^7 liii ^ s^ ^^ ^:^ i;a.^ I IF THE AT PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AGNE^V, or PHILADELPHIA, PA. Qyyb. I Case, Divisir- .J Z Shelf, ^^^^ .;• I BooK\ ^^^' i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Thepiogical Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/viewoftrinitytreOOsmit VIEW OF THE TRINITY. A TREATISE OJf THE OF AWD ON THE TRINITY IN UNITY OF THE GODHEAD; WITH cauotations from tlit iirfmitiijc JfatfitvB. SECOKD EPITIOIT. BY ETHAN SMITH, PASTOR OF A CHURCH IN POULTNET, (VT.) " Immanuel, — God with us." " la the name of the Father, an J of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." " Because he believeth not the record that Go4 gave of his Son." PWBLISHED AKB PRINTET) BT SMITH Si flHCnfKV POULTNEYvCvT.) ©(strict oi Wtvmont, To wit : BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the seventeenth day •of January, in the forty-eighth year of the independence of the United Stales of America, Smith & Shute, of the said Dis- trict, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right ■whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words following, to •wit : " View of the Trinity. — A Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity in Unity of the Godhead ; with Quotations from the Primitive Fathers. Second edition. By Ethan Smith, Pastor of a church in Poultney, Vt. 'Im- jnanuel, — God with us.' ' In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' 'Because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.' " In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times thereia mentioned." f JESSE GOVE, Clerk of the District of Vermont, A true copy of record, examined and sealed by J. GOVE, Clerf:. iiecommentrationsi* Rev. Dr. Emmons'. — " The Rev. E. Smith read to tne, some time Eigo, his Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, ani on the Trinity. I much approved of his sentiments ; and am Tery desirous that his piece should be published ; because I think it is ably executed, and directly calculated to refute some dangerous errors, which arc at the present day iadustrir eusly propagated. NATHANAEL EMMONS, Franklin, (Mass.) March 30, 1814." Rev. Dr. Grijin's. — '■'' I have had th« pleasure of hearing the Rev. E. Smith read a considerable part of his Treatise ott the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity ; and am one of those, "Who have urged him to lay this wortt before the public. In my opinion it is the most ample, consistent, and satisfactory exhibition of the Filiation of Christ, tl'at 1 have seen. The author has evinced an extensive acquaintance with the holy scriptures, and indefatigable industry in col- lecting their testimony. In this age of error, I cannot but think that the pubUcation of this work may be of essential service to the cause of truth ; and Co heartily wish it a gene- ral circulation, and the most distinguished success. E. D. GRIFFIN-. Boston, (Mass.) March23, IQW^ IT Rev. Dr. Morse's. — "I have examined with attention the Rev. E. Smith's work, entitled a Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on th't Trinity. In view of the errors of the times, of those particularly which have been spreading for some time past in this region,! consider this little volume as an excellent and very seasonable antidote to the poison of these errors. It is a work honorable to the tal- ents, the industry, the piety, and candor of its author. In this publication, I consider Mr. Smith as having rendered essential service to the Christian public, and that he has mer- ited their thanks and patronage. I earnestly wish it may be read by all on either side, who feel an interest in the existing^ controversy on these g^reat and fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Christ. JEDIDIAH MORSE. Ckarlestown, (Mass.) April 18, 1814." ^tJbrrtfscment It is but justice here to inform the reader, in order that he may intelligibly peruse the following treatise^ that for several years before the publication of the first edition, a certain branch of Unitarians in our land made a new attempt to promote the Unitarian ia- terest, by advancing the scheme and arguments, against which this treatise directs its eflforts. The scheme was conceived by its propagators to be m some important respects new ; and calculated to re- concile all parties. It was vindicated with abilitiest. Some became proselytes ; — many were for a time stumbled ; — and considerable expectations seemed to be excited among Unitarians generally. Regardless of names, or titles of books, this trea? tise was designed to examine the new scheme ; and to trace and refute its arguments. It was thought to be best calculated for good, co lead the attention of the reader abstractedly to the sentiments and argu- ments of our opponents ; without any consideration of names, or authorities. This plan was pursued. Most of the arguments and sentiments of this worB ^e such 99 apply to Unitarians of erery des«ripli«B ; 1* whether Arian or Socinian ; or to any new shade of either. The great doctrines of the Trinity in unity of the Godhead, and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding what is said of Christ's dependence on the Father, both as a man and in his office of mediation, are capable of scriptu- ral demonstrations | and must be viewed essential doctrines* #rcCacr, Itjs the remark of an eminent man, that "Divinity consists in speaking rn'ith the scrij)ture ; and in going no further.^'' By this rule I hope I shall strictly pro- ceed, in discussing the deep and interesting subject oi this treatise. The subject is a matter of mere Revelation. To this then, we ought to repair, and to abide by the decision there found. The mode of the divine existence is, of all things, the most mys- terious and sublime. And of all subjects, it demands the most solemn awe, self-diffidence, and humble reliance on the dictates of Revelation. Learn what the Bible says upon that subject, and the point is gained. This is all that man can do. It is not only vain, but impious to object to the point thus decid- ed, because unfathomable depths of mystery at- tend it. The universe is full of mystery. Man is of yester* day, and knows nothing. If he have learned enough to take an intelligent survey of God's works, he is confounded wherever he turns his eyes. He looks at immensity of space, and is lost in wonder. He contemplates the planetary system, and the starry A. vm heavens, with amazement. On earth he finds a world of objects, each one of which is attended with insolvable questions ; not excepting the smallest in- sect. After man's highest improvements in philoso- phy and science, he has learned only to feel, most exquisitely, that his knowledge is as nothing. Unex- plored regions of wonder glimmer upon his astonish- ed sight. Many objections occur to men, less informed, rela- tive to subjects proposed, which they deem unan- swerable, or conclusive against the proposed point ; but which objections, on better information, they find to be of no weight. Let many persons be in» formed, that there are thousands of people on the other side of the earth, directly opposite to us, with their feet towards ours, and their heads directly the other way ; who yet feel themselves on the top of the globe, and think we are beneath them ; and the account appears to these illiterate hearers impossi^ ble. They will make objections against it, which ap- pear to them unanswerable ; but at which the man of real information smiles. How vain then, are the objections, made by worms of the dust, against what God has revealed of him' self! Who can comprehend the infinite, eternaL in- dependent Jehovah ? " Canst thou by searching find out God ? — It is high as heaven ; what canst thou do ? Deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ?'* *' The world by wisdom knew not God." *' The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." We are confounded, when we think of ra- tional, spiritual essences. How infinitely more so? when we think of the eternal, independent, omnipo- tent, omniscient Spirit 1 We are lost in an ocean, without a bottom, or a shore ! What shall direct our faith in such a case ? The Word, the unerring Word of God ! This is the only compass, the only pohir star, on such an ocean. What God informs of him- self is to be received with humble, adoring faith ; though the subject exceed our comprehension, as far as God is above man. Not a word of cavil, or unbe- lief should escape the lip, or be conceived in th6 heart. Man is blessed with three sources of information * his senses ^ reason, and faith or Revelation. Ti ese rise above each other. The senses furnish materials for reason ; and reason discovers the need and evi- dence of Revelation. But faith alone embraces the subime dictates of Revelation. Reason judges, where the senses cannot perceive. And futh embr^es what reason cannot suggest, much less comprehend. Sense and reason read the language of Revelation ; and then must wait for faith adoringly to embrace what God suga^ests. Reason is never to be imperti- nent in her objections, or questions, when God speaks. This is leaving her province, and committing herself to the ocean of injidelity. Here is the fatal charyb- dis, which has ingulfed millions in skepticism and ruin. Relative to the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, of his Sonship, and of the Trinity in Unity of the Godhead, Revelation is our only guide. Find the plainest language of the Bible upon these points, and there we will hold; let whatever objections or difli- culties seem to attend. Where reason fiils, let faitU adore ! My object in this Treatise is to ascertain the rue sense of the sacred Oracles upcn the subjects proposed ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual;- THE AUTHOK>:> IlopkirUony Feb. 12, 1812a S2S'S2!S)S? 2 WHAT WAS THE fiREAT QUESTION CONXERNING JESUS CHRIST, AFTER HE ENTERED HIS PUBLICK MINISTRY ON EARTH ? A variety of publications have appeared, insist- ing that Jesus Christ, in his highest nature, is lit- tralhj the Son of God. as much as was Isaac the son of Abraham, — or Seth the son of Adam. To prove this proposition, the testimonies of Christ that he was the Sun of God, and the questions and confessions of others in relation to the same point, in the first Christian age, are in these books addu- ced as direct in pomt, to prove such a literal deri- vation of Christ from God, To ascertain whether there be anv weight in such proof, we have first to ascertam what wae the question concerning Jesus Christ, when he was ©n earth, and in the apostolic age. We read of Christ's being *' declared to be the Son of God with power, — by his resurrection from the dead." Here is one decision of the great question of that day ; and it is, that Christ was the Son of God. No doubt this implies all the great truths involved in his mediatorial name and char- acter. But it looks more immediately at one point, which is now to be asrertamed. This point was the great question of that day concerning him. And what was this ? Was it, w^hether Christ's 12 highest nature was actually derived from God, as a son from a father, and thus began to exist, and is totally dependent ? Or was this the great ques- tion concerning Christ ? Was Jesus of Nazareth the true Messiah / Or was he an impostor? Do we diid at that day any such question as the folio ^mg ? In what sense is the promised Messiah the Son of God ? VViiat is the mode of his div u^.e existence? Was his Divinity derived? Or was it underived ? Is it dependent ? Or is it indepen- dent ? Is it eternal ? Or had it a beginning ? Was not this the great question of that day ? Was he, wlio was born of Mary, and who was re- puted to be the carpenter's son, who preached and wrought miracles, was re-ected by the Jews, as an impostor ; but was received by many, ps the Mes- siah ; was this the Saviour of the world ? Was he indeed that wonderful person, so long foretold, and promised under various titles ; and among the rest, was to be known as the Son of God ? Or was he an impostor ? Let this question be decided, and we at once de- termine what was the most hteral sense of the texts, which speak of Christ's being declared to be the Son of God ; of man's beheving, or disbe- lieving that Jesus was the Son of God. If the great question was not concerning a literal Sonship of the Divinity of the Messiah ; but concerning the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth ; then what was said, at that period, concerning his being the Son of God, decides nothing relative to their views of the ground of his Sonship ; or of a lit- eral derivation of his Divinity from God, as from a father. liui this w^as the great point of contest at that day ; Is this Jesns of Nazareth the Christ of God? The Jews deuied > Jesu* allirmed j and his mira- 13 ^le?, doctrines, life, death, resurrection, and as€efi»- sion to glory, all united to evince the truth of his affirmation. When they askedChrist, " Art thou the Son of God ? and he said, I am ;" this was the meaning 5 Art thou the promised Messiah^ and he said. I am. John the Baptist from the prison proposed the very question of that day : '' Art thou he, that should come ? Or do we look for another ?" The woman of Samaria says, "Come see a man, that told me all that ever I did : Is not this the Christ?" Let the Jews themselves decide this point. " Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." And the Jews had agreed, that if any did confess him to be Christ, they should be put out of the synagogue. The hii^h priest said to Christ, " I adjure thee, by the living God, ihat thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Christ said to his disciples, " But whom do ye say that I am ? And Peter answereth — Thou art the Christ." No question relative to a literal Sonship of Christ's Divinity appears to be contained in these testimo- nies. But the question then in agitation w?-S, rel- ative to his being the Christ, and not an impostor. In Math. xvi. 20, the disciples were exhorted to " tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." It was because Jesus laid claim to this high character, that the high priest rent his clothes, in pretence of horror at the blasphemy ; and not from any idea that Christ asserted a hteral Sonship of his Divin- ity. The Jewish rulers said, and were vexed, that Christ's claim "made himself equal with God." And again ; " Because that thou, being a man, ma- kest thyself God." Christ told them, " If ye be- Peve not that I am he (the true Messiah) ye shall 14 die in your sins.''* He did not mean, it ye believe not that I am a derived, dependant being, ye shall die in your sins : But, if ye believe not that I am the true Messiah, ye shall die in your sins. He -said again ; " If any man will do his will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God ; or whether I speak of myself." Did Christ mean, that such an one should know, at once, that his Divinity was derived ? Or that he should know, that his doctrine was the doctrine of God ? The latter, most certainly ! As John xx. 31, "These are written, that ve might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Now therefore, when we read of Christ's being •' declared to be the Son of God with power ;" and of the confession of some of the primitive converts, *'I believe that Jesus is the Son of God;" we must conclude that the passa^s^es do not relate to a derivation of Christ's Divinity from God, as from a Father; but to rhe real Messiahship of Je- sus of Nazareth ; and to there being salvation in him, and in him only. They relate to the same point, which Paul felt, when he was " pressed in spirit, and testified, that Jesus is the Christ." The evidence of this truth is ample. John says, "Here- by know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." Here was the great external criterion of tlvit day. It was not to believe in a literal Sonship of Christ's Divinity ; but to believe, that Christ had come in the flesh ; or to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah ; in opposition to the clamours of Jews and infidels, that Jesus was an impostor. The proper manifestation of this be- lief at that day, wag far more unpopular and dan- 15 gerous, than is the support of any point of Chris- tian doctrine, at this period. Hence, duly to maintain that profession, at that day, was viewed as the best external evidence of a gracious state. Accordingly, the same apostle says again, " Who- soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But when I remark, that a derivation of Christ's Divinity from God, as a son from a father, does not appear to have been any question at the com- mencement of the gospel day ; but that the point in debate was, whether Jesus was the true Messi- ah*? I do not mean to suggest, that this point, whether he was, or was not really God, was a mat- ter of any degree of indifference ; or was not un- derstood and decided. 1 do not mean to admit, that the Arian, or Socinian, may receive any de- gree of countenance from the views of the peo- ple of that day. For this I do not believe. When the people were then taught, that Je- sus was the Christ, the reference was immedi- ately had to the Old Testament, to decide who the Christ was, as to his being and character. And this, in the question of that day, (whether Je- sus was the Christ.) appears to have been takeo as a point decided, that Christ was included in the true and living God. This appears to have been the case, from the remarks of the Jews, that his claiming to be the Messiah, was " making himself God ;" also from the testimony of Thomas, when convinced of his Messiahship. " I\Iy Lord, and my God !" and from the tenor of the Old Testament language concerning the Messiah ; as I shall have occasion to show. I see no room to doubt, that the general opinion at that day concerning the Messiah, was. that he is the "Mighty God; tli£ Everlasting Father; the Jehovah of Hosts ; the 1 AM ; one wiih God; and really God, For they 16 had been taught all this in their holy scriptures^. But when Jesus appeared, born and brought up a- mong them, gi'owing in wisdom and stature, like other children and youth, in a low grade of life,, and perhaps laboring as a mechanic : — it seemed to the haughty Jews impossible, that this should be that " Mighty God, and Everlasting Father." ex- pected as the Messiah ! This, together with his administration's being so diverse from their fond preconceived notions of their own temporal ag- grandize rnent under the reign of the Messiah, led them to '* stumble at that stumbling stone." They would not believe that this was the Messiali. Hence this became the very question of the day. And those who properly received Jesus as the Christ, received him in the very character, in which he had been held up in the Old Testament. Christ said to the Jews, " Search the scriptures : for — they are they that testify of me." And they did testify, that he was one with God, and was God ; the I AM ; the Jehovah of Hosts ; the God of Israel, as will be shown under the section on the Divinity of Christ. The Jew s had been abundantly taught, through the law and the prophets, that they must " wor- ship the Lord their God, and him only." " Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," was a prime article in their law. Yet when one and another embraced the sentiment, that Jesus was the Christ, they made no scruple of paying him divine honors. This shows, that they understood their scrip- tures to teach, that Christ is one with God, inclu- ded in the pronoun ME in the first command, be- fore whom no other, under the name of God, was to be admitted ; and that he was thus included in the Lord their God, whom only they should serve. This accounts for even the most incredulous o£ 17 the apostles warmly acknowledging him, " My Lord, and my God." But no account could be given of all this, if the Jews had viewed the Mes- iiah to be a distinct Being from the one only liv- ing and true God. The Jews, it is believed, held to a Trinity ia the Godhead. The idea that they did not, can by no means be admitted ; notwithstanding all that infidel Jews, of later date, have suggested. Theif scriptures did teach a Trinity in the Godhead :— w God, the Prince of Peace, and the Spirit of the Lord. We may safely presume, that the pious Jews did believe their own scriptures in this point, as well as others. The celebrated Bishop Horsley, (in answer to the idea in Dr. Priestly, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an obstacle to the conversion of the Jews,) says, " In their most ancient Targums, as well as in allusions in their sacred books, they^ (the Jews at the time of their restoration) will find the notion of one Godhead in a Trinity of Persons. And they will perceive that it was in contradiction to the Christians, that later rabbins abandoned the notion of their forefathers," — Hence the bishop speaks of it, as a " wretched expedient," to deny the doctrine of the Trinity with a view to encourage the restoration of the Jews. And he adds, " the Unitarian scheme of Christianity is the last therefore, to which the Jews are likely to be converted ; as it is most at enmity with their ancient faith." This author a- gain says, " the deification of the Messiah, was not that, which gave offence to the Jews ; but th« assertion, that a crucified man was -that divine Person." And again. "The Jews in Christ's day had notions of a Trinity in the divine nature. They expected the second Person, wh#m tkey 18 called the Logos, to come as the Messiah. For the proof of these assertions, (he says) I will refer you to the works of a learned Doctor Peter Allix, entitled, The Judgment of the ancient Jewish church against the Unitarians. An anonymous work, (the Bishop further adds) entitled. Histori- cal Vindication, or The naked Gospel ; supposed to have been written by Le Clerc, printed in 1690, in vindication of Unitarians, acknowledged, that the Jews were Trinitarians : But says, they de- rived it from the Platonic philosophy ; — as did the first Christians from the same Platonism of the Jews."* The fact, that the Jews were Trinitari- ans, is all we wish. We shall form our own opin- ion relative to the source, whence they, and the first Christians, derived the sentiment. The evidence I conceive to be very ample, that the great point in dispute, when Christ appeared in the flesh, was. Is this the Messiah ? Is this Je- sus, that sacred Person, who is to be known under the divine designation of the Son of God ? If the affirmative were granted, they had no further dispute who he was. He was the Logos ; the second Person in the Trinity of heaven ; one with God. Hence the Jewish rulers charged him, that he being a man, made himself God : And again, *' making himself equal with God." No declaration then, of Christ, or of others, at that day, that Christ was the Son of God, affords the least evidence in favor of a literal derivation of his Divinity from God, as a son from a father ; nor of his inferiority to the Father. And all at- tempts to obtain evidence in this way, in favor Sit such a derivation, are illusory and vaiD. ♦ Tract?, p. 216. §mm^^^ m. "^ ON THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. Miicliy we read of his Sonship, and of his divine Father, Are we not hence taught, that Christ, in his divine nature, was derived from God, as reallj as was Isaac from Abraham ? Answer, Merely Christ's being called the Son of God, leads to no such conclusion. There are children constituted, as well as children derived. Yea, there are children in fig- ures as well as literal children. God is " the fath- er of the rain, and begets the drops of the dew," — because he produces them. Angels are called the sons of God, because he formed them in his own image. Adam for the same reason is called the son of God. Men are said to be God's off- spring. Christians are pecuharly the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, because they are adopted into his family ; — possess his Spirit ; — • cry Abbe, Father ; and he is making them meet fo be partakers of the inheritance of the saints ia light. The circumstance then, of Christ's being called the Son of God, no more necessarily imphes that his Divinity was derived from God, than the term when applied to other beings implies that they were literally deriv^ed from the divine nature. No «ioubt there is a peculiarity in Christ's relation to. 20 God, as a Son. He is hence called God's owm Son ; — his only Son ; — his only begotten. But those phrases do not necessarily enforce the idea, that the Divinity of Christ was derived from God. And other scriptures utterly forbid such an idea, ars I shall endeavor in future pages to make ap- pear. The Divinity of Christ is " without father, without mother, without descent ; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time." What sentiments then, does the word of God furnish, relative to the Sonship of Jesus Christ ? It teaches that Christ is a Son, (in a sense) literal- ly ; and also he is figuratively the Son of God. He has two natures in his one Person. One of them was begotten of God, in the womb of the virgin Mary ; — which is a reason, expressly assign- ed by God himself, why Christ is called the Son of God. And Christ in both his natures, Divine and human, was, as our Mediator, inducted — con- stituted — begotten — into his mediatory office, in which he was perfectly obedient to God, as a per- fect son obeying a father. And Christ was begot- ten (raised) from the dead, to his inheritance in glory ; as 1 shall endeavor to show. The Sonship of Christ clearly originates in his being begotten of God. This is decided by in- spiration : Psalm ii. 7 ; "I will declare the de- cree: the Lord hath said unto me. Thou art mj Son 5 this day have I begotten thee.'' Find the fullilment then, of this passage, and we infallibly find the true origin of Christ's Sonship. It is evi- dent that this passage in the second Psalm was a prediction of something then future. The event predicted existed at the time when David wrote the Psalm, only in the divine counsel; It was in the eternal counsel x)f God, that the second Person in the Trinity should become a Mediator, and be 21 knOwil'as the Son of God. In this sen?e. he was *' the eternal Sou of God." Kut the actual event, noted in this Psalm ae the only ground of Christ-s Filiation, was then only in decree* Ascertain therefore, when and how it was fulfilled ; and the true origin of the Sonship is ascertained. But we find it clearly ascertained when, and how it was fulfilled. It was not at some period before the foundation of the world. It was not in the an- cient times of the Old Testament. It was when the fuhiess of time was come for the Messiah to appear. The text is applied by the Holy Ghost, to the time and manner of Christ's coming in the flesh ; or his miraculous conception ; to his ioduc- tion into his office, as the Prophet, and especially the High Priest of his people 5 and to his resurrec- tion from the dead, and exaltation to glory. To the first it was applied, as in a sense literally fulfil- led ; and therefore in a sense which exhibits the primary reason of the Mediator''s being called, the Son of God. And to the two other occasions a- bove hiiiled, the noted text in the second Psalm is applied, as in a figurative sense fulfilled. We find the humanity of Christ begotten, at the time of his coming in the flesh. We also find the Person of the Mediator represented as begotten, by in- duction into his public character, especially as Pligh Priest. And we find him represented as •' be;j;otten from the dead.'* and to his inheritance in glory, when he passed from his humiliation, to his exaltation. Where the character, relation and circumstan- ces of father and son are perfect, the relation of 3on involves the three ideas of generation, filial obedience, and inheritance. The first is essential to a literal son. And the second is involved, where the character and circumstances are per- '22 feet, S'lch a son will certainly obey his lather. This is essential to the niiai heart, and the perfect filial character. And inlieritin^, as King of kings, and Lord of lords. Thus the passages in the Old Testament, which speak of Christ's Filiation, and the origin of it, are bythe Spirit of Inspiration construed as predictions of events then future, a!id actually fulfilled after the fulness of time came for God to be manifest in the flesh. And never is the least intimation given, that those passages relate to any derivation of the Divinity of Christ from God, at some period then past. Nor do they admit of such a construction. We find no hint of such a thing. The apostle says, Gal. iv, 4 ; ^' But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a wo- man ; made under the law, to redeem them that were underthe law, that we might receive the adop- tion of sons." Here we learn how Christ beccme God's Son. He was '• made of a woman :" and " made uiider the law." He was God's Son, be- cause God be^jat his humanity ; and because he was made a Priest under the law, to obey and to atone. The many scriptures in the New Testa- ment, which speak of God as the Father of Christ ; and which speak of Christ as the Son of God, and as the begotten of the Father, must surely be so construed as to accord with the sense of those primitive texts, in the Old Testament, which have been noticed *, and which the Holy Ghost has de- cided, do apply to the coming of Christ in the flesh, and to subsequent events, which have been Hoted. We are thus furnished with an infallible clue, bj which to tind the true sense of the many passages in the New Testament, which relate to the Sonship of Christ. They can have no relation to any event before the world was ; such as a deriva- tion of the Divinity of our Saviour from God. They can have no relation to any Filiation of Christ, not founded in that divine generation of him in the second Psalm, which has been explained. Objection, But is not this giving up a great ar- gument, on which reliance has been made by Trinitarians, to prove the real Divinity of Jesus Christ? Answer, We have conclusive arguments enough, to prove the eternal and proper Divinity of Christ. We need no lame arguments. The supposition, that Christ in his highest nature is derived from God. is so far from proving his real Divinity, that it fully disproves it. It supposes the Divinity of Christ to be intinitely posterior, and infinitely infe- rior to the Father ; and therefore, that he is at an infinite remove from being truly God. The truth of this deduction is demonstrated, prima facie, in its own statement. The idea, that as a man prop- agates his offspring, who becomes a real man, equal to his father ; so God has propagated his di- vine offspring, who has become really God ; is aa awful absurdity ! The heathen used, to imagine that their gods propagated their various species. Families of gods existed in the imaginations of the poets. And, what was very congenial to this opin- ion, they supposed their gods to have had goddes- ses ; and that these celestial pairs were possessed of all the passions incident to man. Being famil- iar with these opinions from childhood, it would not have been strange, if some of the primitive proselytes to Christianity, hearing that Christ is 34 Ae Son of God, should annex this idea to the phrase, and imagine that the divine Person of Christ was hterally derived from God, as a son from his father, in some mysterious sense, while yet Christ was eternal. But such a derivation of a Person truly divine, is impossible ; as I shall en- deavour to show in a subsequent section. ■• i,^mz(^^ m^ FURTHER REMARKS RELATIVE TO THE SOXSHIP OF CHRIST. If the Divinit}' of Christ were literally propaga- ted by the Most High, in some period before the creation of the world ; and this be an important point to be believed ; why was it not clearly re- vealed in the Old Testament? How strange, that we should tind there so little, if any clear evidence, that the relation of Father and Son then actaally existed between the two tirst Persons in the sacred Trinity ! We find those two Persons (and the three divine Persons in the Godhead) abundantly noted in the Old Testament. But we have no conclusive evidence in that sacred book, that a literal Father and Son then existed among them. The Mediator himself is there predicted, as the " everlasting Father ;" Isai. ix. 6 ; yet not so in the economy of Grace. In the Hebrew it is, *' The Father of eternity ;" which shows that he is the infinite God indeed ! In the forenoted text, 2 Sam. vii. 14 ; we have no intimation, (as has been remarked,) that God was then actually Father to the Logos, or Messiah, in Heaven. But that this relation should be man- ifested, in due time. In the other text, Psalm ii. 7, it has been shown that the relation of Father and Son was not revealed as existing at that time, •niy in the diviiie purpose. And that this divine 36 purpose was primarily fulfilled when Christ's hu- manity was divinely begotten. lu the prediction noted, Psalm Ixxxix. 27, Christ's Sonship was a relation then future. " I will make him first-born." " He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father." By many titles the Mediator was known in the Old Testament ; hut never by the title of Son, as being then actually the Son of God. Christ was known as the Seed of the woman (who was to come) the Seed of Abraiiam, Shiloh, the Shepherd, the Stone of Is- rael, the Star to arise, the Prophet to be raised up, the Lord^s Anointed, Immanuel, or God with us, the Messiah, the Messenger of the covenant, the Angel, the Angel of God's presence, the Ancient of days, the Branch, the Sun of righteousness, the Desire of all nations, the chief corner Stone, Elect, Precious, God's Servant, Wonderful, Coun- sellor, the mighty God. the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, a Leader and Commander of his people, a Coveiiai-t, Michael, the Lord, Jehovah, the Jehovah of hosts, the Redeemer, the Holy One, a Refuge, a Rod from the stem of Jesse, I Am, I Am that J Am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers. — These last mentioned titles of God, the Anfjel of the Lord, in the burning bush, assum- ed, as will be noted in a future section. Seme of these titles indicated what the Mediator then was ; the infinite, eternal God : And others, what he should be demonstrated to be, when he should be manifest in tliC iiesh, and known as the Son of God. But among all his many titles, he was never repre- sented, as then actually the Son of God in heaven. Christ was then no more actually the Son of God^ than he was actually the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David, the Branch, 37 or any other name, fulfilled only when he appeaur ed in the flesh. Two texts, which have heen supposed by some to speak of Christ, as being then the Son of God, I think have been misapplied. Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed, relative to the pei-sons, whom he be- held in his fiery furnace, that the form of the fourth was hke unto the Son of God. But who could this heathen idolater mean, by the Son of God ? -He must have meant, some son of some god. What did he know of the God of Israel ? or of the expected Messiah ? He believed in heathen gods and goddesses ; and in their propagation of their offspring. And his guilty conscience and frighten- ed imagination suggested to him, that this miracu- lous deliverer of the victims of his impious rage, must be a son of a god ; probably of the God of Israel. But we cannot learn from this confession of a heathen, who then had his vassal sub ects convened before him to worship a golden god ; — and had just tauntingly said to them. Who is that god. that shall deliver you out of my hands ? that the Messiah of the Jews was known, as being then actually the Son of God ; and so familiarly known too, as that this idolater in a heathen land, would recognize him at first sight, and so readily speak of him under this title. To me this is utterly in- credible. In Prov. XXX. 4, we read, " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended ? Who hath gather- ed the wind in his fists ? Who hath bound the waters in a garment ? Who hath established all the ends of the earth ? What is his name ? Or what is his son's name, if tliou canst tell ?" Some may imagine the son here means the Son of God ? But I think this is not the case. The subject of the inquiry, in this text, is not God, but m^^*^ 4 38 VVIiat man can you imagine has done these things? Tliis appears evident from the words of Christ, John iii. 13, where, in allusion to this text, he says, " No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven." And as the subject of infjuiry, in that text, is a man; so the son spoken of must be the son of the same man. Accord- ingly, an eminent expositer gives this paraphrase upon the passage : " l( thou think there be any such man, who can do these things, I challenge thee to produce his name. Or if he be long since dead, and gone out of the world, produce the name of any of his posterity, who can assure us that their progenitor was such 8 person." But if the Son in this passage mean Christ, he was then a Son only by prolepsis, as he was the son of Da- vid : because he was to appear in this character. In Hosea xi. 1, we read, " When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt." So far as this relates to Christ, and is applied to him by the evangelist, " Out of Egypt have 1 called my Son," it is a prolepsis ; or a pre- vious calling of Christ, God's Son, because h^ was to be known as the Son of God, when the passage, as it related to Christ, should be fulfilled, by his actually coming from Egypt. But the text in Hosea, to which the evangelist alludes, conveys no idea, that the Messiah in heaven, when the words were spoken, was God's Son. And the al- lusion of the evangelist to the words, above noted, does not convey such an idea. The word son there literally relates to Israel, who was God's son, his first-born ; see Exodus iv. 22, 23. The above remark may suggest the true expo- sition of the only three remaining texts, in the Old Testament, in which the Mediator may by 39 any be supposed to be spoken of, as the Son of God. These three relate imniediatel} to Gospel times, when Christ was to be known as the Son of God. Isai. ix. G, " For unto us a cliild is born ; unto us a Son is given ; and the government shall be upon his shoulder." — Surely this related to the time when Christ should be manifested in the flesh. And if the Son. in this text, mean Son of God, it seems to me so far from indicating, that he, in his divine nature then in heaven, was liteially the Son of God, that it clearly indicates, that he was not to be known as really the Son of God, till lie was the " Child born." '* Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given." Ezek. xxi. 10, predicting the destruction of the Jews first by the king of Babylpn, but ultimately by God's gre.at and sharp sword, the Romans, it is said, " It con- temneth the rod of my son as every tvee."^^ 1 ap- prehend the term son here has no relation to Christ, but to the Jews. Israel was called God's son ; Exodus iv. 22, 23 ; " Thus shalt thou say tmto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold I will slay thy son, even thy first-born." It is in immediate al- lusion to this passage, that we read in the fore- cited passage in Hosea. " When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my, son out of E^^ypt." And it is natural to suppose the passage under consideration, " It contemneth the rod of my son as every tree," is an allusion to the same teyA, and means the Jews. The translators ur;dejstood it so; and hence wrote the word son without a capital. But should any say, it may mean Christ : 1 answer ; It may typically, and by a prolepsis. Christ was known as the Son of God, when tl>e 40 text was faliilled !n the destruction of the Jews by God^s sword, the Romans. And both tl^ Jews and the Romans did, at that time, contemn Christ. The only remaining iex.t in the Old Testament, where Christ is spoken of as a Son, is most evi- dently a prolepsis ; speaking of him as Son, be- cause he would be known, as the Son of God, when that prophecy should be fulfilled. This is in the second Psalm. This Psalm is a prediction of Christ- s coming in the flesh, and of gospel times. The apostle applies the beginning of the Psalm to the raging of the enemies of Christ under the Gospel. Acts iv. 25, " Who by the mouth of thy servant David hath said, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and their rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ." He proceeds to note the conduct of Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the people of Israel, in their treatment of Christ, as forming a fulfil- ment of the passage. The Psalmist proceeds to predict the impious language of tlie enemies of Christ, both of the infidel Jews, and of the atheis- tical Antichrist of the last days ; to predict the extent of Christ's kingdom, to the uttermost parts of the earth ; (an event never fulfilled under the Old Testament) and to predict Christ's dashing his enemies to pieces with a rod of iron ; first the Jews, and then the antichristian nations, as we may conceive ; upon which the nations, at that period of judgments, are warned, and exhorted to " serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trem- bling : kiss the Son ; lest he be angry, and ye pe^ rish." — The whole was a prediction of events under the Gospel, when Christ is to be known, as the Son of ^od. He is in this passage called the 41 Son, in relation to that then far distant event; pre- cisely as in verse 7th, hefore cited, his appearing in the flesh was predicted. But no passage in this Psalm does by any means decide, tliatthe ?tlessiah, then in heaven, was, in his divine Person, literally the Son of God. And we find no intimation of such a thing in the Old Testament. But how can this be accounted for, if the Person of the Media- tor, then in heaven, were literally the Son of God? The two first Persons in the Godhead are, in the Old Testament, abundantly known by other titles : but never by Father and Son. They are called God, and the Lord ; or God. and Jehovah ; God, and Immanuel; the Lord, and his Anointed; God, and the Angel of the covenant ; God, and the Je- hovah of hosts; God, and the Captain of the Lord's hosts ; God, and the Angel of his presence; but never the Father and the Son. The exhibition of this relation was deferred to the time of Im- manuePs appearing in the flesh. Then it was, that he should be made first-born. Then the in- fallible voice from on high should testify to the ful- filment of the decree, of God's begetting him, and owning him for a Son. These things do not seem to indicate, that a belief in an actual Sonship or de- rivation of the Divinity of Christ, is to be an ar- ticle of the Christian faith. Had it been thus, we might expect to have found it clearly taught in the Old Testament, and that the Son of God would have been the great title, by which Christ would have been known under that dispensation. The title of Son, under the gospel, is only on^ among many of the mediatory titles of Christ. And is much more frequently spoken, ©f, under some of his other titles, than under that of thefSon of God. He is called the Son of man nearly twice as often. John (who it is said wrote his 4^ 42 gospel with a peculiar view to evince the Divinity of Christ) tirst calls him the Logos, the Word, who (he says) was in the beginning with God, and was God ; and by whom all things were made. AVhy did he not here, when introducing the very Person, whose Divinity he was going to substantiate, (and did in the very first sentence assert.) gi ■ e him his great and appropriate title, the Son of God, if his divine nature were actually derived ? If such a Sonship were indeed Christ's highest glory, ^nd were to be a prime article in the Christian faith, why should we not here at least, find it to be the title, under which the Person of the Messiah is in- troduced ? Is it not natural to expect, that John v/ould here give to Christ his highest title ? The title here actually given by John to Christ. v.hen he informs, that he was with God. and was God. is the same with that given to Christ, as One in the Trinity. 1 John v. 7 : "• For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are One.*** And the title hei-e given is the same with that, under which Christ appears, when, as the Captain of sal- vation, he is riding forth upon his white horse of victory, at the battle of the great day of God Al- rniiihtv. Rev. xix. \3 ; " And his name is called the Word of God.^' But v/hen this divine Logos appeared in the flesli, then he was to be known as the Son of God. Then he was to be exhibiled, as being begotten of (jiod. and made God's first-born. Accordingly from that time he was often called the Son of God. A.nd thus John proceed< to inform ; " The AVord was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we be- * The objection^ against the authority cf •l.-s lexl wilt be xjonsiJere?! ii» their ylaoe, in a iuture =ect.if-P. 43 licld his glorj, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Here the writer was preparing the way to have this Logos, after he appeared in the flesh, called the Son of God, as he aftenvards often calls him. He then says, ''No man hath seen God at any time : the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.* The Logos, now manifest in the flesh, and who has thus become the only begotten of God, he hath declared God. Here John gives the transition, from the Mediator's being the Logos in heaven, one w^ith God, and really God ; to his becoming God manitcst in the flesh, and known as the Son of God. John, after this, often speaks of Christ as the Son of God. These remarks will unfold the sense of some other scriptures, which, at first view, seem to im- ply, that Christ w^as known as actually the Son of God. before his incarnation. * " No man hath seen Gotl at any time.'' This clause fur- nishes no objectiun agaiust the real anJ },roj cr I)ivinity ot" Jesus Christ. Fare Deity is an iclinite Spirit, invisible. The Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, as well as that ot the Father, is thus : No man ever saw the Divinity of Christ, with the bodily eye. But Christ has assumed a medium, which men have literally beheld. We see not a human soul. But we see a man by the medium of his body. The divine Logos, when he would appear to man, under the Old Testament, ever ■assumed some miraculous appearance, as a medium, which man might behold. This, as well as his body, in after days, was seen ; while yet it is a truth, that " No man hath seen God at any time." And yet Christ is the true and the great GcJ. Christ declared, "^ He that hath seen me, hath seen the Fatlier also." And of the Jev/s ; — ^- They have both seen and hated both me and my Father." Yet, " No man hath seen God at any time." The seeing in this latter text means soeing pure Divinity with the bodily eye. But the Jews had seen Chriit and the Father, in the miracles and wonder?, which had evinced tiieir Divinity and the truth of their doctrines. Those texts then are no contradiction. And no evidence is furnished ir\ them ;!gai;:st the pure Divinity of Christ; 44 '■* Unto the Son, God saith, Thy throne O God, is forever and ever." This, at first thought, seems to imply, tliat Christ was the Son, when God thus addressed him : " Unto tlie Son, God saith" — The sense of the passage is this : aUnto the divine Logos in heaven, but now known as the Son, God saith. Tiiis is evident from the passage in the Old Testament here quoted, where God thus addressed the Person now called the Son. The passage is Psalm xlv. 6 ; " Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever ; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre." Neither in this passage, nor in its con- texts, is any mention made of a Son. The Me- diator is there spoken of as the King, fairer than the children of men ; and the most Mighty. Bat now being known as the Son of God, the apostle says, " Unto the Son, God saith" — i. e. unto Da- vid's King, who is the Most Mighty, but now known as the Son, God spake the words. Again we read ; " When he bringeth his first Begotten into the world, he saith. And let all the Angels of God worship him." This, it may be said, seems to imply, that Christ was God's first Begotten before he was brought into the world ; or his divine Person was the Son of God, while in heaven, before his incarnation. But the passage quoted teaches no such thing ; therefore the quo- tation can mean no such thing. The passpge quot- ed is in Psalm xcvii. where nothing is found of a first Begotten. The Person there, who in the quotation to the Hebrews, is called God's first Be- gotten, is called the Lord, or Jehovah, reigning with clouds and darkness round about him, but righteousness and judgment being the habitation of his throne. " A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His light- ning lightened the wdrld 5 the earth saw it and 46 trembled. The hills melted like wax at the pre= sence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whok earth. The heavens declare his right- eousness, and all the people see his glory. Con- founded be all they, that worship graven images^ that boast themselves of idols ; Worship him, all ye gods ;" or Angels — (as the Septuagint, and the apostle in the above quotation, render it.) Not a word is said here of the Messiab^s being at that time God's first Begotten. Here he is the great and infinite Jehovah of the whole earth, in all the glory of the true God. But when God becomes manifest in the flesh, then the Father saith, " And let all the anofels of God worship him." And he is now presented, in humanity, as God's first Be- gotten. Again. " God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Let the passages just explained by their primitive texts, decide the sense of this. iTea, let John, in his introduction of the Messiah, decide the sense of it. God so loved the svorld, that he sent his beloved and adorable Logos, who was in the begin- ning with God. and was God, one with the Father ; but who was now in human nature manifest to his people, as God's only begotten Son. The title under which he is now known, is given ; but nut the title, under which he was known, or which did apply to his Divinity, when God determined to send him. The apostle, Gal. iv. 4, affords a clew to ex- plain this point. " But when the fulness. of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the Jaw, that we might receive the adoption of sons." — Here, when the time of the 46 promise arrived, God sent his Son. How was the Person, who was now sent. God's Son ? The pas- sage informs; "made of a woman; made under the law ;" to redeem and save. Christ here was made the Son ofGod,b> the miraculous producing of his hum.anity from the virgin Mary, that he might do the work of the Mediator; that he might exer- cise that filial obedience under the law, essential to his mediaton*-;! character, and to man's salva- tion. This is the plain sense of the above text. And it perfectly accords with the words of Gabriel to Mary; and with the account given of this sub- ject in " the book of the generation of Jesug Christ." Again. " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." — This may relate to the days of Christ on earth, when he was known ^s the Son of Gad. God did not then spare him ; but '• laid on him the iniquities of us all." He, who was presented as God's own Son, must suffer, and be delivered up to death. " Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things, which he sulfered." And '' It pleased the Father to bruise him, and to put him to grief." But should any think, that this text may relate to the divine ■act of sending the Saviour from heaven ; (as it no doubt may ;) the explanation of the foregoing texts may equally apply to this, and to all of a similar nature. This mode of speech is common. See Exod. iii. 1 ; "Moses led his flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." This mountain, when Moses here came to it, Mas not known as the mountain of God. But, it being known by this name, when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he speaks of his coin- ing to the mount of God* Chiist uses the same kind of language. '^ What ^nd if je shall see Ihc Son of man a>ceLd up where he was hefore ?" He here alludes to his own pre- existent state in heaven. But did he pre-exist in heaven as the So7i of man? Suiel}' not ; but as the Logos ; — one with God, and who was God. Litt being now known ias the Son of man, he modest !j applies this name, by which he was now knov.n, and bv wiiich he most frequently denominaled himself, to his pre existent person in heav en, tho' he n^as never known as the Son of man, till l;e tab- ernacled on earth, and was God manifest in the flesh. We say, When king David k«ipt his fa- ther's sheep. But he was not king, wiiea he kept them. We say, When king Solon;on was born. Yet he was not born kin^. nor Solomon. But af- terward being known by both tiie oliire and the name, these are carried back to his birlh, wi^en his birth is spoken of. One says, My father was born in such a year. He does not mean, tl.at he was born his father. In like manner, when tnc read, '' God so lo^ ed the world, that he sent his Oiily be- gotten Son" — "" God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" — the plain meanii*g appears to ije. God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of liis bosom, inlinitely dear, as one witli himself, who took im- man nature, and w^as manifested as the oiily begot- teii Son of God. But such texts do not teach that the Divinity of Christ did literally sustain the filial relation to God, as having been be^ijotten by the Father, at some period before creation. And we see, from nume- rous scriptures, that this sense cannot be adm.'tred. The primitive texts of the Old Testament, which first point to the paternal and filial relation, we have seen applied, by the Holy (iliost. to the mi- raculous producing of Christ's humanity, and to 48 his being introduced to his mediatorial work, and to his inheritance. What right then has man to apply these texts, and others, which allude to them, contrary to the application made by the Holy Ghost? When we consider, that the Old Testa- ment is silent concerning any paternal and filial re- lation, as then actually existing between the two first Persons in the Trinity, and that the Holy Ghost does apply the first predictions in the Old Testament, which speak of those relations between God and Christ, to the manifestation of the Messi- ah in the flesh ; we may conclude that we have n© divine warrant to say, that the Divinity "of 4he se- cond Person in tlie Godhead was derived from the First. ^wm^^ T^ NO BENEFIT RESULTS FROM A SUPPOSED DERI- VATION OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. Among arguments which have been adduced, in favour of a derivation of the Divinity of Christ from God, are found such as the following, either expressed, or implied : — That such a derivation would be most congenial to the idea of the divine paternal affection toward his Son ; and most con- genial to the idea of Christ's filial affection toward his Father. — And that this scheme must magnify the love of God toward our fallen world ; in that he would send a Son whose Divinity was derived from him, the Father, and therefore the most dear possible. That herein we may form a due estimate of the love of God to our sinful race : — And that we can have no medium so suitable and striking, on any other plan, to lead us to form a suitable estimation of the love and grace of God, in the scheme of gospel salvation. To creatures like men cloathed in flesh, circum- scribed, and most sensibly impressed with the feel- ings of parental and filial affections, arguments like the above, ably expressed, may appear for- cible. But in this thing we must not judge after the outward appearance ; but must judge righteous judgment. On reading, and atten p^-' g to weigh such arguments, questions like the following have occurred with force to my mind. I will just ex- 5 . 50 press thc!n as the only refutation, which I shall at- tempt, of the above arguments. If they strike otliers as they do me, they will atford all the refu- tation necessary. Relative to this, the reader will make up his own opinion. U hy should a derivation of the Divinity of Christ 1)0 deemed necessary ? Must Christ be un- able to feel in the best possible manner, that affec- tion toward God the Father, which is most becom- ing the mediatorial character, unless he is in his divine nature actually derived and dependent ? Or must the Mediator, if he be of underived Di- vinity, be less capable of feeling that tender affec- tion toward mankind, which if derived and depen- dent he might possess / Is the Father incapable of feeling, in the best possible manner, the most suitable parental affection toward the Person of the Mediator, luiless he be literally a Father to the Divinity of Christ ? It is said among men, people do not know the parental atfection, till they learn it from experience. Can the same thing be applicable to the Most High ? " He that formed the eye, shall he not see," unless he have material eves / He that made the ear. shall he not hear, though he have no organ of hearing like ours ? And he that implanted the parental affection, shall he not know what it is. even if he have not learn- ed it, as have human parents, from experience ? May not the Person of Jesus Christ be the dearest possible to the Father, unless Christ's Divinity be actually derived and dependent ? ]\Iay not the love of God to tliis fallen world be as real, as great, and as gloriously exliibited, in sending a Saviour who is possessed of Divinity that is underived and eter- Dal ; as in sending a Saviour derived and depen- dent ? Why may not the economy of grace, in such a case, be as great and wonderful ? May not 51 One, of uiiderived Divinity, love and lie loved as intensely, as a person produced and dependent ? Why may not such Persons of real Divinity, as the Trinitarians have conceived the Three in the Godliead to be, love each other with as real and in- tense aiiection, as God in one Person only could be supposed to love a Son actually bci^otten of the divine nature ? Can derivation or dependence lay a foundation for the exercise of love, which can- not exist in the intinite God underived and inde- pendent ? What excellency can derivation cona- municate, which underived eternal Divinity luust be unable to supply ? Can any being be more ex- cellent, or adequate to every needful purpose, than the infinite God / Can it be more grateful to the feelings of piety to contemplate a Saviour derived and wholly dependent, than to contemplate one possessed of underived Divinity, in union with real humanity ? Shall we say, such a derivation and dependence bring Christ nearer to man, and render access to him more easy and pleasing ? It does in- deed bring him down infinitely nearer to a level with man ! It makes him a creature like ourselves. But is not the glorified humanity of Christ suffi- cient to render access to him (or to God through him) sufticiently easy and pleasing to the godly soul ^ Or is underived Divinity so dreadful an idea to the godly person, that it would be more unplea- sant to view it as existing in the Person of our Saviour, or standing so near to us, as in union with the glorified humanity of Christ ? Can wc Lave more proper aad exalted ideas of the io\ e and grace of God toward fallen man, should we admit that Christ is of Divinity derived and uependeiit. than can be conceived upon the grouiid of his bein^ iiiidcrived and independent .^ Is it not a self- evident fact, that the love and grace of God are 52 mlimtely more exhibited, in sending a Saviour of infinite Divinity, than in sending a derived, de- pendent Saviour ? Does not the latter idea infinite- ly diminish the mercy of God in the scheme of salvation ? But is it possible for real Divinity to be derived? £2S^CS-^ -^s PROPER DIVINITY IXFINITKLY INCAPABLE OF DE- RIVATION. An exact resemblance of some of the divine perfections may be, and is, formed in creatures. Angels possess the perfect natural and moral im- age of God. The spirits of the just made perfect do the same. Man was made in the image of God. The image of God's natural perfections fallen man still retains. But his moral image man has lost. To the new born, the image of God's moral per- fection is partially restored. Hence they are said to be " partakers of a divine nature ;" and " of his fulness they have received, and grace for grace ;" — grace in the copy answering to its Pro- totype. What can render any dependent being more like God, than to have this image of God in that perfection, which is possessed by the inhabit- ants of heaven ? They are the children of God. And they are as much like him, as to their moral nature, or the kind of their resemblance, as is pos- sible. They are perfectly " satisfied with God's likeness." Shall it be said, that greater natural powers would render them more like God ? Re- ply. Perhaps even this would not render the re- semblance more perfect. For in point of degree, or greatness of powers, finite bears no proportion to infinite. But how great powers some of the creatures of God do possess, we know not. And 5* 54 who can tell but the human powers of Jesus Christ are, upon the Trinitarian principles, as great and exalted, as the Christ of the Arian can be con- ceived to be ? — far exceeding our highest con- ceptions. But the question is, can real divinity be derived or propagated ? Is not a conception of the aflirm- ative a vast absurdity ? Is God mutable or divis- ible ? What is the real Divinity of the Most High ? The following Attributes have ever been conceiv- ed as essential to it : — Self-existence, Indepen- dence, Infinity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omni- presence, Im;nutability, Infinity of holinesss or benevolence. Can there be real Divinity where either of these is wanting ? Surely not, according to the senti- ment which has univerL-ally been entertained of real Divinity, by the informed and judicious. And can these Perfections be communicated, or deriv- ed ? Can God himself propagate them ? Can he propagate Self-existence ? — a derived underivcd- ness ? Or a dependent independence ? Can God beget a being of independent Omniscience, Omni- potence, or Omnipresence ? Can he produce an- other infinity of Holiness, answering to his own ? God can do every thing that is possible. But are not these infinitely impossible ? Can there exist a real God, besides the one only living and true God ? Can another real God exist, yea, be pro- duced, who is destitute of the above incommuni- cable Perfections ? What is such a God ? And wherein is he God ? But it is represented that God has a communi- cable nature, specifically his OAvn, aside from the above incommunicable Perfections, which nature is essentially divine, and can never be communi- cated to creatures, though they are said to be in 55 God's image, to have his Holy Spirit, to be parta- kers of the divine nature, and to have received of God's fulness grace for grace. And we are called upon to believe, thatthis nature,(speciticall} divine, infinitely inferior to the divine incommunicable Perfections ; and yet essentially superior to what a holy creature can possess,) is what God commu- nicated to Christ; and tliat this made him really God ; while yet he is totally dependent ? But who can believe in such an intermediate divine nature? It is something destitute of properties, and inde- scribable. Where have we information of such a thing ? Does the Bible give the least intimation of such a divine nature ? a nature so specifically divine, that, while it can be communicated, it must render its subject a God, though distinct from the One God, who communicated it, and though w^holly dependent? Whence is our information of such a divine nature ? Are we taught it from anal- ogy? — that because many creatures do propagate their species, and communicate their own speci- \ fie natures ; therefore the infinite God must be supposed to have a power in like manner to prop- agate his species ? Bold deduction! equal to say- ing, that because God has given to many creatures a power to multiply ; therefore he himself maj be multiphed ! Because many creatures possess di- visibility ; therefore God has divisibility ! New creatures may be brought into existence : there- fore new Gods maybe brought into existence! This reasoning appears to me but littte short of blasphemy. It is a reversion back to paganism. The idea, that because God sees fit to produce that number of some of his creatures, which he desiiined to produce, in the way of natural gener- ation, therefore God himself may generate and has generated a God; appears too horrid to be 56 oamed among Christians ; and too glaring an ab- surdity to need any refutation ! It has ever been received as one of the plainest dictates of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that whatever begins to exist, is a creature ; that whatever is dependent, is a creature ; and that it is impossible for the infinite Jehovah to propagate another Jehovah! The infinite God cannot be wantinij in wisdom or power, to form any creature, that he may please to form, of ever so exalted powers. But that he can produce a being essen- tially superior to a creature ; or can produce a God, is a most glaring impossibility ! God may fc^rm crea-tures in his own image, and may call them gods. This he has done, in heaven and on earth. " I said ye are gods." " Worship him all ye gods." But this is a thing infinitely ditFerciil from producing a real God ! We have ample no- tice, in all those cases, that they were not real Gods, but creatures. If these remarks be correct, then Jesus Christ either must be possessed of real Divinity, underi- ved ; or he is a mere creature. There can be no possible medium. To say that Christ is neither the infinite God, nor a creature, is to talk without ideas. And this would come with a very ill grace from a man, who is very liberal in censuring oth- ers, for saying things upon the divine Trinity, which cannot be comprehensibly defined ; and who deetr.s it a sufficient objection against the sentiments of Trinitarians, that they involve some inexplicable mysteries. Such a man ought to be able to give us a more intelligible defiuition of that divine nature, which, as the basis of his scheme, constitutes Christ a God ; while yet he is finite and dependent. In leaving this supposed divine nature involved in mystery, and destitute of all 57 conceivable properties, the author of this notion violates his own maxim ; that, *' To make use of terms, of which we can give no intelHgible expla- nation, has no tendency to communicate hght. Those, who make use of terms in relation to God or to Christ, ought at least (he says) to be able and willing to tell their own meaning in the use of those terms." But even this man finds it very convenient, when speaking of a supposed divine nature, derived from God, which constitutes Christ a God, while yet destitute of every truly divine perfection, to involve the subject in inexplicable mystery ! Yet all his readers must believe in his mystery ; while he is constrained to renounce the mystery of the Trinity! Let such a man be asked, if one God can be derived, why not many ? many Mighty Gods, and Everlasting Fathers ! many first Causes and last Ends of all things ! It seems like trifling, otherwise I should be inclined to ask such a man. Who knows, upon his principles, how great a family of such Gods, even male and fe- male, may yet exist ? Surely, upon his principle, nothing forbids but the number should become vast ! Pagan gods and goddesses have been vastly numerous, in the imagination of their votaries. That pagan god that might propagate one natural son, might propagate twenty, and as many daugh- ters. What essence or part of God is it possible to conceive could be divided and taken from that in- finite, simple, indivisible, immutable Spirit, '' with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning ?" Is such a Spirit capable of diminution, or divisibility ? Pagans believed in a power of propagation in their gods. But the Bible demands the belief of liothing of this kind, relative to our heavenly Fa- 58 ther. We are taught to believe, that '• Adam was the son of God ;" (^Luke iii. 38) ; and that Angels are the sons of God ; (Job xxxviii. 7) ; not be- cause they were fonr>ed of God's essence : bat be- cause he made them in his own likeness, and "partakers of the divine nature." And Chris- tians are " partakers of the divine nature;" hav- ing of Christ's "fulness received, and grace for grace." But those things do not render them eternal, because the divine nature, of which they partake, is eternal. And we have no more right to conceive, that there is any sense, in which Christ's Divinity can have been literally derived from God, which is consistent with his being eter- nal. There is one passage, which may seem to some, at first view, to favor the idea, of a derivation of Christ's Divinity. Prov. viii. 22 — ; " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the world was. When there was no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth : While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there ; when he set a compass up- on the face of the deep ; when he established the clouds above ; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep; when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters shouid not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth ; then I was by him. as one brought up with him ; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. re oicing in the hahiia!)!e part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men." It 59 is a good rule, in exposition, never to set a solita- ry passage against the general tenor of tlie Word ot' God. Scripture must explain Scripture, it never contradicts itseif ; however a sohtary pas- sage may seem, at first view, to contradict what is taught in many. It is evident, and good authorities warrant us to say. that w^isdom, in this passage, is personitied by a well known figure or usage in human langua-e. '• Doth not Wisdom cry, and understandijjg put forth her voice ? Slie crieth at the gates, at ihe entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors." Here is the person, represented as a female, whose discourse composes the chapter. She represents herself as a person distinct from the Jehovah, who created the world. But Christ is the very Jeho- vah, who created all things, as will be noted. *' All things were made by him." This person, in figure, gives an account (as might be expected, to enforce her instructions, and to make tiie rep- resentation complete) of her antiquity, and of her kindred with the Most High. She is accordin;iIj iet up from everlasting, and brought forth before the hills. But are we from this figurative passage, to believe that the wisdom of God was literally brought forth ? Or, that the Jehovah of hosts, whom we have been contemplating, as the mighty God, the great God, the true and eternal God, had SL beginning? Supposing, that in the passage we do truly hear the voice of Christ, the djfficullty is not hence in- creased. For he is speaking under the borrowed character, noted above. And accordingly he would give the same representation of this charac- ter, as above, and according to the conceptions of men. God himself is often spoken of, after the manner of men ; aud things are predicated of him. 60 which are far from being Hterally true. Bui to take occasion from the above passage to deny the eternity of Jesus Christ, and to incur all the insu- perable difficulties, which attend the opinion, that the Divinity of Christ was actually derived, and is finite ; and thus, that he is not the very God ; is to violate all the best rules of exposition ; and to con- tradict the numerous and most evident decisions of the sacred pages. The terms God and creatures^ have ever been received, as necessarily comprising all Beings in the universe. To present a being, who is neither the true and infinite God, nor yet a creature, is in- deed to fiirnish '' news,*' either from the " Bible," or from one's own bewildered imagination ! But that Jesus Christ is of real and underived Divinity, does abundantly appear in the sacred Oracles ; as I shall now attempt to ascertain. g2SS2Si\" ^2* JESUS CHRIST IS GOD UNDERIVED. The arguments which have been adduced fby Trinitarians, in favour of the proper Divinity of Christ, 1 have never seen refuted. I shall pro- ceed to state some of them ^ and to make deduc- tions from various scriptures, which establish Christ's real Divinity. That Jesus Christ is God underived, is evident from w^hat was said of his type, Melchizedek ; " Without father, without mother, without de- scent ; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time." Granting that this, as it related to Mel- chizedek, is spoken in allusion to that order under the law, in which a correct register of their geneal- ogy was essential to a regular standing in the Jew- ish Priesthood ; and that we are furnished with no such register, with respect to Melchizedek ; yet if the things here expressed be not literally true of the Divinity of him, who is the Antitype of Mel- chizedek ; with what propriety is such a represen- tation given of the type ? If Melchizedek was typically (in the sense above given) without father, without mother, without descent, and without be- ginning ; it must have been designed to represent, that Jesus Christ in his Divinity is really thus. Else, what can be the indication ? If it must be an article in the Christian faith, (as some now af- (irm) that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not 6 ^2 >vjihout tutber, without descent, or beginning ; but, that be was literally derived from God. as really Hs was Isaac irom Abraham ; and that he had thus a descent, and a beginning; how strange is it, that wc should find the above passage in aur inspired rule of faith? For in that case, it is a passage perfectly calculated to mislead, in a momentous point. This inspired account given to the He- brews of Melchizedek, wlicn presented as a type of Christ, does clearly decide, that while, in the economy of grace, God is to Christ for a Father, and Christ is to God for a Son ; yet Christ, in his Divinity, is '' without father, without mother, with- out descent, or beginning." The world, after the tlood, lost the knowledge of the true God, and fell into idolatry. One ob- ject of the mission of Christ into the world, and of Revelation, was to recover man from idolatry to fhe knowledge and worship of the true God. Would the Most High then, in the very outset for effecting this object, have instituted a system of idolatry, as the means of etfecting it ? But if God sent a derived and dependent Being into the world, underthe names, titles and attributes of God, and commanded Angels and men to honor him, even as they honor the Father; then the Most High, in the origin of his attempt to recover man from idolatry, instituted a system of idolatry. For idolatry is the worship of some being, beside the one only living and true God. It is having anoth- er God, before the only One. This is the immu- table nature of idolatry. To speak with reve- rence, God himself could iwit cause that this should not be idolatry ! Shall it be said, God has a right fo set up an own Son under his own name, though wholly distinct from himself, and invest him with his titles and glories ; and command all to worship 63 him; and if God clioose to do thus, why should mau object ? Reply. It is impossible for the God of eternal truth to set up anotiier God beside him- seif. It would be establishing, in the universe, a palpable untruth. And God cannot lie. It would be giviui^ his glory to another ; and subverting the fundamental law of his own kingdom, which pre- sents himself, as the only God, and the only Ob- ject of worship. Is it possible that God, in under- taking to recover man from idolatry, to the know- ledge and worship of himself, should first establish another Object of worship beside himself? Is not this a contradiction of his own object, as well as of the whole tenor of his word ? His object is to re- cover men to the worship of himself. Ai'.dto ef- fect it, he (upon the above supposition) sets up an- other object beside himself, to be worshipped. But the language of God's word upon this subject is, " I am the Lord, that is my name ; and my glory I will not give unto another. Beside me, there is no God ; I know not any." Certainly then, Christ and the Father must be comprised in this pronoun me, beside whom, Jehovah himself knows not any God. Inevitably the Persons of the Father and the Son must each be found in this one God, who speaks of himself as the Only One. Christ is through the Scriptures represented as, in some sense, distinct from the Father ; while yet he is honored with the very names, titles and glo- ries of God ; and is represented as really one with God. The word Jehovah imports self-existence ; ^.nd is a peculiar name of the intinitc, eternal God. Deut. vi. 4 ; " Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Jehovah." Psalm Ixxxiii. 18 ; '• That men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over ail the earth." Yetabud- 64 dtintly through the Old Testament (Christ is called by this very name. Jer. xxiii. G ; *' This is the name, by wliich he (Christ) shall be called, The Jehovah our righteousness." Certainly then, Christ is the very God; one with the Father. In Exodus iii. we have an account, that " The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the tlame of tire out of the midst of a bush." Who can be meant by this Angel of the Lord ? Ceriainly ,a Person in some sense distinct from the Father. For the Father is never represented as his own Angel. But Christ is often represented as the Angel of the Lord ; as will appear. Pie is the Messenger (Angel) of the covenant ; the Angel of God's presence. As an Angel, he often appeared of Old. We cannot doubt but the Angel, who ap- peared to Moses in the bush, was the Person of Christ. But what does he say of himself ? He presented himself to Moses, as the intinite, eternal God. He there calls himself the Lord, or Jeho- vah, (as in the Hebrew) and God. Moses must loose his shoes from his feet : The ground was ho- ly ; for God was there. This Angel of the Lord styles himself, '' The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He promises Mo- ses, that L'.' would be with him. He suggests that he had'made man's m.outh, and would enable him to speak. He instructs Moses to say to Israel, concerning him, " The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you." " And God said ui.to Mosts, 4 AM THAT I AM : And he said. Thus shalt Ihnu say unto the children of Israel, i am hath seut n\e unto you." Tliis the Angel calls his name, in conse- quence of 3Ioses inquiring for it ; a name, which imports necessary, or eternal existence. All that follows in this chapter teaches, that this Angel of the Lord was at the same time the eternal God^ 65 •• xA.n;l Go'X said lUDreover uato [VI',)ses, Thus shalt tliou say uato the cliililren of Isi-ael, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me u;)to you ; this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." These are the titles of the infinite Gad. Yet the Angel of the Lord in the bush did not scruple to take these name* to himself. ^V^ould he have done this, if he had not been the very God ? In this account we learn, that there is the Lord, or Jehovah, the Per- son of the Father, beside this Angel, who was his messenger; yet that this Angel was the very God, It follows that God and Christ were, in some mys- terious sense, two, yet essentially one. This same Angel of the Lord had before ap- peared to Abraham, (Gen. xviii.) with two- created Angels, on his way to the destruction of Sodom. The trwo created Angels w^ent on and appeared to Lot. But one of the three, (who is called the Lord, as well as the Angel, and had exhibited his omniscience, by reproving the laughter of Sarah, who was ab» sent,) stayed and conversed with Abraham. In this interview he was uniformly called the Lord, or Jehovah. Abraham speaks to him, as to Jeho- vah, the Judge of all the earth. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?" Are we not as- sured, that the Angel here was the true and infi- nite God ? But was not this Angel Jesus Christ ? who afterwards said, " Before Abraham w^as, I am." This I shall take for granted, that the An- gel of the Lord, in various passages of the Old Testament, who is at the same time called the Lord, (Jehovah,) was Christ. But would Christ have received from another, and assumed to him- self, titles peculiar to the eternal God, if be were 6* 66 not the eternal God ? It affords no relief to say. that he heing God's own Son, God 'sa as wilHng to honor him with the titles and worship due to God alone. For this is only pleading the author- ity of God himself, to establish falsehood, and idolatry. It is the immutable law of the Most High, " Thon shalt have no other gods before me.'' If any person tlien, be had, or v\orshipped.as God, who is not contained in this pronoun me, in the first command ; this law is violated. But Christ is, by God's command, worshipped, hy Angels and men. He is therefore contained in the pronoun ME, in the first command. Hence we learn that he is one with God, and is God ; as he himself tes- tifies, '• I and my Father are one." It Ts a fundamental law of the great Eternal, '• Tliou shalt worship the Lord thy God ; and him only shait thou serve," But Christ is to be woishipped. Therefore Christ is contained in the phrase, "the Lord thy God, and him only." God and Christ are united in the antecedent to the words " Him only shalt thou serve." Here we learn their essential unity ; while yfet they aie in some sense two ; — the Lord, and his Angel. — Christ's unity with God we learn in Abraham's caili!ig him Jehovah ; and speaking to him as to God : And in his taking to himself, in the burning bush, the very titles of the infinite God ; and speaking by his own authoi-ity. Atid yet we learn that there is some real distinction between him and the first in the Godhead, from his being called the Angel of the Lord. This sentiment (that God and Christ are two ; and yet that they are one,) is found throughout the Bible. God said to Moses, Ex. xxiii. 20, " Behold 1 send an Arsgel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place, which I have 67 prepared." That tliis Angel is Chrisl, is evident. *' For tliey drank of that rock tliat followed them ; and that rock was Christ." 1 Cor. x. 4. He is called (Isiii. Ixiii. 9,) '' The Angel of God's pres- ence, who saved Israel." Here the Angel, and God, are two : Yet this Angel, through all the re- mainihtT p'lrt of IsraePs journey, was spoken of, and worshipped, as the Lord God. God says of him, '* My name is in him." By God's name here, we are to understand not only his titles, hut perfec- tions : My perfections are in him : — In the He- brew, " in his inward parts :" — ?tly ^Perfections are in.h.is nature. — As Christ says, John x. 38 ; " I am in the Father ; and the Father in me." This An- gel of God's presence went hefore Israel, in a eloud by day and a pillar of tire hy night, in all their Journey. His visible appearance was called, the glory of the Lord. In this shekinah the An- gel conversed with Moses. But he was called the Lord, or Jehovah, and spake by his own authority. Read the history of Israel, from the time God said, at Mount Sinai, that the Angel of his .pres- ence should go with them, and bring them into the land of Canaan ; and you will find, that this Angel was the infinite Jehovah himself. Com- pare Psalm Ixxviii. 56. with 1 Cor. x. 9 ; " Yet they tempted and provoked the Most High God ;" '' Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." Here God decides, that Christ (the Angel of his pres- ence) is the Most High God. Is it not safe to abide by his decision, relative to the mode of his own existence, even though clouds and darkness rest upon the subject ? Can we read concerninji this Angel of God's presence, what he under the title of Jehovah said, commanded, and threatened, (rom time to time \ — deciding with an oath, that 68 that generation should not enter into his rest ; and saving, " Let me alone, tliat I may consume them in a moment ; and I will make of thee a great na- tion V Can we read ol'liis destroying Korah, Da- than and Abiram : — and rebuking and destro3ing kings tor Israel's sake ; saying, " Touch not mine anointed, and do my piophets no harm ?" — Can we read all this histoiy, arid all the references to it in the iSew Testament ; and yet disbelieve, th-.t this Angel of God's y/resencc with Israel was the very God / It is fujlhei' said of him; " And the Lord oar God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, Ye have dwelt long enough iii this mount ; turn ye, and take your journey.'* Here the Angel of God's- presence, who accompanied Israel, is called, " the Lord our God." The same Person we find, in Dent, last chapter, transacting with Mo^es ; and is the very God. After decidini» that Moses should not go into the promised land, he takes him up to the top of Pisgah, and shows him the goodly Canaan. " And Jeho- vah said unto him. This is the land, which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it to thy seed." Here the Angel, who was to bring Israel into Canaan, identifies himself with the Je iovah, who covenanted with Abraham. But this was the Lord God Almighty : Gen. xvii. 1; '' 1 am the Almighty God ; walk before me, and be thou perfect." Christ then, is the Lord God Almighty ; one with the Father. This same Angel presented himself to Joshua, when about to enter into Canaan, as " the Cap- tain of the Lord's host." Here he distinguishes himself from the JLord, of whose host he was the Captain. Yet in the solemn interview he is the Lord, or Jehovah, claiming divine honors. Josh- ua's shoes must be put olF. The ground iii his iiV presence w^js holy. *' And the Lord said' unfp Joshua, See. I have given into thine hand Jericho, and all the kings thereof." — Surely tiiis Jehovah was God. Should any say, If these things be thus, where is God the Father? If so many sacred passages, which speak of God Jehovah, are to be applied to Christ ; what remains for the Father ? or where sbaH we find him ? Reply, The Father is not absent, nor excluded from the name of God, even while all his titles are applied to Christ. But these representations teach, that God and Christ are, in some mysteri- ous sense, two, yet essentially one : As Christ de- cides ; '' That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. (John x. 3.3.) " He, that hath seen me, hath seen the Father al- so." '* They ha', e both seen and bated both me and my Father." Ii passages almost innumera- ble the Fatncr and Christ are spoken of as two j and yet a* e presented in an essential u^iity; so that each mav affinn, that there is wo ether God beside himself. The abo-e (questions then, are. fouuded in a miscj!i'.-ept'o;i of the sab ect ; view- ing the Father ^aiid C'liist as two distinct Gods. But they are .ior cwo «iistinct Gods : thev are one God. God the Fadier rea'iy does all. that the di- vine nature of Christ- does ; he is not absent ; nor is he another God, And yet tlie Bible does teach, that the«-e is a real, though mysterious, personal d'^Viiictio!! between the Father and the Deity of Christ. Tiie fact mav hot be denied ; though the mo le cani>oi bvman be explained. God covenant- ed with Abrahanrr. The Father is not to be exclu- ded from this transaction. Neither is the Deity of Christ to be excluded from it. For the Angel of God's presence; tiie Angel of the covenant (in the 70 passage recited, in his interview with Moses ou the top of Pisgah) assumes tlie transaction to him- self: " This is the land, which I sware to Abra- ham" — And in the interv iew. at the burning bush, he styles himself '• the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, as his memorial throughout all generations. The idea is this ; — the second Person in the Trinity is one God with the first. What the first does, the second, rela- tive to his own Deity, scruples not to ascribe to himself. While the two are God, and his Angel ! yet, in some essential sense, they are one God. Otherwise this Angel would not identify himself with the Highest, the eternarGod. The two (God and his. Angel) are, for distinction sake, call- ed persons ; not because the word person, as used among men. fully applies to them : but because it comes the nearest to the thing designed of any w^ord. For this reason, the 2sicene council adop- ted the use of the word Persons, as applicable to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Trinity. The Trinitarians have given ample notice, that by this term, when thus applied, they do not mean in every sense the same, as when the term is applied to man. With this notice given, they conceive themselves warranted, from the word of God, to apply the term as above stated. For the Father, the Mediator, and the Holy Spirit are, through the Bible, spoken of as Persons, in some distinct sense, and yet as one God. Who was he that wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 24 — ? Was this God the Father? Or was he the Angel of the covenant / He surely must have been the latter. " And Jacob Avas left alone ; and there wrestled a man with him (or one wiio ap- peared hke a man) until the brervking of the day. And whea he aw that he pruvaikd not against 71 him, he touched the hollow of his tliigh, and the hollow of Jacoh'S thi^h was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said. Let me go : for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go. except thou bless me. And he said unto hini, What is thy name ? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel ; for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him and said. Tell me I pray thee thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask af- ter my name ? And he blessed him there. And Ja- cob called the nam.e of the place Peniel ; (the face of God) for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Compare this with Hosea xii. 3, — *' He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strsngth he had power with God ; yea, he had power over the Angel, and pre- vailed ; he wept and made supplication unto him ; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; even the Lord God of hosts ; the Lord is his memorial." I ask whether the angel here (who is Christ) is not, in the very term Angel, repre- sented as in some sense distinct from God the Fa- ther ; and yet, he is God, " even the Lord God of hosts," whose memorial is Jehovah ? Read the description given of the Jehovah of hosts, in Isai. vi : His train filling the temple ; the winged Seraphim covering their faces and their feet before him, and crying. Holy, holy, holy is the Jehovahof hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory." The prophet cries, " Wo is me, for I am undone ! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean hps ; and mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." And he heard the voice of Jehovah, saying, ^' Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?" 72 None can doubt but this persoQ was the very God. He speaks by his own authority ; *' Whom shall I send r\ And he is plural ; '" W ho will ^o for us ?" We must believe this Jehovah of hosts is the very God. Yet the evangelist teaches, that he was Christ. John xii. 41, speaking of Christ, " These things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake of him." In Isai. viii. 13, — we read, " Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shail be for a saxictu- ary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of oifence to both the houses of Israel ; for a gin, and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.^' But inspiration applies what is here said of the "• Lord of hosts himself/' to Christ. 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8 ; ^' Unto you therefore, who believe, he is pre- cious. But unto them who are disobedient, the stone, which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the corner ; and a stone of stum- bling, and a rock of oflence, even to them, who stumble at the word, being disobedient ; whereun- to also they were appointed." " The stone, which the builders refused, the same is become the head of the corner.'' '' This is the stone, which is set at naught by you builders." Jesus Christ then, is the " Jehovah of hosts himself." Christ is the Lord God of the holy prophets-. Rev. xxii. 6, "■ The Lord God of the holy proph- ets sent his Angel to show unto his servants the things, which must shortly be done." Compared •with verse 16. ''I Jesus have sent mine Angel to testify unto you tliese things in the churches." Here our Saviour (as though with evident design) teaches, that He is '' the Lord God of the holy prophets." We accordingl} read of the prophets, 1 Pet. i. 1 1 ," Searching what, and what manner ot iiine (he Spirit of Christ, thai was in them, did sijiijily, when it iestitied hetbrehand the sulierings ot" Ciiil?t, and the glory, that should follow." The ancient prophets then, were inspired by tlie Spir- it of Christ. But '• all Scripture is given by in- spiration of God." The Spirit of Cinist then, is the Spirit of God. The same we learn in the following passages. " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God." But, '' if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here again Christ is God. In 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, we learn, that Christ, (by his Spirit, in the days of Noah,) went and preached to the ante- diluvians, who were now in prison, when Peter ■wrote. But it was God, who spake to Noah, and warned the wicked world through him, and said, " My Spirit shall not always strive with man." In these passages then, we are taught infallibly, that the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God ; and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ : And that hence Christ is God. God himself addresses Christ as God ; which clearly decides Christ's distinct Personality, and yet his Unity in the Godhead. See Heb. i. 8 ; •' Unto the Son he (God) saith. Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." Could the Most High thus address a derived, dependent being, w^ithout estab- lishing idolatry ? Could he do it, without teaching the universe to have another God before him ? Could he do it, and yet say, relative to himself, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ?^' I am God ; beside me there is none else ; I know not any."* * Some have attempted to insinua'e, that the above text, Heb. i. 8, will bear this interpretation, "Unto thf Son he saith, God is thy throne forever and ever." Arjy who wby esteem it worth their while to read a lull refutation of this extraordinary;, T 74 The text under consideration, is a quotation of Psalnn xlv. 6 : where David says, " Thy throne O God. is forever and ever." David addressed the words to " the King. — fairer than the children of men — the most Mighty, whose right hand should teach him terrible things — under whom the people shall fall.'' Our translation is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. And its addressing Christ, as God, accords with the tenor of the sacred word. No proper objection then, can be made against it. The text to the Hebrews is a literal quotation of it. And there we learn from inspiration, that it is an addiess from God the Father to Christ. And does it not most positively establish Christ-s distinct Personality in the Godhead ; and yet his being one with God, and the very God ? In Rom. ix. 5, Jesus Christ is said to be " Over all, God blessed for ever." In 1 Pet. i. l,heis " God our Saviour." In Titus ii. 13, he is " the great God and our Saviour."-^ In 1 John V. 20, it is said of Jesus Christ, '*This is the true God, and eternal life." In Isai. ix. 6, Christ is called, '^ the Mighty God, the everlasting Father." In Jer. xxiii. 6, he is *' the Jehovah our righteousness." And in Ptev. i. 8, he is by his forced and most nnuatnral rendering (f fhat clause of the text, may find it iu the Panop'iist for .AJay, 181 !, page :;4-l— 9. It would be wonderful indeed for God to r^lif smt Idmself, as the throne of one of hi? croatnres ! This wouM be unprece- dented in the Bible! Nothinof is too glaring; for some men to undertake, to undermine the cffensive sentiments of holy writ. We read of hamiiing the word of God deceitfully. And this .9 an evil not uncommon, at the present -.lay. * Greek — " ton megalou Theou, kai Soteros hcmoon." — The article put before great, belongs equally to Saviour, as to God, not being added there, as it must have been, had not Saviour stood in apposition, being the same with the preced- ing, God : — A full proof, that the sense is this ; Jesus Christ '? llie great God, and our Saviouu. own testimony *' the Alpha and Omega, who is, and was, and is to come, the Almighty." Is a de- rived, dependent being, " the Almighty ?'* Most certainly not. Should any doubt whether it is Christ, who here speaks : — the affirmative is in- contestable ; as any will see, who will compare Rev. i. 8 — 18 ; ii. 8. Here it was Jesus Christ (in the midst of the golden candlesticks, and who had been dead and was alive,) who called himself the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Almighty. In Isai. xliv. 6, we read ; '• Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of host?, I am the First, and I am the Last, and be- side me there is no God." But Jesus Christ, in the above passages in the Revelation, applies this to himself. Hence we have his testimony, that he is the Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Jehovah of hosts. From the great work, which was assigned to the Mediator, light is cast upon this important subject. I ask the conscience of every person, taught in tha sentimenls of the gospel. Was not an infinite atone- ment necessary, according to the tenor of the Bible, to take away the sin of the world ? Was not the righteousness of an infinite Being, or the righteousness of God; necessary to avail for lost man, and redeem him from sin and hell, and entitle him to heaven ? Does not the whole economy of gospel grace proceed on the ground of an atonement made by Christ, adequate to the eternal torments of guilty man ? and of a right- eousness wrought out by Christ, adequate to that exceeding and eternal weight of glory, freely ten- dered in our fallen world ; and which will be con- ferred on all the chosen of God ? Though pardon and salvation are of free grace ; yet the scheme 76 of grace teaches, that God would not have beett just, had he bestowed or tendered thenn on any- ground, short of a sufficient exhibition's being made on man's behalf, of justice and righteousness, to magnify the divine law. Here the infinite riches of ;^race are exhibited ; that God would not only pardon and save lost man ; but would be at the in- finite expense necessary to open the way for the proper bestowment of pardon and salvation. But could any thing be equal to this redemption from hell, and title to heaven, short of an infinite atone- ment, and an infinite righteousness ? A foundation short of this must have been infinitely insufficient for the eternal superstructure, which was to be built upon it. To say, that God might, in order to confer on his Son an infinite honor, determine, that an atonement and righteousness, which a finite Son could effect, should be declared and viewed as of infinite avail, appears preposterous. For it must, after all. appear to the intelligent universe, thct the ground presented, as the only foundation of the pardon and salvation of guilty man. is in fact finite. This must of necessity operate to the amaz- ing dishonor of God. All the torments of the miserable in hell cannot, in any conceivable time, atone for their sins. The certainty of this appears from the fact, that the damned must suffer forever. Can it be admitted as possible then, that the sufferings of a Saviour, who is only derived and dependent, can make an adequate atonement for the sins of the whole world ? and this too, in so short a time, as Jesus of Nazareth suffered ? The idea, of resolving this thinf^into the divine sovereignty, or suggesting, that God has a right to say, that the atonement and righteousness of his own finite dependent Son, ^Imll be viewed as of infinite avail, can uever sa- 77 tisfy a rational being. For the question will arise^ Wl\y might not God as well pardon and save, with- out any atonement made, or righteousness wrought out, in behalf of man? Or if something done, which is tinite, may be pronounced sufficient, why might not an Angel have done the work of the fi- nite Mediator ? which work, at God's sovereign word, should be pronounced sufficient for the sal- vation of lost man ? Yea, why might not God as well dispense with all his exhibitions of justice and propriety, in his vast kingdom ; and let a sys- tem of merely arbitrary words be substituted in their stead ? Is not God's infinite authority suffi- cient to have those words believed, though all his administration be in contradiction to them ? Could he not work miracles, and cause all his subjects to believe his contradictory assertions '? IVlany such questions occur to the mind, on the suggestion, that God may say, that a finite Son shall make an adequate atonement ; or shall do what shall be esteemed sufficient for the eternal salvation of his Church. But we must remember, that God's government is for the benefit of his finite creatures. And they must be able eventually to discern an uniformity and fitness in all his works. One thing must be proportioned to another ; and the divine adminis- tration must accord with the principles of truth and justice ; or his glory will be proportionably diminished. Words, without corresponding deeds, are falsehoods. But God cannot lie, neither in word nor deed. Christ's atonement and right- eousness then, must be infinite. But how could a finite Saviour make an infinite atonement ? Yea, how could such an one make any atonement at all ? Or how could he work out a righteousness for others ? Must oot a derived 7* 78 being owe personally to God, accordinij to the im- mutable religion of nature, as well as of Revela- tion, all the service, that he is able to render? Every dependent being must owe to God the love and service of his whole heart, soul, strength and mind. H-ow then could the righteousness of a de- rived being be of avail for any one beside himself? much less of that intiiiite avail, needed for the sal- vation of the fallen world ? Yea. how could it b^ " the righteousness of God ?" How could Christ be, •' Jehovah wir righteousness /" To render a derived Saviour adequate to the work, for which Christ was designed ; or to give an infinite weight to his atonement, righteousness, and administration ; the advocates for such a Sa- viour must have recourse to the indv»eliing of the fulness of the Father in Christ. In this case, the sufiiciency of the Mediator is rested on the in- finite fuhiess of Divinity, that dwells in him. But if recourse must be had, after all, to the iniinitude of the indwelling Divinity, in the derived Son of God; what is gained by supposing the nature of Christ, that actually suffered, to be superior to human nature ? Nothing is gained, except that ■*mR\\ addition of merit, which may be supposed to result from the superiority of this derived na- ture over human nature. But how tritiing must this be. when compared with the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father, on which depen- dence is really made / This infinitude of merit needs no such addition. Infinity of merit must be tufficient without it. Such an addition goes not to the point, on which dependence is finally made,-— the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Fa- ther. But no Trinitarian doubles but the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ. The Trinita- rian rests the infinitude efthe atonement on the 79 anderivcd Deity, who dwells in the man Jesus Christ* And the opponent (who believes at all in an atonement) mast have recourse to the indwell- ini^ Adness of God, in Christ, to render his atone- ment of suiiicicnt avail. What then has he gain- ed by rei>resenting Christ as possessed of a nature snperiour to all creatures, aside from the indwell- int; fulness of Cxod ? For he does not with this iind Cnrist adequate to the work of mediation, without the indwelling fulness of God. And the Trinita- rian finds Christ fully adequate to the w^ork, with the indwelling of his proper Deity, wuthout sup- posing his created nature to be more than human. The sentiment, that to atone for the sins of the world, the gufiierings of the Saviour must, in some sense be deemed intinite, most clearly lies at the foundcition of the Christian system. " Without the s-hedding of blood, there is no remission." And this blood must be of intinite avail. It must be (as we are taught by inspiration to view it) " the blood of God." " Feed the church of God, which he hath purrhased wnthhis own blood;*' (Acts XX. 2.3.) The ears of some are w^ounded by the phrpse, the blood of God. I believe as much as they that the invisible God isan infiinte Spirit: And that a pure Spirit hath not desh and bones. or blood. Yet 1 feel myself fully warranted to use the phrase, the blood of God ; to say that this atoned for sin ; and that without the shedding of such blood, there could be no remission. The abundant language of the Bible, representing Christ as God, and yet as dying for sin, warrants the phrase, the blood of God, as that which has ransomed fallen man. And the te^t, in Acts xx. 23, just quoted, fully w^arrants it.* * The correctne??' of our rp?i'\'.i\^ of this text, i? hysome call- ed ia questioa. la some manuscripts of the New Testament, it- 80 The siitFeriiigs of Christ must have teen the suf- ferings of God in a sense, that was either real, or constituted. A person really divine either must exhibit himseU' as capable of suffering, and really sutiering for sin ; or else he must adopt a creature into sucii a constituted union with himself, as that both this divine and this created nature shall go to constitute one complete Person : And the suiier- ings of the created nature shall be esteemed as the suiierings of the whole Person, or the sutlerings of God. There is no other possible sense, in which is foimJ, '•^ Feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purcha- sed With Ins own blood." And in some, '^Feed the church of the Lord and God.'" Bat 1 am satisfied with our reading, for the iollowiug reasons : 1. It accords with the tennr of the Bible, to speak of the church as the church of ^od ; and to call Jesus Christ, God. I have already shown in this section, and mean to show more fully, that Christ is abundantly called, and represented to be, God ; both in the Old and New Testaments ; the mighty God, the great God, the true God. The reading-, therefore, "Feed the church of Qrod. which he hath purchased with his own blood," fully accords with the general language of the Bible. And the sentiment of this reading forms a hinge, on which hangs the salvation of the Church. For there can be no medium be- tween the blood of God. and that of a mere creaturs. But if tiiere be no atonement made for sin, but what is made by a mere cr'?ature, where is tlie foundation of the Christian's hope 'f Admitting the reading, "the church of the Lord, which he pur- chased with his own blood," nothing is gained by the opponent. For we are, in that case, warranted, by the whole tenor of the Bible, to annex to the term Lord here, its highest sense, Jeho- vah, who IS the mighty God. He has redeemed the church by hi? 'iwn blood. The church, then, is bought with the blood of God. The propriety of the phrase is founded in the constitu- ted oneness between the second Person in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, as will be shown. 2. The reading " the church of God," is found in eight manu- scripts. And the following ancient fathers have quoted the text according to our reading : Epiphanius, Basil and Ambrose in the fourth ceatury : Cassian, Ibas and Celostine, in the fifth : and Fulgen'.ius, Primesius, and Bede, iu the tixth. See Paao- plist for April, 1811, page 500. 81 the sufferings of the Mediator can be of infinite avail, as being the suiferings of God. But Christ's sutfering? are esteemed the sutferings of God :"And his bJood is esteemed of infinite avail, as the blood of God. Therefore real Doity did dwell in the man Jesus, in such a sense, as to constitute thena One, the Person of the Mediator. This connec- tion of the two natures is a mystery ; but it is no contradiction, nor absurdity ; it is not above the power of God to eifect. No doubt many plausible things may be said, (if men are disposed,) against the divine economy of constituting such a connexion between a Person f^ally divine, and a created nature, as that the suf- ferings of the latter shall be esteemed af the suf- ferings of God. The objector, if he be hardy enough ! may say, It is all a mere pretence. God did not suffer at all. " He only substituted a crea* tare to suffer in h's stead : like the king, who engpv^ ged to die, and who fulfilled his promise by marry- ing a poor woman, thus becoming one with her, and causing her to die ; which conduct would not be very honorable !" But let me ask, what point in Divinity is not capable of being cavilled at ? What point of divine truth has not been attacked, and presented in a base light! Things seemingly plauaible may be said in opposition to every cardi- nal doctrine in theology. But in view of the above objections, let me inquire ; do not the same difficulties attend the scheme of our opponents, so far as they rely on the constituted indwelling of the fulness of God. to give an infinite dignity to the derived Son of God, and an infinite merit to his atonement ? But their great reliance is on the dignity aud fulness of God the Father, to furnish their Mediator for his work. The relief is too .&mail to be noted, to say, that the derived Persoa 82 of their Mediator, in whom the Father dwells, is very far i^reater thna hamm ; being firmed of the Father's essence ! For to wliat does all the diifer- ence between derived nU-u'es a-noiint, when com- pared with the infinite Gdd? Before him all de- pendent beings si.ik to nothing ! The reliance of cur opponents, who hold to a literally derived Son of God, is in fact solely on the Father, exclu- sively of any other truly divine Person in the Godhead (for they believe in no other) for both the existence, and ail the ability of the Son of God to atone for Sin, or to officiate in any of the du- ties of the mediatorial office. There can be no adequate merit or di'gnity attending them, but what comes frofn God the Father. Yet some of our opponents represent the Son as having made the atonement, and as doing all the work of the Medi- ator. And some of them will adinit of it as an ii'.imlte atorsement : a mediation of infinite effica- cy ; while to render it thus, their reliance must be on the indwelling, and the infinite fulness of the Father. Do not the same objections then, stated above, apply, with as great force to their own scheme ? Most certainly ! for, did God the Father siuTer, in the sufferings of Christ? And if not, how could his infinite fulness and dignity add any weight to the sufferings of the finite Son ? But if the opponent can imagine, that the infinite fiilness and dignity of the Father can add an infinite weight to the atonement made by the derived and finite Son of God ; why can it not as well be ad- mitted, that the constituted union of real Deity (the second Person in the Trinity) with the man Jesus Christ, may give an infinite dignity to the atonement made by him ? Why shall the latter scheme, any more than the former, be represented as a mere pretence ? But, mav not God constitute 83 a connection between one of the infinite Persons in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, so that they shall properly be called and viewed one ? Is not God able to do this ? And has he not a right to do it, whatever difficulties or ob ectiotts may arise concerning it in tlie minds of fallen man ? All connections in creation deper.d on th.e sove- reign will of God. Suppose God could previous- ly have consulted man, relative to many of these connections ; as, that between maii-s soul and body ; that between God's own sovereign, uni- versal aa;ency in the government of the world, (making all thint^s for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil ; Prov. xvi. 4.) and the free agency and accountability of man ; wliat wo Jd the wisdom of man have replied : Could behave been God's counsellor ? Inexplicable diiliciiicies would have appeared. But God has establiibed these, and all other created cor.neclioi;5 in vhe universe. The laws of nature are of his ordain- ing: and it is in vain for man to object. And no less vain or impious is it. to ob-ect to the constitu- ted connexion between the real Deity and human- ity of Christ, which uniiediy coiistitnte his Per- son. The uniort is constitjled. It is not essen- tial to either natiire. But it was constituted by the sovereign will of Him, who constituted all the created connexions in the uriverse. Man may repeal the question of Nicodemns in ai'other case, " How can these things be ?" This question may be asked concerning some part of every work of God, not excepting the smallest atom ; and no man can answer it. Man is of yesterday, and knows nothing ! He is surrounded with an uni- verse of wonders ! Is it incredible then, that the infinite Creator of this universe should have un- fathomable depths in his name, and the mode of S4 his existence ? Is it incredible, that He, whose name is U'onderful, and whom no man knowelh, hut the Father, has things relative to his Person, which exceed the philosophy of vain man ? "■ Canst thou by searching tind out God ?" Who shall ob- ject, or w hy, if God please to say, that the human- ity of Christ shall be taken nito such an union with one in the Godhead, that the blood of the human nature, shed for sin. shall be called and esteemed the blood of God, to make an infinite atonement ; and the infinite glory of underived Deity shall be possessed by this w^onderfui Person of two na- tures ? Shall man say, that such inexplicable things attend the consideration of such a Person, that they cannot believe in him ? This, alas, would be nothing new ! " Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be oiT*^aded in me." Christ has long since been to some a stumbling block ; and to some foolish- ness. But to others he is -' the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Would such a connex- ion, as lias been stated, between the two natures, human and divine, (supposing God had revealed the certainty of it, in language, which could ad- mit of no doubt) amount to an absurdity ? Would it evidently degrade the divine character? If not ; who can say, that such a connexion does not in fact exist ? For the Word of God does read, as though this were the case. And thus it has been under- stood, by the body of the Church of Christ, for many centuries. Relative to Christ's being of underived Divinity, let it be further noted ; if he were not unaerived, would God tiic Father have asrnbed to him the work of creation ? and would he have ascribed to him immutability ? Urito the Son, God saith,. Heb. i. 10, — " Thou Lord, in the beginning, hast laid . the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are 85 the works of thine hands. They shail perish, but thou lemainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, a!id they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shail not fail." Here immu- tability, as weii as creation, is ascribed by God the Father to Christ ; — '• Thou shalt endure — thou art the same." — As in the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 8. '* Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, to day, and forever." Can such repeated divine ascriptions of immutability be applied to a derived, depen- dent being ? And couid such a being create the world ? Would the intinite God repeatedly ascribe the work of creation to a finite dependent being ; and say to him, '* Thou Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth ; and the heavens are the work of thy hand ?" Are not here two persons ; and the se- cond, as well as the lirst, really God ? The earth and the heavens are the v>ork of Christ's hands. Yet we read, •• He, that made all things, is God." " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy works." Is not Christ then, God ? We are taught Heb. i. 2, that God made the worlds by his Son ; or by this second Person, now known as his Son. Does this import, that Christ created the worlds only by a delegated agency ? Or that his agency in creation was only such as that, by which holy men wrought miracles ? Some pretend this. But the Jehovah of hosts, abundantly in the prophet Isaiah, assumed creation to himself, as one of his essential distinctions from false gods. Did this Jehovah of hosts hold this distinction only by a delegated power or privilege? If this were all, his thus creating the world was no evidence of his real Divinity ; any more than 8 iMoses' working miracles before Pharaoh, was an evidence of his real Divinity. The idea, of God''s creating the world bj Christ. is this, (as we may conceive ;) the agency of the whole Godhead, was, in that work, represented as exercised tlirough the second Person in the Tri- nity. He, having entered into the covenant of re- demption with the Father, exercised the power of tlie Godhead in creating the world. The agency of the three is represented as manifesting itself through him. Accordingly each of the three, in diiierent sacred passages, is represented as doing the work. But it is more peculiarly ascribed to tlje second Person, as though the agency of the three came into operation through him. But it is so represented in a sense, which, implies, that this second Person is the very God ; — an original iu the work ; and not merely a dependent instrument, by whom God w^rought. God never did (nor could) say to Peter, Thou, Peter, hast healed the. lame man at the beautiful gate, and raised Dorcas: Ti)ese things are tlie works of thy hands. Nothing"^ like this was ever said, by the Most High, to a crea- ture, by whom he himself had wrought miracles. ^ But the utmost care was taken to distinguish be- tween the Deity, and the instruments, that did the work ; and to have all the praise given to the former. Moses, the type of Christ, (and who was admittted to the greatest intimacy with God, of all the men on earth ;) yet for seeming to take to liimselfsome of the praise of his biinging the water from the rock, was shut out of the promised land ! Instruments of divine operations, (human or ange- lic,) have been careful to take none of the praise of tlieir operations to them.selves ; but to give it all to God. God informs, that he is a jealous God, and will never give his glorv to another. Yet abun> 87 dantl}' God ascribes the wo.k of creation, and oi upholding all things, to Christ ; and this in the most positive language. " In the beginning was the "W'ord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him ; (the Word, or Christ) and without him was not any thing made, that was made." — '• The world was made by him." " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or domi- nions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. i, 13 — 17. " And upholding ail things by the word of his power." These things are said expressly of Jesus Christ. But can all this be said, by the God of truth, of a tinite, derived, dependent Being? The parts of creation above enumerated, contain all created, dependent beings, in heaven or earth. Surely then, Christ himself, (who created them,) cannot be among them, a finite, dependent being. And who can believe in a derived, dependent Creator of all things ? A dependent Almighty ! How could all things be said to be created for Christ, as well as by him, if he were not very God ? Are all things, in heaven and earth, created by and for a being distinct from, and dependent on, the true God ? Let Paul decide this. " O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out ! — For of him, and through him, and to him are all things ; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Here we learn who Christ, in the former passage, is, by whom, aad for whom, all tilings were made. He is the very, unsearchable God, in this latter passage ; of whom, 88 (hrough whom, and to whom are all things ; t© w^hom be glory forev^er. Compare these passages with Rev. iv. 8, — where the four hving creatures, day and night, sing " Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." They proceed to give glory and honor and thanks to him, who sat on the throne, and liveth forever and ever. The elders then fall hefore him, saying, " Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things; and for thy pleasure they are, and were created." Here then we learn the sentiments of the true mi- nisters and follozvers of Christ, For these four living creatures are emblems of Christ's ministers ; and the elders are emblems of the members of his kingdom of grace. If we say the Being they wor- ship here is the infinite Father ; the Son, in the other passages, is identified with him. For there all thini^s were made by and for Jesus Christ. But if we say, this is the Son on his throne of the uni- verse ; (as probably is the fact ;) we then acknow- ledge the Son to be the Lord God Almighty, re- ceiving the highest ascriptions of glory and praise from all heaven. Is it possible then, for any to deny, that Christ is the underived, eternal God, identified with the Father ? Hear the decision of Jehovah himself. Isai. xliv. 24 ; "I am the Lord, that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth forth the earth by myself." Here Jehovah alone, and by himself, created all things. Yet we are expressly and abundantly taught that Christ creat- ed them. Surely then, Christ is that Jehovah himself, who spread abroad the earth alone. By Christ all things consist. He " upholds all things by the word of his power ;" Heb. i. 3. But ig it not " in God that we live, move, and have our 89 being ?" From this we le.irn, thai Christ is God. In Isaiah, God, " the high and lofty One, who inhabits eternity," declares, that he *• dwells also with him, who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and the heart of {he contrite ones." Thus Jehovah, who inhabits eternity, is " nigh unto them who are of a broken heart : and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." But Christ says to such, " I will not leave you comfortless ; I will come unto you." He says to his ministers, " Lo I am with you always, even un- to the end of the world." In these, and similar promises of Christ, we learn, that he is identified with •• the high and lofty One, who inhabits eter- nity," dwelling with the humble. Christ says, '• If any man love nie, he will keep my words ; and my Father will love him ; and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Here are the two tirst Persons in the Trinity, dwelling with ev^ery holy soul : Two omniscient Persons : We will come unto every obedient person, and make oar abode with him. Could Christ speak this, as a derived^ .dependent, finite being ? Could such an one, \^e at one and the same time, with milhons of saints, in dilferent parts of the universe ? And would such an one thus rank himself with the omni- present God ? We here find two omnipresent per- sons ; God and Christ. They are spoken of as two ; and yet abundantly represented as One. There is no reconciling these numerous passages. but by saying, God and Christ are two Persons, equal and eternal, in one God. Christ says, *• Where two or three are met in my name, there I am in the midst of them." Not simply, I will be, but I am : As he said to Moses in the bush, '• I am, that I am. Say unto them, I am hath sent me unto thee." " Before Abraham was, I am." Not 1 8* 90 was ; but I am. Christ thus identifies himself with the eternal Jehovah. How exactly Christ's pro- mises of his presence with his people, accord with the same promises of Jehovah in the prophets : " Fear not, for I am with thee ; be not dismayed, for I am thy God." '• I will not fail thee, nor for- sake thee." Are the above promises of Christ consistent with his being a derived, depeiident being ? Is not omnipresence an essential attribute of God ? And Christ's ascribing this to himself, as well as to the Father, gives us his own testi- mony, that he, as well as the Father, is God. The apostle says, of Christ's pre-existcnt Divi- Rity, " Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal w^ith God ; but made him- self of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man." Here Christ, before he came in the tlesh. and be^ fore we have any account of the Father's dwelling in him, or of the Spirit's being given him without measure, was existing in heaven, a distinct Person in the Godhead, and viewed himself equal with God. Is not this testimony decisive that Christ is God ? The form of a servant, in the above text, is a servant. The likeness of man, is a man. And the form of God is God. Christ was in the form of God; and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But if ihe highest nature of Christ were derived and dependent, it must have been in- finite robbery in him to have claimed equality with God! Some ob'cct to the above text, that the word translated eiual, in the original is not an adjective, but an adverb ; that it is not isos, equal ; but isa, equally. If there be any weight in the criticism, it is who'ly in favour of Christ's Divinity. For then the adverb equallj/, may be viewed m qwahfving 91 the verb importing to he ; literally thus ; "Who being in the forin ol'God, thought it not robhery to be, Cv-jually witiiGod,i. e. equally with the Father, Christ possesses independent existence. Perfectly this accords with the title which Christ took to himself ia the burning bush, •' I am that I am.'^ And to the Jews ; •• Before Abraham was, I am." This title, with the name Jehovah, and Jah, as- cribed to Christ, imports necessary existence. Surely then, it was not robbery in Christ to exist, equally with the Father. The Jews understood Christ as claiming equali- ty with God, notwithstanding all the notices he gave, of the dependence of his humanity : "Be- cause thou, being a man. makest thyself God." — Again ; " Making himself equal with God." Christ was so far from correcting this, as a mistake, that he told them plainly. " I and my Father are one." '• T dwell in the Father ; and the Father in me." " He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." "' If ye had known me, ye had known my Father also." Would the meek and lowly Jesus have said such things as these, and have put himself be- fore the Father, (" I and my Father are one,") if he had been as much inferior to the Father, as is a derived, dependent being, to the infmite, eternal Jehovah ? It appears impossible ! Vv hat ! the faithful and true Witness speaking most impious falsehoods ? It is said by some, that Christ and the Father are one, only as Christians are one with God and Christ, and one another. As Christ intercedes ; •• That they all may be one ; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us." The oneness here is only a mora! oneness: or being of one spirit, and one design. But is there nothing more of equality, between God and Christ, than a 92 moral oneness ? How then Is the blood of Chiist called the blood of God ? Does the oneness be- tween Christians and God, render the blood of the martyrs the blood of God ? or of any avail to atone for sin ? ^^^hy not. as well as the blood of Christ, if the martyrs had ail the oneness with God, which Clirist possesses ? There is both a moral and a natural oneness between God and Christ. And to the moral oneness, and not to the natural, that clause in the intercession of Christ relates. But this by no means disproves an essential oneness between the two first Persons in the Godhead. Such a oneness other scriptures teach does exist. And this clause in the intercession, hints nothing to. the contrary. It relates to that kind of oneness, vrhich exists among Christians. The following divine testimony establishes the equality of Christ's Divinity with that of the Fa- ther. " That all men should honor tlic Son, even as they honor the FailiCT.-' How is the Fatlier honored ? He is honored as the independent eter- nal God. How then must the Son be honored, in order to be honored as the Father ? Surely as the independent, eternal God. Or else he is at an in- finite reniovc from being honored, as is the Father. The following passages- evince the proper Divin- ity of Christ. 1 John iii. 5 ; " And ye know that he was mar'ifest to take awaj our sins, and in him is no sin." Who was manife.-«t to take away our sins? God is the only antecedent to the prorloun he in the text. Verse i, — ''Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestovved upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are v/e the sons of God ; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him : 93 (God) for "vre shall see him as he is. And every man that liath this hope in him puritieth himself, even as he (God) is pare. — And ye know that he (God) was manifest to take away our sins." Again, '• And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." — There is and must be an overwhelming mystery, to short-sighted creatures, in the union of Christ's two natures, that he is fmmanuel, God w^ith us : " ^Vhich things the Angels desire to look into." — Those, who would attempt to divest this subject of mystery, do violence both to the spirit and the letter of the testimony of God himself up- on this subject. For God informed that Christ's name should " be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace." And he asserts, that "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godhness, God was manifest in the flesh." Here, the Logos, in the first of the Gospel of John, who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us," is, as he was by John, called, God. Here he was manifested in human nature. And here we are divinely taught, that without controversy it is a great mystery.* * Some inform us, that this text is, in our reading", incorrect. It is said that, in some ancient Greek MSS. it read?. " Great is the mystery of godlines.^, who was manifest in the flesh." Ai>d in one MS. — "which was manifest in the flesh." 1 will now assign my reasons, why I am well satisfied with the present rea- ding in our Bible. 1. VVe have much authority in favor of it. Many Greek MSS. it is confessed, have the passage, as we have it. And it is said, that ''only two undisputed testimonies, among: all the Greek MSS. exi-t in favor'' of the reading, '' wlio wae manifest in the flesh." (See Panoplist for April, ll^.ll, page 310 — ) The noted Alexandrian MS. in the British Museum, " has been the subject of much doubt and dispute, owing to the controverted word having been in some of tl^e lines (es- sential to determine its character) touched by a modem 94 David says, " Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The apostle, alluding to (he same pas- sage, says, *' If so be ye have tasted that the Lord k graciouS; — to whom coming, as to a living stone, land." (Ibjd.) Mill, Walton and Barriniaii declare in favor of + 'i)s MS.'? coutHiniuo;our piesent reading. Good aidhoritie? are found among the lathers in favor of our present reading, The Apostolic Constitutions, in the second century, have the text as it is m our Bible. Lactantius, iu the fourth century likewise : and Gregory Nysseu, and Chrysos- tom, of the fourth century, have it thus, very clearly. And TheJoret of the fiOh century. 2. ! can, to my satisfaction, account for the alteration of seme of the ancient MSS. from '• God was manifest in the fiesh,"' to " who was manifest in the flesh." For this alteration, in Greek MS. vv'as very small, and might be the eficcl of innocent mis- take; while the alteration from who. to God, must have been more likely to be the effect of v/icked design. This I will now si low. In the ancient Greek manuscript-writing, the w< rd for God was written thus, OC. (Ths, for Theo?.) And the word for whn, thus, OC, (Os.) The Greek letter Sigma being writ- ten like the Eaarlish C. The only difference here between the word for Gud, and the word for ic/to. is a dash in the middle of the Oinicron, or O, to convert it into the letter Theta, hav- ing the sound of Tk. How easily then miglit this small dash, in the centre of the O, have been by some transcriber omitted through mistake ? and the mistake overlooked ? Yea, how easy to conceive, that this dash, in the 6C, in the text under consid'^ration, might, in some original, from which a transcriber was copying, be effaced, by age or use ; so that, in glancing his eye upon it, he might mistake OC for C.C ? But to suppose so important a dasli inserted in the copy, when it was not in the original, and thus to convert it from ichu,, to Gorf, must appear much more like the effect of design, and much more improba- ble. 3. The reading " who v/as manifest in the flesli," is ungram- raatical ; and it utterly obscures the sense. With what antece- dent can the who agree .'* Not with godliness ; for that, in the original, is in the feminine gender; and who is masculine. And it cannot agree with mystery. For that in the original is of neuter gender. It tliorefore lias no antecedent. Neillicr docs it make sense. It informs not, who was manifest in the flesh. It is like the following broken sentence ; What an astonishing visit ! Who come here to-day, was a singular charr.cter. Thus obscure is the tey/ rendered, bv reading who. instead of God. 95 disallowed indccJ of men. but chosen of God. ar.d precious." Here Christ is chosen of God. and piecious. In some sense then, he is a dilTerent Person fiom God the Father. Yet he is the Lord (Jehovah) in tliose words of David, who is the very God. Hence they are two Persons, and yo^t one God. In Isai. liv. 5, we read, " For thy Maker is thy husband ; the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the holy One of Israel : The God of the whole earth shall he be called." But is not Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the husband of the Church ? — The afiirmative is undciiiable. And it follows, that Christ is the Person, who thei:e speaks, and who is the Maker of the Church, the Jehovah of hosts, the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth. In the Song of Solomon, Christ is the Bridegroom of his Spouse. And in the New Testament the Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. Says Paul, " I have espoused you to one Husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." '' For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church ; and he is the Saviour of the body." Here is the very R.edeemer, the holy One of Is- rael, in that passage in Isaiah. Most evidently the Bein;j in all these passaf:i;es is one and the same. Christ then, is the true and living God. though in some sense a distinct Person from the Father. 4. The text, in o'lr pre-ent reading', perfectly accords with the language ol the Bible. It has hc-en made to appear, that Christ, in tlie lan:^na»e of the B'ble, is God, the triae God, the grnat God, the mi^'ity God. An! Christ was manifested in the fle-h. The sentiment then is tri'e, "Rhether the text speak it, or not. And the oj'ponent has dorie but li'tle towards carrying h!5 point, even could he prove, that the text ought to be read, " v.hu was nnaniiest in the flesh ;" and thus that it has no mean- m^ ; which yet cannot be proved. 96 Again ; in Isaiah xlv. 23, Jehovah swears hj himself, that to him " every knee shall bow, as. d every tongtie shall swear." When God sw ear* by himself, it is " because he can swear b} none great- er." Heb. vi. 13. But from this passage in Isaiah, Paul informs the Romans, that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I hve, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then, every one of us shall give account of him- self to God." — In these two passages, we are taught, that Christ is God, tfie Judge, a; id the Je- hovah, w^ho sware by himself; and theiefore knew none greater than himself, by whom to swear. It is the essential prerogative of God, to search the heart. Of the wicked deceitful heart of man, God says, " Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every nian according to his ways." Much of such language as this do we read, of the eternal Jehovah. '' The Lord's throne is inheaven : his eyes behold, his eyelids try the children of men." '' The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." — '^His eyes behold the nations." "God looketh on the heart." "The righteous God trieth the hearts and the reins." " For thou, even thou only knowest the hearts of all thechildren of men." Now if we can find this very prerogative ascribed to Christ, we shall then find ourselves wanauted to say, that Christ is indeed God, who only k!u>ws the heart of man. But we do find this \ery thing. " Jesus did not commit himself unto them, (the Jews,) because he knew all men ; and needed not that any should testify of man ; for he knew what ■was in man." "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, (Greek, Jesus seeing their thouglits.) said, Where- fore think ye evil in your hearts." " For Jesus 97 knew iVorn the beginning, wlio they were that hc-- lieved not ; and who' should betray him." Should any, to evade this evidence, say, Jesus knew these things by information from God ; 1 answer ; let Christ himself decide it : The " Son of God," Rev. ii. 18,23, says, '' And all the churches shall know, that I am he, who scarcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you ac- cording to your works." Christ does not say here, that I am given and enabled to know the hearts ; but " 1 am He, who searcheth the reins and the hearts." I am that very God of the Old Testa- ment, who said, " I, Jehovah, search the heart, and try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways." Christ accordingly adds, " And I will give unto every one of you according to your works." As if he had said, I am the very Jehovah, who by Jeremiah spake these words ; and all my churches shall know it.' What opinion then must we form of those, who are laboring to disprove, in the churches, this divine sentiment; and are la- boring to propagate the opinion that Christ is de- rived, and totally distinct from that Jehovah, who searches the hearts ■ Peter did not view his Sa- viour thus, when he devoutly appealed to Christ's, omniscience ; " Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that 1 love thee." And Thomas ; when he said, " My Lord, and my God." Could Jesus Christ have made the above appli- cation of an essential divine prerogative to himself, if he were only of derived Divinity, or were a con- stituted God ; acting only by a delegated author- ity ? Would not a magistrate, who thus treated his government, be guilty of high treason ? And would not the crime be of a deeper die, in proportion to the grade of his magistracy ? Should the lowest magistrate seriously assume to hinaself the titlev 9 98 and all the honors due to his king, or emperor, it would be a serious otiencc' But it would be a much more serious otFcnce, should a prime minis- ter do ii. The uifinite Jehovah. God of Israel, says, Isai. xliii. '' Tims sailh the Lord, that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee.O Israel', Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called tiiee by thy name ; thou art mine. — I am the Lord thy God, tlie holy One of Israel, thy Saviour — Eveiy one that is called by my name ; — I have created him for my glory, 1 have formed him. yea I have made him. — Before me th(?re was no God formed : neither shall there be after me. I, even I am the Lord ; and beside me there is no Saviour.-— Thus saith the Lord your Redeemer, the holy One oi Is- rael ; — 1 am the Lord your holy One, the Creator of Israel, yoirr King.*' Here the one God is the Crestor of Israel. But did not Christ create Israel ? John i. 1 ; ''He was in the world, and the world was made by him ; he came to his own, (came to the Jews, whom he had created, and taken into covenant with hiniseif.) and his own received him not." " AH things were made by him, (Christ) whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers." Surely then Christ was that God of Israel, that holy Ojie. That holy One of Israel declares, that no God was formed before him ; and none should be form- ed after him. Can Christ then be a distinct God from hii:j. and formed or derived aftci him ? Sure- ly not. This holy One of isiael was their Saviour; beside whom there is no Saviour. But is not Christ the Saviour of Israel ? The apostle says of Christ, " Neither is there salvation in any other." Inevit- ably then Christ is that holy One, that just God -^and Saviour of Israel, beside whom there is no 99 other Gocl. no other Saviour. There is no evasion, of this conclusion, without denying the decisions of God himself. Jude says, '' Now unto him, that is able to keep you from falling and to present yc;i fa^ultless before the presence of his glory with ex- ceeding joy, t-y ihe only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." And 1 Tim. ii. 3 ; "in the sight of God our Saviour." In these texts Christ is most clearly identified with the infinite Jehovah : Not merely morally one, as are all the saints : But es- sentially the same Being ; the same infinite God. This Jehovah. IsraePs Redeemer and holy One, ?!ay3 iu the above passage in Isaiah. '• I am the Creator of Israel, your King." But is not Christ the King of Israel ? Natbanael said to him, John i. 49 ; '' Thou art the King of Israel." The Jews expected their ?dessiah to come in this character. Pilate hence inserted it on his superscription — '* The King of the Jews." The Jewish rulers wished to have the following substitute, -'He saith, I am the King of the Jews." Christ then is that King of Israel, that Jehovah, that holy One, in Isaiah. That same Jehovah, God of Israel, says, '• Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else." But Christ says, " I will draw all men unto me." Here he applies to himself the very idea of the above text. David, after describing Christ's humi- liation, says, '• All the ends of the earth shall re- member and turn unto the Lord." But this, Christ applies to himself, by inviting all men to come to him : and predicting, that all men on earth (in the Miliennium) shall come to him. If Christ be not the true and living God, the Jevy-s were Justified by the divine law given them, in putting him to death, as a deceiver and a bias- ice phemer. For the law of God given to them ex- pressly provided, that any person, who should at- tempt to draw them off to the worship of any God, beside the tj-ue Jehovah, God of Israel, should be surely put to death. Even should he - give a sign «r a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass ;" yet if the object were, to lead them to worship any, beside the true God, they should surely put him to death ; their " eye should not pity, nor spare, nor conceal him." If Jesus Christ then, were not the true and living God of Israel, the Jews were obliged, by their own law, to put him to death. For, notwithstanding the notices he gave them of the dependence of his humanity (On God, Christ did present himself to the Jews, as God. They understood him thus. " Thou being a man, makest thyself God." He did receive, and never forbid, worship paid to himself; and he taught " that all men should honor (or worship) the Son, even as they honor the Father." Now therefore, if Christ were not the true God of Is- rael, did he not teach them to v/orship another beside the true God of Israel ? And if he did, how could the Jews be exempt from the demand of their law, that such an one should be put to death ? To say, that Christ acted under the di- vine commission, and exhibited plenary evidence of his being sent of God, though he were a dis- tinct being from the God of Israel ? and that God permitted him to receive divine honors, gives no relief in this case. For it is to say, that God act- ed contrary to his own law ; that he thus denied himself; and betrayed his people. For the One God of the Jews did positively and abundantly as- sure them, that there was no God beside himself ; that he knew not any ; none formed before him, cor after him ; that he was their Saviour ; and^ 101 there was no Saviour beside him. Surely then, it* Christ presented liimself to tlie Jews, as their Saviour, and an object of worship ; and yet as a being distinct from the infinite Jehovah, the God of Israel ; I see nothing why he ought not, accor- ding to the law of God, to have been executed as a deceiver ! To represent Christ as a being distinct from the Father ; and to allow, that he is at the same time called God ; is to own two Gods. There is no possibility of evading this charge, till it can be made to appear, that one real God, and one con- stituted God, do not amount to the number two. To say they are one in spirit, gives no relief; for so are all the saints. To say the two distinct Be- ings are one in original essence, helps not the case. For upon the scheme of the opponent, they are now no more one in essence, than is a human fa- ther and his son. But these arc as really two, as are two angels in heaven. There is no evasion of the charge of having tv/o Gods, but by allowing that the Father, and the Divinity of the Son, are equal in one Godhead, and that in some mysteri- ous and essential sense, they are absolutely one God. And we find it a fact, that they are abund- antly so represented. And I see not why it should be less offensive to beheve in two di^nct Gods in heaven, than to believe in one God^^mysteriously consisting of Father, Word and Holy Ghost.* * Let not the advocates for the sentiment, that Christ is lit- erally derived from God, is a Being distinct from the Father, and does receive worship, ever more please themselves that they are Unitarians, and worshippers of one God. We are worshippers of one God. But they are worshippers of two Gods. It is impossible for them to evade the charge. We hold to a Trinity of Persons in one God : they to a duality of distinct Gods. What have they gained, in point cf consisten- cy, in renouncing our theory ? Have they not incurred fai- 9* 102 i The law of God demands, that we should *' love the Lord our God," with all the heart, soul, strength and mind. But is not the same love demanded towards Jesus Christ ? Was man ever cautioned against loving Christ more than God ; or too in- tensely ? We are much cautioned against loving the creature more than the Creator. But we are so far from being cautioned against loving Christ more than God, that we are clearly taught, that to love Christ, is to love God. Not merely that Iovq to Christ is an evidence of love to God ; for love to Christians is thus ; but love to Christ, is itself love to God. As he that hath seen Christ hath seen the Father ; so he that hath loved Chr'it hath loved the Father. Accordingly man's want of love to God is expressed, and threatened as follows; "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranathh." Does the divine economy render idolatry essential to an escape from the w;rath to come ? Must a derived being., totally distinct from the infinite Jehovah^ the God of Israel, be supremely loved ; or man be lost ? Isaiah says of the wricked, in the last days, " They shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the giory of his Majesty, when he ariseth to shake ter- ribly the eai#." But in the New I'estament we learn that it It Christ, who at that very time arises to shake terribly the earth, and to dash wicked na- tions to pieces as with a rod of iron.* It is Christ;, greater ilifficnlties, than they have escaped? By what name oMo^ht they to be callod ? Surely, ngt Unitarians. There is no more real unity in their two Gods than between *' A^^atn aatt Seth." ^ Psalm it, e. 103 who at the same period siys, '* Behold I come as a thief."* Christ is the Wo'rd of God, riding forth, at that day, upon his white horse of victory, Rev. xix. 1 1 — . In those passa^^es, whiie Christ is the Word of God. and the Son ; he is at the same time the Jehovah, wiio " alone shaii be exalted in tliat day." Surely it is the Kingdom of Christ, which is to be exalted in the Millenniam. No believer in the Gospel will doubt of this. It is called "the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Yet '• Jeliovah alone shall be exalted in that day." And it is ''the God of heaven, who will then set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." Dan. ii. 44. Christ then, is Jehovah alone, the God of heaven. Although relative to Christ's humanity, he is made head overall things to the church •,. and God the Father hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, that is above every name ; yet relative to his Divinity he is, according to the clear sense of the above passages, viewed in their connexion, Jehovah alone, the God of heaven, exalted in that day. Accordingly the prophet says, of that \erv period, Isai. xl. 9 — 1 1, ''- Say unto the cities of Ju- dah. Behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him ; behold his reward is with him. and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a Shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." — This is Christ coming in his kingdom. Yet he is '• the Lord God." The saints triumph ; *' Lo this is our God ; we have waited fof him, he will save us." Jeho- vah is our Judge, Jehovah in our Lawgiver, Jeho- /♦ Rev. xvi. yy. 10>^ vah is our King, he Mill save us. Are all these things said of a derived, dependent being, who is distinct from the Father ? Is it such a being alone, who is " exalted in that day ?" These Scriptures teach, that Christ in his Divinity, is one with God ; and is the great, the living and true God. Jesus Christ relative to his human body, said, ^' Destroy this temple ; and in three days I will raise it up." '* But God raised him from the dead." Christ here decides, that he is God. And he decides that he has two natures in his one Person, divine and human ; And sometimes be- speaks of himself in relation to the one, and some- times in relation to the other. When he spake, in the days of his humiliation, of his dependence on God, he spake in relation to his mediatorial char- acter, as will be shown. But when he spake in re- lation to his divine nature, he spake as God. I will raise Up this temple of my body in three days. •' I will ; be thou clean." To the dead, " 1 say un- to thee arise." '• Lazarus, come forth." To the stormy lake, " Peace, be still !" To the Disci- ples, •'! will make you tishers of men." " The Son "of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." '• Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, 1 will do it." '-' I will not leave you comfortless ; 1 will come unto you." In relation to his humanity, and mediatorial character, Jesus wrought miracles in his Father's name. In relation to his Divinity, he wrought miracles in his own name, and received the praise of it. Should any doubt relative to the correctness of this distinction, between Christ's two natures, let Christ himself decide it. " I am the Root and olfspring of David."* Here, in a short clause, he speaks in relation to both his na; ^- Rev. xxii. 16, 105' tures. He is David's Root, and Davd's offspring"-, David's Jehovah, and David's Son ; David's God, and David's descendant : David's Creator, and *' his seed according to tlie flesh." Can any be- liever in Revelation doubt whether Christ does possess two natures / and whether this fact togeth- er with his constituted mediatorial character, may solve all the seeming contradictions o Christ's de- pendence on God ; and yet his being himself the very independent God ? if they will doubt, thej are not the first, who have doubted. The cavil- ling Pharisees doubted; and our Lord put them to silence with the very truth in the above text. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Je- gus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ ? Whose Son is he / They say unto him, The Son of Da\id. He saith unto them. How then doth David in spii'it call him Lord, saying ; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son ?" This reduced Jhem to silence, Christ was both David's Lord, and Son. In his Deity, he was the former 5 in his humanity the latter. And had the Pharisees under- stood (and had grace enough to acknowledge) this evident sense of the scriptures concerning Christ, they could have answered his question, with great ease, by saying ; Christ's Divinity is David's Je- hovah, whom he set always before his face, and worshipped as God. But Christ's humanity is made of the seed of David, according to the llesh : Or. Christ is David's Root, and offspring. The two natures in Christ are often clearly dis- tinguished from each other, and things said of him, which apply to but; one of these natures. As 1 Cor. XV. -21 ; ''• But when he saith. All things are put under him. ii is manifest that he is excepted, who did put all things under him.''" Here refeieoce 1C6 is had to Christ's glorified humanity ; that it is the intinite God, who glorified the man Christ, and put ail things under his power. Compare this with Phil. iii.. 21 ;- — •' the Lord Jesus Christ — who is ahie even to suhdue all things to himself." The word in the original, in the former of these texts, (importin::: the putlirig tji ail things under Christ) is the same v/ith that in the latter text translated to subdue, Christ, in the latter text is said to be ab!e to do the \ery thing, which God, in the former text, is said to do. The former text then, alludes to Christ's humanity ; the latter to his Divinity. I might multiply cvidtnces of Christ's propei* Deity, till almost the whole scripture would pass in review : But it is needk'5::. A tc^w more sacred testimo.;ic? nowever, I must beg the reader's pa- tience to peruse, before I close this section. The great truth before us does not rest on a few obscure hints, or detached passages; but it is interwoven through the Bible; and forms the essential basis of its glorious scheme. Many scriptures, which I esteem divine testi- monies to this point. I omit, because the decision is not carried so clearly upon their fnce. I do not mean to make a quotation, which I do not believe is decisive in favor of the real Deity of Christ. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he was determin- ed to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. But was not the glory of God his object ? Jesus Christ then, in Paul's view, was God. To preach Christ, was to preach God. To know Christ, was to know God. Christ was Paul's oidy oh ect. Yet God was his only object. This accords with the words of Christ, " He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." Paul again speaking of Christ, who will appear in judgment, the King of kings, adds, '' AVho only 107 hath immortality ; dwelling in the hght, \vhk:h no man can approacli unto ; whom no man hath seen, nor can see ; to whom be honor and power ever- lasting. Amen."* If Christ orijv hath immortality ; then surely he is God. the only living God ; or else there is no God of immortality. The Father is not, in this test, excluded, but included. But the passage shows the unity of God and Christ. Each of them only hath immortality. Paul says ; •' I am dead unto the law. that I might live unto God." Yet he teils us, ••• For me to live is Christ ;" — " that we shouicllive to him, who died for us, and rose again." •• Ye ere boaght •with a price : therefore giorify God with your bodvaad spirit, waich are God's." Thus with Paul, Christ was God. God and Chnst, in point of real Divinity, were with Paul convertable terms. Man is commanded to rejoice and glory only in God. '• In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." " As it is written : He that sjlorieth. let him glory in the Lord." •• And rejoice in hope of the i;:ory of God." '• ^»Ve also joy in God." Bat yet Paul says, '* God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of oar Lord Jesus Christ," " Your rejoicing being more abundant in Christ" — "in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye re;oice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." There is no avoiding the conclu- sion, that in those passages, God is Christ ; and Christ is God. If Christ be not the living God, but a derived, dependent being, in his highest nature, why did the apostles work their mirac'es in his name, and not in the name of God ? — Should they not have performed them in the name of that divme Powerj * 1 Tim. vi IB. 108 who* actually did the work ? Would they be divine- ly directed to perform their miracles m the name of a derived, dependent being? and to have ilie praise ascribed to ;:uch an one / This would be most unaccountable. All power helongeth unto God ; yea unto tiie Lord our God belongeth the issues from aeath. The praise of God's works ouglit to be given to him, and not to the instruments oi his oceiations. It is one threat obect of Revelation, to leach creatures devoutly to distinguish between instruments of good, and God the intinite giver. And would Christ have directed his apostles to vio- late this principle / Yea, would he have violated it in his own Person and examples .^ It is true, Christ repeatedly gave notice, that all he did was from God ; and of himself he could do iio'diing. But it is as true, that he is as abundantly represented as being himself the great, the living, and true God ; and operating as such. How shall we dispose of this seeming contradiction ? The clew has already been hinted ; Christ has two na- tures in his Person. He is God; and he is man. And he is constituted a Mediator. And in passages coucerni'ig Christ, reference is sometimes had to the one of his natures; and sometimes to the other. This is a most evident fact. " I am the root and oiispring of David." Here, in the pronoun I, are contained God and man. As God, he wrought by his own power ; as man, he wrought by the power of God. In tiie various communications of Christ, and in the records given of him, this scemii^g paradox is abundantly exhibited, for the trial of man's faith, that Christ was God ; and he was man ; that he was independent ; and was de|>endent ; and t]ie essentia] attributes of God, and ofnjan centered in hmi. 1 his stumbled the Jews; and has stumbled 109 thousands. " Blessed is he. whosoever shall not be olfended in me." '* Unto you, therefore, who be- lieve, he is precious : But unto them, who are dis-- obedient, the stone, which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner ; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them, who stumble at the word, beino; disobedient ; w hereunto also they were appointed." Christ says " No man knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son ; and he, to whom the Son will reveal him." This appears to indicate, that those twp Persons in the Godhead are equally incomprehen- sible ; and thus equally divine. No wonder then, that when God was manifested in the flesh, his name should be called Wonderful ; that it should be declared a great mystery ; and that it should be to many a stumbling block, and foolishness. Jesus Christ is the Life. '' I am the resurrec- tion and the Life." '• I am the way, the truth, and the Life." " In him was Life." " This is the true God, and eternal Life." Christ is not merely the way to life ; but is himself said to be eternal Life ; the Prince of Life. Christians have eternal life. But they cannot be called the Life. Christ as a man and Mediator speaks of this pow- er of Life being given him. But if nothing ap- pertained to Christ, but a derived nature, which received this gift of the Father to have life in him- self, surely Christ could never, with such empha- sis, be called the life. If the person of Christ had no life, but a given life, he would not have said, " Because I live, ye shall live also :" But, because God lives ye shall hve also. The Life of their lives must be in God. Yet it was in Christ j who therefore is God. 10 110 Christ, upon promising the Comforter, said, "He sliall glorify me ; for he shall take of mine, and show it unto you." Do we not here learn, that Christ is God, one with the Father ? Would the Holy Ghost have it as a first object, to glorify a derived dependent being ? " He shall take of «nine, and show it unto you." But what does the Holy Ghost show to Christians ? He shows them the character and glory of God ; and the way of salvation. The following is the result of this dis- covery, as the apostle decides relative to all the new-born ; *' And rejoice in hope of the glory of God." The Comforter then, in order to glorify Christ, glorifies God. John remarks, that Christ's miracles manifested forth his giorv. Af^ain : " Of his fulness we have received, and grace for grace." If Christ had no nature, but what did in fact receive divine commu- nications, why is it said to be his glory, that was manifested forth ? and his fulness, from which Christians receive their divine aids and consola- tions ? Do they not receive these things from God ? And did not Christ's miracles manifest forth the glory of him, who said " My glory I will not give unto another?" Did Paul's miracles manifest forth PauPs glory ? Or was it of Peter's fulness, that the healed Eneas, and the raised Dorcas re- ceived ? Surely not. And if Christ, in his whole Person, were as dependent as was Paul, or Peter ; does it not a^ really give the glory to another be- si,de God, to ascribe \t to Christ, as to ascribe it to Paul or Peter ? Paul said, " I can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth me." But was not Paul's sole dependence on God ? " The Lord stood by me and strengthened me." " Now he, that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing, is God ;" " For Ill it is God who worketh in you, both to will and tq do — ." " God who hath given unto us his holy Spirit." Surely then, Christ is God. Jesus Christ will fashion the bodies of his saints *^ like unto his glorious body, according to the workino;, whereby he is able to subdue even ail things unto himself." — Christ's voice raises the dead. '' I am the resurrection and the life." But we are informed, that '• The Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them." In this there- fore, we learn the truth of Christ's words, " I and my Father are one." " I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Christ is called " the Author and Finisher" of the Faith. But this same feith, we are informed, is of" God's operation." "It is the gift of God." Inevitably then, Christ is God. Read the description of Christ, in Rev. i. chap- ter ; and the ascriptions of glory to him there found. " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own blood, — be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen." Are the heavenly hosts idolaters ? Is this Saviour, whom they w^or- ship, a merely derived, dependent being ? If he be, I see not that the Bible can be exonerated from the just imputation of establishing a most deep and refined system of idolatry ! While it calls men to the worship of the one only living and true God ; it at the same time institutes, and justifies the worship of one, who is totally distinct from, and dependent on the one only Uving and true Grod, A sentiment which appears an infinite ab- surdity ! Behold the dying Stephen " full of the Holy Ghost," devoutly " calling upon God, and sayr ing, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Could such an addrcfs be made, under an infallible guide, to any being short of the infinite God ' 112 In the Apocalypse, the infinite Divinity of Je- sus Christ is repeatedly and clearly ascertained. Some of these evidences of Christ's proper Divini- ty have been already noted. One or two more I will now exhibit. The Person, who styles hirfte^^f. the Alpha and Omega, in the Revelation, who is evidently Jesus Christ, (see Rev. i. 8-18 ; ii. 8 ; xxi. 6, 7,) says, " He that overcometh, shall inher- it all thingS; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." These are the words of him, who in the preceding verse says, " I am Alpha and Ome- ga, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." Tliese are the very titles that Christ repeatedly in this book takes to himself. It is Christ then, who here speaks, and says, of him that overcometh, " I will be his God, and he shall be my son." But would Christ say such things as these, if he were not the true and living God ? Would not the affirmative make Christ a blasphe- mer ! He is the God and fountain of life, to the Church triumphant I and this too, it appears, after the Son shall have given up the mediatorial king- dom, at the end of the world, that God may be all in all ! Christ has a nature in his person, that even there will be the God and Fountain of life to all, who shall overcome. This idea accords with the repeated inspired assertions, that Christ has a kingdom, which shall have no end ; even though his mediatorial kingdom shall close at the end of the' world. Of the new Jerusalem, it is said, " The Lamb is the light thereof." And, " The throne of God and the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall.-^ serve him, and they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their forehead." Rev. xxii. 3, 4. Are not God and the Lamb here presented as one and the same God ? What is the antecedent to 113 the pronoun his and him, in the singular number^ repeatedly used in this text ? God and the Lair.b are the antecedent. But if God and the Lamb be two distinct Beings, why is it said in relation to both of them, '• his servants shall serve him, and shall see his face, and his name shall be in their forehead ?'' No doubt the Father and the Lamb are in a sense two, as has appeared. But if tbe Lamb were not essentially one with God, it could not have been said of the New Jerusalem, " The Lamb is the light thereof;" nor could God and the Lamb have been represented, in the above text, as one Being, whose servants serve himj^^ v.ho see his face, and his name is in their forehead. Jesus Christ is the Judge of the world. In Isai. xl. 10, it is said, '• Behold the Lord God will come — bis reward is with him." But Christ says. Rev. xxii. 12, " Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me.'' Christ then, is that Lord God in the former passage. The great day is hence called, interchangeably, the day of Christ ; as Philipians i. 10; and the day of God; as 2 Pet. iii. 12. '• God will judge the world by the Man whom he hath ordained." " The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." " And hath given him authority to execute judg- ment also, because he is the Son of man." In these and other scriptures, we learn, that the Son is the Person of the final Judge. And these and similar scriptures relate to the mediatorial charac- ter of Christ. To this official character the judg- ment is indeed a thing committed. But is there nothing in the Person of the final Judge of the world, but what is dependent ? This is the ques- tion. And all that has been adduced in this sec- tion, goes to decide that in the Person of the Judge 10* 114 is infinite Divinity, as well as humanity. He is the root, as well as the .offspring of David. I will note some of the scriptures, which ■ relate to the Judgment, and the Person of the Judge. And let the reader decide whether Christ be, or be not, really God. Psalm 50. " The mighty God, even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth, from the rising of the sun, unto the going down thereof. Out of Zion, .the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence : a tire shall devour before him ; and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me ; those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness ; for god is judge himself. Hear, O my people, and I will speak ; O Israel, and I will testify agaiiist thee ; i am god even thy GOD." — Here is the final Judge of the world. Is this the true God? Or is this a derived and con- stituted God ? The remainder of the Psalm furnishes evidence no less decisive, that the Being, who there speaks, is the infinite God. We are assured it is he, who knows all the fowls of the mountains ; and that ail the cattle upon a thousand hills are his. The world is HIS and the fulness thereof. He says, »' Call upon me in the day of trouble ; I will de- Kver thee ; and thou shalt glorify me. But unto the wicked God saith,-^These things hast thou done, and 1 kept silence. — But I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thee. Now consider this, ye who forget God ; lest I tear you in pie- ces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise, glorifieth me; and to him, that ordereth 115 his conversation aright, will [ show the salvation of God." This Psalm must be vier/ed as the words of Christ. It is evidently the words of the very Per- son of the fi'ial Judge. But "the Father jud:^eth no man; bat hath committed all judgment unto the Son." And of himself, as the hnal Judge. Ciirist says, '' All who are in their |j;raves. shall hear hi:- voice, and shall come forth" — "' When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory ; and before him shall be gathered all natioiis; and he shall separate them.'' Most exactly these accounts, and what follows this last quoted passage, (Mat. xxv. 32, — to the end,) accord with the above solemn description, in the 50th Psalm. "The mighty God. even the Lord hath spoken and called the earth — He shall call to the heavens and to the earth — Gather my saints to- gether unto me." Here is the voice of the Arch- angel, and the trump of God. But Christ tells us, it is his voice, that the dead shall hear, and shall come forth ; (John v. 25, 28.) TV^hen Christ speaks of the Son of man coming in the glory of his Fa- ther, he speaks of himself in relation to his human- ity, and to his constituted official character. The Father in such passages, represents the ful- ness of the Godhead, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. But Christ speaks also of his coming in his own glory. " "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory." And surely, in the 50th Psalm, Christ does come in his own glory, as God. '• God is Judge himself. — 1 am God, even thy God. — The mighty God, even Jehovah." Would the meek and lowly Jesus have given such a represen- tation of himself, if he had been only a derived, de- pendent being ? Impossible ! In this Psalm is 116 presented tlie same Angel of the Lord, who ap- peared to Abraham, whom Abraham calls Jeho- vah, and whom he addressed as the Judge of all the. earth, who mast do right. Christ is the Judge. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath commit- ted alljudgment unto the Son." Yet the Judge is God. Paul says, " We are sure the judgment of God is according to truth, against them who com- mit such things." — "And thinkest thouy that thou shalt escape the judgment of God /" — " And treas- urethup unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God ?" '* Is there unrighteousness with God ? How then shall God Judge the world ?" — ^^Surely then, though Christ is the Judge ; yet, in the New Testament, as well as the Old, the Judge is God himself.— " The Lord himself shall be revealed from heaven, in flaming tire. taking vengeance on them that know not God." Here is the Son of man coming in his 2;lory. This text appears to be in allusion to that passage in the 50th Psalm, "A fire shall devour be- fore him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him." The two passages relate to the same Person and eveut, — the appearing of Christ, the Judge of the world. The apostle calls it the glorious appearing of the great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ. It is evident, from the view taken of these passa- ges, which relate to the judgment, that Jesus Christ IS the very God, as well as man. He is in some mysterious sense distinct from the Father, who judgeth no man : Yet he is infinitely superior to a derived dependent being. " God is Judge him- self." God and the Judge are essentially one. There is no doubt but the three Persons in the Godhead will all be engaged in the great 117 work of the final judgment. But the divine exhi- bition is represented as being made through the Person of Christ. When it is said, '' the Father judgeth no man," it cannot mean, that he is ex- cluded from the solemn scene, or has nothing to do with the judgment. Nor can it mean, that the Person, who is the manifest Agent in the judgment, is essentially inferior to the Father. For neither of these ideas does the Bible admit. But the sense appears to be this : The Judge will be rendered visible, by his gloiitied humanity; it will appear that this humanity is united to infinite Divinity ; that this infinite Divinity of the Judge is posses- sed of some personal distinction from the Father, who is at the head of the economy of mediatorial grace ; yet that there is an essential unity betweeit the Person of the Judge, and the Father ; and that the whole Godhead are united in that momentous and final Assize, Some explanations of difficulties relative to things seemingly contradictory being said of Christ, will be given toward the close of the next section. JESUS CHRIST HAS A HUMAN SOUL, AS WELL AS BODY. This has been repeatedly token for granted, in the pieceding section. I shall now Ciideavor to prove it from the word of God. Some are of the opinion, that the soul of Christ, being inconceivably superior to humanity, was lit- erally derived from God, as a son from a father, some time before the creation of the world. That this derived literal Sou of God was the Logos, or ^Vord, the Messiah. That the names and attri- butes of Godare ascribed to him. as being of the es- sence of the divine nature, and by divine constitu- tion. That the Father sees tit, that this his own lite- ral Son should be honored, as himself; though he is a being totally distinct from him, as was Isaac from Abraham ; and is as dependent, as a crea- ture. This Being, who they teach is a God by na- ture, and is constituted a real God, is the soul of Christ. He came down, and took only a human body, when he was born of the virgin. This view of the soul of Christ, I think, is refut- ed in the preceding section. I now purpose to show that the Logos, the second in the divine Tri- nity, did t^ke into personal union with himself, maiihood. a human soul and body ; and is hence really man as well as God. I will attempt to ex- hibit some of the e\idence that this sentiment is clearly taught in the word of God. 120. ^ Jesus Christ himself says, " I am the Root and offspring of David." Could he, according to any known sense of language, be David's ottspring, w ithout possessmg a human soul ? An assertion in the use of language, contrary to its known import, With unknown mental reservations, has ever been esteemed falsehood. Christ assures us, he is Da- vid's obspring. And in a multitude of instances he calls himself the Son of man. Do we find the oilspring, — the sons of man, — without human souls / Have we ever been taught to affix to the terms, offspring, and son of man the idea of a hu- man body only ? If not, what right have we so es- sentially to vary from the common use of language, without express warrant thus to do, when the words are applied to Christ ? At such a rate, man may construe any sentence in the Bible in any way, which his fancy may suggest. \S e are informed, tliat " Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh." This may seem at tirst view (or taken most literally) to favor the idea of the opponent, that Christ took only a human body. But this is indeed " judging after the outward appearance." Let the word of God explain itself. What is the common use, in the Bible, of the word flesh, v.hen used in such a con- nexion ? Let this point be ascertained by the fol- lowing passages. Relative to the flood, we are in- formed, '' Ail flesh died.'' God afterward said, " Nor shall ali flesh be cut off any more." *' For who is there of all flesh, that heard the voice of tiie living God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as ye have, and lived V '• If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto him the spirit, and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and m.an sljall turn again unto dust.'' Lnto thee shall all flesh come." '• The glory of the Lord shall be re- fl21 vealcd, and all fle^h shall see it together.'' "All flesh is ati grass/' *' AH tiesti shall know that I, Jeho- vah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty Oiie of Jacob." ''' By hre and by sword will the Lord {)lead vith all ile^^h." •• All flesh shall come a -id worship before me." " iNo desh shall have peice." •• Cursed is the man, that trusteth in man. aid aiaketh ilesh his arm." '' The Lord hath a coiitroversy with the nations, he will plead with all desh." '- I will brin<^ evil upon all flesh." " All flesh shall see that 1 the Lord have kindled it.'' " The gods, wliose dwelling is not with flesh." " Be silent, O all flesh before the Lord." "Except those days be shortened, there shall no flesh be saved." "' I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." "Thou hast given him power over all flesh." "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." " Tnat no flesh should glory in his presence." " We wrestle not with flesh and blood." I migh| proceed, in quoting such texts : But it is needless. We learn from these quotations the language of the Bible upon this particular ; that by the word flesh, in such a connexion, is meant, not merely the body of man, but the whole of man. And when- ever the word imports otherwise, notice is clearly given of it, in the sense of the passage. When we therefore read of Christ's being made of the seed of David, according to the flesh ; and of God's being manifested in the flesh ; what right has man to exclude from the term the human soul, a^id ^ay, that Christ took only a human body ? Tnis must bs merely arbitrary, and not according to tile iieneral language of the Bible. Of Christ we read, "Tiie vVord was made flesh, and dwelt among us.'* Of whom (i. e, of Israel) as concerning the flesh, Ciinst came, who is over aU God blessed forever." " Knowing tiiat Go^ 11 122 had sworn with an oath to him, (Davie}) that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.'' Can we, in the view of the above quotations, feel warranted to say, that those ex- pressions, of Christ's coming in the flesh, import that he took only a human body ? As the word flesh, in the general language of the Bible, when applied to man, imports soul and body ; why is not uns the import of the word, when applied to CJhrist's coming in our nature ? It is arbitrary, and unprecedented in the Bible, to say, that the word flesh, in such a connexion, relates to Christ's hu- man body only. But this point is settled by tlie apostle to tlie Hebrews, in various passages. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels, for the suiiering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Jesus then, was *' made a little lower than the Angels." A preceding passage ascertains, tliat the words are in allusion to the exclamation v)f David, in Psalm viii. 4, 5. " What is man, that thou art mindful of him ? — For thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels.'' From this, the inspired writer infers, that Christ was made a little lower than the Angels. But the deduction rests on this ground, that Christ is a real max. For if he be not a real man, then it does not fojiow from man's being made a httle lower than the An- gels, that Christ was ms.de a little lower than the Angels. The same apostle further decides tlie poi nt> ^' For both he that sanctitieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one ; for which cause he is iiot ashamed to call them brethren." How are Christ and his people one, in the sense here ex- pressed, if he have no human soul ? His assuming proper humanity, is the very point on which the 123 oneness rests. " Wherefore in all things it be- liooved him to be ma(ie like unto his brelhren,' But can a human body, without a human soul, coia- stitute this oneness with his human brethren '/ Most certainly it cannot. The apostle proceeds. " Forasmach then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like\tfse took part of the same." Inasmuch as they were human j he likewise became human. He partook of flesh and blood, in the same sense in which they partake of them. But surely they have not only bodies, but souls. The sense of the passage under consi- deration, is not this, that Christ took a part of what they had ; or took a body without a soul : But the sense is, that he fully participated with them in their nature. In the Greek it is more emphatically ex- pressed ; — •' Himself also, in like manner, partici- pated of the same." The Greek adverb here used (parapleesioos) is more emphatical than the Eng- glish rendering '' in like manner." It indicates, with the adjoining words, that Christ fully partici- pated with his brethren in their nature. But if he took only a human body, he was very far from fully participating with his brethren in thtiir nature ; and the assertion in the text appears in that case an untruth. It purports to assert, that Christ be- came what man in his formation was. But we know the soul is the man. Christ taught the Sad- duces, relative to the resurrection, "^ that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob now live, though their bodies are dissolved. Their souls then, arc themselves. The apostle to the Hebrews further teaches, *' For verily he (Christ) took not on him the nature of A'r^els ; but he took oa him the seed of Abra- h im." It is true the word nature here, before An* * Mark xii. 26, 27. 124 gels, i«! not in the Greek. " He took not on An- gels ; but he took on the seed of Abraham. 1 ac- knowledge the Greek may admit the followirig rendering ; He took not hold of Angels ; but he took hold of the seed of Abraham. But the follow- ing consideration favors the sense given by our translators. Christ did indeed take on himself the seed of Abraham. He became one with Abraham's seed ; and their elder Brother. In the divine pro- mise to Abraham, Christ is identitied with Abra- ham's seed. " I will establish my covenant be- tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee." In the word seed here, we find^ by other scriptures, three subjects are compiised. 1. Christ. " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. 2. Believers are included. ^* If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- mise." 3. Abraham's natural olfspring were in- cluded. " And I will give unto thee and to thy seed — all the land of Canaan." " Ye (infidel Jews') are the children of the covenant, which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thv seed shall the kindreds of the earth be bless- ed."* Here are Christ, believers, and their na- tural otfspring, all comprised in the term seed, in that covenant of grace with Abraham. Now there- fore, can this scriptural representation admit, that while Christ is so classed with believers and their children, as to be known under one and the same term with thciTi, the Seed of Abraham ; yet that he is so dissimilar to them, as to have no human soul ? Surely, if Christ took no human soul, he is wot, according to any known language, the seed of * Act? iii. 29. 125 Abraham. He. in that case, took on neither the nature of Anj;els, nor the seed of Abraham, in the sense of any language known to man. Further, says the sacred writer : "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren ; that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, beingtempted, he is able to succour them, that are tempted.'- Can this sacred text leave any doubt on the mind, whether Christ took a human soul as well as body^^ Could he, in all things, be made hke unto his breth- ren, without a human soul ? The sympathies of humanity, expressed in this text, clearly imply, that Christ had a human soul ; or I should despair of learning the true sense of language. And the history of Christ demonstrates, that he did possess all the feelings of humanity. In correspondence with this, the inspired writer further remarks ; •' For we have not an high Priest, who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet with- out sin."' Inspiration here unequivocally decides, that Christ had all tbe feelings of human nature, sin only excepted. And did he have these, with- out a human soul ? The supposition of the affirm- ative is a glaring absurdity ! and is contradicted by much of the language of this epistle. Could Christ so abundantly call himself the Son of man, if he had no human soul ? Is not this ap- pellation, which is so generally assumed by him- self, fully calculated to show, that Christ meant we should understand he had a human soul ? And would he deceive mankind ? It has been esteemed a great excellency in the scheme of man's salvation, that we have a Savioitv 11^ 126 in onr own nature ; that the Medium of our access to God is a glorified man ; not in appearance only, but in reality. And that he is, at the same time, in real union with the Godhead. That our heavenly Bridegroom is thus of the same nature with his bride ; as well as one with the infinite God. Here is the Antitype of Jacob's ladder, which reached from earth to heaven. Its foot, on the surface of the .earth, has been supposed to relate to Christ's humanity. Audits top, at the throne of God, to relate to his Divinity. But if Christ have not real humanity, and have not, at the same time real Di- vinity, the original seems utterly to fail of answer- ing to the copy. To say, that Christ's taking merely a human body, may account for all tliat is said of his ap* pearing in human nature, does not satisfy the feel- ings of common sense upon the subject. Should an angelic soul appear in the body of our deceased friend, it would not constitute him the person of that friend; nor even a human being. If the An- gel Gabriel for once is called the m.an Gabriel, be- cause he assumed a human appearance ; we can- not hence infer, that all, which is said of Christ's coming in the flesh, and being the Son of man, may be consistent with his really possessing no more of humanity, than Gabriel for once appear- ed to possess, — a human body. We should need something very express to convince us, tha.t our heavenly Bridegroom, the Man Christ Jesus, the Man whom God hath ordained to judge the world, the offspring of David, made of the seed of David according to the flesh, the emphatical Seed of A- braham, who was made in all things like unto his brethren, touched with the feeling of their infirm- ities, a id tempted in nil things like as we are, vet vvithout sin, and is caled the Son of man, about 1-27 twice as often, as he is, the Son of God ; yet had nothing human, but an animal body ! The soul is the man. And a human body without a human soul is not a man. Of Christ, God says, '4 have exalted one, chosen out of the people.'' But a mere human body, containing for a soul an off- spring literally derived from God, as a son from a father, and who is called the mighty God, and the everlasting Father, could never answer to this de- scription, of " one chosen out of the people." Such a being, as we are called upon, by some, to believe Christ to be, utterly fails of answering to the descriptions given of Jesus Christ, both as to his Divinity, and as to his humanity. Our Lord is represented as saying, (Heb. x. .5.) •• A body hast thou prepared me." Adequate reasons may be assigned, for this declaration of Christ, without supposing that he meant to exclude from his human existence a human soul. The whole teiLt, from which these words of Christ pur- port to be a quotation, reads thus. Psalm xl. 6, '' Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire: mine cars hast thou opened ;" in the Hebrew, bored s relating, as expositors inform, to the law, Exo. xxi. 6, where a servant, willing to serve his mas- ter all his days, should have his ear bored, as the seal of his engagement. Christ, v»hen he became God^s servant on earth, to take away sin by the' sacrifice of himself, represents himself as receiv- ing this seal of submission. " Mine ear hast thou bored.'?. The apostle, quoting this text, is by the Holy Ghost instructed to vary from its letter, and to give it a sense, w^hioh immediately relates to Christ's sacrifice of himself for sin ; which was more literally to be made in his body. The text quoted, is as though Christ had said. The bodies of tiiose beasts offered in sacrifice thou didst not. 128 eventually desire. Tlicy had reached their end, and were ceasing ; being in themselves insufficient to take away sin. The sacrifice of my body, typi- fied by them, must do this. And here I am. This body for sacrifice thou hast prepared me ; as was implied in my ear being bored, in Psalm xl. 6. But does this teach, that Christ took noth- ing human, but a body ? By no means. Paul fur- nishes an explanation of this phraseology of Christ. He, for the same reason that Chrisl's body is spok- en of as in the above text, (viz. in allusion to the bodies of beasts offered in sacrifice) says, '* I be- seech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. which is your reasona- ble service." Can wc infer from this text, that those Roman Christians had no human souls ? No more are we to infer from the other phraseology, that Christ had no human soul. The word body is sometimes used (even where there is no allusion to ancient sacrifices) to repre- sent the whole man. •• The same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." Is the soul here excluded ? Men say, Some body is com- ing. No body was there. It is needless to re- mark, that in such cases, the soul is not excluded. Some may imagine, from the words, that Christ " took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. and being found in fashion as a man — ;" that he took only the external like- ness, the body of a man. But this is not the sense of that text. The form of God, in the same text, we have seen, imports, that Christ is really God. 4nd the form of a servant in this text, imports a real servant. " Behold my servant, whom I up- hold." Why is it not then a fact, that the like- ness of raan, and the fashion as a man; in the 129 same text, mean a real man? The whole analogy of the text, and the sentiment of the sacred Word, decide in the athmiative. This phraseology of the text cannot have been designed to teach, that Christ is not the true God ; that he did not take the place of a real servant ; and did not become a real man. For, that he did take real manhood, clearly appears in the sacred Oracles, As Christ is possessed of real Divinity, and real humanity mysteriously united in his one Person ^ so all the Perfections of God, and all the proper- ties of a perfectly holy man, unite in the Person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly we find them ascribed to Christ. Sometimes the properties of his hu- manity are ascribed ; and sometimes the perfec- tions of his Divinity. In the former case, he is the dependent, circumscribed man. In the latter, he is the independent, omniscient, almighty God ; and his blood is of infinite avail. Hence we are never to adduce an argument, from what is said of his humanity, to disprove his Divinity. Nor ever to adduce an argument, from what is said of his Divinity, to disprove his humanity. The union of the two natures in the person of Christ, and his constituted mediatorial character, furnish a fruitful source of objection and error a- mong short-sighted depraved beings. • It is true, things are said of Christ, which at first view, seem a real contradiction. To afford relief in this point then, let it ever be remembered, that the sacred Oracles do furnish us with three classes of sacred texts, which relate to Jesus Christ. One class relates simply to his humanity. In this we are as iured of his being born of a woman ; being a child; beiijg twelve years old ; increasing iu wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and isa man; his hungering, thirsting, being weary: sleep- ing; being touched with the Icehng of ourintirmi- ties ; being fed, and clothed ; and many such things. These things alluded to the •' man Christ Jesus." A second class of sacred texts, alludes to him, as the true and intinite God. .This class of texts has been adduced in the sixth section of this book. Here he is the Mighty God ; the Everlasting Fa- ther; the true God, and Eternal Life. A third class alludes to Christ as God and man united ; — but a constituted 31ediator; acting in an ofhcial capacity, which is assumed, and which rests on a stipulation between him and his Principal, God the Father. Here, though he is the intinite God, yet as Mediator he has a God as well as we. *' I ascend to my Father, and your Father ; to my God, and your God." Many texts might be quoted, as belonging to this class ; but a few may suffice. " I came not to do mine own w'ill ; but the will of him that sent me." "I seek not mine own glory ; but the glory of him that sent me." ^' I can of myself do nothinf^." '• The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the work." " The Fa- ther loveth the Son, and hath committed all things into his hands." '' As the Father hath hfe in him- self ; so hath he given unto the Son to have life in himself, that he should. give eteinal life to as many as he hath given ^»im." •' AH power is ^ivcn u;:(o me in heaven and on earth." ''Him hath God iTiised up, a. id made him to be both Lord and Christ," — -'and placed him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities and powers." " Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."' " Him hath God .exalted with his ri§ht hand to be a Prince and 131 a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and tor* giveness of sins/' *• Oi' that day and i o jr knoweth no man. nor the Son ; but the Father only," i. e. the Son never received this to reveal to man ; and hence knows it not as ?dediator. ''I know you not whence you are : depart fiom me.'' — Or I never knew you as given to me. ^* Then shall the J'jon also be sub.ect to him that did put all things under him, that God may be all in ail." Or, then shall the mediatorial character be eternally relinquished, as having fully accomplished its design : and tiie iniinite triune God shall thenceforth exist as from eternity. These and similar texts have by many been ad- duced to disprove the real Divinity of Christ. But they are nothing to the purpose. They prove only that the iniinite Divinity of Christ humbled him- self to act in a subordinate and constituted grade between otifended heaven, and oilending earth. And in this office work Christ ackiiowled^^es a de- pendence on the intitiite Godhead. As the cha- racter is a constituted one ; so the official acts are generally noted as dependetU on the Failier: while yet the eternal Divinity of the most sacred Incunv bent, now and then, bursts through the habiliments of its constituted degradation, and shines with its own native iniinite lustre, as the eternal, the true and the living God, equal with the Father, and one with him. Man if he will presume to cavil, may say ; How can two such dissimi-ar natures unite in one per- son '! The Divinity of Christ, upon the triaitaijaa tlieory, had a personal existence eternal ages be- fore his humanity existed. Aiid his hu'ran St^ul seems to be represented as a person. How can two such natures constitute one person ? Reply. Nico- demu5 mijjht repeat his question, '• How can these- 132 things be?" while yet facts are iiicontestable* There is a diilerence between an unanswerabie oVeciioii against a point ; and an uiianswerable quostion in relation to it. The latter docs b\ no nieai;s amount to the tbi mer; though too mariv in- advertently imagine it does. Questions unanswer- able by man do attend every work of God : and cerianiiy then must attend the existence oi God hiinseif. " Canst thou by searching find out God /" *' No man kiioweth the Son, but the Father ; nei- ther knoweth any man the Father, but the Son, a.:d he to whomsoever the Son wiil reveal him." Tins might seem enough to silence every cavil against things clearly re^ eaied. it is a fact; that Christ has clearly taught us that he is both divine and human ;. and hence that the perfections of the one nature, and the properties of the other, do unite in him. '' 1 am the Root and ofispring of David." He does assure us that *• of myself I can do nothing: ;" and yet says, '* I •am the Almighty." He does assure us that his Person was the son of man ; and yet the everlast- itig Father. That he is the seed of Abraham ; and yet the mighty God. That he was born of the virgin, and God was his Father; and yet he is *' without father, withotit mother, and without de- scent ; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time." These things we are taught of the Person of Christ. And there is no medium be- tween believing, and disbelieving this '^ record, which God has given o*^ his Son." Christians be- heve •, not because they can comprehend all that is said concerning Christ ; but because God has. declared it. They believe on divine testimony, and "' set to their seal that God is true." The oivector stumbles at the mysteries of godliness. lie cannot believe. The dispute is between liim, 133 and Christ ; and Christ will decide it with him, in due time. There are things in the representations given of him, who is wonderful, and whom no man knoweth, but the Father, which I design never, in this life, to attempt to answer, nor explain. Let me repeat the sacred passage, " Secret things belong to the Lord our God ; but those which are revealed, to us, and our children forever." Man ought never to be wise above what is written. The things above stated of Christ, are revealed ; and to be- lieve them, belongs to us, and our children. It is revealed, " I am the Root and the Olfspring of David." It is thus revealed, that these infinitely dissimilar natures are united in the Person of Christ, and are both comprised in the pronoun I, in this text. But the mode, in which these two natures unite, to constitute one Person, is a secret thing, which belongeth to God. Hence to attempt an explanation of it, would, in my opinion, be both presu v«ption and impiety. And I shall never feel myself pressed with any argument, urged from the dilHculties, which may seem to attend the union of those two natures in one Person, any more than . with the question, how can God exist eternally or independently ? Or, " How can these things be ?" 12 S^^^m^ 7I!E2i THE GODHEAD CONSISTS OF A TRINITY IN UNITY. It has already been ascertained, that there are two in the Godhead, of equal Divinity; God and Christ, represented as two ; yet essentially one. But if there are two, in the sense explained ; no didiculty is increased by supposing there are three in the Godhead. In this point of light, I shall con- siiier all the ariiuments, adduced in favor of the real Deity of Christ, and of his distinction from, and yet union with the Father, as fulh^'in point, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The business of this section therefore, I shall view as in a great measure accomplished, by that of the section on the real Divinity of Jesus Christ. I shall here rest on every argument there adduced, as directly in point. The doctrine of a Trinity in Unity in the God* head, rests solely on divine Revelation. The light of nature teaches nothing in favor of it; and it can teach nothing against it. This is a doctrine above our reason ; and above all that we can ascertain from the analogy of creatures. But this doctrine cannot be pronounced contrary to reason. It is a mystery, but can never be shown to be an absurdity, that there should be in some sense three in one undivided Godhead. It is not pretended that there are in God three in the same sense, in which there is one ; nor one in the same sense, in which there are three. But there are in some im- portant sense three ; yet in another important sense, the three are one. 136 Trinitarians have often enough given noticfl^ that the term persons, a> understood when applied to men. fails ofrjlly answering to the Three in the Godhead. That the term is adopted, because they cau tind no better. But that thej do not suppose the Three Persons in the Godhead to be so per- fectly distinct from each other, as are different persons among men. That in some important senec they are distinct from each other ; while yet they are really one. May this ever be remembered, when the term persons is applied to the Three in the Godhead. The Bible throughout does teach, that there is something in the mode of the divine existence, which lays a foundation for the one God to speak of himself as I, thou, and he. These Three have d'jTerent names, like three persons ; while equal works, names, and honors of pure Divinity are abundantly ascribed to each. This fact appears upon the face of the Bible, of the Old and New- Testaments. If it appeared in but one, or even several solitary passages, it might possibly be said to be a figurative speech ; and the Trinitarian sen- timent might fail of support. But the sentiment is found throughout the sacred book. The passages which indicate a plurality in the Godhead, where the number three is not noted, I shall adduce as fully in point to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. We tind a plurality in God in tiie beginning of Genesis. We find the same in the last chapter of the Revelation. And we find it all the way through the sacred volume. The whole economy of grace is represented as resting in the hands of these three Persons, in mutual concert ; one covenanting with the other ; and each having his stipulated part in the vast design of man's sal- yation. These ditferent Persons speak to, and of 137 each other, as ofdilTcrent Persons; ascribing to themselves, and to each other, the names and works of God. And yet they often assert, or teach, that there is but one God." " The Lord thy God is one God.'' '• Thou shalt have no other gods before me." " Thou shalt vvrorship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Here is perfect Unity in the Three. \ shall now adduce some arguments in favor of this plurality in the Godhead, and of the doctrine of the Trinity. The word Aleim, or Elohim,in Hebrew, translated God, is in the plural. " In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth." And notwithstanding all that Jews, Arians, Soci- nians, and infidels say to the contrary, I am far from being convinced, that this plurality in the name of God, does not indicate a plurality of Per- sons in the Godhead. Jewish converts (having given up their enmity against the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth) have viewed this plural word a for- cible argument in favor of the doctrine of the Tri- nity. John Xerese, a Jewish convert in Britain^ wrote an excellent address to his countrymen, upon this subject. And in his first aifgument in favor of the Trinity, he says ; " Why else is the frequent mention of God, by names of the plural number ? as Gen. i. 1, where the word Elohim, which is rendered God, is of the plural number, though an- nexed to a verb of the singular number ; which demonstrates, as far as may be, that there are several Persons partaking of the same divine na- ture, or essence."* It is a fact that we find much which enforces the same idea of this converted Jew ; as in the following scriptures : — " And God said. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." " The man is become as one of us, to * Con. Mag. vol. III. pag. 24. i2* 138 know good alid evil." Pass on, to different parts of the Bible, you abundantly tind the same. " Let us go down, and confound their language." " And the Lord God said, '• Whom shall 1 send, and who will go for us ?" What a changing of persons is bere found from I, to us ! as the beginning of Ge- nesis ; " Let us make man." " I have given you . every herb." The singular and the plural are thus used interchangeably. There is Unity, as well as Trinity, and Trinity, as well as Unity, in God. This appears, in that verbs, pronouns, and relatives, united to plural nouns of the name of God, are found in the singular number. On the contrary, verbs and adjectives relating to God are often found in the plural. As Gen. xx. 13 ; " And it v^am.e to pass when God caused me to wander from my father's house." In the Hebrew the verb rendered caused, is in the plural. W hen God they caused me to wander.* And such instances are de- clared by ancient critical writers to relate to the mysterious Trinity. Gen. xxv. 7, " Because there God appeared unto him ;" the word rendered ap- ' peared, in the original is plural ; — God they ap- peared, or were revealed. 2 Sam. vii. 23 ; " Is- rael, whom God went to redeem." The verb here reiidered went in. the original is in the plural ; God they went to redeem. Deut. iv. 7; " What nation is there so great, that hath God so nigh unto them ?" The adjective here rendered nigh, ii* plural in the Hebrew. God, who are so near. Josh. xxiv. 1 9 ; *' He is a holy God." In the Hebrew, the word rendered holy is plural. He is a God, who are holy ; or holy ones. Psalm Iviii. 11;" Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." In the He- brew the word rendered judgeth is plural. — A God, who are judging in the earth. * gee Jones, page 87. 139 Mai. i. 6 ; " If I be a Master, where is my fear." la the Hebrew it is, '• If I be Masters — ." Isai. liv. 5; ** For thy Maker is thine hu>baiid." In the Hebrew both are plural ; Makers, and hus- bands. The Flebrew word for iVIaker. in Isai. li, 13, is used in the sini^iiiar ; ''And for^^etest the Lord thy Maker." Thus sometimes God is our Maker, and sometimes our Makers. Eccle. xii. 1 ; ^* Remember now thy Creator — ." In the- Hebrew it is plural. Creators. Adjectives deno- ting some divine attribute, and standing for the name- of God, are often found in the plural. Prov. ix. 10; " The knowledge of the Holy, is under- standing." The word Holy here is plural in the Hebrew ; — the Holy Ones. The same occurs in Prov. XXX. 3 ; " I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the Holy." Hebrew, Ho- ly Ones. In Eccle, v. 3, where God is called Higher than they ; (oppressors) the word render- ed Higher is in the plural. In Dan. iv. relative to Nebuchadnezzar's great tree, God is repeatedly spoken of in the plural. " This matter is by the decree of the Watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones." " They commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots—." In chapter v. 18, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom and glory. And in verse ,20, " They took his glory from him ;" they, i. e. the Mo?.t High God ; or the Persons in the Godhead. This plurality in God, accounts for that oftea and abundant changing of persons, in the same sentence, relative to God, which we find through the Old Testament ; like the following ; '' When the Lord hath performed his whole work upon Mount Zion, 1 (not he) will punish the fruit of the stoat hoart of the king of Assyria," Here are 140 the tljlrd and first persons, in the same sentence^ relative to God. '• I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts in the day of his (not my) tierce anger." " I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he (not I) pull thee down." " Neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he (not thou) hath prepar- ed for him that waiteth foi* him." Such instances are numerous. And they perfectly accord with a plurality of Persons in God : but would be unac- countable upon any other principle. It is said by a great writer, that God is spoken of, in the plural number, more than en hundred times, in the Bible. This most clearly favors the doctrine of the Trinity. And pronouns, relatives and verbs being in the singular number, when con- nected with these plural nouns, forcibly teaches the unity of the Trinity ; that while they are per- sonally Three, they are essentially One. It by no means tbilovrs. that if there be Three in one God, the neuter pronoun it may be applied to God ; because it is applied to a human triumvi- rate, or a council. Some have imagined, that be- cause we say of a council. When will it sit ? or when will it rise ? So if God consist of a Trinity of Persons, the same language must be able equal- ly to apply to him ; as. It is omniscient ; i. e. God is omniscient. Ar.d because this neuter pronoun does not apply to God, as it does to a council ;. therefore God cannot consist of different Persons. But this deduction is incorrect. For the mem- bers of a council of three, are not one in the sense in which tlie Three in the Godhead are one. Neither are the Persons of the Godhead three, in that full sense, in which the members of such a council are independently three. Such reasoning 141 then, rrom a council to the Trinity, fails. And it does not follow, that because the neuter pro- noun it cannot properly be applied to the Trinity, that therefore there is no Trinity of equal Persons in the Godhead. Such objections are fallacious. The tcrmGodhead being repeatedly used, instead of the word God, has with me the weight of ait ar- g'ln^ent, in favor oi the doctrine of the Twnity. Wi\y should it be so used, unless to indicate a plu- rality of Persons in God ? Should we not con- ceive, that the word Tiieos, God, would be more' proper to have been uniformly used, than to have Theiotees, Godhead, introduced, if God consisted of but one Person ? It seems the Assembly of Di- vines at Vv^estminster, conceived there was some weight in this argument. They therefore say, *' How many Persons are there in the Godhead ? There are three Persons in the Godhead, the Fa- ther, Son and Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and in glory. Very early in the Bible, we find who these Three in the Godhead are ; their number ; and their names : They are God, the Spirit of the Lord and the Person predicted to appear as the woman's Seed. These three are found, under dilferent names, through the Bible. In the last c .apter of Revelation, they are " God, the Lamb, aid the Spirit.'' In innumerable passages they are, the Father, Son, aru! I^Io y Ghost •, the Father, tho Word and the Holy Ghost; God, Christ, and the (Comforter. Thus under diiferent names they are kuown. They are spoken to, and spoken of, as Three ; yet each really God : and each the on- ly God ; So that they are not three Gods, but one God* 142 Read the divine commission of baptism. ^'Bap- trzing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' Is not this calcu- lated to evince that there are indeed three divine Persons in the Godhead ? Why are the subjects of baptism, in this standing, sealing ordinance of God's kingdom, baptized in the name of the Fa- ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, if there be not these three divine Persons in the Godhead ? This commission of baptism is indeed calculated to condrm this doctrine. The name is one ; the Persons possessing it are three ; " in the name of the Father, and of the 'Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' Who can say, that here is not a Trinity of equal Persons in one God ? The same Trinity we find in the apostolic bene- diction. " The ^race of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be u'ith you all. Amen.'' AVho are the Three here found ? Can it be admitted, that one of them, viz. the second mentioned, is the one only Person of the living God ; another, viz. the first mentioned, is a totally distinct Being, a derived, and a constituted God ; and the third is st Person ordy in figure ? The real God ; a real creature ; and a nonentity, or the energy of God personified ! Is this the Trinity, or the Godhead, of whom the church have read in their Bibles from ancient date ? What is there mysterious in such a Trinity ? Is it not the easiest idea concern- ing God imaginable ? Does it not appear like having "by searching found out God?" Why then should Christ any longer be called Wonder- ful ? or be said to have a name which no man knoweth but himself?" Rev. xix. 12. Why should it any longer stand in our Bible, that " Without controversy, great is the mystery of god- 143. llness ; God was manifest in the flesh?" And why may we not presume to brin^ every thing, rel- ative to God, down to the level pf our own con- ceptions ? " Vam man would be wise, liiough man be born like a wild ass's coit." In 1 John, V, 7, 8, we have the doctrine, of the Trinity in unity of the Godiiead, clearly ascertain- ed. " For there are three, that bear record in heaven, the Father, the vVord^ a»id the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And tliere are iliree tnat bear witness on earth ; the Spirit, the water and the blood ; and these three a^rce in one.'' if we be wiihng that God should decide this point, and wiihng to abide his decision j it ceriainiy appears here to be decided, in language the most positive.* * I am not insensible, that the authenticity of this first verse, relative to the three heavenly witnesses, is by some called in question ; it beuig wanting in numbers of ancient Greek man- uscripts. As our opponents have ti'iumphed in the supposition of their having proved the want of authenticity in this text; and as I believe m its authenticity; I must be excused in the length of this note, in exhibitiu;^ llie grounds cf my confidence, that this text was in the original Epistle of St. John. 1. This verse is found in the Latin fathers, of an early date ; as we learn m Panoplist for May, lull, page 334. The Latin ■was the language of the Romans, the masters of the world, at the commencement of the Christian era. In the third century, (a much earlier date than were any ©f the proseat GreeK MtS. Written) reference is found, in the writings of the uoted Cyprian, to this verse. la the fiuh ceuuiry, quotations are made from it by Fulgqntius, and the authors of the African Confession. In the sixth century, Cassiodorus makes use of this text : And in the eighth, Elhenus, and Beatus. Where did theso early fathors find this text, if not in the writings of St. John ? Cyi^rian suf- fered martyrdom, a little after the middle of (he third cen- tury, under Valerian. Ue began his public ministry, not much more than a -ere not persons, but things, because they are expressed by the word pneum-a. a neuter noun ? This word, rendered spirit, is the same, which is applied to the Holy Spirit. And if it indicate, that the Ho- ly Spirit is not a Person ; it equally indicates, that neither angels nor men are persors ; for it is ap- plied to them, as well as to the Holy Ghost. Yea, it equally indicates that God has no personality. For we read " God is a Spirit,',] pneuma ; — the same neuter word, in the original. The dying Ste- phen said, " Lord 'Jesus receive {to pneuma man) my spirit;" — ia the neuter gender, both article^- 152- aVid noun. Does inspiration mean to teach here, that Stephen was not a person, but a mere thing ? The inspired writers would use good grammar. If the noun were neuter, though expressing a per- son, the pronoun and relative, answering to it, must also be neuter. But every Greek scholar knows, that this affords not the least argument against the real Personality of the Holy Ghost. But it was esteemed by President Edwards, (as well as by many others) an unhappy thing, that this mere Greekism has been copied by the Eng- lish, especially by the translators of ourBible ; and thus neutral pronouns appHed to God. ThiS, that £;reat divine labors in one of his sermons to show, is infinitely unworthy of the Holy Ghost ; and is treating him with i.idigriity. This unhappy cir- cumstance, of applying the pronouns- luhich, and *7, to the Holy Ghost, has, by accustoming the ears of people to these neutral words, done much toward preparing tlie way to lead men more easily to doubt of the real personality of the Holy Ghost. It has made it seem to some (tliough without any arir^ment) that the Holy Ghost is not a Person, but a thing I But Christ, in the afore-quoted pas- ages, relative to the Comforter, gives to the Holy Ghost a new name, of masculine gender; and all the words relating to it, are masculine, and indica- tive of a distinct Personality from the Father and Christ. We find, in the various part? of the Bible, the names, relatives, and actions of Agents, are applied to the Holy Ghost. ^Ve read of his being sent of the Father, of his coming, testifying, striving, being grieved, hearing, willing, teaching, showing, speak- ing, conveying, inspiring, moving, appointing, re- proving, converting, and comforting. Is the lan- guage of the Holy Oracles so unmeaning, or inde* 15% terminate, that after all, which is said of the Holy Ghost, it is erroneous to beheve in his real person- ality ? Whose wisdom can decide this ? Who among men can decide, that when the Book of in- spiration throughout does represent the Holy Spirit as a Person, distinct in the Godnead, yet we are not to conceive of him as being a distinct Person ? Let the following scriptures, in addition to what has been said, be devoutly weighed. '' And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.'' " The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work, whereunto I have appointed them." " So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost." — -'Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." " As the Holy Ghost saith. To day if ye will hear his voice." Whose voice ? The Holy Ghost speaking does not say my voice ; but his voice, — the voice of another Per- son in the Trinity. He testifies of the Father. Again. Paul preached the gospel, "in words, which the Holy Ghost teacheth." "Why hath satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost ?" " Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed to the day of redemption.'' " All these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." The Spirit here willeth ! " Yoar bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost.'' " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God." " The Spirit suffered us not." " The Spirit said unto Philip. Go near, and join thysC'f unto this chariot." " The Spirit of the Lord caught away Phihp." " But he, that speaketh against the Holy Ghost, shall never be forgiven." " The Spirit itself maketh intercession in the saints, according to the will of God." Here the Spint and God are represented as two Persons. 154 ^^' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." la t'.ie begin- ning of the Bible the Spirit is spoken of, as a per- sonal Agent :* " The Spirit of the Lord moved ap- on the face of the watere." In the last chapter oi this Book of grace, we have the same : " The Spir- it and the bride say, Come." And through the whole sacred volume, we have tlie like representa- tions. Some instances of this have been noted. Many more might be given. " Thoa sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created." " The Spirit lifted me up." " The Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain." " The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David." "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias.'' " If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."—" The Spirit searcheth all things, yea even the deep things of God." Here, as in numerous other passages, God, and the Spirit of God are distinguished as two Persons. Eiihu says, " The Spirit of God hath made me." " And the Spirit said unto Peter, Be- hold three men seek thee — I have sent them." "It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us." — " He that hath an ear, let him iiear what the Spir- it saith to the Churches." Do not these, and the numerous similar scrip- tures clearly indicate, that there is a third Person in the Godhead ? Can this be denied, without de- nying plain and ai)undant scripture testimoriy ? It cannot be denied, that the sacred oracles do, in fact, represent the Holy Ghost as a distinct Per- son in the Godhead. Who ihen has wisdom acute enough to correct these divine representations, which God himself has made ? Is not his word the only rule of faith ? Is it to be construed with words of human wisdom ? or of the wisdom, which the Holy Ghost teacii^th ? Are the testimonies, diviac- 155 1y given upon iliis subject, lo be dii-credited. be- cause they are not fully comprehended, or do not please our taste ? Relative to the Personality of the divine Spirit, does not ihe account given by our Lord concern- ing the sin against the Holy Ghost, go to subbtan- tiate it ? Matt. xii. 31^ 32: " Whereiore I 5«ay un- to you, Ail manner of sin and blasphemy shail be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shali not be for-lven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but v. hosoever apeaketh a^amst the Hoi} Ghost, it shail not be forgiven him. neither in this worid, liCuher in the world to come.^' (See also Mark iii. 28, 29 ; and Luke xii. 10.) All sins, and blasphemies where- with soever they shall blaspheme ; ai^d also speak- ing against Christ, may be forgiv en. Here it bcems are blasphemies against tlie Father, and against the Son. that may be pardoned. \V; at can the bla-phemies be, which are distinguished from speaking against Christ, and from the bias])hemy .against the Holy Ghost, but blasphemies against the Father ? Sins against the Father aiid the Son then, may be pardoned. '* But whosoever speak- eth against tlTe Holy Ghost, it shall never be for- given him!" Does not this strongly indicate, that the Hoiy Ghost has personal existence / Can this be only the operations of the Father personitied ? Would it be so much more dangerous to speak a word against merely a person in tigure, than to be piilty of all manner of blasphemies against God, and against Christ ? What man, after this descrip- tion given byChrist,of the sin against the Holy Ghost has knowledge acute enough to decide, that no guch real person exists; and that to believe the affirmative, is a hurtfui error ? This account of the 156 sin against the Holy Ghost is clearly calculated to evince his distinct Personality, '' The fellowship of the Spirit" is mentioned, in holy writ, as well as the fellowship of the Father, and of the Son : Are we not hence taught his per- sonal existence ? Christ says of the Comforter, "He shall not speak of himself." Has he not then^ a self? While the Holy Ghost is represented as distinct in the Godhead, his essential unity with God is, at the same time most clearly ascertained. I might quote many texts to evince this : But it is needless. A few inspired testimonies may suffice. Vv e are assured, '' He that made all things, is God." Eiut Ehhu said, "The Spirit of God hath made me." The Spirit then, is God. Christ says, " The Fa- ther in me doeth the works." But he says also, " If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."— Th© Father then, and the Spirit are one. Again. " All scripture is given by inspiration of God." But " Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here the Holy Ghost is God. " The I^ord God, who spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, since the world began." Yet we read '• Well spake the Holy Ghost \ij Esaias the prophet." — The Holy Ghost here is the Lord God. " There is none good but one, that is God." But David says, " Thy Spirit is good." Here again the Spirit is God. Peter said to Ananias, " Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost?" " Thou hast not lied unlomen, but unto God." "Born of the Spirit," and " bora of God," are perfectly equivalent, in the Bible. Christians are the " Temple of God." Yet thejr are the " Temple of the Holy Ghost, which they have of God." " The heavens declare the glory of God." But it is because that God, " by his Sjpirit, hath garnished the heavens." The Spirit 157 is onaniscient : '• he searcheth all things ; yea, even tiie deep things of God." it uaav^oidauiy follows, that lie is God. The Holy Gnost said, *• Separate me Baraabas and Saul, for the work whereuato 1 iiave appointed them." But we read, " No man taketh this honor to himself, but he tnat is called of God." Tiie Holy Ghost then, is God. Chnst was begotten of the Holy Ghost; and there- fore should be called the Son of God. Hence the Holy Giiost is God ; — one with the Highest :-rr ^' He (Christ) shall be called the Son of the High- est." '^ And he (the Lord God) put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head ; — and the Spirit hfted me up." Here th© Spirit was the Lord God. The Spirit, as the Comforter, dwells in all the saints. But it is the '- High and Lofty One, who inhabits eternity, that dwells with the broken hearted." " God is in you of a truth." These Two then, are One God. Per- fections absolutely divine are ascribed to tlie Spir- it. He is, by way of divine eminence, called the Eternal Spirit ; the Spirit of Wisdom and Knowl- edge ; the Spirit of Promise ; the Spirit of Truth ; the Spirit of Power ; the Spirit of Holiness ; and the Holy Spirit; yea, the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit of the Lord ; and the Spirit of God. I'hus we are divinely taught to conceive, that the Holy Ghost has both distinct personality and prop- er Divinity, in the Godhead. None can doubt but the Father has real personahty. The Son, it has been shewn, is represented as having real personality in his proper Deity. And the Ho- ly Ghost, it appears, is exhibited as though he were possessed of real personality, and real Divinity. Are there not then, three in one God ? " the same in substance, equal in pow- er and glory," as is expressed by the Assembly of 14 158 Divines at ^Westminster. I see no way to evade this result, but by rejecting or perverting the Woid of God. Of the Christian, our Lord says, "My Father will love him 5 and we will come unto him ; aiKl will make our abode with him." And also he assures, that the Comforter, whom the Father will send in Christ's name, he shall abide in all such forever. Here then are the Father, Christ, and the Comforter, three omnipresent Persons in one God, dwelling w^ith every saint ! So the Word of God expressly represents. Shall we believe the divine representation? Or shall we re,ect it, as in- credible? We can plead numberless precedents on both sides of the question. Many have believed ; and many have disbeheved. It is for us to choose w^ith which class we will have our lot. And we should do well to consider, that the decision can- not be of minor importance. Much, very much is depending upon it. Our sentiments upon these points will lie at the root of our Religion. The reality of an atonement made for sin, depends on the real Deity of Jesus Christ. Men, w^ho deny the Trinity, and thus the real Deity of Jesus Christ, will, whh Dr. Priestly, as soon as they are prepared to follow^ the plainest leadings of their ow^n sentiments, deny the existence and the neces- sity of the atonement ; and will essentially vary the whole plan of salvation. When men begin to doubt, and shift their sentiments relative to the doctrine of the Trinity, none can tell where they will land, unless in intidelity. Dr. Priestly ac- knowledges, that "he passed from Trinitarianism to high Arianism ; from this to low Arianism ; and from this to Socinianism. even of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and IMary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other prophet.'* This is a most natural description of the transition 159 to skepticism ; or the process to infidelity. The way is a steep descent, and is open and slippery. It may ahnost be said of the first step in it, as of the approach to the harlot in the Proverbs.*' They that ;^o unto her never return, neither take the}^ bold of the path of life." And no v/onder. The scheme of grace rests on the doctrine of the three Divine Persons. Christians are from the begin- ning, before the foundation of the world, chosen of God the Father ; given to Jesus Christ, to be re- deemed by his infinite atonement : and to be saved through sanctification of the Spirit, as well as sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Each of the three divine Persons has an essential part in the plan of salvation. Let one then be denied, and the plan is destroyed. The Anti-trinitarian senti- ment is, in its fair implication, an axe laid to the root of the tree of gospel grace. Men of this sen- timent may please themselves, that their depar- ture is small; and all ttie excellencies oi" ui^ scheme of grace, they will retain. But their hopes are illusory, as are his, who builds upon the sand ; or who leaves a leak in his ship, and hopes it will not cause it to founder. I might multiply arguments from the scriptures in favor of the Divine Trinity, " The Spirit of truth shall glorify me ; for he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine ; therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and show it unto you." Here are the three distinct Persons in the Godhead, the Father, Christ, and the Spirit of truth. The heavenly worshippers, in their repeated ascriptions of '' Holy, holy, holy," it may be ra- tionally supposed, have immediate reference to the Three in One, in the Godhead. Such testimoiiies as the following to the Trinity in Uni- ty in God, abound in the sacred oracles. Paul 160 sajs, *' I was made a minister according to the gi|(; €f the grace of God, given unto me by the efiec- tual working of his power." In another pas- sage — '' That the power of Christ may rest wpon me." In a third — '' To make the Gentiles ©bedient, by word and deed, through mighty figns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God." Here the same power is the power of God, of Christ, and of the Spirit. '• Do not I till heaven and earth, saith the Lord?" '^ The full- ness of him, (Christ,) that filleth all in all." *^ Whether shall 1 go from thy Spirit." Here, (as in other scriptures.) God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are omnipresent. As in the following ; Christ says, '' If any man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and v/e will come unto him, and make our abode with him.'' Here is the omnipresence of the two first Persons in the Trinity. And Christ tells his pcQ- pler^.fttthe Comtbrtcr \vhom he will send fiona the Father, shall be in them, and abide in them. Here then, is a Trinity with every saint. Moses directs Israel to love the Lord thy God ; " for he is thy life." Paul says, " When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we also shall appear with him 'in glory." And to the Romans, he calls the Holy Ghost, '' The Spirit of life." Here is the Trinity in God, the life of his people. John says, " Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." Paul says, " The fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all." " It is written, They shall be all taught of God.** Paul informs the Galatians, " Neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Christ says, " The Comforter — will teach you all ftjings." 161 *' I am the Lord thy God, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldst go." " He (Christ) calleth his owa sheep by name, and leadest them.'^ " As m^ny as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." Of the saints Jude says, " To them that are sanctified by God the Father.'' The apostle to the Hebrews says of Christ, " He that sanctitieth, and they that are sanctified are all of one ; for which caase he is not ashamed to call them breth- ren." And to the Romans; '* Being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." Here, and in many other scriptures, we find the Trinity in the Godhead united in all the scheme, and the operation of grace and salvation. If the arguments adduced from scripture, be by any deemed insufficient to substantiate the doc- trine of three Persons in the Godhead ; it will be in vain to adduce any other scriptural evidence ! Objection 1, But God speaks of pouring out his Spirit. Does not this indicate, that the Spirit is not an Agent, but merely the energy of the Fa- ther ? Answer. This is a figurative expression. What is the thing promised ? Certainly, a gracious di- vine operation in the soul ; which implies a divine personal agency there. And what do the more literal parts of the Bible teach, concerning this agency ? They teach, that it is the ?gency o? the Holy Ghost. As our Lord says ; " The Comforter, •whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." "He shall take of mine, and show it unto you." " He shall abide with you forever." This appears to be the literal rep- resentation ; the other the figurative. The operations of grace in the soul are often expressed in holy writ, in allusion to the modes of 14* 1G2 ordinances, which relate to them. The new heart is the circumcised heart ; because circumcision was the ••' seal of the righteousness of the faith." The same operation Under the gospel, is a wash- ing with water ; " having the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, and the body washed with pure water." " By the washing of regenera- tion, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost,'' These and similar passages allude to that washing with water which denotes the operations of the Spirit of grace on the soul. And upon the same principle we find the figurative language of God's pouring out his Spirit; alluding to the pouring of water, in religious ablutions, which were external represen- tations of the operations of the Spirit in the heart. But this language goes not at all to abate the force of the evidence, which appears in favor of the per- sonality of the Holy Ghost. The analogy between the natural and moral worlds, has occasioned a great use of metaphorical language. But metaphors must not be so construed as to contradict literal representations. We say, the secretary of state is a pri^ e organ of the executive. But should any one infer from this, that the secretary is not a distinct person, but a constituent part of the per- son of the president ; he would err. And no less perhaps, do they err, who imagine, from the lan- guage of God's pouring out his spirit, that the spir- it is not an Agent ; but merely an operation of the Father personified. Objection 2. The Holy Ghost never receives worship distinctly from tl e Father ; therefore he has no distinct agency. Christ was distinctly wor- shipped ; bat not the Holy Ghost. Answer, If the Holy Ghost be not worshipped distinctly from the Father, it is because there nev- er was any occasion for such distinct worship. He h worshipped in the w©rsliip paid t® the Father. 163 The Father is at the head of the economy of grace-. Worship paid to the Father, is paid to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And probably no distinct worship would ever have been paid to Jesus Christ, had it not been for the peculiarity of the case, that God was manifest in the flesh. To evidence to creatures the real and proper Deity of Jesus Christ, who appeared a man in the flesh, and to accord with the exaltation of his glorified humanity. God decided that Christ should he worshipped; that -'all men should honor the Son, as they honor the Fa- ther." But there never was any occasion for such a decision relative to the worship of the Holy Ghost. We are never instructed to worship the Father, in distinction from the Holy Ghost. Is it strange then, if we are not instructed to worship the Holy Ghost, in distinction from the Father ? But is it a given point, that no worship is ever directed to the Holy Ghost ? The spouse prays, "Awake, O north wind, and coine thou south; blow upon my garden ; that its spices may flow forth." Is not this an address to the Spirit of God? Christ, probably in allusion to this very text, says, " The wind bloweth where it listeth ; and thou hearest the sound thereof; but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth : so is eve- ry one that is born of the spirit." Here the wind, that maketh the spices of Grace to flow, is the Spirit of God. The apostle says, '-Quench not the spirit." And, " Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of re- demption." Is not a devout attention to the Com- forter within, here demanded ? And can this be distinguished from real worship ? The numerous directions to keep the heart, to pray always in the spirit ; and not to stir up nor awake our love, un- til he please, demand a treatment of the Holy Ghostj which I am not able to distinguish frona 164 real worship. In the commission of baptism, and in the benediction, the holy Spirit is worsliipped. If the ascriptions of •• Holy, holy, holy," be (as it is thoi^ht) a doxoio3;y to the Trinity, then the ho- ly Spirit hefe receives distinct worship. The Ho- ly Ghost informed Simeon, that he should not die, till he had seen Christ. . And upon Simeon's be- holding the Babe of Bethlehem, he blessed and praised God. who had made this communication, s of his humiliation on earth, that the Father is said to have wrought his works in him. ahd the Holy Ghost to have been given him without measure. But if man will permit God to decide. Christ was in the beginning, eternal ages before this, with God, aid was God ! His goings forth, in the form of God, and equal with God, were of old, even from everlasting. The Father's doing the works in Christ, and the Holy Ghost's being given to him without measure,- seem to be expressions, accommodated to the weakness of man, to represent the fulness of the Godliead d veiiinii in. him. But does this prove, that Christ had no divine personality ? So lar from this, that it 169 rather indicates the affirmative. For if Christ have no divine personaUty, how could the fulness of the Godhead be properly said to dwell in him ? God is figuratively said to dwell in the believer. But I must think, that the fulness of the Godhead dwells more than figuratively in Christ ; and that this indwelling indicates, that he himself equally with the other two, is a divine Person. Some of the evidences of Christ's real and eter- nal Divinity have been exhibited. In the fulness of time he took on him the form of a servant. Now God says, " Behold my servant, whom I uphold — I will put my Spirit upon him." But the sense is shown to be this, " In him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Although Christ's own Divinity at times appeared thus veiled ; yet repeatedly its glorious etfulgenoe shone through ; and Christ himself did the miracles. " I will ; be thou clean. 1 will raise this temple of my body in three days. — Thy sins are forgiven thee. — -Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it.'' And after the days of Christ's humiliation were ended, the evidences of his Divinity were abundant ; as has been shown, in the ministrations of the apostles, and in the Re- velation to St. John. It has been suggested, that the whole economy of grace rests on the ground of there being differ- ent divine Persons in the Godhead. The Father holds and vindicates the honors of God. The Me- diator redeems. And the Spirit sanctifies. And each must be infinite, in order to be adequate to his work. The Mediator must be " the mighty God," " the Almighty," that he may make an in- finite atonement ; and be " mighty to save." But though Christ must be the infinite God ; yet in the scheme of grace, there must be one officially above him, who holds the honors of the Godhead ; and 15 170 between whom, and man, the infinite Saviour me- diates. Otherwise, the whole econom} of grace appears a nulhty. \\ hiie the Mediator must be God and man, both that he mav die, and ins biood be of infinite avail ; there must be one God, as wtli as one Mediator between God and man ; and one Spirit of grace, to apply the atonement, and to sanctify and save the Church. The Bible clearly reads thus, notwithstanding all the objections and cavils agamst this doctrine. No doubt Christ's mediatorial character is a constituted character. He is not of constituted, but of real Divnnty. But his office as Mediator is constituted. His administration, in his glorified humanity, is constituted. This appears in such language as the following : - Therefore let all the house of l?rael assured)}- know^, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." " All powxT is given unto me in heaven, and in earth.'' It is to be exercised througli the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ, till the close of the last judgment* '••As the Father hath life in himself ; so hath he given unto the Son to. have life in himself; and hath given him author- ity to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." Here we learn one reason why Christ's authority is said to have been given him ; " because he is the Son of man." As the Son of man, Christ can have nothing but what is given him. Hence we read, '' The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." " Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.'' " I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the eartii for thy possession." *' Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, that is above every name." — " And hath made him 171 Head over all things to the church." " Him harh God exalted — to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." " Then cometh the end. wuen he shall have deHvered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." " Then shall the Son also be subject to him, who did put all things under him ; that God may be all in all." Much we tind, in the sacred writings, of this tenor. This has in- duced some incautious readers to suppose, that the whole Person of Christ is derived and dependent! But these, and all similar scriptures, relate to the mediatorial administration of Christ in his glorified humanity. It is " because he is the Son of man." The whole economy of grace proceeds on the plan, of the constituted offices of Christ ; while it rests, at the same time, on the everlasting basis of his real and proper Divinity. Christ in his humilia- tion was appointed to a certain work. And in his glorilied humanity he is appointed to the govern- ment of the world, as well as to the work of inter- cession in heaven ; till the chosen of God shall be gathered in. Tlie power and glory of the infinite Godhead, during this mediatorial reign, are exhi- bited through the glorified humanity of Christ. Angels are his ministering spirits, to gather in the heirs of salvation. And sufficient notice is given, that all this is a constituted economy between the Persons in the Godhead. But when the judgment shall be finished, this peculiar economy of grace will cease, as having fully accomphshed its object. But the Div^inity of Christ will not cease. Nor will it cease to be a truth, that there are three in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and thit these three are one. We find, in *^he writings of St. Paul, the Unity of the C aead, in opposition to the pagan poly- th .1 ^^serted ; from which, some attempt to de- 172 rive an argument against the doctrine of the Tri- nity, and the proper Deity of Christ. Says the apostle ; " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." " For though there be, that are called gods, wheth- er in heaven, or on earth, (as there be gods many and lords many.) But 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." Does this text indicate, that either of the Persons mentioned in it is not the very God ? By no means. All things are of the Father, and by Christ. But this does not suggest that those two Persons mentioned are not equally divine. They act different official parts, in the economy of redemption. But each is God. In other sacred passages we learn, that all things were made by Christ, and for him ; and by him all things consist. The one God in this pastsage is contrasted with the many gods of the heathen : And the one Lord Jesus Christ, with the many pa- gan mediators and demigods. But nothing is im- plied in the text, which militates against there be- ing a Trinity in this one God ; and nothing against the Mediator's being one of these divine Persons. It teaches, what Paul (in view of the mythology of the pagans) asserts to Timothy ; " There is one God ; and ene Mediator between God and man ; the man Christ Jesus." The heathen owned many gods ; and many mediators, or deified heroes, on whom they depended to plead their cause with the superior gods. The Christians own but one of each ; one God ; and one Mediator ; who is a man, and is at the same time the very God, as well as man. Paul says nothing here in opposition to there being a Trinity in Unity in this one God of the Christians ; and nothing in opposition to Christ's being one with God, and truly the infinite 173 Jehovah. And throughout the oracles of truth \vm^^» A list of the fatal errors, which it is believed art the legitimate otFspring of the denia} of the Trin- ity in God, and of the proper Divinity of Christ, might be furnished. Among these errors are the following : either that man is not fallen and depra- ved ; or no atonement was necessary for the par- don of sin. Or if some atonement were necessary, a finite one was sufficient. It follows that sin does not deserve an eternal punishment ; and all men must eventually be saved. Hence God is not so angry with sinners, and their danger is by no means so great, as has been represented. Nor is it so great a tiling for God to pardon and save the children of Adam. The law and government of God are not so terrible to transgressors, as has been supposed. Men need not feel as though it were so vast a crim.e to trample them under foot. Nor need they fear eternal damnation. If men — denying the Trinity and the proper Divinity of Christ — are unwilling, through the im- pressions of a better education, to admit the above, and similar errors, as naturally resulting from their scheme ; — yet it is believed that their followers, who will come forward destitute of their better i npressions, and who will reason more correctly from their own premises, will admit and embrace these errors ; and will deny the true scheme of the gospel. When the numerous attempts, which have beea made by human wisdom, to reduce the doctrine of the 200 Trinity to a level with our familiar conceptions, are considered ; we must be convinced of the fu- tility of the attempt. And the divine precept re- cars with emphasis, " Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the w^orld, and not after Christ ; for in him dwelleth the ful- ness of the Godhead bodily." When the wits of men have done their best up- on this subject, and we see many strong men, of diiferent schemes in it, have been in times past cast down wounded ; shall we not, wnth adoring humi- lity, submit to the divine interrogation, " Canst thou by searching, find out God ?" May w^e not be convinced, that neither human philosophy, nor analogy, can atFord much aid, relative to this mys- terious doctrine ? For probably nothing in creation resembles the Triune God. '* To whom then will ye liken me,saith Jehovah?'' " Ye heard the voice of the words ; but ye saw no similitude/' And all similitudes, invented by men, to give light in this case, have failed. The Bible is clear, that there are Three in one God. This, with their divine nanies, and offices, is revealed for us, and for our children. But the particular mode of their existence, what constitutes the personality of each, what is their distinction, and what their union, God has not revealed. And to pry into these things is worse, than in vain. It is impious. It is infinitely worse, than for prison- ers, under sentence of death, who have a commis- sioner of peace, of high authority, sent, tendering them pardon ; — to demand his connexion with the government ; to criticise on the internal economy of the government that sent him ; and finally, to insist on handling his limbs, and body, to learn the formation of his person. 201 That the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity can correctly be so explained, as to silence the cavils of wicked men, I have no belief. "The carnal mind is enmity against God.'' And the world by- wisdom knew him not. The Trinity is not the only doctrine, at which men cavil. Every distin- guishing doctrine of grace is offensive to fallen man. And to give such an explanation of those doctrines, as that they shall not offend the wicked heart, is to pervert the scriptures, and handle the word of God deceitfully. This, neither Christ, nor his apostles, would ever do. But it is the very business, and one distinguishing characteristic, of false teachers. The ambassadors of Christ are never to attempt to render the doctrine of the Trinity, or any of the distinguishing doctrines of grace, palatable to the carnal mind ; lest they incur the charge of being men pleasers ; but not the servants of Christ. How great is the Saviour of the world ! He is the mighty God ; — mighty to save. How astonish- ing is the grace of heaven, the condescension of the high and lofty One ! That such a Person should be sent, should come, on such an errand, be manifested in the flesh, and treated as Jesus was, is an infinite wonder ! And it will be esteem- ed thus, in eternal ages ! How great then, are the obligations lying on -man, to embrace, and follow Christ ! Obligations of duty, gratitude, interest, and of every consider- ation, unite to enforce this duty, with indescribable weight. Words are infinitely inadequate to this subject. Hence we learn how astonishing is the treat- ment, which Christ receives from gospel despisers! " Be astonished, O heavens, at this !'' See perish- ing worms spuriiing at their Maker, their Proprie- tor, their Saviour, Supporter, aad their final Judge! 202 Going their ways, to their farms and merchandise, ^nd making hght of the death and compassion of the Saviour, who is God, as well as man. How tremendous will be the exhibition of jus- tice and judgment, which such a Saviour will make, against these his enemies, when he, " the Lord himself, shall be revealed from heaven, in flammg fire, taking vengeance on them, that know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son." That day, of the glorious appearing of the i