiah, vii. 14, explained by Math. i. 23, “ Emmanuel, 
 God with us.” P 
 
 = 
 
 iy 
 
44 
 
 Isaiah, ix. 6, explained by Luke, i. 32, “ Mighay God, 
 everlasting Father.” 
 In John, i. 1, God. 
 Romans, ix. 5, ‘ Over all God, blessed for ever- 
 more.” 
 In Heb. i. 8. “ God.” 
 Titus, ii. 13, “ The great God.” 
 I. John, v. 20, “‘ The true God.” 
 - Rey. xix. 16, “‘ King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” 
 And the title “Lord,” which is so frequently 
 ascribed to Christ in the New Testament, is the term 
 which i is used in the Septuagint version * the Bible 
 as the translation of Jehovah. 
 Erernar Existence is ascribed to Christ, in 
 Micah, v. 2, “ Goings forth from old from Ever- 
 lasting.” 
 John, viii. 58, “ Before Abraham was, I am.” 
 Coll. i. 15, ‘First born of every creature.” 
 17, “ Before all things.” 
 - Heb.i. 8, “ For ever and ever.” 
 Heb. xii. 8, “ The same yesterday, to-day, and 
 for ever.” : 
 Rev. i. 8, “ Alpha and Omega.” 
 17, “* First and last.” 
 OMNIPOTENCE is ascribed to Christ; in 
 Psalm, xlv. 3, “ Most mighty.” 
 Isaiah, ix. 6, “ Mighty.” oe 
 Math. xxviii. 18, “All power is given unto me in 
 Heaven and in earth.” 
 Phil. iii, 21, “ Able to subdue all things unto himself.” 
 Heb. i. 3, “ Upholding all things by the word of his 
 
 power.” 
 
Rev. 1. 8, “ Almighty.” ; 
 
 And his being the Creator of the world presupposes 
 his omnipotence. His miracles also demonstrate his 
 almighty power. 
 
 OMNIPRESENCE is ascribed to Christ, in 
 
 Math. xviii. 20, <‘ Where two or three are gathered 
 together, there am I in the midst of them.” 
 
 Math. xxviii. 20, “ Lo, I am with you — 
 
 Eph. i. 23, “ Filleth all in all.” 
 
 And his performing the work of Providence, as 
 asserted in Coll. i. 17, necessarily implies his om- 
 nipresence. 
 
 OMNISCIENCE is ascribed to Christ, in 
 
 John, ii. 25, “ He knew what was in man.” 
 
 John, vi. 64, “ Jesus knew from the beginning who 
 they were who believed not,” &c. 
 
 Rey. u. 23 (explained by Jer. xvii. 9 and 10), “1 
 am He which searcheth the reins and hearts,” &c. 
 
 And his performing the office of Judge necessarily 
 requires omniscience to enable him “ to bring to light 
 the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the 
 counsels of the hearts.” I. Cor. iy. 5. 
 
 The Works of Supreme Deity are ascribed to 
 Christ, viz. : 
 
 Creation, in John, i. 3. 
 
 Coll. i. 16, &c. 
 Providence, in Coll. i. 17. 
 Heb. i. 3, &c. 
 Dominion, in Isaiah, vi. 1. 
 Heb. i. 8, &c. 
 Giving and restoring life, in John, v. 21. 
 
 John, vi. 40, &c. 
 B 
 
6 
 
 The forgiveness of sins, in Exodus, xxiii. 21. 
 Col. iii. 13, &c. 
 
 The act of future judgment, in John, v. 22. 
 
 The Worsuip peculiar to Supreme Deity is re- 
 ferred to Christ, in 
 
 John, v. 23, “ That all men should honour the Son, 
 even as they honour the father,” &c. 
 
 Heb. i. 6, “ Let all the Angels of God worship him.” 
 
 Phil. ii. 10, “‘ That at the name of Jesus every knee 
 should baw.” 
 
 In Isaiah, vi. 3, the Cherubim are represented as 
 worshipping Christ. 
 
 In Luke, xxiv. 52, the Apostles are said to have 
 worshipped him. ; 
 
 In Acts, vu. 59, Stephen, when full of the Holy 
 Ghost, prayed to him. 
 
 St. Paul is frequently represented as praying to 
 Christ, as in I. Thess. ii. 11, and II. Cor. xii. 8.9- 
 
 Christians are described by the worship which they 
 paid to him, as in I. Cor. i. 2. 
 
 The Supreme Deity cf Christ is also indefinitely 
 implied in the following passages, viz. : 
 
 John, x. 30, “Iand my Father are one.” 
 
 Coll. ii. 9, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily.” 
 
 Phil. ii. 6, “‘ Being in the form of God, he thought it 
 not robbery to be equal with God. 
 
 (3.) The essential attributes of Supreme Deity are 
 ascribed to the Hoty Guosr in the following passages : 
 
 The TITLES, viz.: 
 In Acts, xxviii. 25, he is said to have been the Lord 
 
7 
 
 Jehovah, who gave a commission to Isaiah (see Isaiah 
 Wis,92) 
 
 In Rom. xy. 19, he is said to have been the God 
 through whose power Christ performed his miracles (see 
 Acts, ii. 22.) ii 
 
 In John, ii. 5 and 8, he is said to have been the God 
 of whom believers are born (see John, i. 13.) 
 
 In Acts, v. 3, he is said to be the God against whom 
 Ananias lied (see verse 4.) 
 
 In I. Cor. iii. 16, he is said to be the God whose 
 temple believers are. 
 
 In Gall. vy. 22, he is said be the God by whose 
 operation faith is produced (see Coll. ii. 12.) 
 
 In II. Peter, i. 21, he is said to have been the God 
 by whose inspiration the Reganree are given (see II. 
 Tim. ii. 16.) 
 
 In Acts, xii. 2, he is said to have been the God by 
 whom Paul was made a Minister (see II. Cor. iii. 6.) 
 
 In Mark, xii. 36, he is declared to have been the 
 Lord God of Israel, who spake by the Prophets (see 
 Luke, i. 70.) 
 
 And in many other passages, the term of Hoty 
 Guost and the titles of Supreme Deity are recipro- 
 cally interchanged for each other. 
 
 Immensity and Omnipresence are ascribed to the 
 Holy Ghost, in 
 
 Psalm, cxxxix. 7, “ Whither shall I. se from thy 
 Spirit,” &c. 
 
 Rom. viii. 9, in which he is represented as dwelling 
 in all believers. 
 
 ETERNITY is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in ; 
 Heb. ix. 14, “ The Eternal Spirit.” i 
 
8 
 
 OMNISCIENCE is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in 
 
 {. Cor. ii. 10, “ The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
 the deep things of God.” 
 
 The Omnirotence of the Holy Ghost is inferred 
 from the works which are attributed to him. 
 
 The Worxs of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the 
 Holy Ghost, viz. : 
 
 Creation, in Gen. i. 2. 
 
 | Job, xxxiii. 4, &c. 
 
 Providence, in Psalm, civ. 30. 
 
 Isaiah, lix. 19, &e. 
 ‘Raising the dead, Rom. viii. 11. 
 John, vi. 63. 
 
 Government of the Church, in Acts, xiii. 2. 
 
 xx. 28; &c. 
 
 The Honors of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the 
 Holy Ghost, viz. : 
 
 He is united with the Father and the Son in the 
 baptismal form (Math. xxviii. 19.) and in the apostolic 
 benedictions (II. Cor. xiii. 14.) 
 
 He is recognised by the Apostles as possessing 
 sovereign and absolute authority over the Church 
 (Acts, xv. 28.) 
 
 He is appealed to by the Apostle Paul as a witness 
 of the secrets of his heart (Rom. ix. 1.) 
 
 He is exhibited as an object of Worship to the 
 Angels in Heaven (Isaiah, vi. 3, explained by Acts, 
 xxviii. 25. 
 
 We would now conclude this selection of evidence 
 by collecting it into one general argument, viz. : 
 
 The only way by which we can ascertain the Deity 
 of the Bible is by that revelation of the titles, attri- 
 
9 
 
 butes, works and honors of Deity which the Bible 
 presents, and therefore he must be God with whose 
 person these characteristics of Deity are associated: 
 but as we have shewn that they are ascribed to three 
 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the 
 conclusion is evident, that we must consider each ot 
 these persons as truly God. 
 
 Vv. WE MUST BELIEVE THE DEITY OF EACH PERSON 
 IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE 
 BEING, 
 
 Or, in other words, whilst we maintain the Deity of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we must he 
 
 & 
 
 careful not to consider these three persons as three 
 distinct Gods: we are therefore obliged to believe that 
 they co-exist in some mysterious and inexplicable 
 manner as One Supreme and Everlasting God. 
 
vba, FPP ip nt pe ond meal ; 
 
 % 
 
 ovale tai ais rc 
 five Se, ps 
 
 pet toe eee 
 a é 
 ~ 
 
PART IL 
 
 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 
 
 URGED BY MR. MITCHEL 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
: rr 
 Sie Eee 
 NY ; 
 
 eer. 
 Papen © oak 
 tke iii Gating 
 
 ate 
 
~) YY? f , if 
 ? “ Y KJ 
 ay rN pe ‘ 
 | iUN 
 « iL, oe 
 < 
 
 See CON qe iw 
 
 PART II. 
 
 ia 
 OBJECTION I. 
 
 That the following passage implies that the Father 
 alone is the only true God: “ And this is life eternal, 
 that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ whom thou hast sent.” John xvii. 3. ( Mitchel's 
 Sermons, p. 72.) 
 ee ANSWER. 
 
 1. We cannot give an interpretation to this passage 
 which would altogether destroy the consistency of 
 Scripture, which, as we have shewn, so frequently ap- 
 propriates to Christ the peculiarities of Supreme Deity. 
 Is it, for instance, probable that the Apostle John, 
 who gives to Christ the very same title of “true God” 
 in I. John, v. 20, should here contradict himself? Or 
 is it probable that this passage can exclude Christ from 
 a participation of the same Supreme Deity with the 
 Father, when the next verse but one plainly asserts 
 that he and the Father enjoyed a mutual communication. 
 of glory with each other before the world was created ? 
 —“ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own — 
 self with the glory which I had with thee before the 
 world was.” Here we have an unanswerable proof of 
 his Supreme Deity, especially when we compare these 
 
14 
 
 words with the language of Jehovah in Isaiah, xlii. 8 : 
 “Tam Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I 
 not give to another.” We therefore infer, that the 
 plausibility of the objection which is derived from this 
 passage is founded altogether upon a superficial view of 
 its phraseology, and not upon its inherent import. 
 
 2. As it was the grand design of Christ’s mission “to 
 turn men from idols to serve the living and rruE God,” 
 we thence infer that the Father is addressed in this 
 passage as “the only true God,” not in opposition to a 
 plurality of persons in the Godhead, but in opposition to 
 a plurality of false Deities, as held by the Heathens; and 
 this interpretation will appear more evident, when we. 
 consider that the exclusive particle “ only” is connected 
 with the word “true,” and not with the term “ Father 
 for it is not said “ thee alone the true God” (so as to 
 confine true Deity to the person of the Father), but 
 “thee the only true God,” so as to represent the Deity 
 which the Father possesses as the only true Deity ; and 
 therefore there is nothing in the sense of this passage 
 from which it can be inferred that the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost do not possess the same “ only true” Deity with 
 the Father. : 
 
 A aenaiiaieaail 
 
 OBJECTION II. 
 
 That the following passage teaches a doctrine directly 
 contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity: “To us 
 there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all 
 things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom are all things, and we by him.” I. Cor, viti. 6. 
 
 (page 78.) 
 
15 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. In addition to our-observations in reference to the 
 last objection, which also apply to this, the preceding 
 context clearly shews that the Apostle does not place 
 the “one God the Father” in opposition to Christ, but 
 to the “ Gods many” whom the Heathen worshipped, 
 or else, when he asserts, immediately after, that “ there 
 is one Lord Jesus Christ,” he must, by a parity of rea- 
 soning, be understood to speak in opposition to the 
 Lordship of the Father, and thereby to contradict 
 many passages of Scripture in which the Father is 
 expressly stiled Lord; for the exclusive particle ‘ one” 
 is annexed to the term “Lord” as well as “God.” 
 And further, the very same assertion is made of the 
 “ one Lord Jesus Christ,” which is made of the “ One 
 God the Father,” namely, that he is the Creator and 
 preserver of all things, from which it follows that he is 
 the “One God with the Father,” as well as that the 
 Father is the “ one Lord with him.” 
 
 2. When we thoroughly consider the entire reasoning 
 of the Apostle in the 4th, 5th, and 6th verses, we shall 
 find that this passage, so far from supplying an argument 
 in opposition to the Deity of Christ, is a strong testi- 
 mony in its favor. His object is to contrast the many 
 objects which the Heathen worshipped with the one 
 object of Christian adoration. In doing so, he first 
 designates the numerous objects of Heathen idolatry by 
 the general phrase, “those that are called Gods, 
 
 whether in Heaven or in earth,” and then subdivides - _ 
 
 them into two classifications of “ Gods many and Lords 
 many ;” so that the “ Lords many” were as much in- 
 cluded amongst those who were “ called Gods” as the 
 
 ane” 
 
16 
 
 “Gods many.” In asimilar manner, he represents the 
 one object of Christian worship, in the first instance, 
 under the general term ‘‘ God” (“there is none other 
 God but one,” v. 4), and then, in verse 6, distinguishes 
 this one God into the two persons of the Father and the 
 Son, under the titles of “one God and one Lord.” Our 
 argument, then, for the Deity of Christ from the passage 
 is this,—if, on the one hand, the ‘“‘Gods many and 
 Lords many” are both equally comprehended by the 
 Apostle under the single designation, “those that are 
 called Gods, whether in Heaven or in earth,” then, on 
 the other hand, the * one God the Father, and the one 
 Lord Jesus Christ,” are both equally comprehended 
 under the more comprehensive statement, “ To us there 
 is but one God.” Whoever doubts the conclusiveness 
 of this reasoning is bound, in the first instance, to 
 account for the Apostle having at all mentioned the 
 name of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with 
 the subject of which he treats—and why, if Su- 
 preme Deity is to be exclusively appropriated to 
 the person of the Father—why, I say, the Father 
 only is not contrasted with the false Deities of the 
 Heathen. ‘ 
 
 OBJECTION III. 
 
 That the following passage affords a similar refuta- 
 tion of the doctrine of the Trinity : “ There is one body 
 and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your 
 calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
 Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
 youall.” (p.'79.) 
 
ANSWER. 
 
 1. If the Apostle’s assertion, that there is “one God 
 and Father of all,” refers exclusively to the person of 
 the Father, so as to contradict the Deity of the Son 
 and the Holy Spirit, then it will equally follow that his 
 assertion, that the Holy Ghost is the “ one Spirit,” in v. 
 4, and that the Son is the “one Lord,” in vy. 5, will 
 imply that the Father is neither “ Lord” nor “ Spirit.” 
 This passage, therefore, only excludes the Son and the 
 Holy Spirit from being “God the Father,” and not 
 from being “ God.” 
 
 2. Even if the expression, “ One God and Father of 
 all,” refers to the person of the Father, yet the same 
 things which are here said of him are elsewhere said of 
 the Son (see John, iii. 31, Rom. ix. 5, Coll. i. 17, Heb. 
 i, 3.) But it is not necessary to consider the term 
 “ Father,” as referring exclusively to the first person of 
 the Trinity, as it is frequently an epithet attached to the 
 Divine Being, to denote his being the Creator, Pre- 
 server and Protector of his creatures. And further, 
 as we hold that the term “God” is a general term, 
 applicable, and actually applied, to each of the three 
 persons, it is incumbent upon our opponents to shew, 
 that, in the passage under consideration, it is the ex- 
 clusive name of a single Person, and not the usual 
 name of the Deity, as comprehending the THREE 
 PERSONS, who are each indifferently represented in 
 Scripture as the Creator, Preserver, and ‘Protector: 
 of men. 
 
 3. We maintain that all the texts which our adver- 
 
 saries advance in support of the Diyine Unity have no 
 C 
 
18 
 
 reference whatever to the question at issue. We are 
 Unitarians, as well as they. We assert, as explicitly, the 
 unity of God, but, at the same time, we believe that in 
 this unity there is a distinction of persons. Now, the 
 legitimate way to answer our sentiments would be 
 to adduce arguments to shew that no such distinction of 
 persons exists, instead of which we are met with proofs 
 to demonstrate a proposition which we cordially hold, 
 and in the very first instance concede, that “there is | 
 but one God.” Can the opponents of a Trinity shew 
 that the unity of God is decidedly inconsistent with 
 some sort- of plurality? If so, how then can they 
 account for the peculiarity of language in which Moses 
 asserts that there is one God: “Hear, oh! Israel; 
 Jehovah our Gods (for the term in the original is plural) 
 is one Jehovah ?” May there not also be some un- 
 known sense in which an absolute and unqualified 
 unity might imply an imperfection? And perhaps it 
 is the darkness with which our intellectual powers are 
 encompassed, and the immeasurable distance at which 
 we stand from the great object of our contemplation, 
 that cause men to ascribe to the Deity a unity which 
 his nature does not possess; for instance, in reference 
 to objects of bodily vision, darkness and distance in- 
 variably attach to them the appearance of an absolute 
 unity and simplicity of aspect, which, if seen under 
 more favorable circumstances, would not be found to 
 belong to them. The sun appears, from its great 
 remoteness in the Heavens, to be a perfectly uncom- 
 pounded body, without distinctiveness or variety ; and if 
 we may venture to institute a comparison between the 
 shadow and the reality, may not the infinite distance of 
 
9 
 
 the Supreme Being, in a moral sense, from the spiritual 
 observation of his creatures, cause him to wear an 
 aspect of unqualified unity to the minds of those who 
 survey him with the unassisted eye of human reason ? 
 
 OBJECTION IV. 
 
 In page 129, Mr. Mitchel gives the following pro- 
 fessed reply to the argument which Trinitarians adduce 
 from the plural mode of expression which occurs in Gen. 
 i. 26, and iii, 22—“* What more easy or natural than 
 to suppose that G'od the Father, in determining to create 
 man, should thus address himself to his beloved Son, 
 ‘ Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ;’ or 
 afterwards, ‘ Man is become as one of us to know good 
 and evil.’ ” . 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This solution, from an opponent of the Doctrine of the 
 Trinity, has at least the credit of being original, but, on 
 examination, will be found to contain a concession alto- 
 gether subversive of the system which Mr. Mitchel 
 maintains; it is, in fact, precisely the interpretation 
 which the Trinitarian has always given of the passages 
 in question, and, as we shall shew, inevitably involves 
 its proposer in an admission of the Supreme Deity of 
 the Son of God; for, if creation be the peculiar work 
 of Jehovah, so peculiar as to be considered by the 
 Apostle as a demonstrative proof of the power and 
 Godhead of the Creator (Rom. i. 20); and if Jehovah 
 appropriates to himself the execution of this work, to 
 the exclusion of every agent and assistant whatsoever 
 (Isaiah, xliy. 24), then Mr. Mitchel’s admission, that 
 
20 
 
 the Son was addressed by, and comprehended with, the 
 Father in these passages, gives us the premises from 
 which to draw the conclusion, by an irresistible conse- 
 quence, that the Son was the one God with the Father 
 who created the universe. 
 
 And further, we can also prove the Supra Godhead 
 of the Son from the context of Gen. i. 26: “let us 
 make man in our image, after our likeness.” Now here 
 Mr. Mitchel admits that the Father addresses the Son 
 in these words; and therefore the word “ ws’ includes 
 the Father and the Son, and the expression, “ our 
 image,” means the image of the Father and the Son: 
 —but the following verse uses the term “God” as 
 synonymous with “us,” and interprets the expression 
 “our image” to be the “ image of God :” “ So Gop cre- 
 ated man in his image, in THE IMAGE OF Gop created he 
 him.” The conclusion, therefore, is evident, that the term 
 God is a title equally applicable to the Father and the Son. 
 
 But, as we believe that Mr. Mitchel’s interpretation 
 is allowed by very few of our opponents, it will not be 
 considered as a digression to advert to two other 
 solutions, which are more commonly advanced by Anti- 
 Trinitarians to account for the plural mode of expres- 
 sion in these passages, viz. 
 
 1. That Moses iictay to the Sopra Being the 
 style of a Sovereign. 
 
 To which we answer, 
 
 (1.) That the custom of Kings using the plural 
 
 uumber is much more recent than the time of Moses ; 
 
 it did not, for instance, exist in the time of Daniel - 
 
 (Daniel, iii. 29, and iv. 37., &e.) 
 (2.) That though a single individual may say “ us” 
 
 i Ege hee? ae 
 
21 
 
 or “we,” yet there is no figure of speech which would 
 allow one person to say of himself, with common pro- 
 priety, “One of us.” 
 
 (3.) That the converse of the solution is much more 
 probable, that the aspiring presumption of earthly rulers 
 has copied the plural mode of speaking from this 
 language, attributed to the Supreme Being. 
 
 The other solution is— 
 
 2. That Angels are associated in those passages with 
 the Supreme Jehovah. 
 
 To which we answer, 
 
 (1.) That this would contradict those passages of 
 Scripture in which it is said that Jehovah would not 
 give his glory to another (Isaiah, xlii. 8, and xlviii. 11.) 
 
 (2.) That it would contradict the passages in which 
 it is said that God had no partner in the work of 
 creation (Isaiah, xliv. 24, Mal.ii. 10, Heb. ili. 4.) 
 
 (3.) That, on this supposition, the next verse should 
 be thus worded ; “ So God and the Angels created man 
 in their own image, in the image of God and the 
 Angels created they them.” 
 
 Thus we find that no method by which our adversa- 
 ries have endeavoured to account for the phraseology in 
 these verses can avert the conclusion which we have 
 drawn from that phraseology—namely, that it denotes 
 a plurality of persons as subsisting in the unity of the 
 Divine Being. 
 
 OBJECTION V. 
 “ The form of Christian Baptism cannot properly ly 
 be understood as bearing testimony to the Doctrine of 
 
 three Persons in one God.” (p. 143.) 
 : c2 
 
22 / 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The form of Baptism has never been regarded as 
 absolutely demonstrating by itself the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. In the present treatise, it has been advanced 
 to prove, along with other passages of Scripture, that 
 there are three supreme persons presiding over the 
 work of man’s redemption, to whom, in other places, the 
 attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed. But there 
 are some considerations connected with the appoint- 
 ment of this form, which make it worthy to be 
 regarded as an evidence attaching a strong probability 
 to this doctrine. 
 
 1. The natural import of Baptism is, that persons 
 are thereby dedicated to the service of the being in 
 whose name it is performed, and thenceforward bound 
 to render to him worship, and honor, and obedience. 
 
 2. Those who were baptized into the Christian 
 religion, in the infancy of the Church, were many of 
 them Gentiles who worshipped a plurality of Gods, and 
 would therefore be predisposed to regard Christianity 
 as only another system of Polytheism, if the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, into whose name they were bap- 
 tised, were not the “ one living and true God,” whom 
 they “turned from idols to serve.” 
 
 3. The Arian interpretation of this form, which 
 represents two created and finite beings in association 
 with the supreme and uncreated God, without any 
 qualifying particle to denote their inferiority and 
 subordination, is most improper and derogatory to the 
 dignity and supremacy of Jehovah. 
 
 4. The mention of three distinct persons, the Father, 
 
 a 
 
23 
 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is perfectly consistent 
 with the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, and 
 the mention of the word “ Name” in the singular 
 number with the doctrine that these three persons 
 possess a unity of being and a common appellation, 
 
 Gop. 
 
 OBJECTION VI. 
 
 “ The form of Apostolic benediction is as little to be 
 relied on, for as that form does not always take in the 
 three persons, so neither is it always confined to them.” 
 (p- 143.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. It is of no consequence that this form should not 
 always comprehend the entire Trinity, for as each 
 person is frequently mentioned by himself in Scripture, 
 it is no less consistent with our sentiments that two 
 should be mentioned conjointly. And whatever effect 
 the omission of the Son and Holy Ghost in any of 
 these forms may be supposed to have upon the doctrine 
 which teaches their Supreme Deity, the doctrine of 
 the Supreme Deity of the Father is equally affected— 
 for there are several instances in which his name is 
 omitted (see Phils. iv. 23, I, Thess. v. 28, Il. Thess. 
 iii, 18, &c.) , 
 
 2. There is no instance in which the form of bene- 
 diction includes any other person than the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. Mr. Mitchel adduces the following 
 passage in Rey. i. 4, “John to the seven Churches 
 which are in Asia: grace be unto you, and peace from 
 him which is, and which was, and which is to come ; and 
 
24 
 Srom the seven Spirits that are before his throne; and 
 
 from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness,”—but to this 
 we answer: 
 
 (1.) That the expression, “seven Spirits,” cannot 
 refer to Angels, as they would be unable to grant the 
 grace and mercy prayed for, and are expressly excluded, 
 in Col. ii. 18, from every share of religious worship. 
 
 (2.) It is probable that, in a book replete with mys- 
 tical and symbolic language, the Apostle has expressed 
 the benediction in a corresponding form; intending this 
 phraseology to be a symbolic description of that Divine 
 Person, who is stiled, in the forms of benediction else- 
 where, by the simple designation of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 . The number seven is frequently used in Scripture to 
 denote perfection ; thus the seven horns and seven eyes 
 attributed to Christ, in Rev. v. 6, denote his perfect 
 power and knowledge ; the seven eyes in Zech,, iv. 10, 
 denote the perfect knowledge of God; and so likewise 
 the Holy Ghost is designated by the periphrasis “ of 
 seven Spirits before the throne,” to denote the perfec- 
 tion of his knowledge and the diversity of his gifts and 
 operations. And in conformity with this interpreta- 
 tion, we find it said of Christ, in Rev. iii. 1, that he 
 ‘‘hath the seven Spirits of God,” because “ THE Spirit 
 was given to him without measure,” and “in him all 
 fulness dwells ;’ so that this benediction does not com- 
 prehend any other persons than those of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost, but is precisely parallel with 
 those in which their name is simply mentioned. 
 
 And now, in order to shew that there is some force 
 in the argument which Trinitarians derive from this 
 
20 
 
 form, in opposition to Mr. Mitchel's assertion, we 
 remark : . 
 
 1. That it is, in every sense of the word, a solemn 
 prayer addressed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; 
 and it would be manifest idolatry in any, much more in 
 an inspired person, to offer up a petition to two created | 
 beings, no matter how superangelic, in conjunction with 
 the Supreme God. : 
 
 2. That the presentation of a prayer to the three 
 persons necessarily implies their competency to grant 
 the blessings which are desired; and that these bles- 
 sings are of the highest spiritual order which it would 
 require the resources of Deity to supply. 
 
 “OBJECTION VII. 
 
 That the Father alone is the only true God, to the 
 exclusion of the Son. (Sermon 4, throughout.) 
 ANSWER. 
 
 I must object most strongly to the plan of reasoning 
 which he has pursued throughout the entire sermon, 
 for the professed object of establishing this position. 
 He holds, in common with the Trinitarian, that Christ 
 existed in a pre-existent state of greater dignity than 
 the circumstances of his earthly condition displayed : 
 the legitimate mode, therefore, to establish his position, 
 that the Father alone is the only true God, would have 
 been to contrast the several passages in which the glory 
 of the Father is described with those which treat of the 
 circumstances of Christ, in his pre-existent state and 
 unconnected with his assumed nature upon earth ; instead 
 of which, he has brought forward numerous passages, in 
 
26 
 
 which the glory and Godhead of the Father are-alluded 
 to, in contrast with the inferior circumstances of Jesus 
 Christ in the flesh. By doing so, however, he has 
 proved nothing but what every Trinitarian will most 
 readily concede. 
 
 I cannot, however, allow his system to retain the 
 advantage which it unfairly derives from this mode of 
 proceeding, and shall illustrate the principle upon which 
 his reasoning is based, in its correct and legitimate form, 
 by contrasting some passages in which the abstract 
 condition of Christ is spoken of, with others which 
 describe the glory of the Father in reference to the 
 same qualities, and shall then deduce the fair inference 
 which such a comparison involves, viz. : 
 
 TEXTS RELATIVE TO TEXTS RELATIVE TO 
 THE FATHER. THE SON. 
 
 “ Thou, whose name alone ‘“ This is his name, where- 
 ts Jehovah.” Ps, |xxxiii. by he shall be called 
 18. Jehovah our righteous- 
 
 ness.” Jer. Xxiil. 6. 
 
 “ Thou only art holy.” Rev. ‘“ But ye denied the holy 
 
 xv. 4. one.” Acts iil. 14, 
 
 “ Do not I fill Heaven and “ Him that filleth ail in 
 Earth ? saith the Lord.” all.” Ephs. i. 23. 
 Jer. xxiii. 24, 
 “ He is thy life.” Deut. xxx. “ Christ who is our life.” 
 20. Coll. iii. 4. 
 « Know ye that Jehovah he — All things were made by 
 is God, it is he that hath — him.” John, i. 3. 
 made us ?” Ps. c. 3. 
 
“I am the Jehovah, and 
 there is none else; there 
 is no God besides me.” 
 Isaiah, xlv. 5. 
 
 “ In all places where I re- 
 cord my name, I will 
 come unto thee, and I 
 will bless thee.” Ex. xx. 
 24. 
 
 “ What things soever the 
 Father doeth,’ John, v. 
 19. 
 
 es For as the Father raiseth 
 
 up the dead, and quick- 
 
 eneth them,” John, v. 21. 
 
 “ Even as they honor the 
 Father,’ John, v. 23. 
 
 “Tam the first, and I am 
 the last, and besides me 
 there is no God.” Isaiah, 
 xliy. 6. 
 
 “ Thou, even thou, art Je- 
 hovah alone ; thou hast 
 made Heaven, the Hea- 
 ven of Heavens, with all 
 their host, the earth and 
 
 all things that are there- 
 
 in, the seas and all that 
 is therein, and thou pre- 
 
 Wr. 
 
 27 
 
 “ The word was God.” 
 John, i. 1. 
 
 x alee 
 
 “© Where two or three are 
 gathered together in my 
 name, there am I in the 
 midst of them.” Math. 
 xvill. 20. 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 These also doeth the Son 
 likewise.” John, v. 19. 
 
 “ Fen so the Son quick- 
 eneth whom he will.” 
 John, v. 21. 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 That all men _ should 
 honor the Son.” John, 
 Ve eo. 
 
 “I am the first and the 
 last.” Rev. i. 17. 
 
 “ For by him were all 
 
 things created that are 
 and that 
 are in earth, visible and 
 
 in Heaven, 
 
 invisible, whether they 
 
 be thrones, or dominions, 
 or principalities or pow 
 all things 
 
 ers, were 
 
28 
 
 servest them all.” Neh. . created by him, and for 
 
 ms. _ him; and he is before 
 all things, and by him 
 all things consist.” Coll. 
 1.16; 17, 
 
 “ Thou shalt worship the “ Let all the Angels of God 
 Lord thy God, and him worship him.” Heb. i. 6, 
 only shalt thou serve.” 
 
 Math. iv. 10. 
 
 “ Unto me every knee shall “ We shall all stand before 
 bow, every tongue shall the judgment seat of 
 swear.” Isaiah, xly. 23. Christ, for it is written, 
 
 as I live, saith the Lord, 
 every knee shall bow to 
 me and every tongue 
 shall confess to God.” 
 Rom. xiv. 10, 11. 
 
 “ For Jehovah your God is * King of Kings and Lord 
 God of Gods and Lord of Lords.” Rev. xix. 16. 
 of Lords.” Deut. x. 17. 
 
 “I search the heart, Itry ‘And ail the Churches 
 
 the reins, even to give shall know that I am un 
 every man according to which searcheth the reins 
 his ways, and according and hearts; and I will 
 _to the fruit of his do- give unto every one of 
 ings.” Jer. xvii. 10. you according to his 
 
 works.” Rey. ii. 23. 
 We might institute a comparison between many 
 other passages of a similar import, but these will suffice 
 for the argument which we now proceed to deduce, 
 
29 
 
 viz, :—If the texts in the one column are sufficient to 
 demonstrate the Supreme Deity of the Father, then, 
 by a parity of reasoning, the texts in the sécond 
 column, which are as emphatic in their meaning and 
 form of expression, demonstrate the Supreme Deity of 
 the Son; or if, on the other hand, the opponent of the 
 Trinity contradicts the Supreme Deity of the Son, in 
 despite of the passages which we have referred to, he 
 thereby virtually contradicts the Supreme Deity of the 
 Father, which is described in terms precisely equivalent. 
 Thus the Anti-Trinitarian is reduced to the dilemma of 
 representing the Bible as a system either of Atheism 
 or Polytheism—of Atheism in the latter case, or of 
 Polytheism in the former, if, on admitting the force of 
 the passages we huve advanced, he should deny the 
 doctrine which teaches that the two persons of Father 
 and Son are the one only and true God. 
 
 See 
 
 OBJECTION VIII. 
 
 Mr. Mitchel endeavours to destroy the force of our 
 argument, from the following passage, by maintaining 
 its application to King Hezekiah, and not to Christ :— 
 “ Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and 
 the government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his 
 name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty 
 God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peuce. Of 
 the increase of his government and peace there shall be 
 no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom 
 to order it, and to establish it with justice, from hence- 
 forth, even for ever, Isaiah, ix. 6, 7. (p. 129.) 
 
 we 
 
30 
 
 “ANSWER. 
 
 It is a most extravagant violation of reason and 
 common sense to apply these expressions to King 
 Hezekiah—a mortal man. In what sense could 
 Hezekiah’s name be called wonderful? In what sense 
 could he be called counsellor ? In what sense could he 
 be called the mighty God ?—the everlasting Father ?— 
 the Prince of Peace? And in what sense could it be 
 said of his government that it should be without end ? 
 These are questions to which we require an adequate 
 solution before we can consent to give the passage such 
 a reference. 
 
 But when we refer the prophecy to Christ, it assumes 
 a meaning and consistency which it could not possess on 
 any other application. He alone is-‘* wonderful” in the 
 circumstances of his birth, his miracles, his resurrec- 
 tion and ascension, and in all the incidents of his 
 history: he may be properly stiled “counsellor,” as 
 having been one of the council of the eternal Trinity, 
 to whom God said, ‘ Let us make man :” he alone may 
 - be properly designated “ the Prince of Peace,” as having 
 been exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to make peace 
 between God and man, by the blood of his cross: and 
 of him alone can it be said that his government shall 
 have no end. © 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel has advanced four reasons, which, 
 in his judgment, render this prophecy inapplicable to 
 Christ :—The /irst is, “that if we apply the passage to 
 him we must believe that God was a child, and born 
 into the world ;”’ to which I answer that we do not 
 believe in the Deity of the man Christ Jesus, and that 
 no person who will observe the contrast between his 
 
ol 
 
 ” 
 Eo 
 
 Deity and Humanity, which the Prophet draws in the 
 passage, can be in danger of entertaining such a belief. 
 His second reason is—‘* that if we look upon Christ as 
 literally the everlasting Father, we must believe that he 
 is the father of himself ;” to which I answer, that the 
 term “ Father” is not always used as the distinguishing 
 title of the first person in the Godhead, but is frequently 
 applied to the Deity, as being the Creator and Pre- 
 server of all things, and in this sense is an appropriate 
 designation of Christ (see Coll. i. 16,17.) His third 
 reason is—that “ the passage is applied to our Lord 
 Jesus Christ in the most gratuitous manner, and with- 
 out any Scriptural warrant whatsoever ;” to which I 
 answer, that we have the testimony of two Evangelists 
 in favor of this application: Mathew, for instance, 
 quotes the first two verses, which are connected with 
 the passage in question, as a prophecy which received 
 its fulfilment in the benefits which were derived from 
 our Saviour’s Ministry (compare Isaiah, ix. 1, 2, 
 with Math. iv. 15, 16); and the very passage itself is 
 substantially applied to Christ in the words of the Angel 
 to Mary—* He shall be great, and shall be called the 
 Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto 
 him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign 
 over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom 
 there shall be no end.”—Luke, i. 32, 33. His fourth 
 reason is, that the connection of this prophecy with 
 another in Isaiah, vii. 14, which he also applies to 
 Hezekiah, shews it to have a similar reference ; but to 
 
 Sa, ° “poe ° ° . 
 this I answer, that he is also incorrect in considering 
 
 this latter prophecy as referring to Hezekiah. In order 
 to demonstrate this, it will be necessary to refer briefly 
 
32 
 ee 
 
 to the history with which the passage in Isaiah, vii. 14, 
 stands connected. 
 
 We are told that in the days of Ahaz, King of Judah, 
 Rezin, the King of Syria, and Pekah, the King of 
 Israel, went up with confederate armies to attack 
 Jerusalem, upon which the heart of Ahaz and the 
 heart of his people were “moved as the trees of the 
 wood are moved by the wind.” In consequence of this, 
 Isaiah was directed to take his son Shear Jashub with 
 him, and to meet Ahaz, for the purpose of announcing 
 the consolatory intelligence, that his kingdom should be 
 preserved, and that the destruction of his enemies was 
 at hand. When Ahaz had refused to select a sign to 
 shew that the declaration should be fulfilled, Isaiah him- 
 self announces a sign—/irsé, in the 14th and 15th verses, 
 that the kingdom of Judah, so far from being then 
 destroyed, should continue until such a time as the 
 miraculous event of a virgin being with child should 
 occur ; and secondly, a more immediate sign in the 16th 
 verse, for the special consolation of Ahaz, that before 
 the Prophet’s infant son (Shear Jashub, whom he held 
 in his arms, and who is expressly said, in ch. viii. 18, 
 to have been for a sign) should come to years of 
 discretion, the land of Rezin and Pekah, which, from 
 their close alliance, seemed to be but one land, should 
 be forsaken of both her Kings, which latter circum- 
 stance took place within two or three years afterwards, 
 when Hosea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (II. 
 Kings, xv. 30), and when the King of Assyria took 
 Damascus, and slew Rezin (II. Kings, xvi. 9.) Keeping 
 this interpretation of the passage in view, we may 
 paraphrase it as follows :— 
 
 en a ee ee 
 
 ee EONS ee 
 
33 
 
 V. 14. The Lord himself shall give you a sign. 
 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah for the space 
 of seven hundred years, until the miraculous occurrence 
 of a virgin conceiving and bearing a son ! whose name 
 shall be called Immanuel, which, when interpreted, im- 
 plies “God with us.” 
 
 WV. 15. But though he is “ God with us,” yet he 
 Shall possess a real and proper humanity, both as to 
 body and mind ;—as to body, for he shall be nourished 
 upon the ordinary food of children ; and as to mind, 
 because he shall progressively arrive at years of dis- 
 cretion, and increase in wisdom like other children. 
 
 V. 16. But lest this sign should be too remote, and 
 therefore insufficient to remove your present alarm, I will 
 give you a sign of your immediate deliverance from the 
 armies of Rezin and Pekah: so far from their succeed- 
 ing against you, they shall themselves be the subjects of a 
 successful invasion, for, before this my child, Shear 
 Jashub, shall arrive at years of discretion, the territories 
 of Rezin and Pekah, which, on account of your present 
 alarm, you so much abhor, shall be deprived of their 
 Government. 
 
 This interpretation will be confirmed by a considera- 
 tion of the following reasons : 
 
 1. The birth of the child is spoken of as a miracu- 
 lous event, for so the word “ sign” means in the origi- 
 nal; but what was there miraculous in the birth of 
 Hezekiah ? 
 
 2. The birth of the child is spoken of as future, but 
 Hezekiah was born many years before the delivery of 
 this prophecy ; for Ahaz reigned but 16 years (II. 
 
 D 2 hy ie 
 
 4 
 
34 
 
 Kings, xvi. 2), and Horekiah was 25 years old when 
 he began to reign (II. Kings, xviii. 2.) 
 
 3. The allusion which Micah, who prophecied after 
 Isaiah, makes to the passage, proves that he con- 
 sidered its fulfilment as future, and to refer to the 
 “‘ruler” who should be born in Bethlehem (see Micah, 
 v. 3): “ Therefore will he give them up till she which 
 travaileth hath brought forth.” 
 
 4. The emphatic terms in which Mathew asserts 
 
 that the prophecy was fulfilled in the nativity of Christ. 
 
 He does not, for instance, merely say, “then was ful- 
 
 filled,” (as in ch, ii. 17, and xxvii. 9), but he says, 
 
 “ Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled.” 
 Thus, I hope that I have been able successfully to 
 
 shew, that this prophecy cannot refer to any other than’ 
 
 to our Saviour. Two points, however, must be con- 
 sidered, before our argument from the passage is com- 
 plete : Ist, that he was called Immanuel—and 2dly, that 
 the word, when applied to him, imports his Deity. 
 
 We are told by Mathew that the son of Mary was 
 called “Jesus,” because it was prophecied that he 
 should be called “ Immanuel ;” the two words being the 
 same in substance,—“ Immanuel” signifying “ God with 
 us,” and “ Jesus” Jehovah the Saviour. Or the term 
 Immanuel may be regarded, not as a proper name of 
 Christ, but as an appellative descriptive of his nature, 
 as he was God and man; in the same manner as the title 
 *‘ Boanerges” was given to James and John, as a 
 designation indicative of the character which they 
 displayed. i 
 _ The term Immanuel, when considered in connection 
 with the history of ~Christ’s nativity, and with other 
 
 ae. 
 
 se 
 
 , 
 ¢g 
 . 
 ff 
 ) 
 ¥, 
 
35 - 
 
 expositions of his nature and character, is an auxiliary 
 
 proof of his Supreme Deity. The instances to which 
 
 Mr. Mitchel has referred of the names of individuals 
 being compounded with the name of God, such as 
 
 Abiel, Elijah, Ezekiel, &c., are easily accounted for by 
 
 the peculiar circumstances in which those individuals 
 
 were placed, and there cannot be adduced, in any one 
 
 such instance, any collateral statement, by virtue of 
 which these titles could be brought to compete, in 
 
 emphasis or signification, with the term Immanuel, as» 
 applied to Christ. But no Trinitarian regards the 
 
 appropriation of the term Immanuel to the Saviour, as 
 
 affording a sufficient argument for his Deity, am an 
 
 esolated and independent point of view. 
 
 OBJECTION IX, 
 
 That ‘ The other prophecies of the Old Testament, 
 which have a plain and immediate reference to the pro- 
 mised Messiah, so far from representing him as the Su- 
 preme God, uniformly represent him as the messenger 
 and servant of the Supreme God,” and that the Jews 
 never understood them as importing his Supreme Deity. 
 (p» 132.) | 
 
 ANSWER. 
 _ 1. Most of the prophecies of Christ refer to his 
 Mediatorial Office, for the discharge of which he took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and became subordinate 
 and obedient to the Father. : 
 
 2. Many of the other prophecies of Christ, in the 
 Old Testament, do contain sicanubanls for his Supreme 
 Deity—for instance : 
 
36 
 
 In Isaiah, viii. 13, 14, “ Sanctify JEHOVAH OF 
 Hosts Himsexy, and let him be your fear, and let him 
 be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but 
 for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to 
 both the houses of Israel.” In this prophecy we have 
 the title “Jehovah of Hosts” ascribed to him; and 
 that it was fulfilled in Christ, see Rom. ix. 32, 33, 
 1, Pet. ai. 7,8, 
 
 In Isaiah, xl. 3, “* The voice of him that crieth in the 
 _wilderness, prepare ye the way of JeHovau, make 
 straight in the desert a highway for our God,” &c.—the 
 reference of which to our Saviour is proved from 
 Luke, iii. 4. 
 
 In Zech. xii. 10, JEHovan is represented as saying, 
 “they shall look upon mz whom they have pierced.” 
 For the proof of the fulfilment of this prophecy in 
 Christ, see John, xix. 37, and‘Rev. i. 7. 
 
 In Malachi, iii. 1, “ Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall 
 suddenly come to his temple”—the fulfilment of which 
 is recorded in John, ii. 14. 3 
 
 3. To the objection that the Jews never regarded the 
 prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament as implying 
 his Deity, it is quite sufficient to say that their testimony 
 is worth nothing, as we know that they have been guilty 
 of egregious errors, both as to the time and nature of 
 the accomplishment of all the prophecies relating to the 
 Messiah. 
 
 OBJECTION X. 
 
 To obviate the amazing force of the argument for the 
 Supreme Deity of Christ from John, i. 1:— In the 
 
37 
 
 beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God”—Mr. Mitchel, having admitted 
 that the term God is here “ directly, ‘and without 
 dispute, applied to Christ,” makes the following most 
 extraordinary observation—“ Yet you will find something, 
 either in the form of expression, or in the context, or in 
 both, that serves to distinguish him from that still greater 
 Being whom he himself acknowledges to be his Father 
 and his God.—Thus, whilst the Evangelist tells us 
 that ‘the Word was God,’ he tells us, plainly, ‘ that 
 the Word was with G'od.’” 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. It is much more likely that the datter statement, 
 « the Word was God,” should be an explanation of the 
 former, that “ the Word was with God,” than the former 
 of the latter. , 
 
 2. If the Apostle intended, by the assertion, that 
 “ the Word was with God,” to explain away and con- 
 tradict the statement which immediately follows, that 
 “the Word was God,” we presume that the verse, in 
 order to be so understood, should have been expressed 
 thus—“ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, but the Word was not God:” for how 
 can common sense suppose it possible that the Apostle 
 would use an affirmative proposition as an equivalent to 
 a negative one, and especially on such a subject ! 
 
 3. Iam willing to adopt his prineiple of explaining 
 the statement by a reference to the context:—the 
 question then is, in what sense does the Apostle say 
 that the Word was God (if the expression be capable 
 of more senses than one ?) We refer to the commentary 
 
38 
 
 which he gives in verse 3, that “all things were made 
 by the Word,” thereby shewing that his meaning’ is 
 that the Word was God, in the sense of Supreme 
 Creator of the Universe. 
 
 It is almost a waste of time to refer to Mr. Mitchel’s 
 remark, that the statement, ‘the Word was with God,’ 
 would go to destroy the Divine Unity, if he had meant 
 to represent the Word as the Supreme God, for what 
 other God could the Supreme God be with?” How 
 often is it necessary to tell the opponent of our doctrines, 
 that we most strenuously hold the doctrine of the 
 Divine Unity ; and if Mr. Mitchel will read the words of 
 our Saviour, in John, xvii. 5, he will find an answer to 
 his question: “ And now, oh Father / glorify thou me 
 with thine own self, with the glory which I had with 
 thee before the world was.” This passage proves the 
 following paraphrase of John, i. 1, to be correct: 
 “‘ Before the world was, the Son existed with the Father 
 in an equal participation of his glory, and the Son was 
 the one God with the Father.” 
 
 - , 
 OBJECTION XI. 
 
 To Rom. ix. 5, “ Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. 
 Amen ;’”—upon which Mr. Mitchel says, “ This is no 
 place for the introduction of Greek criticism ; but those 
 who are acquainted with the original will perceive that 
 the verse in which these words stand might be translated 
 so as to run thus :—‘ Whose are the Fathers, of whom, 
 as concerning the flesh, is Christ, and whose is the God 
 over all, blessed for ever ;’ and this would be in close 
 
39 
 
 conformity with other similar enumerations by the same 
 Apostle; for example—‘ there is one Lord, one Faith, 
 one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above 
 all, and through all, and in you all. But even if the 
 translation here were correct, as I believe it is not, and 
 that Christ 1s called ‘ Ged over all, we must still say, 
 with the same Apostle elsewhere—‘ When all things are 
 put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which 
 did put all things under him.” (p. 137.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 However conformable with the Apostle’s statements 
 elsewhere this passage might be made by such a 
 reading,—the alteration which is necessary to render it 
 so affords one of the grossest instances of torturing 
 and wresting the Scriptures to suit'a peculiar creed 
 of any that can be imagined,—Mr. Mitchel has very 
 wisely and cautiously said, “this is no place for the 
 introduction of Greek criticism,” because every prin- 
 ciple of fair and admissible criticism is against the 
 change he has proposed. ‘The passage could by no 
 means be so translated, and for the following reasons : 
 
 1. It would require a transposition of two words in 
 the original, and a change of the accent over one of 
 them (6 2v into @v o), for which no authority can be 
 produced from any manuscript whatsoever, and which, 
 on the admission of our opponents, is done only by 
 suggestion /—and surely it israther too much to require 
 us to admit a suggestion of what might be written as a _ 
 just interpretation of what has been written. Even 
 Mr. Belsham himself confesses that this alteration 
 cannot be received: in his Calm Enquiry, he makes the 
 
40 
 
 following extraordinary comment upon it :—“ This con- 
 jecture, ingenious, and even probable, as it is, not being 
 supported by a single manuscript version, or authority, 
 cannot be admitted into the text. But one may almost 
 believe that the present reading might be owing to an 
 inadvertence in one of the earliest transcribers, if not 
 in the Apostle’s own amanuensis” ! !—p. 224. Who 
 cannot see, thatif the principle of suggestion be allowed 
 in the intepretation of Scripture, the Atheist may 
 accommodate the Bible to his views, and call himself 
 a Christian ! 
 
 2. The Greek word for blessed would also require 
 the article to be placed before it ; because, according to 
 the idiom of the language, an adjective placed after its 
 noun, with an article prefixed, should also have an 
 article. 
 
 3. On this construction, the conjunction “and” should 
 not have stood before the sentence, “ of whom is the 
 Christ,” but should have been reserved for the conclu- 
 ding member of the climax, “ anp whose is the God,” 
 &c. Mr. Mitchel was evidently conscious of this, as, 
 in the amended version which he has given, he omits 
 the ‘‘and” before the words “ of whom is the Christ,” 
 and places it before the last sentence ; but it is not so in 
 the original. 
 
 4. This would represent the Apostle as here asserting 
 what, in this very epistle, he had expressly contradicted, 
 namely, that God was peculiarly the God of the Jews ; 
 for, in Ch. iii. 29, he says, “Is He the God of the Jews 
 only? is He not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the 
 Gentiles also.” : | 
 
4) 
 
 5. It was necessary that the Apostle, having just 
 stated that Christ, “according to the flesh,” was de- 
 scended from the Jews, should explain his meaning, by 
 stating what other nature he had which was not ac- 
 cording to the flesh; and accordingly, the statement 
 that he was, as toa superior nature, “over all, God 
 blessed for ever,” is absolutely necessary for the 
 purpose. 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel must have been sensible how 
 untenable this criticism is, since he has provided another 
 method of eluding, as he thinks, the force of our 
 argument from the text. “ Even if,’ says he, “the 
 translation be correct, and Christ is called God over 
 all, we must still say, when all things are put under 
 him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all 
 things under him,” to which I merely say, that every 
 Trinitarian will most willingly admit the exception he 
 requires; for it is no part of our doctrine to hold the 
 superiority of the Son to the Father. 
 
 This passage, therefore, cannot be tortured into any 
 other form than that in which it appears in our Bible, 
 and, as such, it affords an incontrovertible argument for 
 the Supreme Deity of the Saviour, as it ascribes to him 
 four distinct peculiarities of Godhead :—I1st, Supremacy, 
 in the words “over all;” 2d, the title ‘“ God;” 3d, 
 the appellation “blessed,” which is exclusively appro- 
 priated in Scripture to the Supreme Being (as in Mark, 
 xiv. 61, Rom. i. 25, II. Cor. xi. 31) ; and 4th, Eternity, 
 in the words “ for evermore.” 
 
 Before we proceed to the next objection, we may 
 remark, that Mr. Mitchel’s proposed alteration of this 
 passage is one of rive methods which the adherents of 
 
 E 
 
42 
 
 his system have contrived, in order to evade the 
 invincible argument for Christ’s Supreme Deity which 
 this text supplies. And is it not an obvious reflection, 
 that the fact of our opponents proposing so many 
 interpretations is a decisive proof that they were 
 
 conscious of not having any clear and definite support 
 for any one ? 
 
 OBJECTION XII. rine 
 
 To Hebrews, i. 8, “Thy throne, oh God! is for 
 ever and ever ;’—upon which Mr. Mitchel Says: 
 «From this passage a superficial reader might conclude 
 him to be the Supreme God. But let the most superficial 
 reader look at the very next verse, uttered by the same 
 Sovereign Being, and his conclusion falls to the ground. 
 ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, 
 therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with 
 the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ If Christ were 
 meant to be represented as the Supreme God, who could 
 there be that might be called his God ?—who, in that case, 
 might anoint him with the oil of gladness 2—who, in that 
 case, ought to be regarded as his fellows ?” (p. 185.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The 9th verse refers to Christ in reference to his 
 MEDIATORIAL office, in which capacity he loved 
 righteousness and hated iniquity, and from which God 
 the Father raised him above his fellows. But the 8th 
 verse, from which our argument is derived, cannot have 
 the same reference, for it speaks of his throne continuing 
 for ever and ever, whereas his mediatorial kingdom was 
 to cease when the purposes for which it was established 
 
 * 
 
¢ 
 
 43 
 
 should be accomplished (I. Cor. xv. 28.) The 9th verse, 
 therefore, cannot be intended as an explanation of the 
 8th, since they refer to Christ in two distinct capacities, 
 which are set in contrast to each other. 
 
 But how, says Mr. Mitchel, can the Apostle call the 
 Father his God, if, at the same time, he was equal to 
 the Father? This question is precisely analagous with 
 that which perplexed the Jews—how could he be 
 David’s son, if, at the same time, he was David’s Lord ? 
 And the answer to the latter is precisely the same as I 
 give to the former:—as possessing Deity, he was 
 David’s Lord—as born in the flesh, he was Dayid’s son ; 
 so, also, as David's son, the Father was his God—and as 
 David's Lord, he was equal to the Father. " 
 
 There is also no difficulty, connected with the asser- 
 tion of Christ having “fellows,” under our view of his 
 character, which does not equally affect the sentiments 
 which Mr. Mitchel has professed. In page 149, he says 
 that Christ “was a being next in power and glory to 
 the Supreme God :” we therefore propose the very same 
 question which he has—who, in that case, ought to 
 be regarded as his fellows?—and when he considers 
 this question, he will find himself obliged to have 
 recourse to the circumstances of his humanity, and 
 explain the term “ fellows” to mean the members of 
 our species, whose nature he assumed. 
 
 Having thus answered the objection which has been 
 advanced against the verse in question, we may here 
 remark, that if we had no other evidence for the - 
 Supreme Deity of Christ than what this chapter (the 
 Ist of Hebrews) affords, we would still have an un- 
 answerable support for that doctrine. The general 
 
44 
 
 argument which pervades it, that Christ was superior to 
 Angels, at once contradicts the opinion that he was.a 
 being of an Angelic order, or of a nature lower than the 
 Angels ; and almost all the distinguishing attributes of 
 Supreme Godhead are distinctly ascribed to him in this 
 chapter—for instance, the title of Lord, or Jehovah, in 
 verse 10; God, in verse 8; eternal existence, in 
 verses 11 and 12; the work of creation, in verses 3 
 and 10; providence, in verse 3; worship, in verse 6 ; 
 and everlasting dominion, in verse 8. 
 
 OBJECTION XIII. 
 
 To I. John, v. 19, 20—“ We know that the Son of 
 God i is come, and hath given us an understanding that 
 we may know him that is true; and we are in him that 
 is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ: this is the true 
 God and eternal life.’—-Mr. Mitchel, in order to obviate 
 the force of this passage, gives the two expressions, 
 “true God” and ‘eternal life,” in the concluding sen- 
 tence, a different application:—“ The Apostle,” says he, 
 
 “is evidently speaking both of God and of the Son of 
 
 God ; and in the concluding sentence, he sums up what 
 he had said of both in these words,-—‘ This is the true 
 God, namely, the Father, and this is < eternal life, namely, 
 the Son.” (p. 138.) : “ 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. The grammatical construction of the sentence is 
 not sufficiently definite to warrant such an interpreta- 
 tion, as it would obviously require some additional ex- 
 pressions in order to give these two terms, “ true God” 
 and “eternal life,” a distinct and separate reference. Mr. 
 Mitchel was himself conscious of this, as, in the para- 
 
 ——_ 
 
 pie ease i= oii 
 
45 
 
 phrase which he has given of the passage, he has been 
 obliged to supply the demonstrative pronoun and the . 
 verb before the latter expression, ‘ eternal life.” 
 
 2. The natural reference of the pronoun “ this,” in 
 the sentence, “this is the true God,” is to the latter 
 antecedent, which was Christ; and there is no reason 
 for deviating from this principle in the passage before 
 us, unless we should be unreasonably required to admit 
 the petitio principit of our opponents, that Christ cannot 
 be called the “true God.” 
 
 3. This construction would represent the Apostle as 
 making an assertion, namely, that the Father is the 
 true God, which he had twice made in the 19th verse, 
 and which it would, therefore, be quite redundant and 
 unnecessary to repeat again in the 20th. 
 
 4, As the grammatical construction of the passage 
 requires that the terms, “true God” and “ eternal life,” 
 should refer to the same person—if we can determine 
 the precise reference of one, it must necessarily 
 establish the reference of the other. Now, the ex- 
 pression, ‘‘ eternal life,” is in no instance given to the 
 Father, but is invariably used as a designation of the 
 Son (observe, for instance, the statement of St. John, 
 in the 2d verse of this very epistle, “for the life was 
 manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and 
 shew unto you that Erernat Lire which was with 
 the Father”); and, therefore, the expression, ‘* TRUE 
 Gop,” is as unequivocally applied to the Son in this 
 verse. 
 
 ‘We may here remark, that the Apostle immediately 
 
 subjoins this parting admonition : “little children, keep 
 E 2 
 
46 
 
 yourselves from idols;” and we would ask, if Jesus Christ 
 was not the true God, is it likely that John, with such an 
 affectionate and paternal anxiety to preserve his readers 
 from the sin of idolatry, would have used such a 
 carelessness of expression as our opponents attribute 
 to him, and have introduced such an unusual and 
 unnatural ellipsis into his stile, when he ought to 
 have been most express and satisfactory in his state- 
 ments, and to have regulated his phraseology so as to 
 prevent his readers from being guilty of idolatry, in sup- 
 posing Christ to be the true God, when he really was 
 not ? Need we advance another argument to shew, that 
 the Apostle, in this passage, says of Christ, “ thisis the 
 true God ?” 
 
 OBJECTION. XIV. 
 
 To I. Tim., iii, 16—“ God was manifest in the flesh,” 
 &c.—a passage which we did not refer to in the 
 Synopsis, because, as it is supposed that the term “God” 
 was not used by the Apostle, we could not argue from 
 it as a text in which a title of Deity was directly 
 ascribed to Christ, but, on an examination, it will be 
 found that it still affords an instance of an indirect ap: 
 plication of the name of God to him,—Mr. Mitchel 
 makes the following observations :--—“ The true read- 
 ing of this passage in the original has not been well 
 settled. With that, however, I shall not trouble you ; 
 but, reading it as it stands in our translation—‘ Without 
 controversy, great is the mystery of godliness ; God was 
 manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of 
 Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the 
 
A'7 
 
 world, received up into glory. Let me only ask you, in 
 what sense is it supposable that the Supreme God, who 
 fills Heaven and earth, and ts represented to us as 
 unchangeable, could be received up into glory? We know 
 with what ease and correctness this language applies to 
 our Lord Jesus Christ.” (p. 137.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 There are two different readings proposed in this pas- - 
 sage from that which appears in the common version. _ 
 1. To read the neuter relative, instead of the term 
 “God,” so that the passage would run thus—“ great is 
 the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the 
 flesh,” &c. But to this we reply, that the evidence to 
 support it is not sufficiently strong, and that it would 
 render the passage absurd and unintelligible ; for what 
 could the Apostle mean by saying, that the mystery of 
 godliness (or the Gospel) was manifest in the flesh! 
 
 justified in the spirit! or received up into glory ! 
 
 2. To read the masculine relative, instead of the term’ 
 “God,” so that the passage would run thus—* who 
 was manifest in the flesh,” &c. On which we remark, 
 that there is very strong evidence to support this reading, 
 and that it would afford us an argument for the Deity 
 of Christ, nearly, if not altogether, as forcible as we 
 could have by retaining the term “God ;” for the mas- 
 culine relative should refer to the last masculine ante- 
 cedent in the preceding context, which is “ Gop,” in the 
 15th verse, as is evident from the following version of 
 the passage :— | 
 
 ‘Which is the Church of the living God (the pillar 
 and ground of the truth, and, without controversy, great 
 
48 
 
 is the mystery of godliness), who was manifest in the 
 flesh,” &c. dit 
 
 And this assertion would be precisely similar to the 
 statement of the Apostle John, in his 1st chapter, verses 
 1 and 14, that the word, which “ was God,” was made 
 flesh, and dwelt among us ; and Paul’s declaration, that he 
 who was manifest in the flesh was “ God,” would alone 
 justify his emphatic expression of admiration, that 
 “great is the mystery of godliness.” 
 
 But as Mr. Mitchel admits, that the several statements 
 contained in this passage apply to our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 we presume that he either allows the present reading or 
 the substitution of the masculine relative, in either of 
 which cases we have shewn that the passage contains 
 an argument for the Supreme Deity of Christ. 
 
 But he has asked, “ how can it be said that the 
 Supreme God, who fills Heaven and earth, could be 
 received up into glory?” To this we answer, at once, 
 that it was “God manifest in the flesh” who was 
 received up into glory; and the statement could not 
 have been made, if God had not been manifest in the 
 flesh. 
 
 OBJECTION XV. 
 
 That the application of the title God to the Saviour is 
 no argument for his Supreme Deity, since it is fre- 
 quently applied to creatures, and would, therefore, by a 
 parity of reasoning, prove their Supreme Deity. Mr. 
 Mitchel says:—* The term God, as implying authority 
 and dominion, is often in Scripture applied to beings 
 whom we should never think of confounding with the 
 
49 
 
 Supreme God. Thus, Exodus, vii. 1: ‘ And the Lord 
 said unto Moses,—see, I have made thee a God to 
 Pharaoh. Judges, Magistrates, and civil Rulers, are 
 denominated Gods in Psalm \xxxii. 6, §¢.” (p. 135.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Whenever the title God is applied to creatures, it is 
 always in such a manner, and associated with such con- 
 comitant expressions, as prove, beyond any possibility 
 of mistake, that it is only applied in a figurative, or 
 some other very subordinate sense. Let us, for in- 
 stance, refer to the passages of this nature which Mr. 
 Mitchel has advanced. 
 
 The first is from the language of God to Moses, in 
 _ Exodus, vii. 1—“ See, I have made thee a God to 
 Pharaoh ;” or, as it sbould be translated, “I have 
 made thee Gop to Pharaoh.” Now, from the mere 
 connection of this verse with the history of the circum- 
 stances alluded to, it would appear plainly that the term 
 God is to be understood in a figurative sense—importing 
 that Moses, as an ambassador to Pharaoh, acted as the 
 deputy and substitute of the Most High. But look to 
 the 16th verse of the 4th chapter, and you will find 
 this meaning of the passage asserted by Jehovah himself, 
 where he says, “ Thou shalt be to him instead of God.” 
 This is the only instance in the entire Bible in which 
 the term ‘‘ God” is, in any sense, applied to any single 
 man ; and it is to be remarked that it is Jehovah himself 
 who applies the term in the very low sense which we 
 have shewn: Moses did not arrogate the title to him- 
 self, nor any other person ascribe it to him. 
 
 The second passage is from Psalm ]xxxii, 6—“I 
 
50 
 
 have said, ye are Gods.” Now, here the term is not 
 applied to any one individual, but to several; and, there- 
 fore, as the Bible is not a system of Polytheism, it is 
 manifest, at one glance, that it must be applied in a 
 figurative sense. But this is not all: the preceding and 
 subsequent context, with which the verse stands con- 
 
 nected, shew that the term is used by the Psalmist in 
 the very lowest sense: ‘“ How long will ye judge un- 
 justly, and accept the persons of the wicked: - - - 
 they know not, neither will they understand ; they walk 
 in darkness. - - - Ihave said, ye are Gods—but 
 ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes.” 
 Is it not evident that the Psalmist calls the Judges and 
 Rulers, here alluded to, by the title Gods in an ironical 
 sense, in order to give a greater emphasis to this hu- 
 miliating representation of their character and destiny, 
 which is contrasted with that appellation? But this 
 criticism is almost unnecessary, as Mr. Mitchel himself 
 has embodied a refutation of his objection in his state- 
 ment of it, where he says that “the term God, as 
 implying authority and dominion, is often in Scripture 
 applied to beings whom we should never think of con- 
 founding with the Supreme God.” 
 
 It now remains for us to shew that these passages 
 do not afford the slightest appearance of parallelism 
 with those in which the name of God is applied to 
 Christ ; and to do so, we remark, that when we argue 
 for the Deity of the Saviour from the application of 
 this title to him, our argument is not derived from the 
 mere fact of its being ascribed to him, but from its being 
 ascribed frequently, and with such concomitant expres- 
 stons, as oblige us to understand it in its supreme sense :-— 
 
 ah > 
 a. ae 
 
ol 
 
 thus, when the Apostle John asserts that the Word 
 was God, he subjoins the assertion, that “all things 
 were made by him ;” and when Paul stiles him “ God,” 
 in Rom. ix. 5, he connects it with a declaration, that 
 he is over all, blessed for ever ; and when he stiles him 
 ‘God,’ in Heb, i. 8, he at the same time asserts that 
 his throne is for ever and ever. Or, let us illustrate 
 this position by a reference to the case before adduced, 
 
 of the application of this term to Moses; and ad- 
 mitting, for the sake of argument, that it was really 
 and directly ascribed to him, I ask, do we find any 
 consistency or agreement in the subsequent history. 
 of Moses with the dignity and authority which this 
 term should imply ? So far from it, we find that when 
 Moses arrogated to himself an independent power, and 
 “did not sanctify Jehovah in the eyes of the children of 
 Israel,” he was severely punished for his presumption. 
 On the other hand, we find, in the Scripture account of 
 the dignities and prerogatives connected with the person 
 of the Son of God, an ample conformity and con- 
 sistency with the honors and attributes which an 
 ascription of the title God in the highest sense can 
 imply. For instance, if an ascription of the title God, 
 in the same sense in which it is applied to the Father, 
 should imply a participation of the same dignity and 
 dominion with the Father, we are told in Scripture 
 that Christ sits upon the right hand of the Father; or 
 if it should imply a participation of the same honor - 
 which is paid to the Father, we are told, “that all 
 men should honor the Ben) even as they honor the 
 Father.” 
 
 And here, we may remark that the term “ God” is 
 
52 
 
 the only title of Deity for which our opponents can 
 advance the slightest pretence of a subordinate appli- 
 cation: the titles ‘‘ Jehovah,’ ‘“ Jehovah of Hosts,” 
 “King of Kings,” ‘“ Lord of Lords,” &c., are in no 
 case whatever ascribed to creatures. 
 
 OBJECTION XVI. ag 
 
 To John, x. 27 to 30——“‘ My sheep hear my voice, 
 and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto 
 them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, neither 
 shall any man pluck them out of my hands. My Father, 
 which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is 
 able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand: I and my 
 Father are one.” By this latter statement, we maintain 
 that -Christ meant to say that he and his Father ‘are 
 one Being,” importing, thereby, a physical union : Mr. 
 Mitchel, on the other hand, interprets the passage to 
 mean a mere moral union of design ; his remarks are as 
 follow :—‘' It was upon this that the Jews charged our 
 Lord with ‘making himself God, to which groundless 
 charge he replied as before quoted ; and yet Christians 
 continue, upon the same ground, to make the very 
 same assertion. Our Lord does not say, here or else- 
 where, that the Father and he were one God ; that would 
 have settled the question. But his meaning is easily 
 ascertained by referenee to his own explanation, contained 
 in John, xvii. 11 : ‘ Holy Father, keep, through thine 
 own name, those whom thou hast given me, that they 
 may be one, as we are ;’ and again, at the 20th verse, 
 ‘ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which 
 
 ee ae a ee a ae ee 
 
 eS ete 
 
53 
 
 shall believe on me, through their word, that they all 
 may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
 that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe 
 that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest 
 me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we 
 are one.” (p. 139.) 
 
 ANSWER, 
 
 We admit that the import of the expression, “ to be 
 one,” cannot be decided by its mere grammatical con- 
 struction, but must be determined by a reference to the 
 peculiar circumstances under which it was uttered. In 
 John, xvii. 11, itis admitted, on both sides, that it 
 implies merely a moral union of affection and love. But 
 we presume, that a comparison of this text with the 
 assertion of our Saviour, in John, x. 30, will shew that 
 no parallelism exists between them. Christ, for 
 instance, claims to himself, in the 28th verse, the very 
 same capability of protecting and preserving his people, 
 as he attributes to his Father in the 29th verse :—“* No 
 man,’ (or rather “no one,” including their most power- 
 ful spiritual adversaries) said he, “is able to pluck 
 them out. of my Father’s hands,” and he gives a satis- 
 factory reason for this declaration—« My Father is 
 greater than all,” and “no one shall pluck them out of 
 my hands ;” for which he gives, im our view of the 
 passage, as satisfactory a reason, “I and my Father are 
 one.” Now, it is most evident that a mere unity of 
 design would not establish the requisite ability to pro- 
 tect his people which this declaration must, from its 
 connection with the argument, import. Nothing less 
 than a oneness of power and wisdom, and of Divine 
 
 EF 
 
o4 
 
 resources, to contrive and exert the promised preserva- 
 tion, would be sufficient ; and how these could exist, 
 without a unity of essence, it remains for the opponent 
 of Christ’s Deity to illustrate and confirm. This 
 passage, therefore, is by no means parallel with John, 
 xvii. 11, “that they may be one, as we are one,” in 
 which Christ merely alludes to that perfect unity of will, 
 which (as well as the physical union spoken of in John, 
 x. 30) subsists between him and the Father. 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel has endeavoured to nullify this 
 interpretation of the phrase, ‘‘I and my. Father are 
 one,” which we have shewn, from its connection with 
 the preceding context, by a reference to the verses 
 which follow, which he alludes to in this objection, and 
 has quoted as far as to the 36th verse, in page 136. How 
 far he is justified in this will be seen by a reference to 
 the circumstances of the narrative in question, viz. : 
 
 While Jesus was walking in Solomon’s poreh, the 
 Jews came up to him to enquire whether he was really 
 the Christ? Our Lord answered, that he had told 
 them before—referred them to his miraculous works, 
 as an evidence of the fact—declared the reason of their 
 not believing, to be, because they were not his sheep, 
 adding, that as no one was able to pluck his sheep out 
 of his Father’s hand, so no one could pluck them out of 
 his hands, because he and his Father were one. Upon 
 this, the Jews, understanding him to claim the pre- 
 rogatives of Deity, as is evident from their own words, 
 in the 33d verse, ‘‘ because thou, being a MAN, makest 
 thyself Gop,” were proceeding to execute upon him the 
 sentence of their law against blasphemy, by taking up 
 stones to stone him. Our Lord then proceeds to justify 
 
 4 
 — aS ee 7” | 
 
55 
 
 himself in making the declaration which had given 
 them so much offence, “that he and his Father are 
 one,” which he does from the 35th to the 38th verses, 
 which consist of two parts—first, an argument a fortior?, 
 in verses 35 and 36, to justify his assertion that God 
 was his Father—and, secondly, an explanation of the 
 sense in which he and his Father were one, with a 
 reference to the testimony by which his veracity was 
 established, in verses 37 and 38. His argument, 
 a fortiori, is this—“ if the appellation of God is given to 
 those who had no other claim to the title than that to 
 them the word of God came, how can you deem it pre- 
 sumption, much less blasphemy, in me, whom the Father 
 hath sanctified and sent into the world, to say that I am 
 the Son of God?”—(which is the same as calling God his 
 Father.) And his explanation of the sense in which he 
 and his Father were one is contained in the 38th verse: 
 “ The Father is in me, and IJ in him.” 
 
 Upon hearing this: explanation, the Jews were 
 proceeding with the same violence as on his former 
 declaration, “that he and his Father were one;’ for 
 we read, in verse 39, “ therefore, they sought again to 
 take him :” evidently shewing that his explanation had 
 not reduced, in their minds, the high import of his 
 former statement, but had kept it up to the very same 
 standard of interpretation, as implying a unity of 
 essence with the Father. Now, here was the oppor- 
 tunity for Christ, plainly and definitely, to disclaim the 
 Divine honors he had assumed, if Mr. Mitchel’s system 
 be correct. But did he do so? He vip nor; 
 although, if he were not entitled to the dignity he 
 assumed, every principle of piety, of duty, and of 
 
56 
 
 Christian charity, demanded such a statement as could 
 not be misunderstood; for, read the 39th verse— 
 “therefore, they sought again to take him, but he 
 escaped out of their hands ;” evidently leaving his last 
 declaration, “the Father is in me, and I in him,” to 
 explain his former assertion, that “ he and his Father 
 were one.” 
 
 The question, then, is reduced to this: What is 
 the nature of that oneness of Christ with the Father, 
 which is explained by the declaration, “the Father is 
 in me, and I in the Father ?” And to ascertain its 
 import, we refer you to the following detail :— 
 
 John, i. 18, “ The only begotten son, which is in 
 the bosom of the Father.” 
 
 John, v. 19, “ What things soever the Father 
 doeth these doeth the Son likewise.” 
 
 John, v. 21, “ As the Father raiseth up the dead, 
 and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth 
 whom he will.” : 
 
 John, v. 23, “ That all men should honor the Son, 
 even as they honor the Father: he that honoreth not 
 the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent 
 him.” , 
 
 John, v. 26, “ As the Father hath life in himself, 
 so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” 
 
 John, x. 15, “ As the Father knoweth me, even 
 so know I the Father.” 
 | John, xiv. 9, ‘‘ He that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father.” 
 
 John, xvi. 15, * All things that the Father hath are 
 mine.” . 
 
 John, xvii. 5, “ And now, oh Father! glorify thou 
 
57 
 
 me with thine own self, with the glory which J had with 
 thee before the world was.” 
 
 From these passages, and many others which could 
 be adduced, it is clearly established, that the oneness 
 of Christ with the Father consists in a communion of 
 affection, power, knowledge, worship and glory, with the 
 Father ; and these involve a perfect identity of nature. 
 
 But, even admitting that the declaration, “ I and my 
 Father are one,” refers only to a unity of design, it 
 still affords an argument nearly, if not entirely, as 
 strong for our Saviour’s Supreme Deity, For would 
 it not be the greatest presumption in a creature to put 
 
 himself on a par with his Creator, by saying that a 
 
 unanimity of opinion existed between them? And 
 was it so far possible that Christ (as inferior to the 
 Deity) could have counteracted the intentions of his 
 Father, in reference to the security of his people, as 
 to render it necessary for Him to say that he and his 
 Father entertained a unity of sentiment upon the 
 subject? The declaration would be both presumptuous 
 and absurd, if uttered by a created and finite being. 
 
 OBJECTION XVII. 
 
 To Col. ii. 9—‘‘ In him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily ;’ upon which Mr. Mitchel says— 
 “ That is, probably, that the Son of God, in human 
 
 nature, was the fullest display that could be given of the 
 
 Divine Attributes in a bodily form. But whatever this 
 
 may mean, it must all be referred to the good pleasure 
 
 of the Father Almighty ; ‘For it pleased the Father 
 
 that in him should all fulness dwell’ And we cannot 
 EF 2 
 
 oR IS ee as 
 
58 
 suppose that the Apostle meant that all Christians should 
 
 become Gods, when he prays ‘that they may be filled 
 with all the fulness of God.” (p. 142.) 
 
 ue 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The only intelligible meaning which we ean attach 
 to Mr. Mitchel’s explanation of this passage, ‘that 
 the Son of God, in human nature, was the fullest dis- 
 play that could be given of the Divine attributes in a 
 
 ? 
 
 bodily form,” is to receive it as an express, though, of 
 course, unintentional, assertion of his Deity. For what 
 more does any Trinitarian believe, than that the Son of 
 God possessed the Divine attributes in his own person ; 
 and, when he became incarnate, gave such a display of 
 these attributes, in his human nature, as to justify the 
 declaration, that he was “God manifest in the flesh ?” 
 But this passage requires no commentary, in order to 
 shew that it clearly asserts the Deity of Christ, as is 
 evident from the amazing amplitude and distinctness of 
 phraseology which the Apostle adopts. The term 
 ‘fulness’ is used in Scripture to denote plenty, or 
 abundance, or all that is possessed by the thing spoken 
 of (as in Rom. xi. 25, xv. 29.) The meaning of the 
 expression ‘‘ bodily” may be ascertained by a reference 
 to the 17th verse of this chapter, in which the term 
 “ body” is placed in contrast with the typical character 
 of the Jewish ordinances, “which were a shadow of 
 things to come;” it therefore means “actually,” 
 “really,” “substantially,” as if he had said that all the 
 fulness of the Godhead dwelt really in Christ, in oppo- 
 sition to the partial and symbolic residence of the glory 
 
 of God in the ark. The term for “ Godhead,” in the 
 
59 
 
 original, is the very strongest term which the Greek 
 language could afford to designate the abstract essence 
 and nature of Deity.x—And the expression “ dwelleth” 
 denotes a permanent inhabitation, in opposition, for 
 instance, to the transient manifestation of God’s glory 
 between the cherubim; so that the declaration, that in 
 Christ “DWELLETH ALL the FULNESS of the Gop- 
 HEAD BODILY,” is one of the strongest and most em- 
 phatic assertions of his Deity to be found in Scripture. 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel has instituted two arguments to 
 destroy the force of this passage:—‘‘ Whatever,” says 
 he, “this may mean, it must all be referred to the good 
 pleasure of the Father Almighty ; for ‘it pleased the 
 Father that in him should all fulness dwell.’” The 
 passage alluded to occurs in Col. i. 19, and will it be 
 eredited by the reader, that the term “ Father,” upon 
 which the entire force of his argument is based, has 
 been gratuitously inserted by our English translators, 
 and does not occur in the original? The literal rendering 
 of the Greek is, “‘ For in him all fulness pleased to 
 dwell ;” which is evidently a figurative mode of as- 
 serting, that “in him all fulness dwells.” But Mr. 
 Mitchel’s object in making this reference was obviously 
 to imply, that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in 
 Christ only by communication or concession from the 
 Father Almighty—which is impossible ; for if, as we 
 have shewn, “all the fulness of the Godhead” imports 
 the aggregate of all the essential attributes which con- - 
 stitute the abstract nature and essence of Deity, these 
 could not be the subject of communication—they could 
 only dwell in Christ (2. ¢., as to his Divine nature) by 
 _ yirtue of his being really and truly God. 
 
60 
 
 The other argument which he. has advanced . to 
 nullify the force of this passage is an assumption of its 
 parallelism with Eph. iii. 19—“ We cannot suppose,” 
 says he, ‘‘that the Apostle meant that all Christians 
 should become Gods, when he prays that they may be 
 filled with all the fulness of God.” Now, will it be 
 again credited by the reader, that the entire force of 
 this argument also rests upon a mistrauslation of a 
 preposition in the original Greek : if you revert to the 
 original, you will find that the Apostle does not even 
 intimate that believers could be filled with all the 
 fulness of God. ‘Ihe correct translation of the pas- 
 sage is—‘ that ye may be filled towards, or unto, all the 
 fulness of God ;” in which he exhibits the fulness, or 
 supreme perfection of Deity, as the ultimate object and 
 model towards which they were to approximate (as far 
 as finite beings could) by a progressive acquisition and 
 expansion of the several graces which he had before 
 enumerated : but he by no means intended to convey 
 an idea that they could be filled with all the fulness of 
 God ; for, after all their attainment of Christian virtues, 
 still their moral beauty will be but a shadow of the 
 sublime amplitude of Jehovah’s glory—and the infinite 
 distance between the character of the Creator and of 
 his creatures will for ever be preserved. Need we add, 
 that his exhibiting “the fulness of God,” as a model 
 to guide Christians in their endeavours to accumulate 
 holiness, is in perfect consistency with other commands 
 of Scripture—such as, “ Be ye holy, as God is holy,” 
 “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” 
 
 But may I here take the liberty to protest, most 
 strongly, against the principles by which our opponents 
 
 ea eee 
 
 ay een Fo ee ee 
 
61 
 
 conduct their reasonings against the Supreme Deity of 
 
 Christ ? When the original Greek appears to be more 
 
 in their favor than our English translation, they are 
 
 ready enough to take advantage of it by a reference to 
 
 the original (as is evident from their criticisms upon is 
 
 Tim. iii. 16, and Acts, xx. 28, &c.); but when an 
 
 inaccuracy or ambiguity occurs in our English version, 
 
 which gives a semblance of support to their sentiments, 
 
 whilst the original is against them, they are disin- 
 
 genuous enough to argue from the very incorrectness 
 
 of the translation, with as much confidence and uncon- 
 
 cern as if the principles of their reasoning were perfectly 
 legitimate (as, for instance, in the arguments connected 
 
 with the present objection, and others which we shall 
 
 have occasion to notice.) I mention this in order to 
 
 guard my readers against it ; and I cannot avoid remark- 
 
 ing, that the advocates of a cause which requires such _ 
 support must feel deeply conscious of its weakness. 
 
 OBJECTION XVIII. 
 
 To Phil. ii. 6—“ Who, being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” upon 
 which he remarks :—“ The only expression in Seripture 
 which seems to claim for Christ an equality with God is 
 this. Our Lord’s previous and positive disavowal of 
 
 any such claim might lead us to expect some inaccuracy 
 in -the translation here. The Apostle is exhorting 
 Christians to humility and lowliness of mind, by the 
 example of Christ ; and, uccording to the present 
 rendering, the attitude in which our Lord is presented, of 
 claiming equality with God, would seem unfavourable 
 
62 
 
 to his argument. But the passage may, without violence, 
 be rendered thus—‘ Thought it not robbery to be like 
 unto God. By this translation, you at once give force 
 to the Apostle’s reasoning, and reconcile the expression to 
 the general teaching of Scripture. If it were the 
 doctrine of Scripture, or of this passage, that Christ 
 as the Supreme God, what meaning would there be in 
 the declarations, that he was in the Sorm of God 2—or 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God? In what 
 sense could the Most High and immutable God ‘ make 
 himself of no reputation, and ‘become obedient unto 
 death ?’—or who is the God that could‘ exalt him ?—or 
 where was the room for his exaltation to higher degrees 
 of glory than he always possessed ?” (p- 145.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 We shall first reply to Mr. Mitchel’s single criticism 
 
 on this passage, and then give a paraphrase of it. 
 He considers that the expression which has been 
 translated, ‘‘ equal with God,” might be rendered 
 “like unto God.” But what is the authority or proof 
 which he has advanced to support this alteration ? 
 
 Ist. He says that “ our Lord’s previous and positive 
 disavowal of an equality with God might lead us to 
 suspect some inaccuracy in the translation here.” But 
 we reply to this, that Christ made no such disavowal, as 
 we have already shewn in our consideration of Objection 
 16; so that this remark is nothing less than a petitio 
 principi, or an assuming as true the very question in 
 dispute. 
 
 2d. He says, “the attitude in which our Lord is 
 presented, of claiming equality with God, would seem 
 
63 
 
 unfavorable to the Apostle’s argument.” But to this 
 we reply, that our Lord is not represented in any such 
 attitude, as we shall presently shew; and that the 
 Apostle’s argument is derived from the fact, that “he 
 made himself of no reputation.” The assertion, “ that 
 he thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” is 
 made asa preface to his argument, to render it more 
 forcible by the contrast it affords between his previous 
 dignity and subsequent condescension. 
 
 But the Greek word, which is translated “ equal 
 with,” could not be translated “like to:” it invariably 
 
 99 
 
 signifies to be “equal to,” or “on a parity with’—as, 
 for instance, in John, y. 18, ‘ Making himself equal 
 with God;” in which latter passage the adjective 
 occurs—but in the text under consideration the adverb 
 is used ; because the idiom of the Greek language 
 requires that the verb substantive should take the 
 adverb, and not the adjective, in conjunction with it. 
 And whenever the sacred writers want to express a 
 mere similitude, or “likeness to,” they invariably use 
 a different Greek word, as may be seen on a reference 
 to the following passages: Luke, vi. 47, Acts, xvii. 29, 
 I. John, iii. 2, &c. 
 
 The passage, therefore, may be east ae thus : 
 
 “Who, being in possession of all the constituent 
 attributes of Deity, did not consider an equality with 
 the Father as an act of presumption to which he was 
 not legitimately entitled; yet, notwithstanding this 
 dignity, he voluntarily humbled himself, and came into- 
 the world, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, 
 and was made in the likeness of man ; and, being formed 
 in fashion as a man, he still farther humbled himself by 
 
64 
 
 becoming obedient, to the extent of dying—of dying, 
 even upon the cross: therefore, let this example of 
 Christ be a constraining motive to induce you to culti- 
 vate lowliness of mind, and to interest yourselves for the 
 welfare of others.” And this view of the passage 
 places the Apostle’s argument in the strongest light, 
 as the force of his reasoning depends upon the greatness 
 of the contrast between Christ’s previous state of glory 
 and his subsequent humiliation in the flesh. If, there- 
 fore, his glory, before his incarnation, was the glory of 
 Supreme Deity, his condescension, in humbling himself, 
 was infinitely greater than if his previous dignity had 
 merely consisted in being “like unto God.” 
 
 But he asks—‘“If Christ is the Supreme God, what 
 meaning would there be in the declaration, ‘that he was 
 in the form of God?’” To which I answer, that the ex- 
 pression, ‘‘ form of God,” denotes “in the condition or 
 nature of God.” This is the general import of the 
 ” and the antithesis of 
 the passage confirms this interpretation—for as his being 
 
 Greek word, translated “form; 
 
 in the “form of aservant” denotes, when considered in 
 reference to his history, his being really and properly a 
 servant, so his being in “the form of God” denotes 
 his being really and properly God. 
 
 He also asks—“ In what sense could the Most High 
 and immutable God make himself of no reputation ?” 
 To which I answer, that the proposal of such a question 
 as this must arise altogether from his misconception of 
 the doctrine we profess. We do not maintain that any 
 change took place in the nature or essential properties 
 of Deity, when the word which was God became flesh, 
 and tabernacled amongst us. We refer the expressions, 
 
 ee ee 
 
 ee 
 
65 
 
 “made himself of no reputation” altogether to the 
 manifestation of Christ to men: he appeared amongst 
 them in sucha condition that they despised and rejected 
 him: or, if I might presume to illustrate the subject by 
 a comparison, I would say, that as there is no change in 
 the essential splendor and glory of the sun, when an 
 eclipse takes place—so, when the manifestation of the 
 eternal Word in the flesh produced in the view of men 
 a temporary eclipse of the Divinity, there was no change 
 in the essential glories of his Godhead, which Angels 
 ‘still continued to regard as perfect, undiminished and 
 supreme. And in conformity with this view, we find 
 Christ speaking of his being in Heaven at the very time 
 when he was manifest in the flesh. John, iii. 13. 
 
 For a reply to Mr. Mitchel’s remaining questions— 
 “Who is the God that could exalt him ?” and “ Where 
 was there room for greater exaltation than he always 
 possessed ?”—it is sufficient to: refer to John, xvii. 5, 
 and to the context verses—8, 9. 
 
 > 
 
 OBJECTION XIX. 
 
 Against the eternal existence of Christ, as proved 
 from Rev. i. 11—‘“ I am Alpha and Omega, the first and 
 the last ;” upon which he says—“ This is the only passage 
 of any weight, which has been, or can be, adduced in 
 support of his absolute eternity—an attribute which is no 
 where expressly claimed for him. And it may help you 
 
 to understand his meaning in this passage, if you read 
 
 the following—Rev, iii. 14, where he stiles himself ‘ the 
 beginning of the creation of God? Coll. i. 15, where 
 the Apostle Paul expressly calls him ‘the Jirst born of 
 
 G 
 
 aoe 
 7x 8% 
 
66 
 
 every creature ;’ and Rev. i. 5, where the Apostle John 
 denominates him < the vipst begotten from the dead.’ ” 
 
 (p- 140.) 
 ANSWER. 
 
 It would be difficult to produce an instance of a more 
 precipitate criticism than the above. There are several 
 other passages in Scripture in support of the absolute 
 eternity of Christ, which should be answered before 
 that doctrine can be denied, such as Micah, v. 2, Coll. 
 i. 17, &. Mr. Mitchel has altogether overlooked the 
 important fact, that THESE worRDs, IN Rev. i. 11, ARE 
 THE VERY SAME FORM OF EXPRESSION WHICH THE 
 SupREME JEHOVAH ADopTs, IN ISAIAH, xliv. 6, to 
 designate his own eternity :—“ Thus saith Jehovah, the 
 King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts, 
 I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST; and beside me 
 there isno God.” So, that if these words are competent 
 to describe absolute eternity in the one instance, it will 
 be difficult to shew why they are not sufficient to 
 convey the same idea in the other. 
 
 But he considers that this passage may be explained 
 by a reference to Rey. iii. 14, in which Christ is stiled 
 “the beginning of the creation of God ;” intending, I 
 suppose, to contradict his eternal existence, by adducing 
 this latter passage, as asserting that he was the first 
 created being whom God called into existence. But if 
 you refer to the passage, you will find that its import in 
 the original is, “the ruler, or the author, of the 
 creation of God;’ in which, by a figure of frequent 
 occurrence in Scripture, the abstract term is used for 
 the concrete; as, when Christ is stiled “ the way,” “the 
 truth,” or “the life,” the meaning is, that he is the 
 
67 
 
 “author of the way,” “the author of the truth,” 
 and “ the author of spiritual life.” “* 
 
 Nor will Coll. i. 15, “the first born of every 
 creature,” afford any contradiction to the doctrine of 
 Christ’s eternal existence. Its connection with the 
 succeeding verse clearly shews that it cannot mean that 
 he was a created being:—“the first born of every 
 creature, FOR (or BECAUSE) by him ALL things were 
 created,” &c. Here, if the word “first born” imports, 
 as Mr. Mitchel’s argument requires, that Christ was 
 the “ first created” being, how could his having created 
 all things be any reason or proof that he was the “ first 
 ereated being” himself? The expression “ first born” 
 was in common use, among the Jews, to designate the 
 chief proprietor and Lord, and in this sense it is here 
 fizuratively applied to Christ. This interpretation alone 
 will render the sequence of the argument just, that 
 Christ is the chief Lord and proprietor of every 
 creature, by virtue of his having created all things. 
 
 Thus, you will see that this designation of Christ, 
 
 “first and last,” which is so often applied to him in the 
 
 book of the Revelation, remains in full force as an argu- 
 ment for his eternal existence. But it also demonstrates 
 the doctrine, that he is the onE God with the Father, 
 to whom the same words are applied ; for two distinct 
 beings could not each say of himself, at the same 
 time, ‘‘I am the first and the last.” 
 
 OBJECTION XX. 
 
 Against the omnipresence.of Christ ; upon which he 
 says—“ The omnipresence of Christ, in the same sense 
 
68 
 
 with the Father, is sought to be inferred from his own 
 gracious promise, ‘ Where two or three are gathered 
 together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’ 
 This is a most glorious and comfortable truth ; a truth 
 in which we should all most cordially rejoice. But 
 this blessed truth may be received and rejoiced in by 
 Christians, without ascribing the absolute omnipresence 
 of the Deity to our Lord Jesus Christ. His own words, 
 John, xiv. 25, < These things have I spoken unto you, 
 BEING YET PRESENT WITH You; and the words of 
 the Apostle to the Corinthians, I Cor. v. iii, ‘I veri Y; 
 as absent in the body, but Aggie IN THE SPIRIT; 
 
 and to the Collossians, ii. 5, * Though I be absent i in 
 the flesh, yet am I with a” in the spirit ;’ making ‘all 
 due allowance for the vast difference between the beloved 
 Son of God and his Apostle, may lead us to understand 
 our Lord's meaning, in this gracious promise, so as not 
 to confound him with that Being who fills Heaven and 
 earth by the very necessity of his nature.” ‘(p. 41.) 
 
 ‘ ~ ANSWER. . 
 
 The force of the argument from Math. xviii. 20, and 
 xxviii. 20, for the omnipresence of Christ, depends upon 
 a fact which Mr. Mitchel has taken no notice of, namely, 
 that they are analagous to passages in the Old Tes- 
 tament which describe the omnipresence of Jehovah. 
 The phrase, “in the midst,” occurs in Zeph. iii. 5, 
 15 and 17—“ Jehovah is in the midst of thee;” and 
 the promise, “Where two or three are gathered 
 together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” 
 is precisely similar to the promise of Jehovah in Ex. 
 xx. 24—“ In all places where I record my name, I will 
 
 wn 
 
 “* 
 
“ 69 
 
 come unto thee.” AndI ask the opponent of our 
 Saviour’s Supreme Deity, how the former promise 
 could be fulfilled by a being who does not possess the 
 same. faculty of omnipresence which alone enabled 
 Jehovah to fulfil the latter ? Me 
 
 But he thinks that a comparison if these passages, 
 with others which he quotes, will shew that they 
 cannot prove that Christ possessed the absolute omni- 
 presence of Deity. The first passage he refers to is 
 John, xiv. 25—“ these things have I spoken unto you, | 
 being yet present with you,” which evidently refers to 
 his bodily presence, and WHICH REFUTES THE VERY 
 ARGUMENT WHICH HE HAS BROUGHT IT FORWARD 
 To support; for, by its contrast with Math. xxviii. 20, 
 it proves that the promise, in the latter passage, could 
 only be fulfilled by virtue of a Divine presence, which 
 the Saviour was able to exert. , 
 
 The second passage to which he refers is the lan- 
 guage of St. Paul—<I verily, as absent in the body, 
 but present in spirit, have judged already, as though 
 f were preseni.” This merely implies that the Apostle, 
 by an exertion of the imagination, had represented to 
 his own mind the state in which the Corinthian Church 
 was involved by the conduct of the person alluded to 
 in the first verse, and which had been reported to him, 
 and had formed his judgment accordingly, as if he were 
 actually present. But the context of this passage 
 suggests an invincible argument for the omnipresence 
 of Christ.. In verse 1, he says—“ it is reported com- 
 monly,” z. e., the Apostle’s information upon the subject 
 to which he alludes was derived from an account which 
 had been transmitted to him by others. Now, contrast 
 
 G2 
 
70 
 
 this with the language of our Saviour, in his ad- 
 dresses to the Seven Churches in Asia, in each of 
 which he uses phraseology which implies an immediate 
 and personal recognition, as in Rey. ii. 2, 9, 13, 
 and Rey. ili. 1, 8, 15--“ I know thy works,” &c. And 
 how our Lord Jesus Christ could take direct cog- 
 nizance of the different circumstances of the different 
 assemblies of his people upon earth, without the faculty 
 of omnipresence, remains for our opponents to shew. 
 
 He also refers to the language of the same Apostle 
 to the Collossians—‘ Though I be absent in the flesh, 
 yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding 
 your ‘order, and the steadfastness of your faith: in 
 Christ.” In these words, the Apostle simply means 
 that he was present with the Collossians in thought 
 and affection, according to a mental power, which 
 every rational being possesses, of tmagining himself 
 present to witness the prosperity of those for whom 
 he is interested, and of feeling pleasure, though 
 absent, in their advancement. But not one of the 
 passages which Mr. Mitchel has advanced bears the 
 
 slightest parallelism, either in sense or expression, to 
 ~ the promises of our Saviour, from which our argument 
 has been derived. We therefore still maintain, that 
 neither promise could be sincerely made, except by a 
 being who was conscious that he possessed the Divine 
 attribute of omnipresence; and also, that as the 
 promise in Matthew, xviii. 20, is precisely the same 
 with that of Jehovah in Ex. xx. 24, any position, 
 advanced to overthrow the argument derived from one, 
 must, by a parity of reasoning, invalidate the argument 
 derived from the other. 
 
71 
 
 OBJECTION XXI. 
 
 Against the omnipotence of Christ, upon which he 
 says—‘ *I can do-all things,’ saith the Apostle, ‘ through 
 Christ strengthening me. In a similar. sense, but, 
 doubtless, in a much higher degree, our blessed Lord may 
 be said to do all things, through the great power conferred 
 on him of the Father. But those passages, which are 
 thought to attribute omnipotence to Christ, ought cer- 
 tainly to be understood in such a sense as not to contra- 
 dict his own positive declarations, when he tells us that 
 ‘to sit on his right hand, and on his left, is not his to 
 give; and that all the powers he possessed. high and 
 inconceivable as they may be to us, were nevertheless ‘ given 
 him of the Father’ ” (p. 142.) 
 
 | ANSWER. 
 
 ' The method in which Mr. Mitchel has argued against 
 our Saviour’s possession of the Supreme attributes of 
 Deity is truly surprising. In reasoning, for instance, 
 against his omnipresence, he contrasted the language of 
 the Apostle, “ though I be absent in the flesh, yet am 
 I with you in the spirit,” with the words of Christ— 
 “where two or three are gathered together in my 
 name, there am I in the midst of them.” Now, the 
 only argument, upon this comparison, which could 
 answer his purpose, would be to maintain, that the two 
 passages are precisely equivalent in sense and expression, 
 and that, therefore, as the words of the Apostle could 
 not demonstrate his omnipresence, so neither could the 
 promise of our Saviour prove his omnipresence ; but, in 
 the very paragraph in which he drew the comparison be- 
 tween the two texts, he destroys the principle which 
 - could alone render his reasoning just and legitimate, by 
 
42 ©, 
 
 saying that he makes “ all due allowance for the vast 
 difference between the beloved Son of God and his 
 Apostle.” His reasoning, also, against the omnipotence 
 of our Saviour possesses the very same anomaly: he 
 quotes, for instance, the words of the Apostle, ‘I 
 can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth 
 me.”—Now, his reasoning from this passage should 
 evidently be, that we might as well prove the omni- 
 potence of Paul from it, as the omnipotence of Christ 
 from those passages which we had advanced to de- 
 monstrate that doctrine; but, instead of openly stating 
 this argument, he altogether destroys any force which 
 he may have attached to it by the concession which he 
 immediately makes: “In a similar sense, but doubtless 
 in a much higher degree, our blessed Lord may be said 
 to do all things, through the great power conferred on 
 him of the Father,” 
 
 This passage, therefore, according to Mr. Mitchel’s 
 own admission, is of much lower import than any 
 which can be advanced in support of Christ's capability 
 to do all things. When the Apostle says, I can do all 
 things,” he immediately adds, “ through Christ, which 
 strengtheneth me,”—thereby shewing, that he merely 
 means that he can doall things which Christ's strengthen- 
 ing might enable him to do. This text, therefore, affords 
 to us avaluable evidence of the great confidence which 
 the Apostle reposed in the omnipotence of Christ. 
 
 “But,” he says, “all the powers which Christ pos- 
 sessed were given him of the Father :” this we freely 
 admit, understanding the word “ power” in the sense of 
 “ authority ;” for it is part of our system to believe, that 
 all the authority which Christ, as Mepiaror, pos- 
 
73 
 
 sessed, was derived from the Father, who sanctioned and 
 superintended the discharge of his official undertaking. — 
 But the Son of God must have possessed in himself 
 every capability requisite for the discharge of that office, 
 before he undertook it; for, if it was requisite for the 
 Deity to confer ability, as well as authority, upon the 
 Mediator, any created being might have been selected 
 as well as the only begotten Son of God. And thus, 
 when the Apostle speaks of our Saviour’s discharge of 
 one of the most difficult parts of his Mediatorial office, 
 
 he recognises his inherent and personal power to 
 achieve it—‘** who shall change our vile bodies, accor- 
 ding to that mighty working whereby HE Is ABLE (not 
 _heis made able) to subdue ax things to himself.” 
 But our arguments are advanced to prove that Christ. 
 possessed power in the sense of omnipotence: these 
 arguments are based upon many passages of Scripture 
 which Mr. Mitchel has not adverted to, especially upon 
 those in which he is declared to have created all things. 
 Now, omnipotence could not have been given to him, as 
 a distinct being, by the Father; for the existence of 
 two distinct omnipotent beings is a manifest impossibility. 
 If Christ be omnipotent, he must be onzE Gop WITH 
 THE FATHER. 
 
 But further—he says that those passages which are 
 thought to attribute absolute omnipotence to Christ 
 ought certainly to be understood in such a sense as not 
 to contradict his own positive declaration, “that to sit 
 on his right hand, and on his left, is not his to give.”— ; 
 To this it is easy to answer, with much more plausibility, 
 that as this is the only instance which can be advanced, 
 in which our Saviour appears to disclaim omnipotence, 
 
74 
 
 and that as the passages which we adduce to prove his 
 possession of that attribute are many, this one decla- 
 ration ought certainly to be understood in. such a sense 
 as not to contradict the other nwmerous testimonies of 
 Scripture, which prove his omnipotence. But as he has 
 elsewhere commented upon these words of Christ, and 
 as they are supposed to contain a strong argument 
 against the doctrine we maintain, I shall consider them 
 as the subject of a distinct objection. 
 
 oe 
 
 OBJECTION XXII. 
 
 Against the omnipotence of Christ, from Math. xx. 
 23—“ When the mother of Zebedee’s children came to 
 Jesus, and besought him to grant that her two sons 
 might sit, one on his right hand, and the other on his left, 
 in his kingdom, here was his reply—‘ To sit on my 
 right hand, and on my left, 1s Nov MINE TO GIVE ; but it 
 shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my 
 Father.” Iask you here, is any one able to suppose that 
 our Lord designed, by these words, to represent himself 
 as equal in power to the Father? It is not his to give ; 
 the Father had reserved it to himself. Could the fact of 
 his subordination to the Father be more plainly or 
 _ unequivocally taught 2” (p. 98.) 
 
 7 ANSWER. 
 
 His argument from this passage is most unfairly 
 based upon a mistranslation. The words, “it shail be 
 given,” have been gratuitously inserted by the translators, 
 without any warrant from the original, which should be 
 thus expressed—“ To sit on my right hand, and on my 
 left, is not mine to give, BUT To THEM for whom it has 
 
75 
 
 been prepared of my Father.’ The inserted words are 
 printed, in our English version, in J¢alics, in order to 
 shew this, but Mr. Mitchel, in his quotation of the 
 passage, has neglected this precaution. 
 
 Now, when we examine the circumstances under which 
 our Saviour made this declaration, we shall find nothing 
 in it. to contradict the doctrine of his omnipotence, or to 
 prove his subordination, in his abstract condition, to the 
 Father. Mr. Mitchel, for instance, believes in the omni- 
 potence of the Supreme God; but, at the same time, he 
 must believe that he cannot do any thing inconsistent 
 with his own character, or with those principles of 
 unswerving rectitude by which his moral government is 
 controlled. The Supreme Deity, therefore, might say 
 that he cANNoT dispense the glories and prerogatives 
 of Heaven to those who aspire to their enjoyment 
 from mere motives of unrighteous ambition, without 
 compromising his omnipotence, or giving occasion 
 to his creatures to question his possession of that 
 attribute. Now, this is precisely the character of the 
 circumstance which is here brought under the cognizance 
 of the Redeemer: the request, to “sit upon his right 
 hand, and on his left,” was evidently, from his com- 
 ments in the 22d and 26th verses, made through 
 ignorance and presumptuous ambition ; it was, there- 
 fore, by no means inconsistent with his Deity to reply, 
 as he did, that it was not his to dispense the dignities 
 of his kingdom upon those who were actuated by 
 such motives in soliciting them; that his Father had 
 arranged the principles upon which these dignities 
 were to be conferred; and that, as He and his Father 
 were one, the same principles must guide them both. 
 
76 
 
 And, in conclusion, this passage must beso understood : 
 for our Saviour elsewhere asserts the very prerogative 
 which our opponents pretend that he here disclaims, as in 
 Rev. iii. 21—“ To him that overcometh witt I GRANT 
 to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, 
 and am set down with my Father on his throne.” 
 
 OBJECTION XXIII. 
 
 That the miracles of Christ do not prove his Deity 
 or omnipotence ; upon which he says :—“ The miracles 
 of our Lord have been adduced by some, in proof, not 
 merely of his Divinity, but of his Supreme Godhead ; but 
 Christ never adduced them, save in proof that the Father 
 hath sent him. It has been asserted, too, that Christ 
 performed all his miracles of himself, of his own unde- 
 rived powers, whereas Christ tells you no such thing. 
 On the contrary, he tells you that he did nothing of 
 himself, and that all power was given him of the Father.” 
 (p-104.) And again : “I should no more think of proving 
 his Divine nature by his miraculous works, than I would 
 think of setting about, by the same rule, to prove the 
 Divinity of Moses and the Prophets, under the old dis- 
 "pensation, or that of the Apostles of Christ, under the 
 new.” (p. 29.) 
 
 “ANSWER. 
 
 The comparison here instituted between the miracles 
 of the Prophets and Apostles, and those of our Saviour, 
 will be found, on examination, to be totally untenable. 
 Whenever any of the Prophets wrought a miracle, they 
 were scrupulously careful to attribute the power to God. 
 The miracles of Moses are referred to; but when we 
 
 SS ee 
 
77 
 
 advert to their history, we will find that he is represented 
 as merely a subordinate instrument, through whom THE 
 Deity performed them, and that, in every particular 
 instance, he received a special communication and direc- 
 tion from the Most High. Nor was he regarded in any 
 other point of view by Pharaoh ; for he never supposed 
 that Moses himself could avert any one of the plagues 
 with which he was visited—but his language was, 
 “ intreat the Lord, that HE MAY TAKE AWAY the plague 
 from me and my people.” And when, on one occasion, 
 Moses and Aaron affected, through inconsiderate passion, 
 to perform a miracle in such a manner as did not sanctify 
 the Lord before the children of Israel, but seemed to 
 shew that the power resided in themselves, they were 
 excluded from the land of promise, as a punishment for 
 their presumption.—(Numbers, xx. 12.) But there is 
 something still more remarkable in the manner in which 
 the Apostles performed their miracles; they not only 
 carefully disclaimed the possession of any inherent 
 efficacy in themselves, “as though, by their own power 
 or holiness,” they had achieved them (Acts, iii. 12), but 
 they attributed the miracles they wrought to the power 
 of Christ. How remarkable, for instance, is the lan- 
 guage of Peter and John to the lame man, at the door 
 of the temple—“<In the name of Jesus Christ of 
 Nazareth, arise up and walk”—( Acts, iii. 6); and that 
 of Peter to Eneas—“ Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” 
 —(Acts, ix. 34); language which would have been 
 unmeaning and absurd, if Christ did not possess that — 
 Almighty power which was necessary for the perfor- 
 mance of the miracles referred to? 
 
 But, on the other hand, when we examine the 
 
 H 
 
78 
 
 narrative of our Saviour’s miracles, we shall find that 
 he invariably performed them in a manner which would 
 
 have been a presumptuous intrusion upon the powers | 
 
 and prerogatives of Deity, if he did not possess an 
 inherent and personal ability. When the woman of 
 Canaan cried unto him, saying, “ have mercy on me, 
 thou son of David,” the prayer implied a recognition, 
 on her part, of his being able, in himself, to confer the 
 blessing she solicited; and our Saviour’s reply, ‘oh 
 woman! great is thy faith—be it unto thee, even as thou 
 wilt,” conveys an admission, on his part, that her senti- 
 ments were correct (Math. xv. 21, 28.) His enquiry 
 to the blind men, “believe ye that I am ABLE to do 
 this ?” (Math. ix. 27, 30) is also a strong evidence of 
 his inherent capability. Observe, also, the narrative in 
 Mark i. 40, 41, of a leper who came and said unto him, 
 “Ir THOU WILT, THOU CANST make me clean,” upon 
 which Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his 
 hand, and touched him, and said unto him, “I wiLu: 
 be thou clean.” - And the most stupendous of all 
 miracles, his own resurrection, he attributes to his own 
 agency—“ destroy this temple, and I WILL RAISE IT UP 
 in three days.” We could adduce many other examples 
 to the same effect; but these are a sufficient evidence 
 of the Son of God possessing, in himself, underived 
 and independent power; for can it be supposed that 
 either Christ himself would not have been as solicitous 
 for the honor of the Supreme Jehovah as the Prophets 
 or Apostles, and as equally cautious, im each of these 
 cases alluded to, to correct the false sentiments which 
 the different applicants entertained of his ability ?—or 
 that the Most High, who will not surrender his glory 
 
79 
 
 to another, would have given sanction to a creature 
 aspiring to the omnipotence of Godhead ? 
 
 The miracles of our Saviour are, however, as well 
 as the creation and other works of Deity, indifferently 
 ascribed to the Three Persons, between whom there is 
 a communion, or rather a oneness, of operation. Thus, 
 the Father is said to have performed them in John, 
 xiv. 10—the Holy Spirit in Math. xii. 28; and the 
 remarks we have made shew that they were performed 
 by an independent power residing in the Son—for as the 
 Three Persons constitute one Omnipotent Being, it is 
 perfectly indifferent to which any of the works of 
 Godhead are ascribed. Mr. Mitchel has argued from 
 the words of our Saviour in John, v. 19, “the Son 
 can do nothing of himself,” that Christ did not possess 
 an independent power in himself. But, I ask, is it fair 
 to derive an argument not merely from part of a verse, 
 but from part of a sentence, and to omit the remaining 
 part altogether, so as to conceal from view the real 
 mind of the Spirit? The entire verse is this—“ Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of him- 
 self, BUT WHAT HE SEETH THE FATHER DO; FOR 
 WHAT THINGS SOEVER HE DOTH, THESE ALSO 
 DOTH THE SON LIKEWISE:” in which words he claims 
 a perfect identity of operation with his Father as 
 unequivocally as language can express; for the con- 
 nection of the former clause of the verse with the 
 remainder proves its meaning to be this—“ that the 
 Son, being one with the Father, can do nothing separately 
 from him.” And how, I would ask, could a created 
 being, or one subordinate to.the Supreme God, adopt 
 such language as this without the most presumptuous 
 
80 
 
 blasphemy ? Let the experiment, for instance, vested 
 of putting these words into the mouth of a Prophet, 
 
 and let us imagine Moses to have addressed Pharaoh | 
 in such language as this—“ Verily, verily, I say unto 
 
 you, I can do nothing of myself, but what I see the 
 Supreme God do—for what things soever he doeth, these 
 I do likewise; for as the Supreme God raiseth up the 
 dead, and quickeneth them, even so I, Moses, quicken 
 whom I will.” We feel at once that the supposition is 
 monstrous and absurd ; nor would it lose any of its force, 
 if applied to the highest created being that exists, who 
 still stands at an immeasurable distance from the 
 glorious and infinite character of him that sits upon 
 the throne. How inconsistent, then, with the word 
 of God must that system be which would render such 
 a supposition not only allowable, but just ? 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel remarks, that the manner in which 
 our Saviour performed the miracle of raising Lazarus 
 is a proof that he did not possess the necessary power 
 in himself—‘* When he raised Luzarus from the grave, 
 he acknowledged his*miraculous power from on high— 
 ‘IT thank thee, oh Father! that thou hast heard me.’” 
 ~ But read the following words, and they will shew that 
 the object of our Saviour, in presenting an address to 
 Heaven, was, in order that the miracle might be 
 efficacious in convincing his Apostles, and the multitude 
 standing by—‘‘I knew that thou hearest me always, 
 but because of the people which stand by I said it, that 
 they might believe that thou hast sent me ;” for by thus 
 publicly appealing to, and connecting himself with, the 
 omnipotence of Heaven, he could best refute the 
 declarations of those who attributed his miracles to 
 
 R a ao . oe 
 
81 
 
 infernal agency. But he had power in himself, equally 
 with the Father, to raise, not only Lazarus, but whom- 
 ~ goever else he would, as he declares in John, v. 22— 
 «“ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth 
 them, even so the Son quickeneth WHOM HE WILL.” 
 And this remark will equally account for any other 
 instance in which he addressed himself to his Father, on 
 the occasion of performing a miracle. 
 
 These remarks, I trust, contain a full and camoten: 
 reply to Mr. Mitchel’s objections against the argument 
 we derive from the miracles of Christ. I must here, 
 however, take notice of an error which Mr. Mitchel 
 has frequently fallen into, that of misrepresenting our 
 sentiments, by confounding the Deity and the humanity 
 of Christ. We do not, for instance, suppose that the 
 MAN, Christ Jesus, possessed in himself an underived 
 and independent power to perform miracles; the power 
 he exerted was in him by virtue of his connection with 
 Deity ; and the works he achieved were, as we have 
 shewn, a sufficient evidence, that “in him dwelt atx 
 the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” according to his own 
 expressions, which are of a similar import—“ Believe me, _ 
 that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else ” 
 believe me, for the very works’ sake.”—John, xiv. 11. 
 
 OBJECTION XXIV. 
 
 Against the omniscience of Christ: upon which he 
 says—“ That our blessed Lord knows what is done in 
 the Churches, and that he searcheth the hearts of the 
 children of men, is the undoubted doctrine of the Gospel ; 
 but if, by such representations, you think you can establish 
 his absolute omniscience, you may, by the same pele; as 
 
 H 2 
 
OR 
 
 82 
 
 well prove the omniscience, not only of his Apostles, who 
 
 had the faculty of ‘discerning spirits, but of all 
 Christians, whom the Apostle John thus describes :— 
 
 ‘ Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know 
 all things.’ Such expressions are not to be understood 
 according to the letter.’ (p. 141.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. In reference to the statement of the Apostle in 
 I. John, ii. 20—“ Ye have an unction from the Holy 
 One, and ye know ail things,”—it is sufficient to say, 
 that the word “all” is evidently explained by the con- 
 nection in which it stands with the remainder of the 
 sentence: ‘Ye have an unction from the Holy One, 
 zt. €., ye know all things of 
 
 b 
 
 and ye know all things;’ 
 which the unction from the Holy One communicates 
 the knowledge. 
 
 2. There is no instance whatever, in Scripture, of 
 the Apostles possessing the faculty of “discerning 
 spirits by an underived and independent power ;” for, 
 unless that be maintained, there can be no parallel 
 supposed between them and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 There is mention made, in I. Cor. xii. 10, of a “ faculty 
 
 of discerning spirits” which the primitive Christians 
 possessed ; but it is mentioned as one of the gifts of the 
 Spirit of God, who imparted it to whomsoever he would, 
 to be exercised occasionally for the general benefit of the 
 
 Church. There can, in short, be no instance adduced, 
 
 from the word of God, of any man possessing an 
 independent knowledge of the human heart, which 
 embraced an acquaintance with all the thoughts of all 
 men generally, and without limitation. 
 
 3. Mr. Mitchel has made a concession, in his state- 
 
83 
 
 ment of the preceding objection, which, I conceive, if he 
 could consistently do so, he would be glad to retract. 
 “That our blessed Lord,” says he, “searcheth the 
 hearts of the children of men is the undoubted doctrine 
 of the Gospel.” In this short sentence, he has virtually 
 admitted the Supreme Deity of Christ. To search the 
 hearts of the children of men is the unquestionable 
 prerogative of the Supreme God. Thus, we read in 
 I. Kings, viii. 39—‘ For thou, even thou only, knowest 
 the hearts of all the children of men ;” I. Chron. xxviii. 
 9—* Jehovah searcheth all hearts ;” Psalm, xliv. 21-— 
 ‘¢ Shall not God search this out, for he knoweth the 
 very secrets of the heart ?” Therefore, as Mr. Mitchel 
 admits that ‘‘ Christ searcheth the hearts of the children 
 of men, he must, by an inference which he cannot 
 evade, admit that he is the Supreme God, whose 
 prerogative alone it is to do so. 
 
 But there is a still more irresistible argument than 
 even this, for the omniscience and Supreme Deity of 
 Christ—viz. : the Supreme Jehovah, in Jer. xvu. 9, 10, 
 makes the following challenge to all the rational in- 
 habitants of the universe—‘ The heart is deceitful, 
 above all things, and desperately wicked : who can know ' 
 it? I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even 
 to give every man according to his ways, and according 
 to the fruit of his doings.” Can there be found. in 
 ‘Scripture a more emphatic and unequivocal declaration, 
 that it is eaclusively in the power of the Supreme God 
 to search the heart, than this, in which JEHOVAH 
 HIMSELF is the speaker? And can you, for one 
 moment, suppose that any ereated being would be 
 guilty of such monstrous blasphemy as to apply to 
 
84 
 
 himself this language of the Deity? And yet, if you 
 turn to Rey. il. 23, you will find the Son of God 
 applying this very language to himself—‘* And all the 
 Churches shall know that I am ue wuicw searcheth 
 the reins and hearts ; and I witz Give unto every one 
 of you according to your works.” This is a direct and 
 manifest quotation of the passage in Jeremiah, as spoken 
 by the Supreme Jehovah; and observe, that our Lord 
 does not merely say, “that I search,” but he says, 
 “that I am he which searcheth,” thereby, as expressly as 
 human language can allow, identifying himself with the 
 Supreme God, who is represented as the speaker in the 
 passage in Jeremiah.—What need, then, have we of any 
 _ further evidence for the omniscience and Godhead of 
 the Saviour? It appears to me, that those who can 
 imagine such language to have been used by a created 
 being are virtually justifying the presumption and 
 blasphemy of Antichrist, “ who opposeth and exalteth 
 
 himself above all that is called God, or that is wor- 
 | shipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of 
 God, shewing himself that he is God.” IL. Thess. ii. 4, 
 
 OBJECTION XXV. 
 _ Against the omniscience of Christ, from Mark, xiii. 
 32 :—“ Our Lord himself, however extensive his know- 
 ledge, positively disavows omniscience, in the same sense 
 with the Father, when he tells us that he knows not of 
 the day and hour of judgment, which are known to the 
 Father only.” (p. 142.) ; 
 ANSWER. 
 The entire passage is as follows:—“ But of that day 
 and hour knoweth no man—no, not the Angels which 
 
85 
 
 are in Heaven—neither the Son, but the Father ;’—to 
 the objection from which we thus reply : 
 
 1. That this must refer to the human nature of 
 Christ ; for we have sufficient evidence, from Scripture, 
 to shew that, in reference to his Divine nature, his 
 knowledge was co-extensive with the Father’s: we read, 
 for instance,,in Math. xi. 27—‘‘ No man knoweth the 
 
 Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the 
 | Father, save the Son;” and in John, x. 15—* As the 
 Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father ;’ and, 
 as we have shewn in our answer to the last objection, 
 Christ identifies himself, in Rev. 11. 23, with the 
 Supreme God, who asserts absolute omniscience in 
 Jer. xvii. 9, 10. 
 
 2. It refers to his human nature; because it was on 
 account of his possession of that nature that he was 
 appointed by the Father to execute the judgment to 
 which the passage alludes. It is also said, in Luke, 
 il. 52, that one of the essential characteristics of Christ’s 
 nature, as a man, was a capability of a progressive 
 advancement in knowledge: “ Jesus increased in wis- 
 
 ” 
 
 dom.” For, although we maintain the Supreme Deity 
 of the Saviour, we are not absurd enough to suppose 
 that the tncommunicable attributes of his Deity could 
 be imparted to his human nature; for, as we believe 
 him to have been really and truly man (that is, to have 
 possessed all the essential attributes of humanity), as 
 well as really and truly God (that is, to have possessed 
 all the essential attributes of Deity), if we believed - 
 that the peculiar attributes of his Godhead were com- 
 municated to his human nature, we should be obliged 
 
 to maintain the absurdity, that the man Christ Jesus 
 
86 
 
 was both finite and infinite in power, extension and 
 knowledge, at the same time! But, as we believe 
 that he did not possess omnipresence, or eternal 
 existence, as to his human nature, we do not consider 
 it a greater difficulty to find that he did not possess 
 omniscience in the same respect. It is, in fact, no part 
 of the Trinitarian’s creed to suppose, that the spiritual 
 principle of the eternal Worp was resident in the human 
 body of Christ, as a soul, to guide and actuate that body— 
 for we do not believe that the infinite faculties of Deity 
 could dwell in a finite and circumscribed residence ; but 
 the argument which Mr. Mitchel has derived from this 
 passage is founded upon a supposition, that our doctrine 
 teaches that the properties of Christ’s Divine nature 
 were necessarily communicated to his human nature.-— 
 THIS PASSAGE, THEREFORE, SO FAR FROM BEING 
 AN OBJECTION AGAINST THE SUPREME Detry oF 
 THE SAVIOUR, IS PART OF THE SCRIPTURAL MA« 
 TERIAL BY WHICH WE PROVE THAT HE POSSESSED 
 A REAL AND PROPER HUMANITY. 
 
 There is, then, no greater difficulty in answering this 
 objection against the omniscience of Christ, than in 
 answering his declaration upon another occasion— 
 * Now, I am no more with you,” if advanced as an 
 objection against his omnipresence. Both should be met 
 by drawing a distinction between his Divine and human 
 nature. The plausibility of the objection from Mark, 
 xiil. 32, rests upon an assumption of our opponents, 
 that our Lord never asserts of himself, without an ex- 
 pressed limitation, what is only true in reference to his 
 nature, partially considered ; an assumption which is 
 not warranted by Scripture, as there are examples to 
 
87 
 
 the contrary. For instance, Christ asserts of himself, 
 without any limitation whatever—‘ Ye have the poor 
 always with you, but me ye have not always,”—an 
 assertion which is only true in reference to his human 
 nature, as he elsewhere says, “J am with you always, 
 even tothe end of the world.” The inference is obvious, 
 and strengthens the explanation we have already given, 
 that as he has asserted, without any express limitation, 
 what is only true in reference to his human nature, 
 when he says that he would not be with his disciples 
 always, so, by analogy, he also asserts what is only true 
 in reference to his human nature, when he says that 
 he was ignorant of the day and hour of judgment. 
 And the analogy is complete, because we have texts to 
 prove the omniscience of Christ, as to his Divine nature, 
 
 as strong as those by which his omnipresence is 
 established. 
 
 OBJECTION XXVI. 
 
 Against the Deity of Christ, from Math. xix. 16— 
 “ And behold, one came and said unto him, good Master, 
 what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal 
 life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me 
 good? There is none good but one, that is God.”— 
 Upon which Mr. Mitchel says— Could any mind, 
 except a mind accustomed to take its instructions from 
 some other teacher, imagine that our Lord intended, in 
 these words, to represent himself as the Supreme God, — 
 or ason a footing of equality with the Supreme God ? 
 On the contrary, it appears to me, and, I think, will 
 to a plain, unprejudiced mind, that he intended to convey 
 
88 
 
 a meaning directly the reverse. If Christ were himself 
 the Supreme God, or equal to the Supreme God, how 
 should we account for the distinction, so strongly and 
 unequivocally marked in the words before us, between 
 himself and that God?” (p. 75.) 
 
 ANSWER. e 
 
 The inference which is drawn from this passage, 
 that Christ disclaims the appellation ‘ good,” and 
 therefore the title “God,” is unjust. It might as 
 fairly be asserted that he disclaims the title, “ Son of 
 David,” in proposing the following question to the 
 Jews—* If David, then, call him Lord, how is he 
 his son?” 
 
 It is evident, from the preceding context, that he 
 proposed this question to the young man, in consequence 
 of the stile in which he had addressed him. He had 
 spoken to him merely as an ordinary human teacher, in 
 language similar to that in which the Jews were 
 accustomed to address the Doctors of their law (Math. 
 xxili. 7), andit was inconsistent in one who entertained 
 no higher view of his character to have applied to him 
 an epithet which should have been appropriated to 
 God alone. It was, therefore, as natural for our 
 ‘Saviour to enquire of one who held incorrect views 
 of his person—* why: callest thou me good ?”— 
 as it was to ask the Jews, under circumstances of a 
 similar kind—*‘ If David call him Lord, how is he his 
 son 2?” And his object, in both cases, was precisely the 
 same—namely, to excite an enquiry, in the minds of 
 those to whom he spoke, into his real character and 
 dignity. But there is nothing in the construction of 
 this passage which could warrant the inference, that 
 
89 
 
 our Saviour considered the epithet “good” as too 
 high for him; unless we should either allow to our 
 opponents the benefit of a petito principii, that he was 
 not God, or permit them to supply an ellipsis, so as to 
 read the question of our Saviour thus—“ Why callest 
 thou me good?—J am not good; there is none good 
 but one, that is God.” But although either of these 
 methods would be perfectly congenial with the prin- 
 ciples of interpretation which the adversaries of 
 Christ’s Deity usually assume, we are not disposed to 
 concede them, 
 
 es 
 
 OBJECTION XXVII. 
 
 Against the argument for the Deity of Christ, 
 derived from his being the creator of the world, upon 
 which he says—‘ The Scripture clearly teaches us to 
 regard Christ as a being next in power and glory to the 
 Supreme God, who has been employed as the highly- 
 honored agent of God in the creation of the world,”— 
 
 (p-» 149.) 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1, This is a most gratuitous assertion, and could only 
 rest upon a belief that the Supreme God was incapable 
 of active power, and required the assistance of a created 
 being—which would, in fact, amount to this, that God 
 was not the creator of the world at all, since Christ 
 would, on this hypothesis, be represented as doing and 
 executing every thing, as the AGENT. 
 
 2. There is no allusion whatever in Scripture to the 
 interposition of a subordinate agent in the work of 
 creation. In the narrative given by Moses, God is 
 
 TORR 
 
90 
 
 represented as the immediate cause: ‘God said, let 
 there be light.” What then?—did an agent interfere 
 to execute thecommand? Decidedly not: “ God said, 
 let there be light, and there was light.” The following 
 passages likewise represent the Supreme God as the only 
 efficient and direct creator of the universe: Job, ix. 8— 
 “ Which alone spreadeth out the heavens.” Psalm, 
 xxxiii. 9—“ For he spake, and it was done; he com- 
 manded, and it stood fast.” Isaiah, xliv. 24—‘ Thus 
 saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee 
 from the womb, I am Jehovah that maketh all things— 
 that stretcheth forth the heavens alone—that spreadet h 
 abroad the earth, by myself.” And Isaiah, xlv. 12—“I 
 have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even 
 my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their 
 host have I commanded.” This language would be 
 totally unaccountable, on the supposition that God 
 employed an inferior created being as his minister and 
 agent in the great work of creation. 
 
 3. It would be totally impossible that a created being 
 could be employed as the agent of the Creator; for 
 what influence could he have, or what advantage could 
 he be? The very idea of creation implies the non- 
 existence of any pre-existent matter ; and: therefore, 
 there would be nothing which the finite powers of a 
 created being could act upon. ; 
 
 And further, 1 ask, whether it was a finite or an infinite 
 power which Christ, considered as the agent of the 
 Deity, employed in creating all things? If Iam told 
 that he exerted an infinite power, the answer is either 
 a concession of his Supreme Deity, or it blasphemously 
 deifies a creature, by ascribing to him an incommunicable 
 
91 
 
 perfection of the Supreme Jehovah: or, if I am told 
 that he exerted a finite power, I reply, that this would 
 be insufficient to achieve so stupendous a work as to 
 give being to what before had none. ; 
 
 4. The force of the Apostle’s argument, in Rom. i. 
 20, would be destroyed by the supposition that a finite 
 being was the immediate agent in the work of creation : 
 —“ For the invisible things of him, from the creation 
 of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the 
 things that are made, even his eternal power and 
 Godhead.” His argument is, that the creation displays 
 to the view of men a demonstrative proof of the 
 eternal power and godhead (or of the eternity, power 
 and godhead) of the Creator; but this argument loses 
 its entire force, if a being, who possessed no such 
 eternal power and Godhead, could have been the 
 ostensible agent in such a work. 
 
 Christ, therefore, could not, as a subordinate and 
 created being, have acted as the agent of the Deity in 
 _ the work of creation. Hence, his Supreme Deity 
 necessarily follows, for “he that built all things is 
 God”—Heb. iii. 4. And Christ is represented as 
 having made all things: “ for by him were all things 
 created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
 and invisible ; whether thrones or dominions, or prin- 
 cipalities or powers, all things were created by him, 
 and for him.”——Coll. i. 16. 
 
 OBJECTION XXVIII. 
 Against the argument for the Deity of Christ, from 
 his being appointed. Judge, upon which he says— 
 “Christ's high office, as the Judge of the world, is 
 
92 
 
 supposed to ascertain the fact of his Supreme Deity.— 
 There is one sense in which God himself is Judge, and there 
 is another in which the Son of God is Judge ; and they 
 are both comprehended and explained by the Apostle, 
 where he says, in Rom. ii. 16—* In the day when God 
 shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ. Re- 
 member what he himself says to his Disciples, Math. xix. 
 28—‘ Ye, which have followed me, in the regeneration, 
 when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, 
 ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel.’ This, doubtless, is to be understood in 
 a sense quite subordinate to the judgment of Christ. But 
 remember, also, what he hath said of himself, that all 
 Judgment is committed to him of the Father—and what 
 the Apostle has said of him, that he is ‘ ordained of God 
 io be judge of the quick and the dead. And we may 
 rest assured, that he who hath appointed him to that high, 
 interesting, and glorious office, has given him all powers, 
 has communicated to him all capabilities necessary to the 
 full and perfect discharge of it.” (p. 144.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Upon this objection, I offer the following remarks :— 
 
 1. There is no mention whatever of the Supreme 
 God haying communicated to Christ (considered as a 
 finite and created being) any capability to enable him to 
 execute judgment. It is said, indeed, that God the 
 Father “hath given him authority to execute judg- 
 ment:” but authority and capability are two very different 
 things. 
 
 2, An appointment to act in any delegated capacity 
 merely communicates a right or title, but cannot convey 
 
93 
 
 4 
 
 any new or extraordinary qualification. Suppose, for 
 instance, the King of England were to appoint an 
 unlettered peasant to the office of Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, would the commission impart to hima qualification 
 to discharge the duties of that office? Surely not. 
 And this principle is true in reference to the proceedings 
 of the Almighty. We find him, for instance, making 
 use of the ministry of Angels and of men in conducting 
 the purposes of his ordinary and ecclesiastical Provi- 
 dence, but we do not find a single case in which he _ has 
 employed them in any service to which the mental and 
 moral powers which they had previously possessed were 
 not fully adequate and sufficient; and whenever any 
 department of his administration required an exertion 
 of such capacities as belonged to Deity alone, the 
 Scriptures invariably represent him as executing that 
 particular office by an immediate interposition, as in 
 the case of the promulgation of the law on Sinai. 
 
 3. It cannot require any lengthened reasoning to 
 prove, that the final Judge of mankind must possess 
 such qualifications as are essential to Deity alone. He 
 must have Divine majesty, to give grandeur and 
 solemnity to the proceedings.—He must have omnipo- 
 tence, to raise the dead—to regulate the details of 
 investigation, and to award to all their final destiny. 
 —He must have omniscience, to enable him to expose 
 every attempt to conceal—every effort at evasion—‘ to 
 bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and to 
 make manifest the counsels of the hearts.’—-And he. 
 must exhibit, in his own person, the moral rectitude 
 and unswerving justice of the Supreme Governor of 
 the universe, in order to give a decisive verdict, to 
 
 12 
 
94 
 
 command an instant acquiescence, and to prevent the 
 expectation of any ulterior appeal to a being superior 
 to the Judge. On the other hand, the system which 
 Mr. Mitchel advocates would represent a finite and 
 created being,—subordinate, and therefore infinitely 
 inferior, to the Supreme Jehovah, who once had no 
 existence, who is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, 
 nor absolutely good,—as appointed to be Judge of quick 
 and dead !—How monstrous the idea! To avoid the 
 difficulty which is connected with it, he has been 
 obliged to add an invention of his own imagination to 
 the statements of Scripture, and vaguely and gratuitously 
 _ to suppose that God has given to Christ all ‘ powers and 
 capabilities necessary for the discharge of the office’— 
 forgetting, altogether, that nothing short of the powers 
 and capabilities of Godhead would be sufficient ; and if 
 these even could be communicated, the supposition would 
 represent the Supreme Jehovah as deifying a creature ! 
 
 Christ, therefore, as the future Judge of men, must 
 possess, in himself, every qualification requisite for the 
 discharge of that office. But, in accommodation to the. 
 infirmities of our nature, he will not appear in his 
 abstract character of Deity, but in his Mediatorial 
 person and character, as “God manifest in the flesh.” 
 Whilst, therefore, we maintain that he must possess 
 Deity, in order to have the required capabilities, it is 
 no less true that, as Man Aanp MeEpraTor, he has 
 received a commission from the Father to execute 
 judgment, as well as to perform the other departments 
 of his official undertaking.—And hence it is said, in 
 John, v. 27, that the Father “ hath given him authority 
 to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man ;” 
 
95 
 
 and in Acts, xvii. 31—that God “hath appointed a day 
 in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, 
 by that man whom he hath ordained ;” and in Rom. ii. 
 16—that “ God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus 
 Christ.” But no man, but that One, who is alone the 
 manifestation of the Godhead in human nature, could 
 be appointed to this solemn and important office. 
 
 Mr. Mitchel has referred to the declaration of our 
 Saviour to his Apostles, in Math. xix. 28, in order to 
 obviate the force of our argument for Christ’s Supreme 
 Deity, derived from those passages in which he is 
 represented as the Judge of the world :—*“ Ye, who have 
 followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man 
 shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit 
 upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel.’ It is unnecessary to offer any reply to his 
 argument from this passage, as he himself, strange to 
 say, has subjoined a refutation of it, by saying—* This, 
 doubtless, is to be understood in a sense quite subor- 
 dinate to the judgment of Christ.” I may, however, 
 remark, that this verse can have no reference to the 
 day of judgment, because there is no assignment of any 
 peculiar dignity to the Apostles alluded to in those 
 parts of Scripture in which the proceedings of that day 
 are minutely detailed; on the contrary, the Apostle 
 Paul says, of all the followers of Christ, whether 
 Apostles or not—“ We must all stand before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ.” The meaning of this verse 
 may, perhaps, be expressed by the following paraphrase - 
 —“ Verily, I say unto you, ye which have followed me, 
 in the new state of things which Christianity shall in- 
 troduce, when the Son of Man Shall, after his ascension, 
 
96 
 
 be exalted to his Mediatorial throne, ye shall be ap- 
 pointed to high official dignity in my spiritual kingdom 
 upon earth, to preach those doctrines by which the 
 twelve tribes of Israel shall be judged.” 
 
 In order to show the irresistible force of the 
 argument for the Supreme Deity of the Saviour, from 
 the fact of his being exhibited in Scripture as the future 
 Judge of mankind, we shall contrast some of the pas- 
 sages in which the Supreme Jehovah is spoken of as 
 Judge with others in which Christ is described, in similar 
 language, as Judge, viz. 
 
 «“ J am Gop, and there is‘ We shall all stand before 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 none else; I have sworn 
 by myself; the word is 
 gone out of my mouth 
 and 
 that 
 unto. me every knee shall 
 
 in righteousness, 
 
 shall not return, 
 
 bow, every tongue shall 
 swear.” Isaiah, xlv, 22, 
 
 23. 
 
 Then shall the trees of the 
 wood sing out at the 
 presence of JEHOVAH, 
 because he cometh to 
 judge the earth.” I. 
 Chron. xvi. 33. 
 
 * 
 
 ‘“ But JEHOVAH shall en- 
 
 the judgment seat of 
 Curist; for it ts writ- 
 ten, as I live, saith the 
 Lord, every knee shall 
 bow to me, and every 
 tongue shall confess to 
 
 God.” Rom. xiv. 10, 
 
 “di. 
 
 ‘“ For the Son or Man 
 
 shall come, in the glory 
 of his Father, with kis 
 Angels; and then he 
 shall reward every man, 
 according to his works.” 
 Math. xvi. 27. 
 
 “When the Son of Man 
 
97 
 
 dure for ever: he hath 
 prepared his throne for 
 judgment ; and he shall 
 judge the world in righ- 
 teousness.” Ps. ix. 7, 8. 
 
 “ JenovaH shall judge 
 the ends of the earth.” 
 I. Saml. ii. 10. 
 
 “ Our Gop shall call to the 
 heavens, from above, and 
 to the earth (that he may 
 judge his people), gather 
 my Saints together unto 
 me, those that have made 
 a covenant with me by 
 sacrifice; and the hea- 
 vens shall declare his 
 righteousness, for God 
 is Judge himself’ Ps. 
 Ge SS 
 
 “ Then shall all the trees 
 of the wood rgoice before 
 JEHOVAH, for he cometh 
 —he cometh to judge the 
 
 shall come in his glory, 
 and all the holy Angels 
 with him, then shall he 
 sit upon the throne of his 
 glory ; and before him 
 
 shall be gathered all 
 nations.” Math. xxv. 
 $1, 32. 
 
 “ The FATHER judgeth no 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ‘é 
 
 n~ 
 
 man, but hath committed 
 all judgment unto the 
 Son.” John, v. 22. 
 
 For the Lord himself 
 shall descend from Hea- 
 ven with a shout (or a 
 proclamation), with the 
 voice of the Archangel, 
 and with the trump of 
 God; and the dead in 
 Christ shall rise first” 
 “and so 
 shall we ever be with the 
 Lord.” —I. Thess. iv. 16, 
 Ly. 
 
 Hereafter shall ye see the ~ 
 Son or MAN sitting on 
 the right hand of power, 
 
 ‘and coming in the clouds 
 
98 
 
 earth; he shall judge 
 the world with righteous- 
 ness, and the people with 
 his truth.” Ps. xcvi. 13. 
 
 “Let the hills be joyful 
 together before Jehovah, 
 for he cometh to judge 
 the earth: with righ- 
 teousness shall he judge 
 the world, and the peo- 
 ple with equity.” Ps. 
 
 “ Jehovah is known by the 
 judgment which he exe- 
 
 cuteth.” Ps. ix. 16. 
 
 “And I saw the dead, 
 small and great, stand be- 
 fore Gop” - - - “and 
 the dead were judged out 
 of those things which 
 were written in the books, 
 
 n 
 nw 
 
 nw 
 
 n 
 
 of Heaven.” Math. xxvi. 
 64. 
 
 * 
 
 I charge thee, therefore, 
 before God, and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 shall judge the quick 
 and the dead at his ap- 
 pearing and his king- 
 dom” - - - ~ ‘ hence- 
 forth there is laid up for 
 me a crown of righteous- 
 ness, which the Lord, 
 the righteous Judge, will 
 give me at that day.” II. 
 Tim. iy. 1, 8. 
 
 The Father hath given 
 him authority to execute 
 judgment also, because 
 he is the Son of Man.” 
 John, v. 27. 
 
 We must all appear be- 
 fore the judgment seat 
 of Curist, that every 
 one the 
 things done in his body, 
 according to that he hath 
 
 may receive 
 
99 
 
 according to their works.” done, whether it be good 
 Rey. xx. 12, or bad.” II. Cor. v. 10. 
 
 “ For Gop will bring every “ Judge nothing before the 
 
 work into judgment, with time, until the Lorp 
 
 every secret thing, whe- come, who both will bring 
 
 ther it be good or whether to light the hidden things 
 
 wt be evil.” Eccl. xii. of darkness, and will 
 
 14, make manifest the coun- 
 sels of the hearts.” I. 
 Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 “I, Jehovah, search the “ These things saith the 
 heart, I try the reins, Son of God—I am he 
 
 even to give every man which searcheth the reins 
 according to his ways, and hearts; and I will 
 and according to the give unto every one of 
 fruit of his doings. * Jer. you according to your 
 xvas ko T * works.” Rey. ii. 18, 23. 
 
 I leave the reader to draw the obvious conclusion 
 from this comparison. | 
 
 rd — 
 
 OBJECTION XXIX. 
 
 Against Christ being exhibited as an object of 
 worship; upon which he says :—“ The only point, of 
 any weight, that remains to be noticed, is the worship 
 which is alleged to be given to Christ, and which, it is 
 thought, represents him as the Supreme God. I need 
 not remind you, that the term worship, as used in the 
 Scriptures, does not always mean that adoration whick 
 
100 
 
 belongs exclusively to the God and Father of all; and 
 that its signification is limited and explained by the 
 persons and the objects to whom it is applied. Thus, to 
 give you one or two instances out of many: m Daniel, 
 ii. 46, Nebuchadnezzar ‘ worshipped Daniel ;’ and in 
 Luke, xiv. 10, the words of Christ himself are, ‘ then 
 shalt thou have worship, in the presence of them that sit 
 at meat with thee.” (p. 146.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 We are well aware that the term “ worship” is fre- 
 quently used by the sacred writers ina subordinate sense, 
 as implying nothing more than civil homage and respect. 
 Thus, the statement quoted from Dan. ii. 16 merely 
 means that the King did reverence to Daniel, and pre- 
 sented such tokens of respect as were consistent with 
 Eastern manners; and the statement in Luke, xiv. 10, 
 evidently means no more than this—“ Thou shalt be 
 honored, or highly thought of, by those who sit at 
 meat with thee.” Thus, also, in Math. xvill. 26, we 
 have another instance of this low sense of the word. 
 
 But Mr. Mitchel does not seem to have estimated 
 the entire extent of the argument for the Deity of the 
 Saviour, which we derive from the fact, that he is 
 regarded as the legitimate object of religious worship. 
 In stating that argument, we use the term worship in 
 its highest sense, as importing such homage as is 
 exclusively appropriated to the God of heaven and 
 earth; we use it, as comprehending every possible 
 modification of religious worship—such as prayer, 
 thanksgiving, benediction, doxology, &c. ; and as re- 
 
 tee 
 
101 
 
 ferring to every visible form and attitude by which it 
 can be manifested. 
 
 I must, therefore, state this argument somewhat in 
 detail, viz.: 
 
 1. We have the testimony of Isaiah, that Christ was 
 exhibited as an object of worship to the inmates of 
 Heaven before his manifestation in the flesh. In ch. 
 vi., we are told that the Seraphim presented the language 
 of sublime and solemn adoration to THE Lorp, whom 
 Isaiah saw sitting upon a throne, encompassed with 
 every appendage of Supreme Godhead. But we have 
 the decisive testimony of the Apostle John, that this 
 Lorp was Christ: for in ch. xii., having quoted part 
 of the commission which had been given to Isaiah upon 
 the occasion of the vision alluded to in the 40th verse, 
 he immediately subjoins, in verse 41— These things 
 said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.’ 
 
 ' 2. During his manifestation in the flesh, he received 
 many acts of external worship and of direct petition, 
 under such circumstances as a created being, fully sensible 
 of the duty which he owed to his Creator, could not 
 consistently admit of. For instance : 
 
 Math. viii. 2—“ There came a leper and worshipped 
 him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me 
 clean.’ Mark describes it thus, ch. i. 40—*“ There 
 came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down 
 to him.” And Luke, v. 12—*“ fell on his face, and 
 besought him, saying,” &c.. Now, here we have the 
 external attitude of worship, the presentation of a 
 
 K 
 
102 
 
 direct petition, and an admission and appeal to Christ’s 
 independent power to perform the miracle ; and all this 
 sanctioned and recognised as correct, by our Saviour’s 
 repeating the very words of the petition before the 
 multitude, “I wit: be thou clean.” 
 
 Math. ix. 18—‘ There came a certain ruler and 
 worshipped him.” Luke, viii. 41—‘“ He fell down at 
 Jesus’ feet.” Here we have a similar instance of 
 external prostration and prayer to Christ, and a similar 
 reception of it on his part. 
 
 Math. xiv. 33—“They that were in the ship came 
 
 and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son 
 of God.” 
 
 Math. xv. 2o5—“ Then came she and worshipped him, 
 saying, Lord, help me.” Mark says, ch. vil. 25—‘“ she 
 fell at his feet.” 
 
 Math. xxviii. 9—‘“ They came and held him by the 
 feet, and worshipped him.” 
 
 John, xx. 28—“ And Thomas answered and said 
 unto him, my Lord and my God.” 
 
 Now, upon these instances we remark, that they are as 
 express and positive acts of devotion, if not much more 
 so, as those which were elsewhere rejected by the 
 Apostles, on the principle that such acts of worship 
 should be exclusively appropriated to the Supreme God. | 
 The reception, for example, which Cornelius gave to 
 
103 
 
 Peter is described in Acts, x. 25, in language not near 
 as strong as many of those passages which we 
 have quoted above—‘ As Peter was coming in, Cor- 
 nelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped 
 him ; but Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself 
 also ama man.” Also, when the people of Lycaonia 
 would have paid homage, and offered sacrifice to 
 Barnabas and Paul, as Gods, their ardent solicitude for 
 the honor of Jehovah made them exclaim—“ Sirs, why 
 do ye these things? we also are men of like passions 
 with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from 
 these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven 
 and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.” 
 And when the Apostle John fell down to worship at the 
 feet of the Angel, whom Jesus sent to testify unto him, 
 the Angel exclaimed—“ See thou do it not ; Lam thy 
 fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testi- 
 mony of Jesus: worship God.” Now, can we suppose 
 that Christ, on the supposition of his being a subordi- 
 nate creature, was less scrupulously anxious to protect 
 and maintain the exclusive prerogatives of the Deity, 
 than the Apostles were, and that he would have been 
 less watchful to reject every presentation of homage 
 which the Apostles rejected as only to be paid to Deity ? 
 It does not affect our reasoning, that the persons, who 
 paid this homage to Christ, entertained only vague and 
 obscure notions of his character and dignity; our 
 argument is based upon the fact of our Saviour’s ad- 
 mitting and acknowledging the worship which was paid — 
 to him; and we argue, from his receiving it, that 
 he must have possessed that Deity which the Apostles 
 considered as an indispensible title to such worship. 
 
104 
 
 3. After his ascension into heaven we have many 
 instances of various modes of religious adoration being 
 paid to him, viz. : 
 
 In Luke, xxiv. 52, we are told that the Apostles 
 worshipped him immediately after he was carried up 
 into heaven. 
 
 Acts, i. 24—‘ And they prayed and said, thou 
 Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew 
 whether of these two thou hast chosen.” It is evident 
 that the Lord, to whom they prayed on this occasion, 
 was Christ, as he had originally chosen them to be 
 Apostles—as they were to be his Apostles and his 
 witnesses—and as the election of a successor to Judas 
 properly belonged to Christ’s Mediatorial office, as 
 “ head over all things, to his Church.” 
 
 Acts, xiv. 23—“ And when they had prayed with 
 fasting (or praying to) they commended them to the 
 Lord, on whom they believed.” The acts of praying 
 and of commending refer to the same person—“ the 
 Lord, on whom they believed,” which was Christ. 
 
 - Acts, vii. 59, 60— And they stoned Stephen; 
 invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And 
 he kneeled down, and cried, with a loud voice, Lord! 
 lay not this sin to their charge.” Here we have the 
 dying martyr, immediately after he had been filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, and when he was therefore incapable 
 of error, offering up two petitions to Christ, the very 
 same as those which our Sayiour presented to his 
 
105 
 
 Father on the cross, and which implied a recognition 0. 
 our Saviour’s possessing the Supreme prerogatives and 
 powers of Deity. 
 
 Rom. i. 7—“ Grace to you, and peace from God our 
 Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” In this passage 
 God our Father and Christ are prayed to in the very 
 same form of words as the sources of the highest 
 spiritual blessings. See also the other benedictions, at 
 the commencement and conclusion of the other epistles 
 of St. Paul, in which the name of our Saviour is fre- 
 quently placed in order of address before that of God 
 the Father. 
 
 I. Thess. iii. 11, 13—** Now, God himself and our 
 Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto 
 you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound 
 in love, one toward another, and toward all mén, even 
 as we do toward you, to the end he may stablish your 
 _ hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our 
 Father.” This prayer throughout is specially addressed 
 to Christ. 
 
 II. Thess. ii. 16, 17—*‘ Now, our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself, and God, even our Father,” - - - ‘ comfort 
 your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and 
 work.” Here Christ is again mentioned as an object of 
 equal adoration with God the Father. | 
 
 II. Cor. xii. 8, 9—“ For this thing I besought the 
 
 Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he 
 
 said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee ; my strength 
 K 2 
 
106 
 
 is made perfect in weakness.” The Lord, to whom 
 the Apostle prayed on this occasion, was Christ, as is 
 evident from the remainder of the verse-—“ Most gladly, 
 therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the 
 power (or strength) of Christ may rest upon me.” 
 
 Rev. xxii. 20—‘‘ Even so come, Lord Jesus.” This 
 is a solemn prayer, offered up by the Apostle, after the 
 vision and the prophecy had been sealed. 
 
 So frequent was the practice of offering petitions to 
 Christ, in the infancy of the Church, that. Christians 
 were characterised by a designation derived from the 
 custom. Observe, for instance, the language of 
 Ananias to the Saviour, in Acts, ix. 14—‘ And here 
 he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that 
 call on thy name ;” and of St. Paul, in I. Cor. i. 2— 
 “ And unto all that in every place ae she the name 
 of Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
 
 Doxologies, which are another important modification 
 of religious worship, were also presented to Christ, as 
 in I. Pet. iv. 11— That God in all things may be 
 glorified through Jesus Christ ; to whom be praise and 
 dominion, for ever and ever, amen.” II. Pet. iii. L8— 
 “ Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ; to him be glory, both 
 now and for ever, amen.” Rev. v. 12—‘ Worthy is 
 the lamb which was slain to receive power, and riches, 
 and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and 
 blessing.” These doxologies are precisqly parallel with 
 those which are offered to the Father, in I. Pet. vy. Ll— 
 
107 
 
 I. Tim. i. 17, and vi. 16 ;—so that if they are acts of 
 divine worship, when applied to the Father, they must 
 be equally so when presented to the Son. Or else, when 
 addressed to the Saviour, they must be understood in a 
 sense infinitely inferior to that in which they are used 
 when addressed to the Father ; and what, then, should 
 we think of the correctness and integrity of the 
 Apostles, in not having introduced some qualifying 
 terms to mark the different acceptation in which they 
 should be understood in each case ? 
 
 There are also express commands in Scripture to give 
 Divine worship to Christ. In Ps. xlv. 11—*“ He is 
 thy Lord, and worship thou him ;” for this Psalm refers 
 to the Saviour, as is evident from the Apostle having 
 quoted part of it with such an application, in Heb. i. 6. 
 
 John, v. 23—* That all men should honour the Son, 
 even as they honour the Father.” 
 
 Heb. 1. 6—“ Let all the Angels of God worship 
 him.” 
 
 And in Rey. xiv. 7, we read this command—‘“ Wor- 
 ship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and 
 the fountains of waters;’ which is equivalent to an 
 express and direct command to worship Christ, for, “ by 
 him were all things created that are in heaven, and that 
 are in earth.”—Coll. i. 16. He HE 
 
 We may also remark that Christ is exhibited in Scrip- 
 ture as the object of faith, as, in John, xiv. 1—“ Ye — 
 believe in God, believe also in me;”—of love, as in I. 
 Cor. xvi. 22—“If any man love not the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, let him be anathema maranatha ;’—of absolute 
 
108 
 
 submission, as in Coll. iii. 24—‘‘ Ye serve the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ;’—of personal devotedness, as in II. Cor. 
 y. 15—“ That they which live should not henceforth 
 live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them 
 and rose again ;’—and of many other affections, which 
 are so many specific acts of internal and personal 
 devotion, which could not be paid to a creature in con- 
 sistency with the entire and exclusive homage which 
 we owe to the Creator. 
 
 I might place this argument in another point of view, 
 by shewing that all the constituent parts of a regular 
 prayer are directly referred to Christ in Scripture, as, 
 for instance : 
 
 InNvocaTION.—John, xx. 28, and xxi. 17. 
 
 ADORATION.—Math. xvi. 16; Heb. i. 10. 
 
 Conression.—Luke, v. Acts, xxii. 19, 20. 
 
 Petition.—Luke, xvii. 5; Acts, vii. 59, 60; Rev. 
 xxii. 20. 
 
 DEDICATION Sd oy ay vi. 68. 
 
 THANKSGIVING.—Rev. v. 12, 13. 
 
 BLEssING.—Rey. xxii. 21. 
 
 I shall now close this quotation of evidence with the 
 following general remarks :— 
 
 1. The natural propensity of mankind has ever been 
 to “worship and serve the creature more than the 
 Creator,” and the great design of the Christian religion 
 was, “to turn men from idols to serve the living and 
 true God.” I ask, then, if Christ were merely a created 
 and finite being, as Mr. Mitchel represents him to be, 
 would not all these passages, to which we have referred, 
 
109 
 
 be an insurmountable obstacle to prevent men from 
 acknowledging God the Father as the only object of 
 religious adoration, and hold forth every temptation, 
 both by example and command, to present divine 
 homage to the Saviour, so as to leave the world with 
 sufficient excuse for doing so ? : 
 
 2, If, as Mr. Mitchel states, Christ were only a 
 created being, subordinate to the supreme God, then 
 there would be an infinite distance in character and 
 dignity between him and the Supreme Jehovah, which 
 ought to be scrupulously observed in every expression 
 having a reference to each. But it is evident, from the 
 passages referred to, that the sacred writers have not 
 recognised the existence of any such disproportion 
 between the Father and the Son, since they have 
 regarded them both as possessing the same title to 
 worship, and, in many instances, have associated them 
 together in the same form. And, I ask, would it 
 not be the greatest indignity, and the most insulting 
 violation of his exclusive prerogative, to worship the 
 Creator with the same solemnities, and with the same 
 form (as in Rev. v. 13) which are, at the very same time, 
 presented to the- creature ? 
 
 3. I cannot possibly imagine how those who, not- 
 withstanding this mass of evidence, object to Christ 
 being regarded as an object of worship, could refute 
 the Roman Catholic practice of offering religious 
 adoration to departed Saints and martyrs. If, for 
 instance, Mr. Mitchel were to accuse the Roman 
 Catholic of idolatry in presenting his supplications to a 
 Saint, might he not very fairly reply—“ How can you, 
 “ who will not admit the Deity of Jesus, but who 
 
110 
 
 ‘regard him as a finite and created being, accuse me of 
 “idolatry in praying to, or worshipping a Saint? How 
 “am I more guilty of the sin of worshipping a creature, 
 ‘‘ than the Apostles were when they worshipped Christ, 
 ‘‘ after his ascension into Heaven? Or, how am I 
 “more guilty of idolatry in applying to a glorified 
 “ Saint for protection, than Stephen was, when he 
 ‘* prayed to the Redeemer in his dying moments ?—or 
 *‘ than the Apostle Paul, when he prayed to him to be 
 “¢ delivered from the thorn in the flesh ?” It would be 
 totally impossible for one who entertains Mr. Mitchel’s 
 views of the person of Christ, to answer this appeal of 
 the Roman Catholic. It would be no avail to reply 
 that Christ is vastly superior to every Apostle and 
 Saint, for if he be, notwithstanding, regarded as a finite 
 being, the difference between him and the very least of 
 all Saints would be absolutely nothing, in comparison 
 with the infinite distance between him and the ever- 
 lasting God. Nor would it be an answer to endeavour 
 to prove, that the Apostles, and Stephen, and Paul, 
 only intended to present to him some very subordinate 
 species of homage, quite distinct from the supreme 
 worship which they exclusively appropriated to the 
 Most High, as this would be virtually acquitting the 
 Roman Catholic of the very idolatry of which he had 
 been accused, by adopting and sanctioning the distinction 
 of two kinds of worship by which he endeavours to 
 justify the practice of paying homage to the Saints. 
 Thus, you see, that the opponent of Christ’s Deity 
 could not answer the Roman Catholic, either by raising 
 the character of Christ, or by lowering the character of 
 the worship paid to him: he would be reduced to a 
 
Ill 
 
 dilemma, from which he could not possibly be extricated, 
 except by adopting the doctrine of the Supreme Deity 
 of the Saviour, and then he might triumphantly reply 
 to the Roman Catholic, that “the Apostles, and 
 ‘¢ Stephen, and Paul, and all the other Christians who 
 ‘‘ are represented in Scripture as having paid religious 
 “homage to the Redeemer, did so, because they 
 “regarded him as possessing the attributes and pre- 
 “ yogatives of Supreme Deity.” Thus, you perceive 
 that the advocate of the Saviour’s Godhead could alone 
 give such a reply to the Roman Catholic, as would 
 leave the charge of idolatry in full force against himself. 
 
 4. I shall conclude these remarks by proposing the 
 following question to the serious and attentive con- 
 sideration of those who deny the Supreme Deity of the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost : 
 
 How po you. ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT, THAT IN 
 EVERY REVELATION THAT IS GIVEN TO US IN 
 SCRIPTURE OF THE OCCUPATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS 
 OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE INVISIBLE WORLD, 
 WHILST ALL THE CREATED INMATES OF HEAVEN ARE 
 REPRESENTED AS DOING HOMAGE BEFORE THE 
 THRONE OF THE EVERLASTING ELOHIM, THE Son 
 AND THE Hoty SPIRIT ARE NEVER ONCE MENTIONED 
 AS JOINING IN THAT WORSHIP, OR DOING HOMAGE 
 TO ANY SUPERIOR BEING ? 
 
 I propose this question confidently, and require the - 
 opponent of the Trinity to take into account the follow- 
 ing observations, in arranging his reply to it: 
 
 1, In Psalm cxlvii. the Psalmist calls upon Angels, 
 
112 
 
 kings, people, and every order of animate and 
 inanimate beings to praise the Lord, but makes no 
 mention of the Son and Holy Ghost; but, if they 
 had been created by the Father, as alone God, they 
 would be under an equal obligation, with all the beings 
 whom God had called into existence, to ara and 
 praise him. , 
 
 2, if the worship, which the Angels pay before the 
 throne of God, be exhibited to our view, for the moral 
 purpose of illustrating the obligation which we are under 
 to adore and serve him, by the example of beings so 
 much superior to what we are, the argument would 
 have possessed much more force, by the sacred writers 
 having exhibited the Son and the Holy Ghost, whom 
 Mr. Mitchel considers to be super-angelic beings, in the 
 act of worshipping the Supreme God. 
 
 In fact, when the opponent of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity shall have maturely considered this question in 
 all its bearings, I feel confident that he must come to 
 the conclusion that the Son and Holy Ghost are not 
 represented as worshipping, because they, with the 
 Father, are the one Supreme and Everlasting Elohim 
 who sits upon the “ throne, high and lifted up,” and who 
 is worshipped by “ every creature that is in heaven, and 
 on the earth, and under the earth.” For he cannot 
 possibly adopt, in opposition to the entire tenor of 
 Scripture, the monstrous alternative, that the Supreme 
 Jehovah has granted a dispensation to two created 
 beings, by virtue of which they have been re- 
 leased from an obligation and a service, which devolve 
 upon all creatures, by the very necessity of their nature. 
 
113 
 OBJECTION XXX. 
 
 That Christ directed his Disciples to pray to the 
 Father only, upon which he says:—“ In prescribing to 
 his followers a form of devotion, our Lord has expressly 
 instructed them to address their prayers to their Father 
 in Heaven ; nor has he any where else taught his Dis- 
 ciples to offer up their prayers to any but the same Holy 
 and Merciful Father, to whom he was accustomed to 
 offer up his own. He does, indeed, elsewhere instruct 
 them to pray ‘the Father, in his name,’ as ‘ Mediator 
 between God and men.” (p.'74.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 We not only admit, but maintain, that our prayers 
 to the Deity are to be offered up through the “Man 
 Christ Jesus,” who is the “one Mediator between God 
 and men ;” but, besides this, we have brought forward. 
 Scripture facts to shew, that his Disciples did not confine 
 their practice merely to this, but offered up prayers, not 
 only through, but directly to, Christ himself. Whilst, 
 therefore, we maintain, that to offer up prayers, through 
 him, was perfectly consistent with his character as 
 Mediator, we also maintain, as a distinct position, that 
 to offer up prayers directly to him can only be justified 
 by a belief in his Deity. 7 
 
 But to the assertion, that Christ no where directed 
 his Disciples to pray to any but to the Father, we 
 answer :— 
 
 1. The inference which Mr. Mitchel would draw 
 from this, that Christ should not be prayed to, rests upon 
 an assumption that he does not possess Deity (i. e. 
 upon a petitio principi ;) whereas, if the doctrine of 
 
 L 
 
114 
 
 his Deity be true, he must, of course, be included under 
 the expression, ‘ Our Father, which art in Heaven;” 
 the word, “Father,” being in that case used, not as 
 the distinguishing title of the first person in the God- 
 head, but as a name of Deity, denoting the relationship 
 which he sustains towards his creatures. 
 
 2. Christ could not have directed his Disciples to 
 pray to him in any other capacity than as God ; and 
 therefore, if he possesses Deity, he is comprehended 
 under every direction in Scripture to offer up prayers 
 to the Deity. | 
 - 3, It would have been altogether inconsistent with 
 our Saviour’s object of discovering his character, by a 
 gradual and progressive developement, to have expressly 
 claimed to himself all the prerogatives to which he 
 was legitimately entitled at the commencement of his 
 Ministry ; nor could he, consistently with his having 
 ‘humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation,” 
 assert those very dignities which he had laid aside, by 
 exhibiting himself as the object of prayer, during his 
 humiliation in the flesh. 
 
 4. Although, however, Christ did not expressly claim 
 Divine honors, whilst he was upon earth, yet we have 
 shewn that he did not reject them, when offered. It is, 
 therefore, imperative upon the advocates of Mr. 
 Mitchel’s system to shew, that his reception of such 
 honors as should be given to none but God does not 
 as expressly involve an admission of Deity, as if he 
 had directly commanded them to be presented to him. 
 
 5. From the facts which we have adduced to prove 
 that Christ was prayed, to and worshipped, by his Dis- 
 ciples, after his resurrection, we ask Mr. Mitchel to 
 
115 
 
 prove, that his openly and plainly asserting himself to 
 be the proper object of direct worship was not one of 
 those “many things which he had to say unto his 
 Disciples, and which they could not yet bear.”—John, 
 xvi. 12. 
 
 6. If the fact, that Christ did not openly claim to be 
 the proper object of prayer is a legitimate reason for 
 inferring that he should not be prayed to, then Mr. 
 Mitchel must believe that the Apostles (Acts, i. 24), 
 and Stephen (Acts, vii. 59), and Paul (II. Cor. xii. 8), 
 and John (Rey. xxii. 20), were guilty of idolatry in 
 presenting direct petitions to him. 
 
 OBJECTION XXXI. é 
 
 That Christ prohibited his Disciples from offering 
 prayer to him, his proposed proof for which is as 
 follows :—“ In speaking even of the period of his highest 
 exaltation, he said unto then—‘ In that day, ye shall ask 
 me nothing. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Futher, in my 
 name, he will give it you.” (p. 147.) 
 
 , ANSWER. 
 
 It is extremely difficult to refrain from language 
 inconsistent with that Christian temper and candour 
 _ with which every religious controversy should be 
 conducted, when we find such an argument, as this will 
 appear to be, confidently and boldly advanced. As far 
 as Mr. Mitchel is concerned, he is screened from the — 
 obloquy which is connected with the person who /irst 
 proposed it, as I am confident that he has advanced it 
 only in consequence of too implicitly relying upon the 
 
116 
 
 correctness of those who have preceded him in the 
 advocacy of the system which he maintains. But I 
 have no hesitation to say, what I shall clearly sub- 
 stantiate, that the person who first proposed this 
 objection was either grossly ignorant of the Greek 
 language, or else wilfully intended to take advantage of 
 an apparent ambiguity in the translation, whilst he 
 knew that the original gave him no support. 
 
 - Let us, then, examine the passage referred to, 
 which you will find in John, xvi. 23. 
 
 You may perceive that the word “ ask” occurs twice 
 in the verse. In the datter clause, it alludes to the 
 offering up of prayer to the Father, through Christ, as 
 the Mediator, and is used as the translation of the 
 Greek word, airnonre ; which signifies to “pray.” But, 
 in the former clause, from which Mr. Mitchel’s 
 argument is derived, it is the translation of a different 
 word, iewrncete, Which signifies to “ask questions.” 
 The meaning of the passage, therefore, is this :—The 
 Apostles had been proposing several questions to our 
 Lord-immediately before, and throughout the delivery 
 of the discourse in which these words occur.—(See 
 John, xiii, 6, 25, 36; xiv. 5, 8, 22, xvi. 19.) Upon 
 which our Lord tells them, in the verse under conside- 
 ration—‘“ In that day” (when the Spirit, whom he had 
 just before promised them, should come) “ye shall ask 
 me nothing,” (or, ye shall ask me no questions, because 
 the Spirit will teach you all things.) Thus, you perceive 
 that this verse has nothing whatever to say to the 
 subject of offering up prayers to the Saviour, which 
 Mr. Mitchel might have easily ascertained by a reference 
 to the A9th verse of the same chapter, in which the 
 
117 
 
 word “ask” is used in its proper acceptation, and is 
 explained by its synonymous word, to ‘ enquire :”— 
 “ Now, Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, 
 and-said unto them, do ye enquire among yourselves of 
 that I said ?” 
 
 OBJECTION XXXII. 
 
 To John, v. 23; upon which he says :—“ When he 
 requires it of all men to ‘honor the Son, as they honor the 
 Father who sent him,’ it is not on the ground of any 
 claim to be God, equal with the Father, but on ground 
 that cannot sustain any such claim to equality, that 
 ‘all judgment had been committed unto him by the 
 Father’ ” (p. 148.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. We have already proved, and again maintain, that 
 Christ’s being appointed judge implies his Deity and 
 equality with the Father. 
 
 2. All men are -required “to honor the Son, even as 
 they honor the Father,” not merely on account of all 
 judgment being committed to the Son, but also for 
 other reasons, which Christ has stated in the verses 
 preceding this. In verse 17, he asserts that the Father 
 worketh hitherto, that is, from the creation up to the 
 present hour, without any interruption by the law to 
 observe the Sabbath day, and that he also did the same; 
 —in verse 19, he says that the Son can do nothing of 
 himself, that is, separately from the Father, and that 
 what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth 
 the Son likewise ;—in verse 21, he says, that as the 
 Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even 
 
 L 2 
 
118 
 
 so the Son quickeneth whom he will ;—and in verse 22, 
 he says that the Father judgeth no man, but hath com- 
 mitted all judgment unto the Son—And then, after his 
 asserting to himself these four prerogatives, equally 
 with the Father, which must imply his possession 
 of the same Deity with the Father, he asserts, 
 that on the ground of these, “all men should 
 honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” And 
 let the reader take notice, that our Saviour said all this 
 in reply to a charge, mentioned in verse 18, of his 
 making himself “ equal with God.” If, therefore, he 
 did not intend to represent himself as fully entitled to 
 the same honor as his Father, he surely would not have 
 used language which cannot, by any torturing, be 
 reduced to any other signification. 
 
 j fel ihe 
 OBJECTION XXXII. 
 
 « When Stephen, at his death, was favored by the 
 vision of the glory of Christ, he addressed him, not as 
 the Supreme God, but as ‘the Son of Man, sitting on 
 the right hand of God.’” (p. 148. ) 
 
 ‘ ANSWER. 
 
 1. There is no reasoning, whatever, in this objection, 
 as it takes no notice of our argument, which is this, 
 that the Son of Man must have possessed the same 
 true and proper Deity with the Father, at whose right 
 hand he sits, or else Stephen, when full of the Holy 
 Ghost, must have been guilty of idolatry in addressing 
 two prayers to him. 
 
 2, Mr. Mitchel’s doctrine, as expressed in page 147, 
 is, that Stephen should have “ offered up his prayers to 
 
119 
 
 the Father Almighty, in the name of Christ ;” whereas 
 the Sacred Historian represents him as offering up two 
 petitions directly to the Saviour ; it remains consequently 
 for him to reconcile his sentiments with the statement 
 of Scripture. 
 
 The case of Stephen praying to the Saviour, there- 
 fore, remains unanswered. 
 
 OBJECTION XXXIV. 
 
 Against the instances, contained in the book of 
 Revelation, of homage being offered to the Redeemer 
 by the Angels in Heaven ; upon which he says :—* The 
 whole of the Heavenly homage is represented us offered to 
 him, not in the character of the Supreme God, but, 
 as distinguished from the Supreme God, in the character 
 of the Lamb that was slain.” (p. 148.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. It would be quite sufficient to reply to this 
 objection, that it contains an insinuation, that the Saints 
 and Angels in Heaven are guilty of idolatry, as they 
 must be, if they present their homage to any being — 
 who is not the Supreme God. 
 
 2. The representation of Christ, as the Lamb which 
 was slain,” is only a symbolic mode of expressing the 
 particular manifestation of his mercy, to which the 
 doxology refers, and may allude to his Mediatorial 
 person, as ‘*God manifest in the flesh.” 
 
 3. In the doxology contained in Isaiah, vi. 3, which - 
 is described as being offered before the Son of God 
 _. appeared in his Mediatorial person, he is addressed, in 
 common with the Father and the Holy Ghost, under 
 
120 
 
 the title of Jehovah of Hosts,” as we have shewn by a 
 reference to John, xii. 41, and Acts, xxvill. 25. 
 
 OBJECTION XXXV. 
 
 Against the arguments derived for our Saviour’s 
 Supreme Deity from John, v. 17, &c.; upon which he 
 says:—‘ Our Lord had miraculously healed an ime- 
 potent man on the Sabbath day ; ‘and therefore did the 
 Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he 
 had done these things on the Sabbath day. But Jesus 
 answered them, my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 
 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill. him, because 
 he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said, also, that 
 God was his Father, making himself equal to God.’ 
 This was their charge; how was it replied to? Not 
 by an assertion of his Godhead, or of his equality with 
 God—such a thing never escapes. His immediate 
 reply, therefore, was—‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 the Son can do nothing of himself. The Father 
 sudgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son ; that all men should honor the Son, even as they 
 honor the Father which hath sent him. I can, of mine 
 own self, do nothing. As Ihear, I judge, and my judg- 
 ment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the 
 will of the Father which hath sent me. The works that 
 the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I 
 do bear witness of me’ (not that I am the Father, or 
 equal to the Father, but) ‘that the Father hath sent 
 me.” (p. 103.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 I am here obliged to ask, from what version of the 
 
 Bible the above quotation has been taken?—or has it 
 
121 
 
 been copied, second hand, from some disingenuous and 
 unfair opponent of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ ? 
 Lt is composed of a selection of those verses in the chapter 
 which seem to give countenance to the cause, which they 
 are taken from their connection to support; whilst 
 the intermediate verses are omitted, because they teach 
 the doctrine of Christ’s equality with the Father. I 
 request of the reader to compare this quotation with 
 the chapter, as it stands in the Bible, and he will find 
 that it consists of the 16th, 17th, 18th, part of 19th, 
 22d, part of 23d, 30th, 36th, 37th and 38th verses, 
 whilst the following passages are passed over, viz.: 
 
 Part of verse 19——“ But what he seeth the Father do ; 
 Sor what things soever he doeth, these (or the same) doeth 
 the Son likewise.” 
 
 Verse 20—‘ For the Father loveth the Son, and 
 sheweth him all things that himself doeth ; and he will 
 shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” 
 
 Verse 21—* For, as the Father raiseth up the dead, 
 and quickeneth them, even so the Son quiekenah whom 
 he will.” 
 
 Verse 24—“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
 heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, 
 hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna- 
 tion, but is passed from death unto life.” 
 
 Verse 25—-“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour 
 is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shail 
 have life.” 
 
 Verse 26—“ For, as the Father hath life in himself, 
 80 hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” 
 
122 
 
 May I not, therefore, confidently say, that these verses 
 were omitted, in the quotation contained in the statement 
 of the above objection, because they presented difficulties 
 which could not be reconciled with a denial of our 
 Saviour’s Deity? And it is a remarkable fact, that the 
 latter part of the 19th verse is generally omitted, in 
 quotations advanced from this chapter, by those who 
 have written against this doctrine—a singular proof 
 that they have silently regarded this verse as alone 
 sufficient to overthrow their entire system. 
 
 We must now briefly examine this entire passage, 
 from the 16th to the 38th verse, in order to ascertain 
 the evidence which it affords upon the question under 
 discussion. Our Saviour had been accused of violating 
 the Sabbath, by performing a miraculous cure upon 
 that day. When, upon another occasion, recorded in 
 Math. xii. 11, a similar charge had been advanced, his 
 defence was simply this, that a work of mercy was an 
 act which all men might perform upon the Sabbath, 
 without being guilty of a breach of the fourth Com- 
 mandment, and if our Saviour had merely given this 
 reply in the case under consideration, it would afford 
 no evidence for supposing that he was at all superior to 
 those whom he addressed. But he proceeds to justify . 
 himself in a very different way upon this occasion, 
 namely, by assuming the very same freedom, from every 
 ceremonial restriction, which his Father in Heaven pos- 
 sessed. ‘* My Father,” said he, “ worketh hitherto, and 
 I work ;” as if he had said, “‘ My Father has continued 
 uninterruptedly to perform his works of Providence 
 upon every day, from the creation up to the present 
 hour, and I, who am his Son and his equal, do the same.” 
 
123 
 
 This reply, considered as a justification, must imply his 
 equality in power and privilege with the Father. Let 
 us now see how the Jews understood it :— 
 
 ‘‘ Therefore,” says the Historian, in the 18th verse, 
 “the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not 
 only had broken the Sabbath, but said that God was 
 his Father, making himself equal with God ;” (or said 
 that God was his Father, in such a peculiar and proper 
 sense as to imply that he was equal with God.) 
 
 This, then, was the definite charge which the Jews 
 advanced against him, and to which our Saviour replied, 
 in his second address, that he made himself equal with 
 God. And how easy, I ask, would it have been for 
 him to have made the following answer, if Mr. Mitchel’s 
 system be true—‘‘ You mistake me much, if you 
 suppose that I claim an equality with the infinite and 
 uncreated God; Iam but a finite and created being, 
 who have been sent into the world to perform a work 
 of philantrophy, and to deliver a message of kindness 
 to man.” But he gave no such explanation: on the 
 other hand, he proceeded with a discourse, which, 
 whilst it contained allusions to his official capacity and 
 relationship to the Father, as Mediator, at the same time 
 confirmed his previous statement, and illustrated, in 
 several particulars, the nature of his equality with the 
 Father, or mee tip iad 
 
 1. We may notice, in his reply, the following 
 "allusions to the circumstances of his Mediatorial office : 
 
 His being sent by the Father, verses 23, 30, 36— 
 his exercising his delegated functions according to the 
 will of the Father, verse 30—and his assignment of. 
 works to be performed by him in his assumed capacity, 
 
 ad 
 
124 
 
 verses 27, 30 ; all of which fully demonstrate, that Christ 
 possessed an official subordination to the Father, but 
 cannot prove that he possessed an inferiority of nature, 
 because they do not refer to his abstract condition, as he 
 existed with the Father before the world was. 
 
 2. We may notice, in the verses which Mr. Mitchel 
 has omitted in his quotation, a detail of some particulars 
 which illustrate the equality of the Son with the Father, 
 Viz. : : 
 
 Verse 19—‘“ The Son can do nothing of himself.” 
 This does not mean that the Son can do nothing, except 
 by the power of a Deity infinitely superior to himself, 
 
 for then there would be no meaning in the entire 
 sentence, of which this is only a part, and which runs 
 thus—“ The Son can do nothing of himself, bu¢ what 
 he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he 
 doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” The. 
 meaning, therefore, of saying, “ the Son can do nothing 
 of himself,” is, that he can do nothing separately from 
 the Father, and that he has no interest independent of 
 the Father. But this assertion, in the mouth of a 
 created being, would be false, for a creature can do 
 what the Deity can not do—he can err and sin; and, 
 therefore, he who says, “I can do nothing, but what I 
 see the Father do,” can not bea creature. In Mr. 
 Mitchel’s quotation of this verse, he has omitted, in the 
 first sentence, these words, “ but what he seeth the 
 Father do.” Need I remark, that if this method of 
 quoting parts of sentences from Scripture be allowed, 
 the Atheist might undertake to prove his principles 
 from the Bible, by producing these words, from Psm. 
 xiv. 1, “ There is no God ?” 
 
125 
 
 In verse 21, he asserts an equality with the Father, 
 in the Divine power to communicate physical life to 
 whomsoever he will. 
 
 In verse 22, he declares that the Father has assigned 
 to him the office of Judge ; a capacity to which we have 
 before proved that he could not have been delegated, if 
 he did not possess a oneness of attributes, with the 
 Father, to enable him to execute it. 
 
 ‘In verse 23, he asserts, both positively and negatively, 
 that he is entitled to the very same honor with the 
 Father. ey 
 
 In verse 25, he asserts that he possesses such power 
 as will produce the future resurrection of the dead, 
 “who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and 
 live.” . 
 
 Thus, you perceive, that this passage, when thorough- 
 ly considered, contains several invincible arguments for 
 the Deity of Christ, which Mr. Mitchel, so far from 
 answering, did not even allude to. And it is still more 
 remarkable, that in his second Sermon, when producing 
 texts against the Socinian, to, prove, as he says, “ the 
 superior dignity of the Redeemer,” he has not quoted 
 either the 17th, 19th, 21st, 22d, or 23d verses of this 
 chapter, which is evidently a tacit admission that these 
 verses would prove much more than it was his object to 
 establish. 
 
 OBJECTION XXXVI. 
 
 From John, x. 29 :—“‘ My Father, which gave them 
 me, is greater than all.” (ps. 92, 105.) - 
 M 
 
126 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The word “all” does not include the Son, who is 
 spoken of, in a distinct proposition, in verse 30. The 
 connection of this passage with the subject to which it 
 refers, in verses 28 to 30, shews that it may be para- 
 phrased thus—“ My Father, who gave me my sheep, is 
 greater in power than all those spiritual adversaries who 
 would oppose the welfare of my sheep, and, therefore, no 
 one can pluck them out of my Father’s hands. Nor 
 has my Father less consulted for their security in giving 
 them to me, for as I and my Father are one in power, 
 no one can pluck them out of my hands.” 
 
 OBJECTION XXXVII. 
 
 From John, xiv. 28 :—“ My Father is greater than 
 I;” upon which he says—“ When our Lord makes this 
 unqualified declaration, I find no difficulty in under- 
 standing him, according to the plain meaning of his 
 words, and in conformity with the general tenor of Scrip- 
 ture. But men, by their groundless hypothesis, create 
 difficulties for themselves.” (p. 112.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This passage is usually answered by a mere vague 
 reference to Christ, as Mediator; but I think that the 
 connection in which it stands will afford a much more 
 definite reply. The entire passage is this—“If ye 
 loved me, ye would rejoice because I said I go unto the 
 Father, for my Father is greater than I.” 
 
 Now, to answer the purpose for which Mr. Mitchel 
 has advanced it, our Saviour must have meant to say— 
 bs My Father is greater than I, in nature.” But I ask, 
 
 ee 
 
127 
 
 why should the love which the Apostles entertained 
 towards Christ induce them to rejoice on this account ? 
 If Christ were inferior to the Father, in nature, his 
 going to the Father could not change his condition in 
 that respect. 
 
 The import of the passage, then, is clearly this :— 
 Whilst our Saviour was in a state of humiliation, he 
 had emptied himself of the form of God, and of the 
 dignities of his pre-existent and abstract state, whilst 
 the Father retained his glory as one of the persons in 
 the Godhead; and therefore possessed a temporary 
 superiority in glory to the Son. The verse may be 
 thus paraphrased—“ If ye loved me, ye would rejoice 
 at my saying that I am to leave this state of degradation, 
 and to go unto my Father—for my Father is greater in 
 glory than I am, whilst I continue upon earth,—and 
 when I go to him, I shall be again glorified with 
 that glory which I had with him before the world 
 was.” : 
 
 And you may perceive that this passage, when 
 correctly understood, contains an insurmountable ar- 
 gument for Christ’s equality with the Father, in his 
 abstract state; for if, on his going to the Father, the 
 Father should still continue to be greater than he, his 
 appeal to the love of his Apostles, to rejoice because 
 he was going away, would lose its force and meaning. 
 
 od 
 
 OBJECTION XXXVIII. 
 That Christ is spoken of so distinctly from God, in 
 the following passage, that he can not be God; John, 
 x1, 21, 22:—* Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, 
 
128 
 
 if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died: but I 
 know that, even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, 
 God will give it thee.” © (p. 82.) 
 
 we 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This, and many similar passages, are usually explained 
 by saying that they merely express the subordination of 
 Christ, as Mediator, to the Father. But this verse 
 requires a specific examination, because it illustrates 
 and proves an important position—namely, that this 
 subordination is too emphatically described, when it 
 contradicts the Deit of the Son of God, by denying 
 his possession of an inherent and personal power, and 
 by representing him as a created and finite being, 
 totally dependent upon the power of a God infinitely 
 superior to him. 
 
 For instance, if the sentiment contained in these 
 words of Martha were correct, they would certainly 
 afford a valid proof of the truth of Mr. Mitchel’s 
 doctrine, for they evidently convey no higher estimate 
 of the power of Christ, and are, in fact, a statement 
 of the creed of one who regarded him as nothing 
 more than a created being, altogether dependent upon 
 the Supreme God. But observe how deficient and 
 _ erroneous this opinion of Martha was; for our Saviour 
 immediately corrécts her, and asserts for himself the 
 very power for which she represented him as altogether 
 dependent upon God—“ J am tlie resurrection and the 
 life—he that believeth zm me, though he were dead, yet 
 shall he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in 
 me shall never die. Believest thou this ?” 
 
 This passage, then, when considered in connection 
 
129 
 
 with our Saviour’s reply, affords a strong argument for 
 his Supreme Deity. Martha was correct in considering 
 that the raising of her brother required the power of 
 Deity; but she was wrong in considering that Christ 
 did not possess this power: our Saviour, therefore, in 
 asserting it for himself, plainly asserted his own 
 Deity. ‘ 
 
 —_— 
 
 OBJECTION XXXIX. 
 
 From John, vii. 16—* ‘ My doctrine is not MINE, but 
 H1S that sent me.” (p. 81.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This declaration, considered as a reply to the ques- 
 tion of the Jews, merely refers to the source from 
 whence our Saviour, as a Prophet, derived the doctrines 
 which he taught. When Jesus was teaching in the 
 temple, ‘‘the Jews marvelled, saying, how knoweth 
 this man letters, having never learned ?”—Upon which 
 Jesus made the above reply, which may be thus 
 explained—“ My doctrine is not mine, in the sense to 
 which you allude. I have not acquired it by ordinary 
 study and research, but I have received it from my 
 Father, who sent me to manifest his will unto the 
 world.” 
 
 Now, so far from this reply affording any support to 
 the sentiments which Mr. Mitchel holds, it is the very 
 reverse of what would contain’ any objection against 
 the doctrine of Christ’s possessing, in his abstract 
 
 character, the same Deity with the Father. If, for 
 ~ instance, when the Jews asked the above question, our 
 Saviour had made an opposite reply, and said—‘ You 
 
 M 2 
 
130 
 
 “are wrong in saying that I have never learned. I 
 ‘have spent thirty years of my life in close application 
 “to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. I have 
 “taken every advantage of conversing with the Scribes 
 “and Doctors of the law. I have constantly attended 
 “upon their public instructions, and have been brought 
 “up at the feet of one of the most eminent of their 
 “order, and therefore I am fully competent to deliver 
 “‘those discources which you hear from me.” Nothing 
 short of such a reply as this would afford a valid objec- 
 tion against his Deity, as it would have entirely over- 
 looked his connection with his Father in Heaven. But 
 the answer which he made was vastly different, and 
 intended to prove that his doctrine, as a Prophet, was the 
 doctrine of his Father—a position which is perfectly 
 consistent with his Supreme Deity. 
 
 OBJECTION XL. 
 
 From those passages in which the Lord Jesus Christ 
 is referred to, in reference to the Mediatorial office 
 which he sustains, as God manifest in the flesh, under 
 the Gospel dispensation; such as the following :—“ ‘ God 
 so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.’ —- 
 John, iii. 16. ‘ Him hath God the Father sealed. — 
 John, vi. 27. ‘ The God of our Fathers hath raised up 
 Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. —Acts, v. 
 30. <‘ There is one God, and one Mediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus. ”—I. Tim. ui. 5, 
 &e. (Sermon 4.) : 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 In order to shew that these and similar passages are 
 
« lal 
 
 perfectly consistent with the doctrine of Christ's Deity, 
 in his abstract condition, it will be necessary to give a 
 concise view of the doctrine of Scripture upon the 
 subject of the Mediatorial office of the Redeemer, in 
 connection with the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 We believe, for instance, that there exists a three- 
 fold distinction in the Godhead, in consequence of the 
 three persons, called in Scripture THE FATHER, THE 
 Worp, and tHe Hoty Guost, being represented as 
 possessing the essential attributes and characteristics of 
 Deity. Now, the Godhead may be partes. in 
 two distinct points of view : 
 
 Ist. In reference to the abstract circumstances of the 
 Divine Being, that is, without taking into account the 
 peculiar manifestation of his character i the Gospel. 
 In this point of view, we conceive that the Scriptures 
 afford us ample evidence of the perfect equality of the 
 three persons; or, in other words, that the Word and 
 the Holy Ghost, considered abstractedly from the offices 
 which they have undertaken to. discharge under the 
 economy of Redemption, possess the same titles and 
 attributes with the Father, and, in mysterious conjunc- 
 tion with him, have been the Creator and Preserver of 
 the world, and are exhibited as one Being with the 
 Father, as the object of homage to the inhabitants of 
 the universe. It has been the general object of the 
 preceding Treatise to demonstrate this doctrine, and it 
 may not be irrelevant to sum up the entire subject in 
 one comprehensive argument, which will be found, 
 even of itself, sufficient to prove the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, viz. : | 
 
 The Being, whom Isaiah is represented, in the 6th 
 
132 « 
 
 chapter of his Prophecies, to have seen, is admitted, by 
 
 all parties, to have been the Supreme and Everlasting 
 God. And if we analyse the circumstances of the 
 vision therein described, we shall find almost every 
 peculiarity of Supreme Godhead connected with the 
 Being alluded to—for instance : 
 
 The name of JeEHovAH, in verse 1. 
 
 The name of JeHovaun or Hosts, in verse 3. 
 
 SUPREMACY, in the words “high and lifted up,” in 
 versel, 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY, in the words, “sitting upon a 
 throne,” in verse I. 
 
 Mora PerFecrion, in the words, “ Holy, Holy, 
 Holy,” in verse 3. 
 
 Tue Guiory oF CREATION AND PROVIDENCE, in 
 verse 3. 
 
 HoMAGE, in verse 3. 
 
 Now, on a reference to the 8th verse, we find this 
 Being represented as using this extraordinary language : 
 — Whom shall Z send, and who will go for us?” 
 How, then, is this phraseology to be accounted for ? 
 Why did he say “ Who will go for us?” and not “ Who 
 will go for ME?” This question is answered by two 
 other passages of Scripture, which incontrovertibly 
 demonstrate the doctrine of a Triune Jehovah. For 
 instance—1l. We believe, in common with Mr. Mitchel, 
 that God, the Father, is alluded to. 2. We have the 
 testimony of John, xii. 41, that Isaiah spoke the words 
 of the commission which he received on this occasion, 
 when he saw the glory of Christ, and spake of him. 
 3. The Apostle Paul, in Acts, xxvlil, 25, introduces 
 his quotation of the commission which the Prophet 
 
_ 133 
 
 received, by saying that it was spoken by the Holy 
 Ghost. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable, that 
 the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, were the one 
 Jehovah of Hosts who is described in the chapter.— 
 And let the reader observe, that we advance this 
 argument as a proof of the Deity of the Son and Holy 
 Ghost, abstractedly from their official connection with 
 the economy of redemption; for this vision is repre- 
 sented as having been exhibited to the Prophet before 
 the Worp of God became flesh, and before the Holy 
 Ghost descended as Paraclete. Let it not, therefore, 
 be met by any passages which speak of the Son and 
 Holy Ghost in these two official capacities. 
 
 2. The Godhead may be contemplated in reference 
 to the official character which the three persons are 
 represented as sustaining under the Gospel dispensation. 
 Tue FatuHer is manifested as holding the rank of 
 President, for the purpose of vindicating the integrity 
 of the Divine government, in which capacity he has 
 deputed the Son to his Priestly office, superintended 
 the discharge of his Mediatorial functions, from Bethle- 
 hem to the cross, and testified the acceptance of his 
 sacrifice by having raised him from the dead. Tue 
 Son is manifested as having assumed our nature, in 
 order to consummate the work of our redemption, for 
 which purpose he came down from Heaven, and was 
 made man, in order to die as a sacrifice for the guilty ; 
 and, having finished his work upon earth, he ascended 
 into Heaven, and, in his Mediatorial person, sat down 
 upon the right hand of the Father. Tur Hoty 
 Guost, also, is manifested as sustaining the office of 
 
134 
 
 Paraclete, for which he was sent by the Father and the 
 Son, and, by his regenerating and sanctifying influences, 
 continues to render the atonement available for the 
 salvation of those who believe. 
 
 Keeping this distinction between the abstract cha- 
 racter and official manifestation of the three persons in 
 view, I now request the reader to attend to the 
 following remarks, which will clearly illustrate the 
 irrelevancy of all the passages which Mr. Mitchel has 
 quoted in his fourth Sermon, and elsewhere, which 
 refer to the particulars of his Mediatorial adminis- 
 tration :-— asi 
 
 1. We hold that the Son acted-in perfect obedience 
 to the will of the Father in becoming Mediator, and 
 that, as such, he is subordinate to the Father. 
 
 2, We, at the same time, maintain, that his official 
 subordination is perfectly consistent with his abstract 
 Deity; and that, in fact, he could not have assumed 
 the office of Mediator, if he did not possess all the 
 attributes and resources of Godhead to qualify him for 
 its accomplishment. 
 
 3. Whilst the Son of God was manifest in the flesh, 
 in the person of the man Christ Jesus, it is natural to 
 suppose that he would adopt language adapted to the 
 change of circumstances in which he appeared, and 
 that he would not, whilst in a state of humiliation and 
 “of no reputation,” speak in a manner suited only 
 to his abstract condition as the Son of God; and 
 hence, it is not strange that he should have fre- 
 
135 
 
 quently represented himself as subordinate to the 
 Father, 
 
 4. The New Testament professes to be a history of 
 the official undertaking of the three persons for the 
 benefit of man; and, therefore, it is not unlikely that 
 its general phraseology should represent the Son and 
 the Holy Ghost as subordinate to the Father. But, as 
 the offices which they sustain, require the powers and 
 prerogatives of Deity, it is not unlikely that it should 
 very often refer to their abstract character, as possessing 
 the one Godhead with the Father. * 
 
 5. The fair method of trying the value of all the 
 passages relating to the Meditorial office of Christ, 
 which are advanced as objections against his Deity, is. 
 to ascertain whether they can be applied to him, beforehis 
 manifestation in the flesh; for if not, they cannot 
 determine anything in reference to his abstract con- 
 dition, and must be accounted for by some peculiarity 
 connected with the circumstances of his existence, after 
 he became manifest in the flesh. 
 
 6. When we argue for the Deity of Christ, we do 
 not mean to maintain the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 _ who was born in Bethlehem ; we mean to say that the 
 Worp, which became flesh, and dwelt among us, in the 
 person of Jesus of Nazareth, was the one God with the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost from all eternity. 
 
 7. There is this difference to be observed between the 
 abstract and. official character of the three persons, that 
 
136 
 
 in reference to the former, all the titles, attributes, 
 acts, and homage of Supreme Deity are indifferently 
 ascribed to them, with the exception of the names 
 of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which designate their 
 distinct personality; whereas, in their official character, 
 they perform distinct offices, and, consequently, sustain 
 
 distinct characters, which cannot be indifferently pre- 
 dicated of all. 
 
 8. As we have proved, that the name of “God” is 
 used in Scripture either as the designation of the 
 Supreme Being, as comprehending the Father, Son and 
 Holy Ghost, or is, in many cases, used to particularise 
 only one of the three persons, it may be well to illus- 
 trate its different application, as follows: 
 
 (1.) It is frequently used in reference to acts which 
 are indifferently ascribed in Scripture to the three 
 persons, in which case it is to be understood as the 
 general name of Deity, as including the three persons ; 
 as in Gen. i. 1—“ God ereated the heaven and the 
 earth ;” Heb., iii. 4—* He that built all things is 
 God,” OBO. 
 
 (2.) It is sometimes used in connection with the 
 term Father, in which case it is intended to designate 
 only the first person, as in John, vi. 27—‘ Him hath 
 God the Father sealed ;”—I Cor. xv. 24—‘* When he 
 shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the 
 Father ;”—Phil. ii. 11-—“ To the glory of God the 
 Father,” &c 
 
 (3.) It somdtigia’ occurs in a passage in which the 
 names of the Son and Holy Ghost are likewise men- 
 tioned, in which case it is a designation of the Father ; 
 
137 
 
 as in II. Cor. xii. 14—** The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost, be with you all,” &c. 
 
 (4.) It sometimes occurs, in connection with a state- 
 ment which refers peculiarly to the first person, in 
 which case it is intended to designate God the Father ; 
 as in John, iii. 16—*‘* God so loved the world, that he 
 gave his only begotten Son,” &c. : 
 
 (5.) Sometimes it occurs in connection with a 
 statement which is either expressly referred to the Son, 
 or can only apply to him; as in John, i. 1—“< The 
 Word was God ;” and in Titus, ii. 13.—“ Looking for 
 that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great 
 God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ,’ in which the title 
 of “ Great God” must apply to Christ, because the 
 “ glorious appearing” to judgment, which is spoken of in 
 this passage, can only relate to him, who is to come as 
 Judge. 
 
 (6.) It sometimes occurs in connection with a state- 
 ment which refers peculiarly to an office of the Holy 
 Ghost ; as in Phill. ii. 13—*“ J¢ is God that worketh in 
 you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure ;” and in 
 Rom. xv. 5—‘ Now the God of patience and consolation 
 grant you to be like minded one toward another.” In 
 these passages, the term G'od must specially refer to the 
 Holy Ghost, because it is his peculiar office to produce 
 the influences which are alluded to. 
 ~ (7) It very frequently occurs, throughout the New 
 Testament, in passages in which the name of Jesus 
 Christ is also mentioned, in which case it may either 
 refer to the person of the Father, or may be the com- 
 prehensive title of Deity. But the internal evidence 
 
 N 
 
138 
 
 of any passage is at once sufficient to determine its 
 application. 
 
 The reader is requested to apply these principles to 
 any one of the passages which Mr. Mitchel has quoted, 
 and which has not been specially referred to in the 
 foregoing Work, and he will find that, while the most 
 of them are admitted to assert an official subordination, 
 not one of them can establish a natural inferiority. 
 
 ees 
 
 OBJECTION XLI. 
 
 “ The phrases, ‘ the Spirit of the Lord is upon me’— 
 ‘He hath anointed me’—‘ He hath sent me, Se.— 
 seem altogether inconsistent with the idea of perfect 
 equality. To feel the force of this observation, try how 
 it will sound to change the person, and to say that the 
 Son ‘ anointed’ the Father, and sent him to preach the 
 glad tidings of the kingdom. But if this language be 
 inadmissible, what becomes of the equality ?” (p. 102.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The phrases alluded to, as well as many others, carry 
 with them an internal evidence that they refer to the 
 Mediatorial office of Christ; in reference to which, 
 we do not maintain the perfect equality of the three 
 persons. The proposed test, therefore, of ascertaining 
 their equality is inapplicable and illegitimate. 
 
 But in reference to the general dispensations of the 
 Godhead, unconnected with the peculiar offices which 
 the Son and Holy Ghost perform under the Gospel, 
 we fully admit the fairness of this test ; and accordingly 
 
139 
 
 we find many assertions indifferently made of the three 
 persons in Scripture. In addition to passages which 
 have been quoted in the course of this Treatise, we 
 refer to the following : —. 
 
 J; 
 The title of “Lorp” is indifferently predicated of 
 the three persons :— 
 
 Romans, x. 12—* The same Lorp over all is rich,”’ &c. 
 Luke, ii. 11—« A Saviour, which is Christ the 
 Lorp.” 
 
 II. Cor. iii, 17—* The Lorn is that Spirit.” 
 
 Il. 
 
 The title of “Gop or IsRAEL” is indifferently pre- 
 dicated of each :— 
 
 Math. xv. 31—“ The multitude glorified the Gop or 
 IsrRAE.” 
 
 Luke, i. 16, 17—* The children of Israzt shall he 
 turn to the Lorp THEtr Gop; and they shall go 
 before Him.” 
 
 U1, Sam. xxiii. 2, 3—“ The Spirit of the Lord spake 
 
 _ by me—the Gop or IsraeEt said.” 
 
 III. 
 
 The origin of the Divine Law is indifferently ascribed 
 to each :— 
 
 Rom. yiil. 7—“ The carnal mind is not subject £o the 
 LAW OF Gop.” 
 
140 
 
 Gall. vi. 2—“ Fulfil the Law or CHRIST.” 
 Rom. viii. 2—“ The LAW oF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE.” 
 
 IV. 
 
 The inspiration of the Prophets is indifferently ascribed 
 to each person :-— 
 
 Heb. i. 1—“‘ Gop, who at sundry times, and in divers 
 manners, spake unto our fathers by the Prophets.” 
 I. Pet. i. 11—“ Searching what, or what manner, the 
 
 Sprrit oF CuHRIsT, which was in them,” &c. 
 JI. Pet. i. 21—“‘ Holy men of God spake, as they were 
 -moved by the Hoty Guosr.” 
 
 Vie 
 Christian experience is indifferently described as walking 
 with each person :— 
 
 Gen. vy. 24— Enoch WALKED with Gop.” 
 
 Coll. ii, 6—“ As ye have therefore received CHRIST 
 JESUS THE LoRD, so WALK ye in him.” 
 
 Gall. v. 16—* WALK in the Spirit.” 
 
 Vai. 
 
 Each person is indifferently said to dwell in believers: — 
 
 John, xiv. 23—“If a man love me, he will keep my 
 words; and my Father will love him, and we will 
 come unto him, and MAKE OUR ABODE WITH 
 HIM.” 
 
 John, xiv. 17—“ The Spirit of Truth” - - = “dwelleth 
 
 WITH YOU, and shall in you.” 
 
141 
 
 VII. 
 
 ¥ ee ; o 
 Power is indifferently ascribed to each :— 
 
 Eph. ini, 7—“ The grace of God given unto me by the 
 effectual working of his PowER.” 
 II. Cor. xii. 9—* That the PowER of Christ may rest 
 ~~ upon me.” 
 Rom. xv. 19—“ By the Power of the Spirit of God.” 
 
 Vill. 
 Theattribute of truth isindifferently predicated of each :— 
 
 John, vil. 28—“ He that sent meis TRUE.” 
 Rey. iii. 7—* These things saith he that is TRUE.” 
 I. John, v.6—“ The Spirit is TRUTH.” a 
 
 % 
 
 IX. 
 The attribute holy is indifferently predicated of each :-— 
 
 Rev. xv. 4—* Thou only art HOLY.” 
 Acts, iti, 14—** Ye denied the HoLy one.” 
 I. John, 11. 20—* Ye have an unction from the HOLY 
 
 99 
 
 one. 
 
 X. 
 The power of quickening the dead is indifferently 
 ascribed to each :— 
 
 John, v. 21—‘‘ The Father raiseth up the dead, and 
 QUICKENETH them.” 
 John, v. 21—‘ Even so the Son QuiICKENETH whom 
 he will.” hs 
 N 2 
 
142 
 I. Pet. iii. 18—“ QuicKENED by the Spirit.” 
 
 XI. 
 
 Divine teaching is indifferently referred to each :— 
 
 aa 
 
 John, vi. 45—“ They shall be all raucut of God.” 
 
 Gall. i. 12—* Neither was I Tauvcur it, but by the re- 
 
 velation of Jesus Christ.” 
 John, xiv. 26—“ The Spirit will TEacH you all 
 things.” 
 
 XII. 
 
 Each person is said to dwell spiritually in Christians :— 
 
 lI. Cor. vi. 16— God hath said, I will pwexnu IN 
 them.” 
 Eph. iii, 17—“ That Christ may DWELL IN your 
 hearts.” 
 Rom. viii. 11—“ His Spirit, that DWELLETH IN you.” 
 . 
 
 XL. 16 a 
 
 The communication of spiritual life is indifferently 
 ascribed to each :— 
 
 Eph. iv. 18—“ Alienated from the Lire or Gop.” 
 
 John, i. 4—“ In Him was LIFE; and the life was the 
 light of men.” 
 
 Il. Cor. iii. 6B—“ The Spirit giveth Lire.” 
 
 cy 
 XIV. 
 The gift of eternal life is indifferently ascribed to 
 ~ each :— 
 
143 
 
 Rom. vi. 23—“ The gift of Gop is ETERNAL LIFE.” 
 John, x. 28——“ J grve unto them ETERNAL LIFE.” 
 Gall. vi. 8—‘‘ He that soweth to the Spirit, shall or 
 THE SPIRIT REAP LIFE EVERLASTING.” 
 
 Je 
 
 XV. 
 
 Christians are indebted to each for sanctification :— 
 HK 
 Jude, i—“ To them that are SANCTIFIED By GoD 
 THE FATHER.” 
 Heb. xiii. 12—‘‘ Jesus, also, that He MIGHT SANCTIFY 
 THE PEOPLE by his own blood.” 
 Rom. xv. 16—‘ Being sancTIFIED by the Holy 
 _ Ghost.” 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Christians are indebted to each for their justification :— 
 
 Rom. viii. 33—“ It is Gop that JUSTIFIETH.” 
 
 Isaiah, liii, 11—* By his knowledge (or by the know- 
 ledge a himself) shall my mightegps servant JUSTIFY 
 many.” 
 
 I. Cor. vi. 1l—* Ye are JUSTIFIED in the name 3 
 the Lorp Jesus, and By THE Spirit of our Gop.” 
 
 XVII. 
 
 The resurrection is indifferently ascribed to each :— 
 
 > 
 aw 
 
 I. Cor. be 14—“ Gop WILL RAISE up us by his own 
 power.” 
 
 “John, vi. 39, 40, 4, adel I WILL RAIsE him up at 
 the last day.” 
 
14.4 
 
 John, vi. 63—* It is the Spirit that QUICKENETH.” 
 
 % Re 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Each person is represented as the object of offence by 
 
 sin :— ig 
 
 Ps. cxix. 1L1—“ That I might not SIN AGAINST 
 THEE.” 
 
 I. Cor. vii. 12—* Ye sin aGainst CuRIstT.” 
 
 Luke, xii. 10—“ Unto him that BLASPHEMETH 
 AGAINST the Hoty Guosr it shall not be forgiven.” 
 
 XIX. 
 
 - Each person is represented as the giver of wisdom :— 
 
 James, 1. 5—“If any of you lack wispom, let him 
 ask of Gop, that giveth liberally.” 
 
 Luke xxi. 15—“I witt give you a mouth, and 
 WISDOM.” 
 
 I. Cor. xii. 8—“ To one is given, by the Spirit, the 
 word of wiIspom.” 
 
 We might institute this comparison in many other 
 respects, but the foregoing are sufficient to shew, that 
 the three persons of the Godhead are indifferently 
 spoken of in Scripture as possessing the very same 
 Divine powers, and sustaining the very same prerogatives, 
 except in the official relationship which they bear to 
 each other in reference to the work of man’s redemp- 
 tion, in which case the Father is more usually 
 
 represented as devising, the Son as achieving, and the ~ 
 
 Holy Ghost as applying, the atonement. 
 
 a 
 
145 
 OBJECTION XLII. 
 
 From I. Cor. xv. 24— © Then conieth the end, when 
 he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even thé 
 Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all 
 authoritij and power. For he must reign until he hath 
 put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that 
 shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things 
 under his feet. But when he saith all things are put 
 under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which 
 did put all things under him. And when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him, then shail the Son also 
 himself be subject unto him that put all things under 
 him, that God may be allin all.’” (p. 107.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This passage is perfectly consistent with the doctrine 
 of our Saviour’s Supreme Deity, as the Word who was 
 God. It refers to the termination of his Mediatorial 
 kingdom, over which he presides for a limited period in 
 his Mediutorial person, as “‘ God manifest in the flesh.” 
 For when all the purposes for which the particular 
 administration of Christ has been appointed shall have 
 been attained, he shall conclude his Mediatorial office 
 by surrendering up his power into the hands of the 
 Father—his manifestation in the flesh shall cease—the 
 man, Christ Jesus, shall be a subject in the everlasting 
 Kingdom of Jehovah—each person shall lay aside his 
 official character, and resume his original condition of 
 Supreme Godhead—and the Deity shall no longer reveal 
 himself to his creatures through the intervention of a 
 visible Mediator ;—but God, as the Triune Father, Word 
 
146 
 
 and Holy Ghost, shall be all in all, as the immediate 
 governor and administrator of all things. 
 
 To this interpretation, which the analogy of Scripture 
 fully establishes, we would subjoin the following 
 remarks upon the passage. 
 
 1, The reader is requested to observe the variation 
 of the person mentioned in the 24th and the 28th 
 verses; in the former of which the Apostle represents 
 Christ as surrendering his kingdom to “ God, even the 
 Father ;” and in the latter, in which he speaks of the 
 government of the universe, after the cessation of 
 Christ’s Mediatorial kingdom, he does not say that 
 “ God, even the Father,” shall be all in all, but he uses 
 the general term “ God,” which we have proved to be - 
 the comprehensive title of the Father, the Word and 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 2. The doctrine of our opponents, that Christ, in 
 his abstract character, was a finite and created being, 
 would imply that there was one created and finite being 
 in the universe who sustained the government of all 
 things, and is not himself subject to the Supreme God! 
 for the 28th verse speaks of the subjection of the Son 
 as not taking place until after the termination of his 
 Mediatorial kingdom. | 
 
 3. The works which this passage represents the 
 Mediator as performing are such as require his 
 possession of all the attributes of Deity to enable him 
 to achieve them. 
 
 4. Christ will not resign any thing connected with 
 his abstract nature, as he existed before his appointment 
 to his Mediatorial office, which was superadded to his 
 previous condition ; and it is as equally true, that he shall 
 
147 
 
 retain glory with the Father, after his Mediatorial 
 kingdom shall terminate, as that he possessed glory with 
 the Father, before that kingdom commenced. 
 
 See 
 
 OBJECTION XLIII. 
 
 Against the Deity of Christ, from the fact of his 
 having prayed to the Father, while on earth; upon 
 which he says :—‘ You will please farther to recollect 
 the many places where our blessed Saviour is represented 
 as offering up prayers, not only on behalf of others, but 
 of himself also, to his Father in Heaven ;—as praying, 
 not merely with calm and earnest devotion, but in the 
 utmost agony, ‘with strong crying and tears ;’—as 
 praying, not merely for the sake of example, but in 
 solitary places, and continuing all night in prayer to 
 God.” (p. 111.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. It is evident that Christ’s praying to the Father 
 must have originated altogether from his assumption of 
 humanity, or else let Mr. Mitchel produce a single 
 allusion to his having prayed before his manifestation in 
 the flesh. And we are supported by the Apostle in this 
 remark ; for he confines the petitions which Christ 
 offered up to the Father, in reference to himself, to the 
 time of his continuance upon earth, as in Heb. vy. 7— 
 “* Who, zn the days of his flesh, when he had offered up 
 prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, 
 unto him that was able to save him from death.” 
 
 2. In proportion to the moral attainments of the 
 creature will be his sense of ‘dependence upon the 
 Creator; therefore, as the man Christ Jesus was 
 
148 
 
 morally perfect, his sense of dependence upon God was 
 necessarily so great, as to lead him to manifest it by 
 constantly repeated acts of prayer. 
 
 3. As Christ was to be our model of imitation in all 
 things connected with morality and: godliness, is it to 
 be supposed that he would have left us the irreligious 
 example of living without prayer ? 
 
 4. All the intercessory prayers of Christ, as, for 
 instance, those alluded to by Mr. Mitchel, in John, xvil., 
 were offered up to the Father in consequence of the 
 Priestly office, which, as Mediator, he has undertaken 
 to execute for his people. 
 
 —— 
 
 OBJECTION XLIV. 
 
 Against our Saviour possessing two distinct natures, 
 a human and divine ; upon which, after quoting passages 
 to shew the subordination of the Son to the Father, he 
 says:—“I am aware that the whole force of this 
 testimony is attempted to be turned aside by a very simple 
 contrivanee—a nice distinction, which demands our 
 particular notice. The distinction—the contrivance—is 
 this, that, in all cases where Christ acknowledges a 
 subordination to the Father, he is to be understood as 
 speaking only in his human nature. If this were any 
 where taught us, either by our Lord himself, or any of 
 his inspired Apostles, at would materially alter the state 
 of the case. But is this really so? Nothing can be 
 farther from the truth. Have we been taught any such 
 distinction in Seripture 2” &c. (p. 113.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The doctrine of Mr. Mitchel appears, from this and 
 other parts of his Sermons, to have been—that the 
 
149 
 
 spiritual nature of Christ was united to the body which 
 he assumed, and served instead of a human soul; so 
 that, in fact, he was only a man so far as he appeared i in 
 the visible form of man. We, on the other hand, 
 maintain, that’ when the Worp became FLESH he 
 assumed our entire nature, inclusive both of body and 
 soul; for which we submit the following proofs :— 
 
 Christ is called a “man” in several passages of 
 Scripture, without any qualifying expression to lead us 
 to give the term any other than the ordinary significa- 
 tion, as including both a human soul and body.—See 
 Acts, ii. 22; Acts, xvii. 31; I. Tim. ii. 5, &c. 
 
 He displayed, during his continuance upon earth, 
 every characteristic feature of a perfect and entire 
 human nature. 
 
 In I. Cor. xv. 21—* Since by man came death, by 
 man also came the resurrection of the dead,” the 
 Apostle contrasts the human nature of Adam with the 
 human nature of Christ, in such a manner as proves 
 their perfect similarity. 
 
 In verse 23, he says that ‘ every man shall be made 
 alive in his own order; Christ the first fruits.” Now, 
 the import of this comparison establishes the fact that 
 Christ is of the very same nature as those who shall 
 rise at the last day; for the ‘first fruits’ are of the 
 same nature as the entire harvest. And if Christ did 
 not possess a human soul as well as a human body, his 
 resurrection could not have been a perfect specimen of 
 ours, nor an evidence that our souls should rise again. 
 
 In Heb. 11. 11, we read, “ For both he that sanctifieth 
 and they who are sanctified are all of one,” (7. e. of one 
 nature according to the context) “ wherefore he is not 
 
 O 
 
150 
 
 ashamed to call them brethren.” The title of brethren 
 can only be applied to persons who possess the same 
 nature, both moral and physical. 
 
 Verses 17, 18—‘* Wherefore in all things it behoved 
 
 him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be 
 amerciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining 
 to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his 
 people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being 
 tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” 
 In these verses it is evident that the Apostle represents 
 our Saviour’s experience of temptation, while on earth 
 as enabling him to feel a sympathy for his people when 
 they are under temptation. But in order to have a full 
 experimental knowledge of our circumstances under 
 temptation, he must have possessed the very same 
 nature, both as to mind and body, which we possess ; 
 for surely the temptations to which human nature is 
 liable would wear a vastly different aspect to the view 
 of a superangelic being. The same inference may be 
 drawn more strongly from Heb. iv. 15—“ We have 
 not a high priest which cannot be touched with the 
 feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points 
 like as we are, yet without sin.” In this passage, it is 
 implied, that the human nature of Christ resembled ours 
 in every respect except its sinfulness. 
 
 But there is a still stronger proof than these that our 
 Saviour assumed our nature in its entire character. We 
 have, for instance, on the one hand, many passages which 
 we have referred to in the course of this treatise, assert- 
 ing his absolute omniscience ; and, on the other hand, we 
 are told, in Luke, ii. 52, that “ he increased in wisdom;” 
 and, in Mark, xii, 32, that he knew not the hour of 
 
151 
 
 judgment: now, I ask, how are these contradictory 
 statements to be reconciled ? Simply, by understanding 
 the declaration that “the Worp was made FLESH,” as 
 importing that the Son of God assumed a human soul 
 as well as a human body, and that whilst as the Eternal 
 Word he was omniscient, as the man Christ Jesus, 
 invested with the mental faculties of a man, his 
 knowledge was progressive and circumscribed. 
 
 These arguments may suffice to shew that Mr. 
 Mitchel’s assertion that there is no proof of our 
 Saviour’s possessing two natures, is without foundation. 
 The belief of his real and proper humanity is as 
 necessary as of his real and proper Deity. Whilst the 
 latter was necessary to enable him to discharge the 
 office of Mediator, and to give value to his work, the 
 former was requisite, in order to bring him into the 
 same situation with those whose surety he became, to 
 bring him under the law, to render him capable of 
 suffering, and to enable him to be our example in all 
 things. How the Divine and human natures were 
 united in the person of the Redeemer we cannot com- 
 prehend, much less can we attempt to explain. It is 
 one of those truths which lie at the ultimate verge of 
 Revelation, which our present faculties and resources of 
 investigation can never enable us to comprehend. 
 
 : OBJECTION XLV. 
 Against our Saviour possessing a human as well as a 
 Divine nature, upon which he advances the following 
 argument :—“ Our Lord tells us, in John, xii. 49— I 
 have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent 
 
152 
 
 me; he gave me a commandment what I should say and 
 what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, 
 even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. This, 
 then, is one of those instances wherein Christ is supposed, 
 by the Trinitarian hypothesis, to speak in his human 
 nature. Well, now, turn to the 16th of the same Gospel, 
 and attend to what our Lord says of the Holy Ghost 
 whom he promised that the Father should send, in his 
 name, to be the guide and comfort of his Disciples, and 
 who, you know, is one of the co-equal persons of the 
 Athanasian Trinity. ‘ Howbeit when He the spirit of 
 truth is come he will guide you into all truth, for He 
 shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, 
 that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to 
 come. Now it is not pretended that the Holy Ghost 
 ever assumed the human nature; and therefore it cannot 
 be alleged that he ever speaks or acts in that nature. 
 Yet our Lord uses the very same language with respect 
 to him as he does in similar eases in reference to himself. 
 He plainly declares that neither of them ‘speaks of 
 himself ;’ that both of them speak as they heard, and 
 were taught.” (p. 114.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This reasoning, although so confidently advanced, is 
 at once overthrown by simply remarking, that the 
 language of our Saviour, in John, xii. 49, is not one of 
 those instances in which Christ is supposed, according 
 to the Trinitarian hypothesis, to speak in his human 
 nature. It was in reference to his official character as 
 Mediator that he said “I have not spoken of myself ;” 
 and it was also in reference to the official character of 
 
153 
 
 the Holy Ghost, as Paraclete, that he says of him, “ he 
 shall not speak of himself.” This distinction between 
 the abstract and official character of the Son and Holy 
 Ghost, though so frequently alluded to in Scripture, 
 has not been taken notice of by Mr. Mitchel. — 
 
 But by considering this objection we may easily 
 account for many statements which seem to present 
 difficulties against the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, 
 which are not made in reference to the Holy Ghost. 
 It is said, for instance, in reference to the Saviour, that 
 he knew not the day or hour of judgment: now, I ask, 
 why do we not find the same declaration, or one similar 
 to it, made in reference to the Holy Ghost, since, if He, 
 according to Mr. Mitchel’s doctrine, be subordinate and 
 inferior to the Supreme God, we might naturally expect 
 to find some such statement to shew that his knowledge 
 was limited; but we find no such statement; on the 
 contrary, it is said of him that “the Spirit searcheth 
 all things even the deep things of God.” The reason 
 of this difference evidently is, because the Holy Ghost 
 was not manifest in the flesh, and therefore did not, 
 like the Son, assume a nature in reference to which his 
 knowledge might be represented as limited and cir- 
 cumscribed. 
 
 OBJECTION XLVI. 
 
 Against the Deity of the Holy Ghost ; upon which 
 he says :—“ I refer it to yourselves to determine whether 
 this Holy person, ‘ the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth 
 from the Father, who is sent by the Son, and who 
 speaketh not of himself, but according to the instructions 
 he has received, whether this being is to be understood as 
 
 02 
 
154 
 
 the Supreme God, or equal to the Supreme God.” 
 (p» 116.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 This objection has already been virtually answered 
 in our replies to the objections against the Deity of the 
 Son. The Holy Ghost being sent refers to the official 
 character which he has undertaken to sustain under the 
 Gospel dispensation, and proves, what we fully admit, 
 an official subordination, but cannot prove a natural 
 inferiority. On the contrary, the mission of the Holy 
 Ghost is an argument for his Deity, for unless he was 
 really and truly God, he would not have possessed the 
 qualifications necessary to enable him to discharge the 
 office assigned to him. Compare, for instance, his 
 mission with that of Angels who are sent to minister 
 to them who are heirs of salvation: they are only 
 sent to particular places and persons—the Holy Spirit 
 is sent to all Christians, wherever they may be situated : 
 Angels are obliged to remove from place to place in the 
 execution of their commissions—the Holy Spirit is 
 omnipresent: Angels act as servants, and render 
 obedience to the being who sends them—the Holy Spirit 
 is independent of all superior control, for ‘he divideth 
 
 -to every man severally as he will.” 
 
 The Holy Ghost’s not speaking of himself merely 
 implies that he would not introduce any new system of 
 doctrine, but would instruct the disciples more fully in 
 those sacred truths of which Christ had only taught the 
 elements. ‘ 
 
 We may here take notice of the’ strong evidence 
 which is derived for the Supreme Deity of Christ, 
 
 i ee rt: 
 
155 
 
 from the fact of his sending the Spirit. In both John, 
 xy. 26, and xvi. 7, he says, “I will send him unto you.” 
 Now, I ask if the Holy Ghost be, as we maintain, God, 
 must not Christ have been his equal, in order to justify 
 his use of thislanguage? Or if, as some maintain, the 
 Holy Spirit be merely an influence or energy of God, 
 can we suppose that the influences and emanations of 
 Deity could be at the disposal of a creature ! 
 
 OBJECTION XLVII. 
 
 Against the argument for the Deity of the Holy 
 Ghost, derived from Acts, v. 3—‘‘ Peter said unto 
 Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto 
 the Holy Ghost ?—why hast thou conceived this thing 
 in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but 
 unto God.” Upon which he says :—“ There must be a 
 great lack of evidence for the Athanasian doctrine, when 
 so weak an argument is relied on ; and it is the strongest 
 that can be produced to prove the Supreme Deity of the 
 Holy Spirit : for in the same book of Scripture we find 
 a similar argument, to prove the Supreme Deity of an 
 Angel. Acts, xxiii. 9—‘ We find no evil in this man ; 
 but if a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken to him let us 
 not fight against God.’ The plain meaning of the 
 above passage is, that by lying to the Apostles, who 
 were inspired by the Holy Spirit, Ananias had in effect 
 lied to the Holy Spirit—and that lying to the Holy 
 Spirit was the same thing as lying to God himself, who_ 
 had given them his Holy Spirit. This is no forced 
 interpretation, for you will all recollect that it is quite 
 conformable to the usual phrase of Scripture. Thus 
 
156 
 
 our Lord says to his Apostles—‘ He that despiseth you 
 despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that 
 sent me.’ And thus the Apostle Paul says—‘ He that 
 despiseth us despiseth not man, but God, who hath also 
 given unto us his Holy Spirit.” (p.116.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. The passage referred to in Acts, xxiii. 9, is not 
 parallel with Acts, v. 3. In the latter the substantive 
 “Gop” occurs with the article prefixed to it, which is 
 placed in apposition with the “Holy Ghost” in the 
 beginning of the verse; but it does not occur in the 
 former passage, in which the words, “let us not fight 
 against God,” are a translation of a Greek verb, which 
 might more correctly be rendered “ let us not engage in 
 a polemical warfare.” 
 
 2. But even admitting the two passages to be 
 parallel, Mr. Mitchel has not observed the correct 
 analogy between the persons spoken of in each. The 
 “« Angel,” in the former, is not placed in contrast with 
 the “ Holy Ghost,” in the latter, but with the Apostles ; 
 therefore, the statement in Acts, xxiii. 9, would not 
 prove the Deity of the Angel, but of the Being who 
 sent the Angel to speak to Paul, just in the same manner 
 as the statement in Acts, y. 3, does not prove the Deity 
 of the Apostles, bué of him who inpired the Apostles to 
 speak to Ananias, which was the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. In I. Thess. iv. 8, the Holy Ghost is referred to 
 in his official capacity as being given to the Church by 
 God the Father: but in Acts, y. 3, he is placed in 
 direct apposition with the term “God,” so as clearly 
 to prove that he is God. 
 
157 
 
 4. In the interpretation which Mr. Mitchel has 
 proposed, in order to evade the argument from this 
 passage, he has entirely overlooked the fact that the 
 Holy Ghost is represented in it, and also in the 9th 
 verse, as the primary object of direct offence by the sin 
 which Ananias committed; whereas, he has repre- 
 sented him as no more the object of offence by that sin 
 than the Apostles, but that a superior being was sinned 
 against through him. In fact, in order that the passage 
 should justify Mr. Mitchel’s explanation, it should run 
 thus—‘* You have not lied unto men, nor unto the Holy 
 Ghost, but unto God;” or affirmatively thus—“ You 
 have lied to Apostles, and to the Holy Ghost, and, 
 what is worse, you have lied unto God.” 
 
 5. Mr. Mitchel has asserted that “this is the only 
 passage of Scripture which presents any difficulty upon 
 the subject of the Deity of the Holy Ghost ;” therefore, 
 to obviate the impression which this statement is cal- 
 culated to produce, we submit the following proofs in 
 addition to those which have been given in the 
 Synopsis, which will shew that the Scriptures are 
 replete with passages to prove his Supreme Deity, viz. : 
 
 jb 
 The Holy Ghost is the God of whom believers are 
 
 born :— 
 
 John, iii. 6—“* That which is born of the Spirit.” 
 I. John, v. 4—‘ Whatsoever is born of Gop.” 
 
 II. 
 
 He was the Lord to whom Simeon prayed :— 
 
158 
 
 Luke, ii. 26—“ It was revealed unto him by the Hoy 
 ~Guost that. he should not see death before he had 
 seen the Lord’s Christ.” ‘ 
 
 Luke, ii. 28, 29— He blessed Gop, and said, Lorp, 
 now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, accord- 
 ing to THY Worp.” 
 
 TI. 
 
 He is the God who dwells in believers :— 
 
 John, xiv. 17—“ Hedwelleth with youand shall bein you.” 
 I. Cor. xiv. 25—“ Gop is in you of a truth.” 
 
 PV: 
 
 He was the Most High God whom the Israelites 
 tempted :— 
 
 Ps.. Ixxvili. 56—“ They tempted and provoked the 
 Most HIGH Gop.” 
 
 Is. Ixiil. 10—* They rebelled and vexed his Hoty 
 SPIRIT.” 
 
 3 
 
 He was the God who appointed office-bearers in the 
 Churches : 
 
 Acts, xx. 28—“ Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
 and to all the flock, over the which the Hoty Guost 
 has made you overseers.” 
 
 I. Cor. xii. 28—“ And Gop hath set some in the 
 Church ; first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets ; 
 thirdly, teachers,” &c. 
 
159 
 
 VI. 
 
 He was the Lord Jehovah whom the Israelites tempted 
 in the wilderness :— 
 
 Ex. xvii. 2—“ Wherefore do ye tempt the Lord ?” 
 
 Heb. iii. 7, 8—‘* The Hoty Guost saith, to-day, if ye 
 will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the 
 provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilder- 
 ness, when your fathers TEMPTED ME,” &c. 
 
 VII. 
 He was Jehovah who inspired the Prophets :— 
 
 Numbers, xii. 6—“If there be a Prophet among you, 
 I, the Lorp, will make myself known unto him in a 
 vision.” 
 
 II. Pet. i. 21—* Holy men of God spake as they were 
 
 moved by the Hoty Guost.” 
 
 VIII. 
 
 He is the God whois the author of spiritual influences :— 
 
 I. Cor. xii. 6—* It is the same Gop which worketh all 
 in all.” 
 
 I. Cor. xii. 11—* All these worketh that one and self 
 same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
 will.” 
 
 IX. 
 He is prayed to by the Apostle in I. Thess. i. 11 :-— 
 
 ‘“¢ Now God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus 
 
160 
 
 Christ, direct our way unto you;” for it is evident 
 that the term “‘ God” refers to the Holy Ghost, since 
 the construction of the passages requires as full a 
 distinction to be observed between “‘ God himself” 
 and ‘‘our Father,’ as between ‘our Father’ and 
 “our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 
 X. 
 He is also prayed to in II. Thess. ii. 5:— 
 
 “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God 
 and into the patient waiting for Christ; for the 
 term ‘“ Lord” refers to the Holy Ghost, not only 
 because he is particularly distinguished from God the 
 Father, into whose love he is to direct them, and 
 from Christ, but also because the special influence for 
 which the Apostle prays is asserted to be the pro- 
 duction of the Holy Ghost, in Rom. v. 5—“ The love 
 of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.” 
 
 XI. 
 
 Christ directed his Disciples to pray to the Holy 
 Ghost, in Luke, x. 2:— 
 
 ‘Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that he 
 would send forth labourers into his harvest.” For it 
 is evident that he is the Lord of the harvest, from 
 his assuming the office of sending forth labourers, as 
 in Acts, xiii. 2, 4—“* The Holy Ghost said, separate 
 me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
 called them - - ~ so they being sent forth by the 
 Holy Ghost,” &c. 
 
161 
 ET. 
 
 Het is said to dwell in believers, as in a ¢emple, in I. Cor. 
 vi. 19 :— 
 
 « What! know ye not that your body is the temple of 
 the Holy Ghost?” The idea of a ‘“ temple” pre- 
 supposes the Deity of the person who dwells in it. 
 No one dwells in a temple but God. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 The Apostle expressly calls the Holy Ghost ‘ God,” in 
 Coll. i. 2 -— 
 
 “The mystery of God, and of the Father, and of 
 Christ ;’ for that he is designated by the title 
 “God” is evident from this, that the conjunction 
 which is made use of to specify a distinction between 
 ‘“‘ the Father’»and “ Christ” is also used between 
 the terms “ God’ and “the Father,” and, therefore, 
 establishes the very same distinction between 
 them. 
 
 SEV: 
 
 The Holy Ghost is represented as the object of the 
 greatest moral offence of which men can be Pie: in 
 Mark, ili. 28, 29 :— 
 
 «¢ All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and 
 blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme ; 
 but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
 
 -hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal 
 damnation.” There cannot be adduced a more 
 P 
 
162 
 
 unanswerable proof of the Deity of the Holy Ghost 
 than this passage affords, for it is totally impossible to 
 explain it upon any principle that would suppose that 
 men would be forgiven their transgressions against the 
 Supreme God, whilst they could not be forgiven their 
 transgressions against a created being! In fact, God 
 alone is represented to us in Seripture as the proper 
 object of offence by sin ; and he must be the Supreme 
 God against whom any transgression could be so 
 aggravated as to be unpardonable. 
 
 These arguments may be sufficient to shew that Mr. 
 Mitchel’s assertion is gratuitous. 
 
 Some persons represent the doctrine of the Deity of 
 the Holy Ghost as not so clearly established by Scripture 
 proofs as that of the Son. I cannot agree with them. 
 It may, indeed, be remarked that the Sacred Writers 
 often appear to institute a digression «from the subject 
 they are treating on, in order to assert the Deity of the 
 Son, whereas the system which they seem to adopt, in 
 reference to the Deity of the Holy Ghost and of the 
 Father, is to pre-suppose it as self-evident, and to take 
 it for granted; and the reason may be this, that since 
 the Holy Ghost did not appear in a form which might 
 render his Deity questionable, it was not necessary to 
 assert so directly and emphatically that he was God, as 
 it was in reference to the Son, who was manifest in the 
 flesh, and whose human nature was, therefore, an 
 obstacle to the belief of his Deity. 
 
 Before we conclude this section, it may be necessary 
 to remark, that there are many who not only deny the 
 Deity, but even the personality, of the Spirit. As far as 
 
163 
 
 Mr. Mitchel is individually concerned, he admits the 
 latter ; but, as we believe there are very few connected 
 with the system to which he belongs who would agree 
 with him in this opinion, it may not be considered 
 irrelevant to offer a few arguments in support of the 
 personality of the Holy Ghost—viz. : 
 
 1. The personal pronoun in the masculine gender is 
 used to designate the Holy Ghost asin John, xvi. 7— 
 
 9 
 
 “If I depart, I will send him unto you;” verse 8-— 
 «“ When he is come, he will reprove the world ;” verse 
 13—* When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, hewill guide 
 you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but 
 whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will 
 
 shew you things to come,” &c. 
 
 2. Personal faculties and feelings are attributed to 
 him: UNDERSTANDING, in I. Cor. ii. 11—‘ The things 
 of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God ;” WiLt, 
 in I. Cor. xii. 11—“ Dividing to every man severally as he 
 will ;” Grier, in Eph. iv. 30—“ Grieve not the Holy 
 Spirit ;’ SpeecH, in Acts, xii. 2—“ The Holy Ghost 
 said ; APPROBATION, in Acts, xv. 28—* It seemed 
 good to the Holy Ghost,” &c. 
 
 3. Personal offices and actions are attributed to him : 
 of a Master, in John, xiv. 26—*“ He shall teach you 
 all things ;” of a GUIDE, in John, xvi. 13—‘ He will 
 guide you into all truth;” of a WITNEss, in John, xv. 
 26—“ He shall ¢estify of me;” of a CoMFORTER, in 
 John, xiv. 16—“I will pray the Father, and he will 
 give you another comforter,” &e, 
 
164 
 
 4. There is the same evidence for the distinct per- 
 sonality of the Holy Ghost, in the Baptismal form and 
 Apostolic benedictions, as there is for that of the Father 
 and of the Son, as is evident from their grammatical 
 construction. 
 
 5. The language of the Apostle, in Rom. xv. 13— 
 “through the power of the Holy Ghost,”—would be 
 absurd, on the supposition of his not being a person ; 
 for if he be a mere influence or power of God, then 
 “the power of the Holy Ghost” would be equivalent 
 to the “ power of the power of God.” | 
 
 6. There is a manifest distinction observed between 
 the influences produced, and the Spirit who is the pro- 
 ducer of those influences, in I. Cor. xii. 4— There 
 are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit,” so as to 
 prove, beyond doubt, that the Holy Ghost is not an 
 influence, but a person. 
 
 From these arguments, it will appear evident that the 
 Scriptures teach us the distinct personality of the Holy 
 “Spirit. But it is necessary to remark, that when we use 
 the word “person” to express the distinction which 
 subsists between the Father, the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost, we do not intend to convey the very same idea 
 as when we employ it to denote the personal distinction 
 which exists between one man and another. We do 
 not profess to explain its import in reference to the 
 Godhead. We use it, because it is a Scriptural term 
 which occurs in Heb. i. 3; and from the mysteriousness 
 which is necessarily connected with the nature and 
 
165 
 
 subsistence of the Supreme Being, it must have some 
 peculiar and exclusive meaning which a finite under- 
 standing could not comprehend, for “ the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” This remark 
 should be particularly attended to, because our opponents 
 frequently advance arguments against the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, which are based upon an assumed definition 
 of the word “ Person ;” these arguments are to be 
 answered by refusing to admit the accuracy of the 
 definition which is thus taken for granted, and by saying 
 that we do not use the word in its common acceptation, 
 but merely to denote that there exists between the 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost, some sort of distinction 
 which bears a mysterious resemblance to an ordinary 
 distinction of persons, and which is not inconsistent 
 with the unity of the Divine nature. And although 
 we cannot explain how one Divine nature can e 
 common to three persons, in such a manner as not to 
 violate the unity of that nature, we do not concede any 
 advantage to our opponents in the argument, for as they 
 are equally unacquainted with the mysteries of the 
 Godhead, they cannot demonstrate that it is impossible 
 for the Divine nature to be common to three persons, 
 without destroying tts unity. 
 
 ————T 
 
 OBJECTION XLVIII. 
 
 That it is unnecessary to have definite opinions upon 
 the character and dignity of Christ; in reference to 
 which he says:—“ Jf it had been thought a matter 
 essential to the faith and salvation of men, that the nature 
 
 and dignity of that Divine Redeemer should be appre- 
 Boa. 
 
166 
 
 hended alike by all, it would doubtless have been revealed 
 in such a manner as to leave no room for honest enquirers 
 to doubt or to differ on the subject. That honest 
 enquirers—that men of the highest talents—of the first 
 education—of the most undoubted sincerity and piety— 
 have taken different views of this matter, is, fo my mind, 
 a clear indication that it has not been very distinctly 
 revealed, and that it cannot be of such vital importance 
 as it is sometimes represented. »Will a criminal, under 
 sentence of death, waste his time in disputing about the 
 rank and office of the person who is authorised to bring 
 him a reprieve, before he can make up his mind to accept 
 of his Sovereign's pardon? An act of grace has been 
 passed in the Courts of Heaven, to rescue sinful man 
 from merited perdition ; these glad tidings have been 
 conveyed to us by a messenger from above ;—be that 
 messenger who he may, it is plain the message comes to 
 us with the highest Divine authority ; and shall we turn 
 away from that joyful, that life-giving message, and 
 consume our time, our talents and our temper, in vain 
 and fruitless disputation about the dignity of the 
 messenger 2” (p. 14.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 It would be very difficult to prove that the author 
 of the above paragraph maintains the doctrine of Atone- 
 ment, by the death of Christ, as it rests the hope of 
 man’s salvation altogether upon ‘‘an act of grace, 
 passed in the courts of Heaven,” before the Son of 
 God was manifest in the flesh, and represents him as 
 merely the “ messenger” who was sent to communicate 
 that intelligence. How different is this from the 
 
167 
 
 doctrine which the Scriptures reveal—that Christ was 
 the “unspeakable gift” of God—that he was a 
 “ransom” forthe sins of the world; and which 
 exhibits his death upon the cross as the only foun- 
 dation of a sinner’s hope. I am aware that Mr. 
 Mitchel has said, in his 53d page, that he universally 
 teaches the doctrine of the Atonement; but if his notions 
 of that doctrine be consistent with regarding Christ as 
 only a messenger—with founding the salvation of man 
 upon an act of grace, passed in the courts of Heaven, 
 and not upon the work which Jesus Christ has accom- 
 plished upon the earth, and with considering the 
 dignity of his person to be totally unconnected with 
 the object of his mission—he cannot possibly use the 
 word “ Atonement” in the same sense in which the 
 New ‘Testament employs that term. The very 
 essence of the Atonement, as revealed in Scripture,» 
 consists in its deriving its efficacy altogether from the 
 supreme dignity of the person who effected it—a fact 
 which Mr. Mitchel has entirely overlooked. 
 
 I shall reply to this objection by stating, as briefly 
 and concisely as possible, a few reasons, which render it 
 necessary to entertain definite and correct sentiments 
 upon the dignity and Deity of Christ. 
 
 1. If we contemplate the undertaking of the Saviour 
 in the very lowest point of view, as merely the trans- 
 mission of a message from the Creator to his creatures, 
 is it not of much practical importance to-be apprised of 
 the dignity of his person and character, in order to 
 ensure a cordial and submissive reception of the message 
 he was sent to convey? And is there not an im- 
 
168 
 
 measurable importance attached to the subject of his 
 embassy, and a proportionable responsibility connected 
 with those who reject it, when it is known that the 
 message has been delivered by the voice of him who 
 can shake the earth, and not by a merely created being ? 
 Our Saviour, for instance, refers to this very argument 
 in a parable which he delivered, as illustrative of his 
 mission, in Luke, xx. 13——“ Then, said the Lord of the 
 vineyard, I will send my beloved Son—it may be they 
 will reverence him ;” and the Apostle to the Hebrews 
 expatiates more fully upon it in his Ist and 2d chapters, 
 where, having instituted a course of regsoning to prove 
 that Christ was superior to Prophets and Angels, and 
 was, in fact, the ‘‘ Lord who, in the beginning, had laid 
 the foundations of the earth,” he draws this conclusion— 
 “ Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to 
 the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let 
 them slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was 
 steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience 
 received a just recompense of reward, how shall we 
 escape if we neglect so great salvation, which, at the 
 first, began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed 
 unto us by them that heard him ?” 
 
 2. It is necessary to entertain definite sentiments upon 
 the dignity of our Saviour’s person, in order to ascer- 
 tain whether we, who believe in his Deity, are guilty 
 of idolatry in offering to him Divine adoration, or 
 whether those, who consider him to be a created being, 
 are guilty of sacrilege, in withholding from him that 
 reverence and worship to which, as God, he is legiti- 
 mately entitled. This is a point of vitalimportance. If 
 
169 
 
 Jesus Christ be not invested with the attributes of 
 Supreme Deity, then we present unto him a service 
 which should be exclusively appropriated to an infinitely 
 superior being, and are guilty of an idolatry as erroneous 
 in principle, and as sinful in practice, as ever was pre- 
 sented before the shrine of an Heathen Deity. In 
 what, for instance, did Pagan idolatry consist? In 
 worshipping and serving the creature (not more than 
 but), “ besides the Creator” (as it is in the original), so 
 that we are equally guilty of idolatry, if we pay to Christ 
 an homage either similar or inferior to that which we 
 pay to the Father; for, in either case, on the suppo- 
 sition of his not possessing Deity, we would be 
 worshipping and serving the creature, besides the 
 Creator. On the other hand, if Christ be entitled to 
 Supreme adoration, those who withhold it are guilty ofa 
 crime which is equal in magnitude with that of neglect- 
 ing the worship of the Father ; for “he that honoreth 
 not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him.” 
 
 3. It is necessary to entertain correct sentiments 
 upon the dignity of the person of Christ, in order to 
 be able to appreciate the love of God, which is so 
 emphatically spoken of in such passages as the fol- 
 lowing :—‘‘ God so loved the world that he gave his 
 only begotten Son”—John, iii. 16. “ He that spared 
 not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how 
 shall he not with him also freely give us all things ?’— 
 Rom. viii. 32. ‘In this was manifested the love of © 
 God towards us, because that God sent his only 
 begotten Son into the world, that we might live 
 through him’—TI. John, iv. 9. In these passages, and 
 
170 
 
 in many others, the dignity of the Saviour is exhibited 
 as the standard by which we are to estimate the extent 
 of the love of God. If, therefore, his love, in giving 
 his Son, was so amazing and inconceivable as to exceed 
 all finite comprehension, how infinite and inconceivable 
 must be the dignity of the Saviour? On the other 
 hand, what are we to think of a system which would 
 represent ‘“‘ God's “ unspeakable gift” as nothing more 
 than a creature, infinitely inferior to the Being who 
 has sent him? Surely such a representation of the 
 character and dignity of Christ altogether neutralises 
 and annihilates the love of the Father to the world? 
 And if we contemplate the amount of glory connected 
 with the office to which Christ was appointed—the 
 dignity to which, as Mediator, he has been elevated— 
 and the universal homage which is paid to him by all 
 the inhabitants of the universe, in consequence of the 
 work of kindness he has achieved—if he be a created 
 and finite being, the Scriptures should, with more 
 propriety, refer the love of the Father to his only 
 begotten Son, as its legitimate and immediate object ; for 
 in that case it might more correctly be said, that ‘“ God 
 so loved his Son that he appointed him to an office of 
 unprecedented dignity and of rivalship with himself” 
 
 4. It is necessary to determine the dignity of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, because the estimate which men 
 form of the other doctrines of Christianity is invariably 
 modified and characterised in proportion to the senti- 
 ments which they entertain in reference to the person 
 of the Saviour. They, for instance, who believe him 
 to have been merely a created being, will be found to 
 
171 
 
 possess opinions equally low upon the subjects of 
 human depravity, the necessity of an atoning sacrifice, 
 justification by faith, and sanctification by the influences 
 of the Spirit. Their opinions upon the subject of 
 human depravity must be low—because he who believes 
 that God’s justice could be vindicated by the sacrifice of 
 a creature must consider the estimate which he forms 
 of the corruption of human nature to be inconsiderable. 
 Their sentiments upon the necessity of an atonement 
 must be vague and obscure—because they divest the 
 Saviour of those attributes which can alone impart to 
 the atonement its value and sufficiency. Their 
 opinions upon the doctrine of justification by faith 
 must be equally erroneous—because the righteousness 
 of a creature could only serve for his own justification, 
 and could not be communicated to another. And their 
 sentiments upon the necessity of sanctification, by the 
 influences of the Spirit, must also be inadequate, if 
 their estimate of the corruption of our nature be 
 incorrect, and if they deny to the Holy Spirit those 
 qualifications of Godhead which are necessary to enable 
 him to perform the office of Sanctifier. In fact, the 
 doctrine of our Saviour’s dignity is the very essence 
 and nucleus of Christianity ; so that, just in proportion 
 as the opinions of men upon this fundamental tenet 
 rise or fall, their opinions upon every other doctrine 
 will be influenced in a similar degree; and none but 
 those who admit his Supreme Deity can attach to the 
 other doctrines of the Gospel that importance and ~ 
 elevation which they possess in the Bible. 
 
 5. Itis necessary to believe in the Supreme Deity of 
 
172 
 
 the Saviour, in order that his death may be regarded as 
 an adequate expression of God’s hatred of sin. The 
 transgressions of mankind, when considered in reference 
 to the infinite holiness of that Being against whom they 
 are committed, must necessarily wear to his observation 
 an aspect of infinite enormity. Would, then, the death 
 of a finite and created being afford to the inhabitants of 
 God’s moral universe a sufficient indication of the 
 estimate which he forms of transgression? Would not 
 the solitary death of one created being, whilst myriads 
 were pardoned, afford but a partial exhibition of the un- 
 sullied purity of Jehovah’s character, and of the amount 
 of satisfaction required by his justice? But admit the 
 Deity of Christ, and his death is at once an expression 
 of God’s hatred of sin, commensurate with the length 
 and breadth of the estimate which he forms of it, and 
 presents an emphatic and awful testimony of the moral 
 enormity of transgression. 
 
 6. The Deity of Christ is absolutely necessary, in 
 order to give value to the atonement which he has 
 effected upon the cross. The very nature of an atone- 
 ment implies that its efficacy is intended for beings 
 distinct from him who was the agent of its accomplish- 
 ment. Now, if Christ was a created and finite being, 
 _ every work which he discharged was necessary fox his 
 own justification, and he could perform no more than 
 what was incumbent upon him by the very necessity of 
 his condition, as a subject of the moral government of 
 God. He could, therefore, have no righteousness to 
 communicate—no work of supererrogation to offer, on 
 behalf of a ruined and a guilty world. How awful, 
 
173 
 
 then, are the consequences of that system which denies 
 the Deity of the Saviour, and thereby destroys, alto. 
 gether, the vicarious sufficiency of his sacrifice! But 
 contemplate the atonement, as consummated by him who 
 was “God manifest in the flesh,” and the work which 
 he performed, as MAw, acquires an infinite value from 
 the character which he sustains as Gop, and becomes a 
 full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and oblation for the 
 sins of the whole world. , 
 
 7. It is necessary to believe the Supreme Deity of 
 Christ, in order to give influence and cogency to the 
 motive to Christian obedience which the Gospel 
 supplies. That motive is “the love of Christ,” exem- 
 plified in becoming poot, i order that we, through his 
 poverty, might be made rich. If, then, Christ was a 
 mere created and finite being, where was the extreme 
 condescension, the infinite disinterestedness of his love, 
 without which it cannot possess that constraining 
 efficacy which is ascribed to it in the Scriptures? The 
 enterprise in which he engaged was one so incon. 
 ceivably grand, and brought with it such an emolument 
 of dignity and of glory, that if he was a creature, his 
 philanthrophy should rather be attributed to motives 
 of personal ambition, and a desire of personal aggran- 
 disement. Where was the humiliation in a merely 
 created being consenting to undergo a few short hours 
 of suffering, no matter how intense, in order to be 
 elevated to a participation of the throne of the Eternal— 
 to be appointed to the government of the universe—to 
 receive the adoration and worship of all the inmates of 
 Heaven—to be recognised as the arbitrator of the final 
 
 Q 
 
174 
 
 destinies of man—and, in fact, to supersede the dominion 
 of Jehovah by an exertion of his prerogatives, and an 
 assumption of his glory ? By sucha representation the 
 benefit resulting to man would become insignificant and 
 unobservable, in. comparison with the immensity of 
 glory acquired by the Saviour. There must, in short, 
 be some sense in which even the Mediatorial exaltation 
 of the Son of God was an act of condescension, in order 
 that his object in undertaking the office might ex- 
 clusively refer to the welfare of his people; but this 
 cannot be the case on any. supposition which would 
 contradict his Deity, ) 
 
 8. It is necessary to believe in the Deity of Christ, 
 in order that we may not divert our affections from the 
 Supreme God, and attach them to acreature. It is the 
 express command of Scripture that we should regard 
 the benevolent interference of the Son of God as 
 deserving, on our part, the most intense devotion of 
 gratitude and love. The Apostle, for instance, prays 
 for the Ephesian Church, that they “ may be able to 
 comprehend, with all Saints, what is the height and 
 breadth, and length and depth, and to know the love 
 of Christ, which passeth knowledge.” Now a love 
 which passeth knowledge obviously requires, upon our 
 part, a gratitude equally inconceivable. Can we, then, 
 suppose the Gospel to be a system commanding us to 
 endeavour to approximate to an immeasurable amount 
 of gratitude to a created being, infinitely inferior to the 
 Supreme and everlasting Creator! But, admit the 
 Deity of Christ, and this moral anomaly is at once 
 removed; and then alone we can safely say; without 
 
175 
 
 danger of derogating from the exclusive prerogatives of 
 the Godhead—“ If any man love not the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, let him be anathema maranatha.” 
 
 I have merely suggested these remarks in a brief and 
 cursory manner, as subjects for the meditation of the 
 reader; and when he considers, with candid and 
 unprejudiced attention, the moralarguments they contain, 
 I have no hesitation to say that he will come to the 
 conclusion, that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is 
 that which constitutes the very essence and peculiarity 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 I have now finished my investigation of this 
 important subject, and commit it to the attentive 
 perusal of the reader with much diffidence and anxiety. 
 As my only motive was to endeavor to uphold religious 
 truth by strong Scriptural arguments, I have paid but 
 little attention to the embellishments of composition. 
 I know jot whether to anticipate a reply ; for it has 
 hitherto invariably happened, that the advocates of 
 Trinitarianism have been left in possession of the field. 
 Let the reader judge whether this may not be a tacit 
 acknowledgment, from those who oppose our sentiments, 
 that their cause is indefensible and weak. 
 
 THE END. 
 
10: Iw by a 
 weet 
 
 ci See 
 
 «& Me sii 
 oat “ph corraobinn wh simy- 
 
 mona pared 
 Novae soi as et | 
 
 ste 
 
 aia wh 
 
INDEX. is es Soe 
 
INDEX 
 
 OF 
 
 TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED IN THE PRECEDING 
 
 GENESIS, i, 26, 0 
 Wie 2ey ne 
 
 Exopus, vii. |, 
 
 x. 245. os 
 
 Numpers, xx. 12, 
 Deut. vi. 4, 
 PsauMs, Ixxxii. 6, 
 TsaraH, vi. 1, 
 
 vii. 14, 
 
 ix. 6, 
 Jer. xvii. 10, 
 Oxy. i. 16; 
 
 Maru. xviii. 20, ..- 
 
 xix. 16, 
 xix. 28, 
 xx. 23, 
 
 xxviii 19, ... 
 
 xxvilil. 20,... 
 
 Mark, ii. 28, 
 + -xili, 32, 
 LuKE, x. 2, 
 xiy, 10, 
 Joun, i. |, 
 in. LS, 
 Vell; 
 
 SS 
 PAGE 
 19 Joun,. vo 195 
 20 v. 23, 
 49 vii. 16, 
 68 x. 29, 
 Th x. 30, 
 18 xi et, 
 x ~649 xi. 41, 
 viplae xii. 49, 
 ot xiv. 25, 
 29 xiv. 28, 
 83 xvi. 23, 
 100 Xvil. 3, 
 68 xvii. 1], 
 87 Acts, i. 24, «0. 
 95 Ve oy 
 74 vil. 59, 
 2} xxiii. 9, 
 ins OS Romans, i. 20, 
 Pee ENS ix« Oj 
 . 84 KV. (Edy vee 
 . 160 I. Cor, ve Li. 
 .- 100 vi. 19, 
 36 vill. 6, 
 65 xii. 4, 
 ce kee xi, 8, 
 
 VOLUME. 
 
I. Cor. xy. 21, 
 xv. 23, 
 xv. 24, 
 II. Cor. xiii. 14 
 Epus. iii. 19, 
 iv. 6, 
 PHILL. ii. 6, 
 iv. 13, 
 Conte: 1 1Sy Gee 
 a. as can 
 Tet LD, sav 
 1 Oe ie 
 Pps eis 
 
 19, ee 
 
 I, TueEss, iii. 11, 
 
 PRINTED AT THE TELEGRAPH OFFICE, HILL-STREET, 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE, 
 » 149 
 . 149 
 . 145 
 
 23 
 
 60 
 
 17 
 
 61 
 
 12 
 
 67 
 
 9 
 
 shen 0o. 
 vor, LG 
 70 
 ce Oe 
 . 159 
 
 I. TueEss. iy. 8, 
 II. TuEss. iii. 5, 
 I. Tim. iii, 16, 
 Titus, ii. 13, 
 Hess. i. 8, ... 
 ii, 11, 
 if. “17; 
 I. Jonn, ii. 20, 
 v. 20, 
 Revs. i. 4, 
 eas A 
 ge 
 il. 14, ... 
 Mie oh tae 
 xxii. 20, 
 
 NEWRY: . 
 
 . 137 
 
 ode LO 
 . 150 
 
 - 106 
 
 PAGE. 
 - 156 
 we 160 
 
 46 
 
 42 
 
 82 
 44, 
 23 
 65 
 84, 
 66 
 76 
 
Date Due 
 
 aM 
 as'5 
 Sy. 
 Se 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
AY 
 etek b 
 
 vs 
 
Hone 
 
 e 
 
 et 
 wesc Satiesssesess: 
 erent pate 
 
 G 
 
 ee) 
 
 SS 
 MESES 
 SSaNS 
 Sosa assess 
 Shesetstebetse