f IIOI' *' " - 
 
 5:^ 5:i 5:^3 1^ .j^ i:^. "^:2r 
 
 OF THK 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 SAMUEL AQNE^V, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 
 ^^^(l// ^d^/£^ /c^^/: 
 
 fj Cane, 
 
 I Sh(Tf\ 
 
 D Book, 
 
 © 
 
 >3 S'^^5>3s^^^e cr<^^3 ♦•1 
 Division 
 
 ^ectien ® 
 
 ._No, 
 
 
p' 
 
TREATISE 
 
 EXHIBITING THE DISTINCTION 
 
 THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPZHZT. 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MOORE, 
 
 Pastor of the Church in Milford, N. H. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, 
 
 For the Author. 
 
 Crocker & Brewster, Printers. 
 1824. 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS: to wtt. 
 
 District Clerk's Office. 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the second day of August, A. D. 1824, in the forty-ninth 
 
 year of the Independence of the United States of America, Samuel T. Armstrong, of the said 
 
 District, has deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Pi-oprietor, 
 
 in the words following, to wit: 
 
 "A Treatise on the Divine Nature, exhibiting the distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit. By Huraphiey Moore, Pastor of the Church in Milford, N. H."' 
 
 In contoi-mity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled, "An act for the en- 
 cotuagement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and 
 propnetors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also to an act, intitled, "An 
 act supplementary to an Act, intitled. An Acf for the encouragement of learning, by securing 
 the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and propnetors of such copies during the 
 times therein mentioned; and extending- the benefits thereof to the arts of designmg, engi-aving 
 and etching historical, and other prints." 
 
 JNO. W. DAVIS, 
 Clerk of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I HE desiga of the author of the following work is to offer 
 to the public a brief and systematical treatise on the Divine 
 ^ Nature, exhibiting the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit. However much has been written on this subject, 
 and however ably it has been executed, the writer of these 
 sheets has seen no one publication, which has examined all 
 the principal sources of evidence of this prominent doctrine 
 of the Scriptures. To have a single treatise, which will 
 give a connected view of the leading evidences of the dis- 
 tinctions in the Divine Nature, appears to be an object of 
 great importance. Whether any thing has been done in this 
 volume to effect this object, it is submitted to a candid 
 public. 
 
 The author is aware that in some points he differs from 
 most Trinitarian writers; but the difference is of such a 
 nature that it is, in his opinion, an additional weight in their 
 scale of evidence. 
 
 In writing upon a subject, which has been discussed by 
 a thousand hands, and in almost as many ways, it is impos- 
 sible to avoid crossing the tracks of many; and in attempt- 
 ing to establish and defend what is supposed to be truth, it 
 is sometimes necessary to notice and refute opinions, which 
 militate against it. In the following treatise it has been 
 designed to avoid, as much as possible, a controversial method 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 of discussion; and if the arguments and manner used do not 
 carry conviction to the minds of any of different sentiments, 
 it is hoped that they will not excite asperity. 
 
 It is the object of the author to prove from the Sacred 
 Scriptures a threefold distinction in the Divine Nature, reveal- 
 ed by the names. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He has 
 not attempted to shew how these things can be; but merely 
 to shew that these things are revealed. Though the Divine 
 Plurality, like the Divine Existence, is incomprehensible by 
 finite minds; yet there is nothing in it, which anyone can 
 say is more contradictory, or inconsistent, than the distinc- 
 tions in human nature. 
 
 The term person, as it is often applied to the Father, Son, 
 and Spirit, and the expression, three persons in the Godhead, 
 have been cautiously avoided, unless they have occurred in 
 quotations. This language is offensive to many, because it 
 conveys to their minds (though not intended by those, who 
 use it) an idea of separation in the Divine Nature, so that 
 the Father, Son, and Spirit, instead of being one, appear to 
 them to be three Gods. There is no inconvenience in avoid- 
 ing this phraseology, and it is abundantly sufficient to prove 
 that each is divine, without attempting to prove that each 
 distinctly is God. 
 
 It has not been attempted to prove, nor has it been taken 
 for granted, that the Humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ 
 constitute either one, or more persons. He is "one Lord." 
 It appears to be inexpedient to predicate that of him, which 
 the Scriptures do not predicate, and which unnecessarily 
 excites opposition to the doctrine of his divinity. If the 
 term Person, be applied to him in both natures, it is certain 
 that its signification is different from what it is in any other 
 application. It ought to be considered that the intimate con- 
 nexion of his divinity and humanity, does not destroy their 
 essential distinction. 
 
 The essay on the Atonement is brief; but enough is said 
 to shew its connexion with the divinity of Christ, and the 
 view given of its mailer, will, it is believed, help to re- 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 move the most formidable objections, which are brought 
 against it. 
 
 Much has been written, and some has been very ably writ- 
 ten on the Sonship of Jesus Christ. It does not appear to 
 be necessary to prove that his relationship to the Father, 
 which is expressed by the relative term Son, was produced 
 either in eternity, or in time. If it were ever produced, 
 there was a period in duration, in which it did not exist; and 
 when it came into existence, a change in the Divine Nature 
 ^must have taken place. Let it be admitted that the three 
 distinctions in the Divine Nature always existed; and that 
 they have been revealed by the names of Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit; let the attention be fixed exclusively on the 
 Divine Nature, not on its official capacities, nor on its union 
 with humanity, and it appears that all debate on the subject 
 would terminate. 
 
 In the essay on the Authority of Jesus Christ, it is shewn 
 that there is an essential ditference between power and au- 
 thorily; and this distinction, which is warranted by the 
 original Greek, is considered a refutation of the opinion of 
 those, who maintain that power was imparted by the Father 
 to the Son, 
 
 The vievvof the Mediatorial Office of the Savior, removes, 
 it is believed, some objections, which are brought against 
 the Trinitarian sclieme. 
 
 The Opinions of the Christian Fathers, are taken from 
 Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, and from Milner's History 
 of the Church of Christ. It is unnecessary to make any 
 prefatory remarks on the other numbers of the work. The 
 reader will easily discover their design and weight. 
 
 It may appear to many to be entirely superfluous to add 
 another publication to the man}', which have ah-eady been 
 made upon tliis subject. Cut it ougiit to be considered that 
 as long as this doctrine is assailed by its enemies, it must be 
 defended by its friends; and that the latter must be as inde- 
 fatigable and persevering in their effi^rts as the former. The 
 same arguments, presented in different points o{ view, and 
 
VI PREFACE, 
 
 variously arranged and combined, will produce diflferent 
 effects; and when others, if sound, are added, they give im- 
 pulse to those, which have gone before. At the present 
 juncture, when opposition is powerful and active, it does 
 not become the soldiers of the cross merely to stand on 
 the ground, which their fathers valiantly defended, and 
 use only their arms, and their method of warfare; they 
 must keep pace with the pr-ogress of their opponents; 
 search out all their varied modes of attack; and learn from 
 the skill of the enemy how to repel their assaults. They 
 must open the Magazine of divine truth; take arms from 
 every apartment; and when, with a helmet, or a shield, or 
 a buckler, or a sword, severally, they cannot prevail, let 
 them take the whole armor of God, and they will bear down 
 all opposition. To drop the figure, when evidences of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from one, or a few sources, 
 are resisted, let every source of evidence be opened; let 
 every argument be brought to its place; let the whole be 
 marshalled, and they will not, they cannot, be ineffectual. 
 Like the Grecian phalanx, they will be not only impenetra- 
 ble; but they will break through the line of opposition. 
 
 The following work is now committed to an intelligent 
 and candid public, and commended to the blessing of Him, 
 whose honor and cause it is designed to vindicate. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The existence of God, - - - - 9 
 
 The Unity of God, - - ... is 
 
 Plurality in the Divine Nature, ... 25 
 
 On the Father, - - - - 39 
 
 In what sense Christ is the Son of God, . . 46 
 
 Divine names given to Christ, - - - 82 
 
 Divine attributes ascribed to Christ, - - - 95 
 
 Christ the Author of Creation, - - - 109 
 
 Christ possesses divine authority, - - - 119 
 
 Divine honors given to the Son of God, - - 135 
 Christ's raising the dead and judging the world, are 
 
 evidences of his divinity, - - - 151 
 
 On the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ, - 160 
 Christ's divinity argued from the place he holds in our 
 
 system of religion, and in believers' hearts, - 168 
 
 Christ the Author of salvation, - - - 180 
 
 On the Mediatorial office of Jesus Christ, - 187 
 
 Christ the Angel of the Covenant, - - - 197 
 The opinions of the ancient Jews respecting the Son of 
 
 God, 
 
 218 
 
VIU CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting Jesus 
 
 Christ, 227 
 
 On the Atonement of Christ, ... 249 
 
 On the Humanity of Christ, - - - 271 
 
 A summary View of the evidences of the divinity of 
 
 Jesus Christ, 282 
 
 On the Distinction and Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 300 
 The connexion of Divine Plurality with other doc- 
 trines of the Sacred Scriptures, - - 329 
 
TREATISE. 
 
 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, 
 
 The divine existence is an interesting subject of con- 
 templation. It concerns every intelligent creature to 
 know from whom he has derived his being; and to 
 whom he is responsible. It is important to know 
 "whether nature and her laws are self-existent and in- 
 dependent, or derived their existence and support 
 from a Creator. It is important to know whether 
 events occur under the capricious control of chance; or 
 under the established laws of an infinitely wise Sove- 
 reign. To form correct sentiments on these points, it 
 is necessary to admit, or establish by a process of ar- 
 gumentation, the existence of God. This first princi- 
 ple of religion is established in the volume of nature, 
 and in the volume of inspiration. It has been demon- 
 strated and defended by champions of Divmity in 
 every age. But the subject has not lost any of its im- 
 portance by length of time; nor hns it been exhaust- 
 ed by the most able discussion. The learning and 
 genius of every future age will find full scope in con- 
 templating, and discussing this interesting, this infjnite 
 subject. 
 
 2 
 
10 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 
 
 A variety of arguments offer their assistance in 
 proof of the existence of God. The inanimate, and 
 brutal creation, and our own existence are evidences 
 of an independent first Cause. "The invisible things 
 of him from the creation of the world are clearly 
 seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
 even his eternal power and Godhead." In every 
 part of the natural world, there is a continual succes- 
 sion of changes. The face of the earth assumes, at 
 every revolving season, a new aspect. One growth of 
 the vegetable kingdom comes forward, matures, de- 
 clines, dies, putrifies, and gives nourishment to a suc- 
 ceeding crop. Of the brutal creation individuals are 
 continually perishmg; and others take their place. In 
 the rational world one generation passeth away and 
 another taketh its place. This mutation among the 
 different orders of beings proves that they are not 
 self-existent; that they are not eternal; and proves, of 
 course, that they derived their existence from a Crea- 
 tor. Because, what is changeable is subject to dissolu- 
 tion and extinction. What is subject to fall into non- 
 existence might, without contradiction or absurdity in 
 the supposition, have been in that state. It follows, con- 
 sequently, that all things, which are mutable may have 
 had a beginning, and an author of their existence. As 
 substances, which are changeable in their nature are 
 not self-existent, it follows that they must have had 
 an origin, and a Creator. 
 
 Between the different parts of the natural world 
 there is a mutual connexion and dependence. The 
 different particles of matter, which compose this 
 globe, are united with, and rest upon each other. 
 The vegetable kingdom springs from the earth, and 
 is supported by the elements. The irrational and the 
 rational world derive their origin from a parental 
 stock; and are supported by the productions of the 
 earth. A series of connected links of dependencies 
 cannot make an independent chain of beings. De- 
 pendence may be traced from one thing to another; 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 1 I 
 
 irom the smallest particle of matter up to the great- 
 est object, which falls within the compass of human 
 sight; and the question will arise, on what does this 
 depend? Rise as high on this ascending series as im- 
 agination can soar, and the same question will return, 
 till we fix on that Being, who is uncreated, eternal, and 
 self-existent. Ttiis is the central point, from which 
 every thing proceeds; to which every thing gravitates, 
 and by which every thing is sustained. 
 
 In the natural world there are evident marks of de- 
 sign, of wise design. There is a just proportion be- 
 tween the different parts of creation. The mountains 
 are weighed in scales and the hills in a balance. So 
 exactly equipoised, are the spheres, which compose 
 our system, that they perform their rotations, and 
 revolutions in stated times. This curiously organized 
 machine was not fitted up merely to make a display 
 of mechanical skill. It is calculated to answer the 
 most valuable purposes. There is a happy subservi- 
 ency between the different parts of the system. The 
 inanimate part of the world affords support to the 
 brutal creation; and both afford support and enjoyment 
 for mankind. The earth is covered with a great vari- 
 ety of the richest productions; the heavens are spread 
 out like a curtain; and ornamented with shinins" and 
 useful orbs. The clemenis are combined to sustain 
 the life, and promote the enjoyment of all classes of 
 creatures, from the smallest insect to the lord of this 
 lower world. It is impossible to account for this just 
 proportion, this mutual subserviency of different parts; 
 and this wise design in every part, unless we (race 
 them all to an infinitely wise Creator and Governor. 
 When we see a machine of curious construction, and 
 calculated for some valuable purpose, we never suj> 
 pose that it derived its origin from a casual combina- 
 tion of parts. But we trace it to mechanical skill and 
 design. With equal propriety we may trace the 
 great machine of the universe to the incomparable 
 skill, and benevolent design of a divine Arlist. 
 
12 THE EXISTENCE OP dOD. 
 
 The occurrence of events, which cannot be con- 
 trolled bj human power, and the accomphshment of 
 ends by means directly contrary to those, which hu- 
 man wisdom ernolojs, are an argument in favor of the 
 existence of God. The rise of vapor, the formation 
 of clouds, the fall of rain, the artillery of the skies, the 
 succession of day and night, the rotation of the sea- 
 sons, the rise, progress, and decline of the vegetable 
 kingdom, manifest a superhuman power. Human 
 wisdom is often employed to effectuate some design. 
 All the energies of the mind are called into operation 
 for the invention of means to ensure success. Exer- 
 tion is so employed and a train of events is so ar- 
 ranged, that not a doubt of success obscures the pros- 
 pect. But it frequently happens that the wisdom of 
 the wise is brought to nought; that events take a 
 retrograde course; and the most sanguine expecta- 
 tions are blasted. As if nature had changed her laws, 
 the most promising circumstances become adverse; 
 and the design, which was almost accomplished, 
 proves abortive. On the other hand, when adverse 
 events take place in rapid succession; when nothing 
 but the severest trials appear in prospect; and it is 
 beyond human power to turn the current of events, 
 something unforeseen takes place, stays the progress 
 of adversity, and discloses delightful prospects. His- 
 tory, both sacred and profane, give abundant evidence 
 of the general government and special interposition of 
 a Being, infinitely more powerful and wise, than the 
 most exalted creature. 
 
 The general sentiment of mankind is in favor of the 
 existence of God. It is probable that every nation 
 and tribe on earth believe the existence of a supreme 
 Being. However remote from each other, and how- 
 ever destitute of intercourse with the rest of the 
 world, they all appear to coincide in this one senti- 
 ment, — there is a God. The Creator has not left 
 himself without witness. He originally impressed his 
 imasfc upon liumanitv. \N hen ^this moral likeness was 
 
THE EXISTENCE OP GOD. 13 
 
 effaced, a fearful belief of his existence still remained. 
 This sentiment mu^it have been generally engraven 
 upon 'the human mind; or irresistible evidence from 
 the works of nature must have been communicated to 
 the senses. Those, who have traced the works of na- 
 ture; viewed her operations; and studied her laws, 
 have inferred that they depend on a first Cause. 
 The untutored tribes of the wilderness, without any 
 regular process of argumentation, have drawn the 
 same conclusion. The learned and the barbarian 
 have traced the footsteps of the Deity on earth; and 
 have read his name in the firmament written with let- 
 ters of light. 
 
 Further, mankind have always felt a dependence 
 on some remote cause; they have felt a consciousness 
 of responsibility; and they have always looked to 
 some being as the object of their greatest fears, or of 
 their greatest hopes. A consciousness of right and 
 wrong is inherent in the human mind. The Gentiles 
 had this law written in their hearts, their conscience 
 also bearing witness. As the instinct of brutes ena- 
 bles them to distinguish between salubrious and nox- 
 ious food, and instigates them to self-delence, or to 
 flee from danger; so a moral sense in man distinguish- 
 es between good and evil; and would persuade him 
 to contend against spiritual enemies, or escape from 
 them. This moral sense dwells not on abstract prin- 
 ciples, but extends its views to that Being who is the 
 Standard of moral excellence, the supreme Arbiter 
 of moral actions, the Disposer of retributions. 
 
 Some have argued against nature, against conscious- 
 ness, against reason, against the senses; and they have 
 concluded that there is no God, On the boundless 
 regions of chance they find the origin, the support 
 and control of every thing. According to their own 
 principles, it was by chance they formed this senti- 
 ment; by chance they may change it; and if tlicy 
 should fall into the belief of a God, they will find it to 
 be not an act of chance, but a solemn realitv. These 
 
14 THE EXISTENCE OF GOl>. 
 
 aberrations from the great mass of mankind prove 
 that there are established laws, from which thej devia- 
 ted; and thev prove that there may be monsters no 
 less in the intellectual, than in the brutal world. The 
 general sentiment of mankind furnishes abundant 
 proof that there is a God; and that he has given evi- 
 dence of his existence. 
 
 The sacred scriptures notonly declare that there is 
 a God, but they^re themselves an evidence of his 
 existence. In every production we look for an ade- 
 quate cause. What is not superior to human power 
 may be attributed to that power. But what far ex- 
 ceeds human exction must be traced to a hifijher 
 cause. That system of religion, recorded in the Bible, 
 infinitely exceeds any human production. The inge- 
 nuity of man has often been tried to form a system of 
 religion; but their best productions have betrayed 
 the vreakness, or baseness of their authors. But the 
 christian system displays a depth of wisdom, to which 
 human ingenuity can never attain, and which it can 
 never fathom. Its morality is unblemished. Its pie- 
 ty is pure and fervent. Its exhibitions of the Deity 
 are indescribably sublime. Its method of salvation 
 embraces, at once, the most striking displays of wis- 
 dom, power, and goodness. Its retributions are ad- 
 mirably calculated to animate the hopes and rouse 
 the fears of the human soul. The more its parts are 
 examined and compared, the more visible will be 
 their harmony. The more minutely it is investigated, 
 the more clearly will its perfection appear. The 
 deeper researches are made into this system, the 
 more amazing will appear its length and breadth, its 
 height and depth. When human wisdom has gone 
 to its utmost extent, it can only stand on the borders 
 of this divine system; admire its amazing dimensions; 
 and exclaim, "O the depth of the riches, both of the 
 wisdom and knowledge of God!" 
 
 In the formation of substance out of nothing, and in 
 the support of the universe are the highest conceivable 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 15 
 
 displays of power. Almighty power alone coul^ 
 create and support the world. The organization ofthe 
 universe; its regulations; the correspondence and sub- 
 serviency of its various parts; the control of events, 
 by which important ends are attained by indirect 
 means, manifest a wisdom unlimited m degree, and 
 in its operation. The abundant means of support, 
 convenience and delight, which are bestowed on man- 
 kind; the connexion of the highest happiness with 
 duty; the means, which are employed to repair the 
 ruins of human nature; the sacrifice which was made 
 for rebellious creatures, and the provision, which is 
 made for their future enjoyment, are the most striking 
 displays of benevolence and goodness. Nothing but 
 mercy and love, which knew no bounds, could have 
 made such communications to this ungrateful, this re- 
 bellious world. The Being, in whom these infinite 
 perfections dwell, is the Creator, the Governor and 
 Savior of the world. He is God. 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 The existence of God is the foundation of religion. 
 He is the Author of all other beings. He supports 
 all the works of creation. His will is the law of his 
 creatures. His law is not established by an arbitrary 
 decree; but it is founded on those principles of moral 
 fitness, which are coincident with the relationship of 
 beings; and which are immutable. To do justly, and 
 to love mercy, and to walk humbly, did not become 
 duties because they were required; but they were re- 
 quired because they were duties. Had there been no 
 God, there would have been no beings; no relation- 
 ship between beings; no moral fitness connected with 
 such relationship. But as there is a God, and he is 
 the Author of all creatures, he is the foundation of 
 the connexion subdisting between beings; he is the 
 foundation of the principles of moral right which are 
 inseparable from such connexion. Agreeably to the 
 nature of his creatures, and agreeably to his own holy 
 nature, he formed a system of religion. He estab- 
 • lished in human nature a perceptibility of the divine 
 Existence; and implanted in the soul a sense of moral 
 obligation. 
 
 Mankind are conscious of responsibility. They 
 perceive that they did not originate themselves; their 
 possessions; their privileges; their enjoyments. They 
 perceive that the Being, who made these communi- 
 cations, has a just claim on them; and that they are 
 under a correspondent obligation. This general sen- 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 17 
 
 timent of responsibility was impressed upon the mind 
 by the Creator; and proves that he is not only the 
 Author of a system of rehgion; but proves that he is 
 the Author of rehgious sentiment in the heart. 
 
 The opinions which men form of God, give a deci- 
 sive character to their rehgious system. If they form 
 correct ideas of his nature, character, government and 
 offices, they form, generally, correct ideas of the 
 whole system of religion. If they have incorrect ideas 
 of the Deity, they are generally defective in their re- 
 ligious sentiments. If they believe that he is the only 
 living and true God, they believe that he alone is enti- 
 tled to religious homage. If they have exalted ideas 
 of the divine nature, they have humiliating concep- 
 tions of humanity. If they believe divine sovereignty, 
 they believe human dependence. If they believe 
 that God is the only Savior, they trust only in him. 
 On the other hand, if they believe there is a multi- 
 plicity of deities, they divide their religious homage 
 among them. They practise idolatry. If they be- 
 lieve that God does not notice the affairs of mortals, 
 they do not venerate the divine law; their hopes and 
 fears are not excited by the promise, or threatening 
 of retribution. The Heathen have generally, if not 
 universally, believed the existence of a multiplicity of 
 gods. They have ascribed to them various natures 
 and characters; and they have varied their worship 
 and service according to the ideas they had formed 
 of their respective natures. To one they have offer- 
 ed the fruits of the earth. To another they have 
 made presentations of indecency. To another they 
 have offered human sacrifices; varying their offerings 
 according to the supposed nature and pleasure of 
 their deities. 
 
 Those, who believe Christianity is a divine revela- 
 tion, form various ideas of God. This variety of sen- 
 timent upon this fundamental article of religion affects 
 their creed through the whole system. The guilt of 
 sin is measured by the dignity and holiness of that 
 3 
 
18 J'HE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Being, against whom it is committed. The value of 
 the atonement is estimated not only by the evil of sin; 
 but by the excellence and capacity of him, who made 
 the sacrifice. The ideas formed of future reward 
 and punishment correspond with the sentiments en- 
 tertained of the Deity. Trace all human creeds, and 
 it will be found that all their features take their 
 peculiarities from the belief of the first article of 
 religion. 
 
 It is of the highest importance, therefore, to form 
 correct ideas of God. It is not expected that finite 
 minds can form adequate conceptions of the divine 
 nature; or of the infinitude of his attributes. But it is 
 necessary to believe there is such a nature possessing 
 such attributes. The deity is the basis of religion; 
 and the opinion formed of him is the chief corner 
 stone in a beHever's creed. 
 
 In the formation of every argument it is necessary 
 to lay down correct premises; because on them the 
 conclusion depends. In every science it is necessary 
 to have a knowledge of its first principles. These are 
 the basis of the whole system. In the science of 
 Theology, as in all other sciences, there are funda- 
 mental truths, which must be admitted or proved, be- 
 fore inquiries can be prosecuted with success. The 
 most important of these, and Avhich claims the first 
 attention, is, the unity of God. 
 
 1. The first argument, which offers itself in proof 
 of this truth, is, there appears to be no need of more 
 than one God. In treating subjects philosophically it 
 is correct to admit no more causes, than are necessa- 
 ry to account for the efTects produced. One Beiiig 
 of almighty power is sufficient to create the world. 
 One Being of infinite wisdom is sufficient to organize 
 it, and form a constitution for its government. One 
 Being of infinite goodness is competent to the admin- 
 istration of its laws. The same Being, who created, 
 organized and supports one world, can multiply them 
 to any extent he pleases. It is no harder to conceive 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 19 
 
 of infinite attributes residing in one Being, than to con- 
 ceive of them residing in many beings. As all the eA, 
 fects, which are visible, or fall within the compass or 
 human apprehension, may be traced to one Cause, 
 possessing infinite perfections, there is no necessity of 
 inferring more than one. 
 
 2. The unity of God is argued from the harmony 
 and mutual subserviency of different parts of the 
 world; and from the uniformity of its government. 
 There is a just proportion between the various parts 
 of the world. The elements are so adjusted, that 
 one does not prevail against another. The globe is 
 wisely balanced with earth and water. The spheres, 
 which compose this system, are so exactly propor- 
 tioned as to size and distance, that they perform their 
 revolutions with the greatest precision. There is a 
 remarkable correspondence and subserviency between 
 the different parts of the world; between different 
 classes of animals; and between the brutal and the in- 
 telligent creation. The face of the earth is agreeably 
 and usefully variegated with hills and vallies. There 
 is a happy subserviency between the atmosphere, 
 earth, and water. The different parts of this system 
 so correspond that they are mutually beneficial. The 
 sun enlightens and warms the earth. The moon and 
 the host of heaven, not only adorn the canopy of the 
 skies, but they shed their milder rays. The regular 
 succession of day and night promotes the growth of 
 the vegetable kingdom; and affords a pleasing and 
 refreshing variety to human nature. The rotation of" 
 the seasons is wisely calculated to bring forward and 
 mature the productions of the earth, and to restore 
 its wasted strength. 
 
 The vegetable world affords support to a great part 
 of the animal kingdom. Every class of animals finds 
 subsistence in its natural situation. Different species 
 of animals are mutually useful. Some afford support 
 to others. If the Author of nature had paused here; 
 and had gone no further, his work might have ap- 
 
20 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 peared marvellously great, but he would have mani- 
 fested no wise, nor important design. The vast ap- 
 paratus of the natural world is calculated and appears 
 to be designed ultimately for the use and enjoyment 
 of man. The vegetable and animal part of the world 
 afford their productions for his service, convenience 
 and delight. 
 
 There is a uniformity of government in the natural 
 world. The herb yieldeth seed after its kind. Ev- 
 ery class of animals preserve their similarity of ap- 
 pearance, nature and habits. They also retain dis- 
 tinguishing peculiarities. Seed time and harvest, 
 summer and winter, heat and cold, are established by 
 a perpetual decree. If, from year to year, there be 
 some difference in the time of productions, and some 
 slight variations from the ordinary course of events, 
 it does not militate against the uniformity of divine 
 government; but it only proves that the world is gov- 
 erned by general laws. In all the works of nature, 
 and in those laws which regulate the world, there 
 appears to be only one design, the manifestation of 
 divine excellence in promoting the happiness of hu- 
 man nature. 
 
 Had there been two artists engaged in creating and 
 organizing the world, it could not be expected there 
 would be a perfect correspondence and subserviency 
 of various parts. It could not be expected there 
 would be a unity of design running through the whole 
 system. It is not probable that two separate powers 
 Avould perfectly harmonize in any one method of 
 government. They would, undoubtedly have their 
 favorite plans; and pursue their favorite courses. Con- 
 sequently there would not be harmony between the 
 different parts of the world; nor uniformity in the 
 effects of their administration. Jealousy might rise 
 between these rival sovereigns, and instead of uniting 
 to promote harmony, uniformity and tranquillity 
 through the system, they might throw the whole into 
 commotion, and produce the greatest disorder. They 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 21 
 
 might forget the interest of their subjects, and at- 
 tempt to estabhsh their individual superiority. If 
 the two artists and sovereigns were of one design, and 
 possessed equal perfections, they consequently would 
 possess an infinitude of attributes. They being dis- 
 tinct and separate beings, each would possess one half 
 of this infinitude. This supposes that infinite power, 
 wisdom and goodness are individually capable of di- 
 vision, and separation; that they are made up of parts; 
 and that they may be formed by a progressive series 
 of finite qualities. If these two possess the same kind 
 of nature; are united in design, and in operation, and 
 constitute only one infinitude, they would not be two 
 distinct and separate existences, but they would be lit- 
 erally one nature. 
 
 3. There is abundant evidence that there is one 
 God, eternal, self-existent and independent. He exists 
 of necessity; that is, it is impossible that he never 
 should have existed; and it is impossible that he 
 should cease to exist. There is a primary power in 
 the universe. It is impossible that this power should 
 have created itself; and it is equally impossible that it 
 should destroy itself; for this would suppose a power 
 superior to the highest power. These things cannot 
 be predicated of more than one power. There can 
 be only one power necessarily existing. If an equal 
 power be supposed to exist, it must depend on the 
 will and pleasure of the first power for liberty of 
 the least operation. If equals cannot destroy equals, 
 they can counteract and neutralize each other. Con- 
 sequently there cannot be two separate independen- 
 cies; two separate self-existencies, nor two separate 
 eternals. 
 
 It is equally absurd to suppose there are inferior 
 divinities. A divinity has a divine nature and divine 
 attributes. What is divine is not circumscribed; and 
 consequently is infinite. What is infinite is not capa- 
 ble of degrees of comparison. Consequently there 
 cannot be superior and inferior divinities. If a 
 
22 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 deity be supposed, which is inferior to the supreme 
 God, he is inferior in nature and attributes. Dura- 
 tion, which is inferior to eternity, is temporal. Power 
 and wisdom which are inferior to infinity, are finite. 
 A temporal finite being is a creature, consequently he 
 is not truly a deity. 
 
 The Heathen admit a multiplicity of gods. But 
 they esteem one superior to the rest. They vary 
 their religious honors in quality and degree according 
 to the supposed excellence of their respective deities. 
 It is not doubted that the Creator can and does dep- 
 utize his creatures to act with a limited authority. 
 He has constituted man lord of this lower world. 
 But this does not vest him with a claim to divine hon- 
 ors. The prince of the power of the air has author- 
 ity to work in the children of disobedience. But this 
 prerogative does not entitle him to divine worship. 
 The inferior gods of the Heathen, whether they be 
 works of their own hands, objects of nature, or crea- 
 tures of their imaginations, bear no comparison with 
 real Divinity; and they are not entitled to divine hon- 
 ors. In view of the one God they are a vanity 
 and a lie. 
 
 Mankind, ever since the apostasy, have been in- 
 clined to make lords many and gods many; and to 
 practise idolatry. Even those, who enjoyed some 
 rays of revealed light, loved darkness rather than 
 light; and in the shades of nature they fancied simil- 
 itudes of the Deity; or with an artist's skill they con- 
 trived forms, which called forth their devotional feel- 
 ings. One great object of divine revelation was to 
 correct the world of this error, and lead them to the 
 knowledge of the only living and true God. So im- 
 portant was this subject that the first command of the 
 decalogue was directed to this very point; "Thou shalt 
 have no other gods before me." God has often declared 
 in his word that there is no other god. "Unto thee it 
 was shewed that thou mightest know that the Lord he 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 23 
 
 Is God, there is none else besides him." Solomon, in 
 his address to the people after his consecrating prayer 
 in the temple, uses almost the same language: "that 
 all the people of the earth may know that the Lord 
 is God; and that there is none else." Similar lan- 
 guage is repeatedly used in the Old Testament. 
 Christ, who bore testimony to the truth, taught the 
 same doctrine, the unity of God. His language is, 
 There is but one good, that is God. In the language 
 of the Old Testament, he said, "The Lord our God is 
 one Lord." Again he said. This is life eternal, that 
 they might know thee, the only true God. In all his 
 devotions he addressed but one God. 
 
 4. The coincidence of the various parts of the 
 sacred scriptures is a strong argument in favor of the 
 unity of their Author. This volume was written by 
 many hands; at distant periods; and at places remote 
 from each other. Had the objects of the inspired 
 writers bedn different, or had they been under the 
 guidance of different spirits, a striking contrariety 
 would have appeared in their writings. But, as their 
 object is evidently the same, as there is a remarkable 
 coincidence in their relation of the same things, as there 
 is a perfect agreement between the prophetic writ- 
 ings and the history of subsequent events, there is 
 the strongest evidence that their authors were under 
 the direction of one and the same Spirit. 
 
 Some parts of the sacred scriptures appear, at first 
 view, to be inconsistent; and other parts appear to be 
 dark. But when they are investigated, they appear 
 consistent, and the religion of the Old Testament was 
 remarkably well calculated for the Jewish nation till 
 the advent of the Messiah. A knowledge of the 
 ancient customs of the Jews, a knowledge of the idola- 
 tries of neighboring nations bring to view excellen- 
 ces of the Jewish religion, which are not discovered 
 by a superficial observer. Those parts of God's word, 
 which seem to militate against each other, are found 
 
24 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 to be reconcilable and harmonious. Those seeming 
 blemishes, which appear on the pages of divine inspi- 
 ration are only dark spots on the vision of the human 
 mind. When the understanding is purged from 
 moral darkness and corruptness, it will discover the 
 perfections of our holy religion; t\ e coincidence of its 
 parts; the unity of its design, and the unity of its 
 Author. 
 
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 After the apostasy mankind were exceedingly 
 prone to idolatry. The heathen, in every age, have 
 paid their devotions to a variety of deities. Even 
 the Hebrews, who were enlightened by divine revela- 
 tion, and were taught the existence ot" only one God, 
 often departed from this knowledge, and ascribed 
 divine honors to objects of nature, and to works of men's 
 hands. When God communicated to the world a sys- 
 tem of religion, it might well be expected he would 
 guard the human mind against this error; that he 
 would distinguish himself from heathen gods; that he 
 would communicate nothing which would give the 
 least countenance to a multiplicity of deities, or to 
 idolatry. When God wrote the moral law on tables 
 of stone, he commanded first, that they should have 
 no other gods before him. The distinguishing char- 
 acteristic of Israel was, that they worshipped one 
 God. Moses, who was under divine influence, and 
 wrote agreeably to the pattern shewn him by the 
 divine Being, guarded the doctrine of the divine wiity 
 with the greatest care, lest Israel should blend with 
 surrounding nations; fall into idolatry; and lose the 
 knowledge of the true God. His language is, "Hear, 
 O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and 
 with all thy soul, and with all thy might." That 
 these words might not depart from their minds, he 
 required them to bind them upon their hands; and 
 4 
 
20 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 that they should be as frontlets between their eyes. 
 The other prophets adopted similar language. Christ 
 supported the same sentiment, and the apostles copied 
 his example. 
 
 Notwithstanding the unity of God is a prominent 
 doctrine in the Scriptures; yet both the Old and New 
 Testament contain many terms and phrases, Avhich 
 evidently convey an idea of plurality in the divine 
 nature. The original word in the Old Testament, for 
 the name God, is used in the plural number. "In the 
 beginning God created the heaven and the earth." 
 This is the first time the divine name is used in the 
 Bible; and it is used in the plural number, connected 
 with a singular verb. When God was about to form 
 man, he said, "Let t(s make man in our image, after 
 our likeness." After the apostasy of our first parents, 
 "The Lord God said, behold the man is become as 
 one of M5, to know good and evil." When God look- 
 ed down from heaven and beheld the tower, which 
 the children of men builded, he said, "Go to, let iis 
 go down and there confound their language." God 
 speaking by the mouth of his prophet inquires, "Whom 
 shall I send.'* Who will go for nsP'' Other passages 
 contain the name of God in the plural number. 
 
 God is jealous for the honor of his name. He will 
 not give his glory to another. He will have no other 
 gods before him. He has ever manifested the great- 
 est abhorrence of idolatry. Why then did God re- 
 veal himself by a name of the plural number, when 
 he knew that the heathen, and even his peculiar peo- 
 ple were exceedingly prone to idolatry; and would 
 greedily catch at every circumstance, which appeared 
 to countenance their favorite worship? Why was the 
 doctrine of one God guarded with such precision and 
 circumspection; and the name of God expressed in 
 the plural number, as if there were gods many? His 
 name was first communicated in the plural number; 
 and lest men should, from this circumstance, infer a 
 multiplicity of gods, it was expressly declared that 
 
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 27 
 
 the Lord God was one Lord; and that they should 
 have no other gods. Moses was undoubtedly aware 
 what use the people would make of the plurality con- 
 tained in the divine name; and it is not probable he 
 would have used this terra excepting under the sanc- 
 tion of divine authority. 
 
 Some have attempted to explain away the meaning 
 of the plurality in the divine name by considering it 
 an imitation of the royal style. But there is no evi- 
 dence that kings applied to themselves the plural 
 number in the days of Moses. We find no instance, 
 in the sacred scriptures, of this royal mode of expres- 
 sion till about a thousand years after Moses wrote 
 his history. Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in answer to 
 a letter sent to him by his chancellor, scribe and the 
 rest of their companions, says, "The letter which ye 
 sent unto iis, hath been plainly read before me." Is 
 it probable that God borrowed his titles. Majesty, 
 most High, Prince, Sovereign, King, from earthly 
 potentates? Is it probable that the Author of language 
 is indebted to marks of royal honor for the formation 
 of his own name, or for the mode of his expression.'* 
 Is it probable that the Creator copied the creature.'* 
 When it is considered how prone people were to deify 
 works of art, animals, and departed spirits, it is easy 
 to account for the origin of the custom of giving 
 divine titles and divine honors to men in the most 
 elevated stations. Repeated instances are found in 
 history, in which men, who were distinguished for 
 heroism, and more distinguished for vain conceit, pre- 
 tended to be descendants of the gods; and assumed 
 divine prerogatives. It was natural for them, when 
 speaking in the first person, to use the plural number 
 in imitation of the name of God. It is not a little 
 surprising that Christian people should perpetuate 
 this heathenish practice. But while it proves the 
 power of example, it likewise proves that there is a 
 certain plurality in the divine original, which gave rise 
 to this custom. 
 
28 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 In the New Testament the divine name is used in 
 the singular number. When the individuity of divine 
 plurahty was distinctly revealed, the more obscure 
 Hebrew mode of expressing the divine name ceased. 
 If the name of God in the New Testament be not 
 used in the plural number, a plurality of singulars is 
 used, to which divine nature is ascribed. This gives 
 a clearer view of plurality in God than the ancient 
 Hebrew form of expression. The New Testament 
 was to be circulated among the Jews for the purpose 
 of converting them to Christianity. As they believed 
 in only one God, no form of speech would unnecessa- 
 rily be used by the writers of the Christian religion, 
 which would convey to them the idea of a multiplicity 
 of deities. As it was also to be circulated among 
 heathen, it was necessary to use the greatest care in 
 the choice of words, lest encouragement should be 
 given to their idolatry. As the forms of speech used 
 in the scriptures naturally suggest the idea of more 
 gods than one, or of a plurality in the divine nature; 
 and as the scriptures declare in the plainest and 
 strongest terms that there is but one God, it follows 
 that there is a plurality in his nature. 
 
 The Hebrew language is remarkable for its sim- 
 plicity, and for its significancy. Proper names, as 
 well as the names of a genus and species, are often 
 expressive of the nature or properties of the person 
 or thing named. Various names are given to the 
 Supreme Being; and each name is significant of his 
 nature, office, or of some of his attributes. In the 
 first verse in the Bible the Hebrew name of God is 
 expressive of his power. When he is represented in 
 the act of creation there is a striking propriety in 
 giving him a name expressing his might. When God 
 commissioned Moses to lead Israel out of bondage, he 
 made himself known to him by a name signifying inde- 
 pendent existence. At other times he revealed him- 
 self by names signifying government and excellence. 
 From the peculiar significancy of Hebrew names. 
 
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 29 
 
 especially the names of God, an appropriate sense is 
 undoubtedly to be given to the divine name, when 
 used in the plural number. It is hard to conceive 
 what appropriate sense can be extracted from this 
 mode of expression, unless it be a certain plurality in 
 the divine nature. 
 
 The principal Jewish cabalistic authors, both 
 ancient and modern, believed a plurality in the nature 
 of God. In one of the most ancient Jewish books, a 
 book said to be as ancient as Abraham himself, there 
 is this passage. "They are three lights, an ancient 
 light, a pure lights and a most pure light; nevertheless 
 all these are only one God^ In another place, the 
 same author, on the same subject says, "And know 
 ye, the three high nominations all are united together; 
 and never are divided." Another cabalistic author 
 observes, "The three highest no eye ever saw, and 
 there is not there either separation or division."* 
 
 A passage in Deuteronomy, 6:4, offers its aid in 
 support of the sentiment under consideration. In our 
 translation it is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God 
 is one Lord." A modern Jew,t who was a considera- 
 ble critic in the Hebrew language translates this pas- 
 sage probably more justly. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, 
 our God, the Lord is one." After some explanation of 
 this interpretation,the author adds, "Do not mistake me 
 and think that there are three Gods of three different 
 essences, neither one God without the plurality of 
 persons; but yet there is one only God in nature and 
 essence, artd three distinct persons, all equal in power 
 and glory; and coequal and coeval from all eternity." 
 The opinion of the Jewish rabbies is of no inconsid- 
 erable weight in this argument. They were expert 
 in the Hebrew scriptures; and they well understood 
 the idiom and the peculiar force of their own lan- 
 guage. 
 
 The different works of the Supreme Being, which 
 are recorded in the sacred scriptures, form an argu- 
 
 • See Monis. t Wem. 
 
30 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 ment in favor of a plurality in his nature. It is re- 
 corded that God created the world; that he gave a 
 law to the human race; that the blood of God was 
 shed to purchase his church;* and that those who are 
 born again are born of God. Here are three distinct 
 kinds of work, the formation and government of man, 
 an expiation for sin, and a reparation of ruined human 
 nature. God formed and published a law for the 
 regulation of human life, and sanctioned it by threat- 
 ening punishment for disobedience. The Son of God 
 magnified and honored this law by humbling himself 
 and bearing the sins of men in his own body on the 
 accursed tree. The Spirit of God sanctifies the hu- 
 man heart, and restores unto it the divine moral like- 
 ness. If there be no kind of plurality, no kind of 
 individuality in the divine nature, then the same, who 
 threatened, made satisfaction to himself to support 
 his own authority; the same, whose authority was 
 violated, paid the ransom and gives willingness to 
 accept its benefits. Should the supreme ruler of a 
 nation adopt this method of government; should he 
 suffer the evil consequences incurred by his rebellious 
 subjects; and then restore them to his favor, would 
 he support his authority? would he manifest disap- 
 probation of rebellion? The same difficulties would 
 seem to lie against divine government, if there were 
 entire singularity in the divine nature. In the whole 
 economy of redemption there is abundant evidence 
 that there is a ground in the divine nature for mutual 
 
 • Acts 20:'28. There are found five different readings of this passage, beside 
 that of the received text, which is rS 655, viz. t5 Kugiv, tS X^ia-rS, tS Kyg/a 
 6i3, tS 6i5 Kitt Ku^iu, and t5 Kug/a net) 6s5. VVetstein and Griesbach consider 
 the evidence to be in favor of t5 Kvg(«. Wakefield, who was not disposed to 
 give his aid to support the doctrine of Christ's divinity, prefers the received 
 reading rS Si3; but he is careful to explain away all the natural meaning of the 
 text. He states that Griesbach's testimony respecting the Ethiopic version is 
 "infamously false." "The MSS. in which it" (i. e. tS fisj) "is found amounts 
 to fourteen, and it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the fathers." 
 See Middleton on the Greek article, pp. 227—232. 
 
 In five exemplaribus legitur Kvgin km flsS. Beza. IllustrJs sententia de Deitate 
 Christi, et unione duarum naturarum, qua uni tribuitur proprietas alterius. 
 Sanguis Jesu est sanguis Dei proprius, vi noivocvix; iS'mjuaircev. See Poole on 
 the place. 
 
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 31 
 
 intercourse; for mutual contract, and for mutual ful- 
 filment. One proposes, another accepts. One suppli- 
 cates, another hears and answers. One sends, another 
 is sent; and the whole is done with unity of design, 
 unity of pursuit, and unity of nature. 
 
 In the scheme of redemption there are three dis- 
 tinct offices; and they are filled by three of distinct 
 and characteristic names. The Father sends the Son; 
 the Son sends the Spirit. The Spirit purifies the 
 heart. The Son makes expiation for sin, and inter- 
 cession for sinners. The Father accepts what both 
 have done. There is no foundation for saying that 
 God may be one in all respects, and at the same time 
 may fill three separate offices. It appears to be 
 inconsistent that God in simple unity should act in 
 diffi:rent offices at one and the same time. It is 
 inconsistent that one should negotiate with himself; 
 that he should supplicate himself; mediate between 
 an offending party and himself; and in a formal manner 
 accept his own transactions. To avoid this inconsist- 
 ency it appears to be necessary to admit a plurality in 
 the Deity. It is equally absurd to account for the 
 different offices in the scheme of redemption, filled by 
 different ones of different names, by personifying par- 
 ticular attributes of the Deity. It is hard to conceive 
 how the faculties of the human mind could hold inter- 
 course with each other, and be distinct parties in any 
 transaction. It is equally hard to conceive how in- 
 dividual divine attributes could separate themselves 
 into different parties; negotiate with each other, and 
 each fulfil its appointment. Wisdom could form a 
 plan of salvation; but, without power, it could not 
 carry it into operation. Power could effect any pro- 
 posed design, but it could not project the method of 
 its accomplishment. Benevolence could effectuate 
 nothing without wisdom to devise, and power to ex- 
 ecute. A sinHe divine attribute, therefore, cannot 
 fill any office in the work of redemption, nor perform 
 the duties of such office. This hypothesis, then, does 
 
32 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 not account for the appearance of plurality in the 
 divine nature. 
 
 The opinion and practice of the people in India, 
 and in other parts of the East, serve to corroborate 
 this sentiment. "The Hindoos believe in one god 
 Brahma, the creator of all things; and yet they rep- 
 resent him as subsisting in three persons; and they 
 worship one or other of these persons throughout 
 every part of India. And what proves that they 
 hold this doctrine distinctly is, that their most ancient 
 representation of the Deity is formed of one body and 
 three faces. Nor are these representations confined 
 to India alone; but they are to be found in other parts 
 of the East."* 
 
 In this quarter of the world God created man, and 
 made the first communications of his will. Here 
 Christ was born; and nature, men and angels bore 
 testimony to his birth. The Hindoo history bears 
 some striking features of the history of the gospel. 
 In India there have been discovered vernacular writ- 
 ings, which contain testimonies of Christ. They 
 mention a Prince, who reigned about the time of the 
 Christian era. His history relates events, which bear 
 a striking resemblance to the advent, birth, miracles, 
 death and resurrection of the Savior. In this part of 
 the world Christ published the gospel. Here the 
 apostles propagated the glad tidings of salvation. But 
 before their decease many of the churches of Asia, 
 became exceedingly corrupt in sentiment and practice. 
 Religion declined by degrees. People fell into idola- 
 try. After a lapse of ages the same people, who 
 were distinguished for Christian knowledge, became 
 grossly ignorant and superstitious; and practised 
 idolatry, which was marked with indecency and 
 cruelty. But in the midst of their ignorance and idol- 
 atrous practice there were found some vestiges of 
 Christianity. Some events, which occurred when 
 Christ was upon earth stood recorded; and some 
 
 * Buchanan. 
 
PLURALITY IN THE L>1V1NE NATURE. 33 
 
 doctrines of the gospel were strikingly represented. 
 Doctrines relating to the true God, they applied to 
 their false gods. The doctrine of the atonement they 
 used in their idolatry. Whence originated these rays 
 of Christianity in this benighted quarter of the vvorld.'^ 
 Whence originated among them the doctrine of the 
 Trinity and the doctrine of the atonement.'' These 
 were not human inventions. These were undoubtedly 
 relics of revealed truth, which had long been pre- 
 served amidst the rubbish of heathenish ignorance 
 and superstition. These fundamental doctrines of 
 Christianity, like the pillars of nature, have remained 
 where they were first established. The ignorance, 
 the wickedness, the imaginations of men have per- 
 verted these doctrines; but they never have destroyed 
 them. How did these fundamental principles of 
 Christiaiity find existence; how have they been pre- 
 served in the heart of heathenish Asia, if they were 
 not planted there by their Author, and supported by 
 his power? Let people, who have ever lived under 
 the sunshine of the Gospel, and have so refined it, 
 that they have robbed it of almost every divine fea- 
 ture, go to India, and from the three-faced idol of the 
 poor Hindoo, learn the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Plurality in the divine nature is a mystery. Some 
 pretend to discover mystery in every part of scripture. 
 Others attempt to explain mystery; and consequently 
 they explode it. In treating this subject it is neces- 
 sary only to shew that the doctrine of divine plurality 
 is contained in the scriptures; and that it does not 
 contradict the dictates of reason. Mystery signifies 
 "something above human intelligence; something aw- 
 fully obscure." It is not surprising that the subject 
 under consideration should be above human appre- 
 hension. It cannot be expected that a finite mind 
 can comprehend the infinite Spirit. We do not un- 
 derstand the mode of our own existence. We do not 
 understand the operations of our own minds. We 
 do not understand the union of soul and body; and 
 
34 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 how one affects the other. It is not within the limits 
 of our understandings to know how two distinct sub- 
 stances, matter and spirit, constitute unity of person. 
 But we know that we have existence, that we have 
 mental exercises; that our bodies and souls are united; 
 and that they constitute but one person. If we can- 
 not comprehend our own existence, it cannot be ex- 
 pected that we can comprehend "the degrees or forms 
 of the Deity." 
 
 The divine plurality is not a plurality of nature. 
 If there were a plurality of divine natures, there 
 would be distinct divine beings; there would be a 
 multiplicity of deities. It would be a contradiction to 
 say that several divine natures make but one divine 
 nature; that several Gods make but one God. But 
 it is not a contradiction to say the Father is God; the 
 Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and these three 
 are one. 
 
 The Creator, by the communication of reason made 
 a partial revelation of himself. All his other revela- 
 tions are coincident with this; or, at least, they do not 
 militate against it. In his sacred word he makes 
 known truths, which the utmost efforts of reason could 
 never discover. But he discloses nothing, which con- 
 tradicts the dictates of this power of the mind. In 
 the works of nature there is mystery. In ourselves 
 there is mystery. It is not surprising then that there 
 should be mystery in the mode of the divine existence. 
 A Trinity in Unity is this mystery. 
 
 But this is not the only mystery in the divine 
 nature. God's eternity is above our comprehension 
 While vve believe the existence of this attribute, Ave 
 form no adequate idea of it. We believe the self- 
 existence of the divine nature. But as we are ac- 
 quainted with only a series of dependencies, we have 
 no just conception of absolute independence. God 
 hears our supplications. But we understand not how 
 he perceives the voice of prayer without the organ 
 of hearing. He perceives the operations of our 
 
PLURALITY L\ THE DIVINE NATURE. 35 
 
 minds. But we understand not how a Spirit is ac- 
 quainted with the exercises, motives and leehngs of 
 other spirits. These are mysteries, and they are 
 probably as far beyond our reach, as the doctrine of 
 Trinity in Unity. 
 
 We have not an adequate idea of the plurahty In 
 the divine nature. We do not understand that ground 
 of distinction in the Deity, by which one addresses 
 others of the same nature; and all compose but one 
 essence. The scriptures authorize us to believe this 
 ground of distinction, and this bond of Union. But 
 how this is without division and separation of nature, 
 and without confusion of individuality is far beyond 
 our deepest research. Omnipresence is an acknowl- 
 edged attribute of the Deity. God Is in every place. 
 In every part of creation he displays the infinitude of 
 his attributes; and he does this without division or 
 separation of himself- If it be rationally admitted 
 that God is in every place, it is not contrary to ration- 
 ality that he was in the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Many, by attempting to explain and illustrate the 
 doctrine of divine plurality, have rendered it more ob- 
 scure; and have given it the appearance of absurdity. 
 Because the divine Being speaks in the three persons, 
 I, thou, he; because distinct offices, works and attri- 
 butes are attributed to the Father, Son and Holy 
 Spirit, it is concluded there is ground in the divine 
 nature for distinct personalities. As we have not 
 distinct ideas of divine plurality, it is impossible to 
 give distinct and appropriate names, which will justly 
 designate the individuality. It is probable, however, 
 that no term in our language would better mark the 
 distinction in the divine nature, than the terra person. 
 In our English Testament the word person is once 
 applied to the Father; and several times it is applied 
 to the Son. But in the original they are different 
 words, and of different significations. But neither ot 
 them appears primarily to signify person. The orig- 
 inal of the word person, applied to the Father signifies 
 
36 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 self-existence or distinct substance. When it is 
 applied to the Son, it signifies face or presence. 
 These instances, therefore, afford no argument for the 
 term persons; and as many view the expression, when 
 applied to one God, as a contradiction, it is preferable 
 to adhere as closely as possible to the language of 
 divine inspiration in representing a doctrine so myste- 
 rious. 
 
 The greatest care needs to be used in the choice 
 of terms to express our ideas of the divine Nature. 
 If we have clear ideas of any truth, we can clearly 
 communicate them. But when we have confused 
 ideas of a doctrine, or no ideas at all, it is in vain to 
 attempt to supply the deficiency by any selection of 
 words. From the inspired writings we have a dis- 
 tinct idea that there is a plurality, a trinity in the 
 divine nature. But when we pursue our inquiries 
 respecting the mode of this three-fold substance, ideas 
 fail and language also fails. 
 
 The words plurality and Trinity are not found in 
 the sacred writings. But as the divine name is 
 repeatedly used in the plural number; as the appella- 
 tions, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are 
 given to the divine Being, it is conceived there is just 
 ground for the use of these terms. 
 
 Some have attempted to illustrate this doctrine by 
 comparing it with the union of the human body, soul 
 and spirit; and likewise by comparing it with the three 
 principal faculties of the human mind. These com- 
 parisons may go so far, perhaps, as to shew that the 
 doctrine is not contradictory or absurd. But they fall 
 far short of illustrating the doctrine. The human 
 body, soul and spirit have properties peculiar to them- 
 selves. What is predicated of one cannot be predicated 
 of the others. Neither do these three constitute one 
 essence. The understanding, will and affections are 
 simple qualities of the mind. They not only sustain 
 different offices in the human intellect, but they are 
 entirely different. Some suppose there is no need of 
 
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 37 
 
 admitting any distinction in the divine nature; that 
 he, who is the same in all respects, acts in dilferent 
 offices. But the divine law and the nature of the 
 atonement do not admit this illustration. 
 
 It is in vain to draw comparisons from the material, 
 or from the intelligent world for the explanation of 
 the doctrine of divine plurality. There may be some 
 points of contact in the comparison; but there is no 
 parallellism between the creature and the Creator. 
 "Who in the Heaven can be compared unto the Lord; 
 who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto 
 the Lord?"* 
 
 * It is worthy of remark, that the same name of plural number, which is ap- 
 plied to God, (a^nSx) is also applied to Dagon, the god of the Philistines; 
 to Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians; and to Moses. Another plural 
 name of God (qijiin) is also applied to individual men. The names of 
 some individual things are expressed by nouns of the plural number. But does 
 this prove that there is either no plurality in the divine Being, or that there is 
 a plurality in human nature, or in particular things? This conclusion would be 
 hardly logical. The first name in the Bible given to God is a noun of plural 
 number. The same name is frequently given to him in the Old Testament. 
 The idolatrous nations, which lived not very remote from the Jews, were un- 
 doubtedly acquainted with the name of the God they worshipped. They applied 
 the same plural name to individuals of their deities; and when they applied other 
 names, they sometimes applied them in the plural number. It was natural for 
 them to give a name to their deities as honorable as that, which the Hebrews 
 gave to their God. If there was an appropriate significancy in the plural num- 
 ber, when applied to the true God, it is not incredible that heathen should use 
 the same number in giving names to their idols, designing to equalize them with 
 him; as far as names could do it. Nor is it a striking peculiarity of the Hebrew 
 language, that a name of masculine termination should be given to a goddess. 
 For the Latin Deus and the Greek fliof, are used to signify both god and god- 
 dess. Besides, there were many idols of the same name, which justifies the use 
 of the plural number. 
 
 The divine name of plural number was given t« Moses. I have made thee a 
 God, a-rha, to Pharaoh. Ex. 7:1. Sn, the root of this word, signifies, to 
 interpose, intervene, mediate, CQVie or be between, for protection, prevention, 
 &c. (Parkh. Lex.) There was great pertinence in giving a name, from this root, 
 to Moses; because he interposed, intervened, mediated between the kmg ot 
 Egypt and God. As God in plurality interposed in behalf of fallen man for 
 protection mid prevention; as the name of God, from this r«ot, was used fre- 
 quently, if not generally, in the plural number, there was a propriety m applying 
 to Moses this name in the same number. The name was not designed to be sig- 
 nificant of the nature of the Hebrew leader, but to express his office and -work. 
 A plural name of God is also given to Joseph by his brethren. But reasons 
 similar to the foregoing will justify its application. This style is not peculiar to 
 the Hebrew language. In the English tongue a similar dialect is used. Some ot 
 the names of God are applied to men; and the royal style is of plural number. 
 
 Names of plural number, applied to individual things, are not peculiar to the 
 Hebrew language; nor do they invalithite the argument drawn hom the plurality 
 of the divine name. The same usage is known in our own language, /^^cause 
 some of our plural names are applied to singular things, il does not tollow that 
 there is not a peculiar significancy in the royal style. Because some Hebrew 
 
 names of plural number are applied to iniiividuid things, it does not follow that 
 
38 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 there is not a peculiar significancy in the plural name of God. Besides, those 
 Hebrew plurals, applied to singulars, which have been offered to invalidate the 
 argument of divine plurality, are of such a complex nature, or of such con- 
 nexion, that they appear to contain or imply a plurality. 
 
 In Ps. 45:6, 7, the plural name of fiod is applied to the Son and to the Father. 
 This, instead of proving that there is a plurality in each, serves to confirm the 
 opinion that there is such a union between them, that the name of one may be 
 applied to the other; and the plural name, embracing the Trinity, may be 
 applied to the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; for one implies the other. 
 
 "The ancient idolaters in general called the material heavens, or their rep- 
 resentatives D'n'?^' ■^nd although the heavens are eminently distinguished 
 into fire, light, and spirit, and many actions or operations are immediately per- 
 formed by one or two of these, yet, as the whole celestial fluid acts jointly, or all 
 its three conditions concur in every eftect; hence it is that the ancient heathen 
 called not only the whole heavens, but any one of its three conditions, denoted 
 by a name expressive of some eminent operation it performs, 3iriS><. Foi" 
 they meant not to deny the joint action of the whole material Trinity, but to 
 give it the glory of that particular attribute." Parkh. Lex. p.'20. 
 
 nSx signifies "a denouncing of a curse, a curse denounced either upon 
 one's self or others, or both, so an oath taken or given." (Parkh. Lex. p. 18.) 
 The plural of this word, applied to God, easily suggests the idea of the Father, 
 Son and Holy Spirit, entering into an oath, or covenant between themselves, and 
 denouncing a curse on those, who continue not in all things which are written in 
 the book of the law to do them. Besides, the Son himself was made a curse. 
 In this view, the plural noun, Q^nVN has peculiar significance and perti- 
 nence. 
 
ON THE FATHER. 
 
 When the doctrine of the Trinity is discussed, httle is 
 said distinctly respecting the Father. The cause of 
 this neglect probably is, that all parties on this sub- 
 ject acknowledge that God is Father; and that the 
 Father is God; and discussions respecting the nature 
 of the Son imply the existence of the Father. But 
 in taking a general view of the divine nature, as it is 
 revealed, it is necessary to notice every character 
 and office attached to it. The sacred scriptures rep- 
 resent the Father as having a distinct name, a distinct 
 character, a distinct office. There is no reason that 
 this part of the subject should be omitted. 
 
 God claims the relationship of Father to the human 
 race. He is the Author of their beings; and on this 
 gruond it is proper to call him their Father. The pro- 
 phet Malachi saith, "A son honoreth his father, and a 
 servant his master; if then I be « Father, where is mine 
 honor, saith the Lord of hosts." Again he inquires, 
 "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God 
 created us?" Christ taught his disciples, saying, "Be 
 ye perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven, 
 is perfect." Again he said, "Pray to thy Father, 
 which is in secret; and thy Father which sccth in 
 secret shall reward thee openly." The apostle Paul 
 saith, "To us there is but one God, the Father." 
 The phrase, "God the Father," is frequently used in 
 the New Testament. When the title, Father, is 
 applied to God, importing his relationship to the 
 
40 ON THE FATHER. 
 
 human race, it does not designate distinction in the 
 divine nature. Its import is, God in plurahty. When 
 Christ teaches us to pray, "Our Father, who art in 
 heaven," he designs that we should address the one 
 only living and true God without the distinction of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 
 God is in a more special manner, the Father of 
 believers. He claims a nearer and more endearing 
 relationship to them. He calls them children; he calls 
 them sons. "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
 they are the sons of God. Behold what manner of 
 love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we 
 should be called the sons of God. Beloved, now are 
 we the sons of God. Ye have received the spirit of 
 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The 
 union and affection, which subsist between them, are 
 a just ground for giving them the appropriate names 
 Father and sons. When God takes to himself the 
 name Father in relation to the human race, or to 
 believers, it is not designed to mark a distinction in 
 his nature; but it conveys the idea of divine nature 
 generally. The terms Father and God are frequently 
 used as synonymous. 
 
 In all those divine works, which do not involve the 
 work of redemption, God in plurality is brought to 
 view. But when the work of redemption is exhib- 
 ited, then the Trinity distinctly appears. When one 
 of the sacred Three is exhibited, performing a certain 
 part in the work of salvation, he takes the name of 
 Father, not from the relationship, which he bears 
 toward the human family; but from the relationship, 
 which he bears toward the Son. In the divine 
 nature and in the divine works there is perfect order. 
 In divine offices there is priority and posteriority. 
 By unanimous consent one of the Trinity holds the 
 first place. By unanimous consent he holds authority 
 over the Son, and over the Spirit. As a father is the 
 head of his family, and holds the reins of authority, 
 there appears to be propriety in calling Him Father, 
 
ON THE FATHER. 41 
 
 who hokls the firs4; ofrice in the work of redemption. 
 Tlie names of each of the Trinity are not of human 
 invention. They are revealed. It may reasonably 
 be expected that God would reveal himself by name 
 or names of appropriate signification; that he would 
 adopt language, which was calculated to convey some 
 correct ideas of himself. When one of the Trinity 
 calls himself Father, it is presumable that there is 
 some analogy between himself and a human father. 
 It is not supposable that any figurative language, or 
 any representation taken from creatures can convey 
 an adequate idea of the divine nature. There is no 
 language, there is no representation, which can bring 
 the infinitude of the Deity within the limits of finite 
 understanding. But language and similitudes drawn 
 from things, with which we are acquainted, help us to 
 form some conception of the nature, character and 
 offices, of the divine Being. 
 
 If one of the Trinity be called Father, in relation 
 to Christ, it does not follow that he is his Father in 
 the same sense, in which a man is father of his son. 
 The scriptures abound with pertinent and forcible 
 figures. If there be a striking analogy between the 
 two relationships, there is propriety in calling him 
 Father. It has been observed that the authority, 
 which he holds over Jesus Christ, in the work of 
 redemption, renders it proper that he should be called 
 Father. If the manner of Christ's coming into the 
 Avorld; his introduction into office; his resurrection from 
 the dead be reasons, for which he is called Son, the 
 same reasons are valid for calling him Father, who 
 sent him into the world, introduced him into office, 
 and raised him from the dead. Between a father and 
 son there is similarity of nature and nearness of rela- 
 tionship. Christ is of the same nature with him, who 
 sent him. He perfectly harmonizes with him in all 
 his designs, and in all his works. "What things soever 
 he doth, (i. e. the Father) these also doeth the Son 
 likewise." Christ cnJlsGod his Fatlier. He expresses 
 6 
 
42 ON THE FATHER. 
 
 their union in the strongest language. "I and my 
 Father are one. Believe me that I am in the Fatherc 
 and the Father in me." Christ is said to be in the 
 bosom of" the Father. These expressions designate 
 the intimate union, which subsists between them; and 
 shew the propriety in calling them by names, which 
 express the nearest relationship. 
 
 A father feels a tender affection for his son. God 
 expresses his great love for Christ. At his baptism 
 he declared, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased. The Father loveth the Son." God's 
 love for the world is argued from his sending his only 
 begotten Son into the world. If this be an expres- 
 sion of great love to the world, it follovvs that he 
 exercised great love toward his Son. The great love 
 which God had for Christ is another reason for 
 calhng himself his Father. 
 
 "A father frequently makes an only son heir of all 
 he possesses. He, who sent Christ into the world 
 hath appointed him heir of all things. He hath given 
 him all authority. He hath given him dominion over 
 all things in heaven and on earth. This is an addi- 
 tional reason foi* calling him the Father of Jesus Christ. 
 By way of emphasis Christ is called the Son. By the 
 same emphatical distinction he is called the Father. 
 
 It is impossible for finite minds to understand the 
 union and the relationship, which subsists in the divine 
 plurality. The scriptures, by a figure of speech, call 
 Christ Son, and by the same figurative mode of 
 expression they call him, who sent him. Father. 
 
 It is not necessary to quote texts of scripture and 
 use arguments to prove the divinity of the Father. 
 For those, who believe there is a God, believe that 
 the Father is God. Besides, the scriptures frequently 
 use the terms, Father and God, as synonymous. 
 
 In the covenant of redemption, ratified by the 
 Father and the Son, it is stipulated, that the Son, in 
 consideration for his sacrifice ana mediation, "shall see 
 of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." The 
 
ON THE FATHER. 43 
 
 Father promised to him saying, "I will divide him a 
 portion with the great; and he shall divide the spoil 
 with the strong." The Father promised to give him 
 the heathen, (i. e. the nations) for his inheritance, and 
 the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; 
 that he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and 
 from the river unto the ends of the earth. 
 
 From Christ's own words it appears that the Father 
 has given him a portion of the human race. In his 
 prayer to the Father he saith, ''I pray not for the 
 world, but for them, which thou hast given me. Holy 
 Father, keep through thine own name, those, whom 
 thou hast given me. Those, that thou gavest me 1 have 
 kept. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast 
 given me be with mc, ivhere 1 am.^^ 
 
 It belonged to the office of the Father to send the 
 Son into the world. "God so loved the world that 
 he sent his only begotten Son into the world." In this 
 was manifested the love of God toward us, because 
 that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, 
 that we might live through him. Herein is love, not 
 that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his 
 Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 
 
 The sending of the Holy Spirit is attributed to the 
 Father. "How much more shall your heavenly Father 
 give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. The 
 Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
 will send in my name, he siiall teach you all things. 
 When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
 you Irom the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
 proceedeth from the Father. Because ye are sons, 
 ' God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
 hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 
 
 The Father is the object of Christ's intercession. 
 "He made intercession for the transgiessors." Who 
 maketh intercession for us. We have an advocate 
 with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. Christ 
 is not entered into the holy places made with hand;^, 
 which are the figures of the true, but into heaven 
 
44 ON THE FATHER. 
 
 itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
 The intercessions of Christ are prevalent with the 
 Father. "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I 
 thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew 
 that thou hearest me always." Christ intercedeth 
 for those only, who are given him or are sanctified by 
 the Spirit; and the Father is always ready to hear 
 intercession for such. 
 
 Since the apostasy, the Father has holden 
 intercourse with man, and man with the Father 
 through the medium of the Son. When the Father 
 reveals his will to man; when he confers his blessings, 
 either temporal or spiritual, it is by or through the 
 Son. When prayers are offered to our heavenly 
 Father, they are offered in the name, or through the 
 medium of the Son; and they become prevalent only 
 by his intercession. 
 
 It was the office of the Father to send the Son 
 into the world, to make a propitiation for sin; and to 
 reconcile the world unto himself. He is well pleased 
 with the righteousness of his Son; and he is well 
 pleased with those, who are the objects of his inter- 
 cessions. 
 
 It was the office of the Father to give all authority 
 to the Son in his mediatorial capacity. When Christ 
 has fulfilled the duties of his office as Mediator and 
 Redeemer, and has judged the world, then will he 
 give up the kingdom to God the Father. Then will 
 the Father receive the authority which he had given 
 to the Son; and God, without those distinctions, which 
 were manifested during the economy of redemption, 
 will be all in all. 
 
 The priority of the Fathers office in the work of 
 redemption is no proof of his superior nature, or that 
 he is entitled to higher veneration than the Son or 
 Spirit. In every work there is need of methodical 
 arrangement. In the great and complex work of 
 redemption there is the greatest need of method. 
 
ON THE FATHER. 45 
 
 Where infinite wisdom operates there is order. If 
 the Trinity hold respective offices in order, there is 
 first, second, and third office. There is priority and 
 posteriority. The dignity of their offices is not 
 affected by their number. To human view, a sacrifice 
 for sin is as important as the acceptance of the sac- 
 rifice; and qualifications to receive the benefit of it 
 are as necessary as the sacrifice itself Thus, 
 Father, Son, and Spirit, hold offices equally essential 
 to the work of redemption, and they claim equal love 
 and veneration. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 Psalm 2:7. Thou art my Son. Jesus Christ is the 
 Author of our holy rehgion. The communications, 
 which were made to man after the apostasy, were 
 made by him. By his authority holy men of God 
 were inspired by the Holy Spirit; and communicated 
 the divine will. By him the covenant of grace was 
 given to degenerate man; and through his mediation, 
 every favor is bestowed upon this fallen world. 
 When fulness of time was come he appeared on earth 
 in the form of human nature. He made more clear 
 and copious displays of the divine will, than had been 
 made before. He taught the way which led to 
 heaven. He was embraced in the first promise of 
 mercy to fallen humanity. He was the principal 
 object of ancient prophecy. He was the substance, 
 which was represented by the types in the Hebrew 
 ritual. He was the antitype of the sacrifices, which 
 were offered upon the Jewish altar. He is the main 
 scope of the gospel. He is the foundation of salva- 
 tion. He is the chief corner stone of the church. 
 
 As Jesus Christ holds so important a place in the 
 scheme of redemption, it is necessary to form correct 
 ideas of his nature, character and office. As he is 
 the foundation of Christianity, the sentiments we form 
 of him, will affect our whole creed respecting the 
 method of salvation. It cannot be expected that the 
 superstructure will be better than the basis. If we 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 47 
 
 begin with error, the whole fabric will be erroneous. 
 View the Christian world, and it will be found that 
 the sentiments they form of Christ give a complexion 
 to their whole creed respecting Christianity. The 
 greatest care ought, therefore, to be used in forming 
 an opinion on this fundamental article of the Christian 
 faith. It concerns us to decide whether Jesus Christ 
 is simply human; whether he is a composition of 
 human and super-angelic nature, or whether he is 
 composed of humanity and Divinity. It is important 
 to decide whether Christ exhibited characteristic 
 marks of divine nature; and whether he sustains the 
 office of Mediator, Redeemer and Savior. I'he im- 
 portance of the subject demands a faithful investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 When Christ appeared in the world, it was a prom- 
 inent inquiry among the Jews whether he was the 
 Son of God. The inquiries whether he was the 
 Christ, or whether he was the Son of God were of 
 the same import. They expected that when the 
 promised Messiah appeared, he would appear in the 
 character of God's Son. In the Old Testament God 
 acknowledges him to be his Son. By his prophet he 
 said, "Thou art my Son." Jewish authors admit that 
 the term Son in the 2d Psalm is applied to Christ. 
 To put the question beyond dispute the apostle Paul 
 quotes this short passage, and applies it to Christ. 
 When Je^^us claimed the title, Son of God, and the 
 title, Christ, the Jews considered him claiming the 
 same prerogatives. At one time they accused him of 
 calling himself Christ. At another time they accused 
 him of calling himself the Son of God; and they 
 viewed the accusations of the same import. 
 
 Christ once inquired of his disciples what was the 
 opinion of people respecting himself After they 
 had named several opinions, which were entertained 
 of him, he inquired of them saying, "Whom say ye, 
 that I am.'"' Peter, who was always ready to give 
 an answer, said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 
48 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 living God.-' Jesus replied, "Blessed art thou Simon 
 Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
 thee; but my Father, which is in heaven." This 
 reply proved that Peter had formed right ideas of 
 him; and gave him an appropriate name. Jesus 
 Christ was predicted by the name, Son. When he 
 came into the world he maintained that he was the 
 Son of God. When he was on trial before the council, 
 the high Priest adjured him by the living God, that 
 he should declare whether he was the Christ, the Son 
 of God. When the Centurion saw the miracles at 
 his crucifixion, he exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son 
 of God." The apostles preached the same doctrine. 
 After Saul was converted to the Christian faith, he 
 "straightway preached Christ in the synagogues, that 
 he is the Son of God." Evil spirits acknowledged 
 the same sentiment; and gave him the same title. 
 The relationship of Christ to the Father expressed 
 by the term Son was acknowledged by himself; by 
 his apostles; and by primitive Christians. 
 
 Soon after Christ left the world, various opinions 
 arose respecting him. Some believed that he was 
 wholly divine; that he assumed only the appearance oi 
 humanity. Some held that a super-angelic nature 
 was united with his human nature. Others maintained 
 that he was a mere man, furnished with extraordinary 
 communications. This variety of sentiment respecting 
 Jesus Christ early disturbed and divided the Christian 
 Church. The same distinctions, with their various 
 modifications, have perpetuated divisions in the Chris- 
 tian world. 
 
 The phrase, Son of God, is often applied in the 
 scriptures to Jesus Christ. He frequently claims this 
 dignity. The Father often calls him his Son; his 
 own Son; his dearly beloved Son. Scripture names 
 are remarkable for their pertinence; and there is no 
 doubt that a peculiar and appropriate sense is to be 
 attached to this title. It is important to inquire in 
 what sense Christ is the Son of God. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 49 
 
 This appellation was given to individuals of the 
 human race. Adam was called the son of God. 
 When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, requiring him to 
 let Israel go, he commanded him to say unto Pharaoh, 
 "Thus saith the Loid, Israel is my son. When God 
 forbade David to build an house for his name, he 
 declared that Solomon should build him an house; and 
 "I will be his Father and he shall be my Son; and I 
 will establish his kingdom." Those, who are born of 
 the Spirit and have become members of Christ's 
 kingdom, are frequently called sons of God. "As many 
 as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
 God. As many as received him, to them gave he 
 power to become the sons of God." People are chil- 
 dren of God in different senses, and in different respects. 
 All are his children in this general sense, that he is 
 the Author of their existence; and in this sense all 
 may call him Father. But those, who are renewed 
 in the temper of their mmds, and are adopted into his 
 family, are, in a more peculiar sense, his children, or 
 his sons; and in a more peculiar sense God is their 
 Father. 
 
 Christ is not only Son of God, but by way of distinc- 
 tion and eminence, he is the Son of God. If those, 
 who are born of the Holy Spirit; who bear the divine 
 moral likeness, and have become members of God's 
 family by adoption, are emphatically sons of God; for 
 greater reasons, and in a higher sense is Jesus Christ 
 the Son of God. 
 
 Some are of opinion that the sonship of Christ orig- 
 inated from his miraculous conception. To Mary the 
 angel said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; 
 and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; 
 therefore also that holy thing, wljich shall be born of 
 thee, shall be called the Son'of God." It is not doubt- 
 ed that this is one reason, for which he was called by 
 this name. But it is not the only, nor the principal 
 reason for giving him this appellation. Christ was 
 called a Son Ions: before his incarnation. The Psalmist 
 7 
 
50 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOB. 
 
 speaking the language of the Father to Christ, saith, 
 "Thou art my Son." The love ot God is represented 
 in the highest degree because he sent his Son into the 
 world. The love of God is grounded on his not sparing 
 his own, his dearlj beloved Sonj but giving him up 
 freely for the sins of the world. If God had not had 
 a Son before the advent of the Messiah, he could not 
 have sent his Son. Therefore the peculiar manner of 
 his introduction into the world did not constitute his 
 near relationship to the Father. 
 
 Christ is not a literal Son of the Father. Because 
 Christ is repeatedly called Son of God, it does not 
 follow that this phrase is to be understood according 
 to its literal, or natural meaning. If it should be ad- 
 mitted as an established rule for the interpretation 
 of the scriptures that words are always to be under- 
 stood according to their natural meaning, and according 
 to their general acceptation, there would be found some- 
 thing more th?iu'mystery in the Bible. If the terms Son of 
 God prove that Jesus Christ is literally and properly the 
 Son of the most High, then the terms Lamb of God 
 would prove that Christ was literally and properly a. lamb; 
 and as he was of God, it would prove that God possess- 
 ed the same nature. The scriptures say, "it repented the 
 Lord that he had made man on the earth; The Lord 
 repented of the evil, which he thought to do unto his 
 people; God repented of the evil that he had said 
 that he would do unto them and he did it not." If 
 these passages are to be understood according to the 
 rule of literal interpretation, or according to the com- 
 mon acceptation of words, then God is changeable like 
 man; and feels the painful emotions of humanity. God 
 is represented in the scriptures as hearing, seeing, 
 smelling. If these terms are to be explained by the 
 rule just mentioned, then the divine Spirit is invested 
 with a body; and possesses corporeal organs. Such 
 interpretations prove that the rule is not correct; and 
 it proves also that Christ is not literally the Son of 
 God, merely because he is called by this name. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 51 
 
 Christ is not the Son of God by derivation. Crea- 
 tion and derivation are words of diirerent import; and 
 they require different acts of power. Creation is the 
 production of something out of nothing. Derivation 
 is the production of something from something aheady 
 existing. Matter was created. The human body 
 was derived from this substance. The human race 
 have derived their nature uhimately from the parents 
 of all hving. All the properties of their natures are 
 similar to those of their progenitors. If their parents 
 had a beginning of existence, if they were dependent 
 and were lim-ted in all their faculties, their descend- 
 ants are exactly like them in all these particulars. 
 The nature they derived is exactly similar to that, 
 from which they derived it. A stream is of the same 
 nature as its fountain. Every production is of the 
 same nature, i. e. possesses the same essential proper- 
 ties, as those from which they are produced. In this 
 manner derivation applies to almost every thing, which 
 falls under our notice. 
 
 If Christ derived his nature from the Father, he 
 possesses the same kind of natui'e, the same essential 
 properties, which the Father possesses. If the Father 
 be eternal, self existent, independent, infinite in power, 
 knowledge and wisdom', the derived Son must also be 
 eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite in power, 
 knowledge and wisdom. This derived Being is a 
 distinct and separate existence from the Father. As 
 he possesses all divine attributes, he is a divine Being. 
 As he possesses a nature separate from, and inde- 
 pendent of, the Father, he and the Father are two 
 distinct gods. As this natural conclusion is false, it 
 is presumed that the doctrine of divine derivation is 
 not true. 
 
 It is in vain to say, all divine attributes may be 
 derived except eternity and self-existence. If the 
 Son, by derivation bo divine, he possesses divine attri- 
 butes. If he possess not divine attributes, he is not 
 divine. Take from him any one divine property, and 
 
52 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 his divinity ceases. Take from him his eternity and 
 self-existence, and it is harder to conceive of his 
 divinity, than it is to conceive of a plurahty in the 
 divine nature. It is hard to conceive divine attributes 
 blended in the same nature with finite properties. It 
 is hard to conceive almighty power in a dependent 
 existence; to conceive infinite knowledge, or any other 
 quality infinite in its nature, subsisting in a nature, 
 which has had a temporary existence. 
 
 When creatures receive existence by derivation, 
 they, from whom they are derived, communicate a 
 portion of their own substance. They sutTcr a dimi- 
 nution of themselves; and the diminution would 
 continue, if they did not receive supplies, from external 
 substance. If" Christ derived his nature from the 
 Father, the Father communicated a part of his own 
 nature, a part of his own substance. He would suffer 
 a privation of a part of his attributes, a part of his 
 nature. There would be a chasm in the divine Spirit, 
 which could not be filled. There would be an essen- 
 tial defect in the Father. The derived extract would 
 be dependent; and the original Source of being would 
 be diminished. Of course, the Son would be a 
 dependent, and the Father a finite being. 
 
 Divine nature, or divine attributes are not commu- 
 nicable. God cannot impart one quality of his mind; 
 nor can one divine quality be derived from him. If a 
 human or an angelic spirit be produced, it is the effect 
 of divine energy; it is not a cotnmunication of divine 
 qualities. A created mind is similar, in some respects, 
 to the divine Mind; but, in degree, it bears no 
 comparison. Holiness in the human heart is not a 
 derivation of divine holiness; but it is the effect of 
 divme operation upon the mind. There is an essential 
 difference between originating existence, and com- 
 municating that which already exists. 
 
 The divine nature is eternal; and it is necessary in 
 its existence. As it had no cause of its existence, 
 there is no cause, which can destroy its existence. As 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 53 
 
 it is impossible that it should not exist, it is impossible 
 that it should exist otherwise than it does. If its 
 attributes are infinite, it is impossible it should exist 
 with a diminution or relinquishment of any of its attri- 
 butes. It is not derogatory to the Deity, to be 
 incapable of change; to be incapable of imperfection. 
 Admitting these principles, it is impossible that God 
 should communicate his nature or his attributes; and 
 it is equally impossible that they should be derived 
 from him. Should he communicate almighty power, 
 infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge and independence, 
 he would become entirely destitute of these attributes. 
 Or rather, a transference of divine attributes, (suppos- 
 ing it possible) would not destroy them; and being again 
 united, they would constitute the same divine Being; 
 and of course there would be no communication, nor 
 derivation. If it be supposed that Jesus Christ 
 derived divine attributes from the Father in only a 
 limited degree, the supposition is inconsistent. In the 
 first place, divine nature is incapable of division, or 
 separation, or of communication of any part of itself. 
 In the second place, if a partial communication were 
 made, the consequence would be different from that, 
 which is contemplated by the supposition. If it were 
 possible that Christ derived a finite nature and finite 
 attributes from the Father, he would not be divine. 
 There is no perceptible difference between finite 
 properties and the properties of creatures. Divine 
 attributes are infinite; or they are in the highest pos- 
 sible degree. Attributes less than these are not divine. 
 Should we speak of divine, dependent power; of a 
 divine, finite knowledge; of a divine, limited presence; 
 of a divine, temporary existence; we should pervert, 
 we should torture language. II' we had ideas on this 
 subject, it is certain that such a combination, such a 
 contrariety of words would not convey them. 
 
 If Christ has his nature by derivation from the 
 Father, there was a period in eternity, in which lie 
 had not existence. It was owing to (he will of the 
 
54 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 
 
 Father that he was brought into being. It is, of course, 
 owing to his will that he is continued in existence. 
 For the same power, which produced him, can return 
 him to his original state. He is, consequently, entirely 
 dependent on the Father. If he be not eternal; if he 
 be not independent, it is impossible he should possess 
 other divine attributes. It is a contradiction to say 
 that a dependent being possesses almighty power. It 
 appears to be impossible that a being of only a tem- 
 porary existence should possess infinite knowledge. It 
 is impossible there should be infinite wisdom where 
 knowledge is limited. A dependent being cannot be, 
 in his own nature, unchangeable. Within these 
 limitations it is impossible that a beuig should be 
 omnipresent, and be capable of holding the reins of 
 universal government. After the closest investigation 
 of the nature of a Son, derived from the Father, (if 
 such a thing were possible) it will clearly appear 
 that he has not one divine attribute, nor the least 
 degree of divine nature. 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to supply the innate defi- 
 ciency of this derived Son, by constituting him God's 
 agent, and by anointing him with the Spirit without 
 measure; and by investing him with divine fulness. 
 If Christ was only appointed or constituted Creator of 
 the world; if the Father employed him as an instru- 
 ment, through whom he exercised his own power, 
 Christ was not the actual Creator of the world; and 
 the glory of the work would not be due to him. If 
 Christ was constituted a Prince; and he was a Prince 
 on this ground only, he had no native regal dignity, 
 nor regal authority. He acted only under a commis- 
 sion; and he, who granted the commission could, at 
 any time, withdraw it. This constituted agent would 
 not be entitled to those honors, to which the Father, 
 who constituted him, would be entitled. There would 
 be the same difference in their claims, as there would 
 be in the claims of an actor and an instrument. If 
 his claims to princely honors rise solely from God's 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 55 
 
 requiring: that they should honor the Son even as they 
 honor the Father, it is difficult to understand in what 
 sense God is jealous for the honor of his name; and 
 that he will not give his glory to another. If Christ 
 is Judge, only because he is constituted to that office, 
 then he does not possess inherent qualifications for 
 that station, he is merely the organ, through which 
 the Father acts; and the judgment rendered is not 
 propniy that of the Son, but that of the Father. If 
 Christ is a Savior, merely on the ground of a consti- 
 tuted character, or merely because he was appointed to 
 that office, he would be only an ostensible Savior; the 
 Father would be the real Savior. 
 
 If the Son was divine, on the ground of his deriva- 
 tion from the Father, there would be no need of 
 constituting him to fill divine offices; to sustain divine 
 titles; to perform divine works. There would be no 
 need of making divine communications to him for these 
 purposes. He would be competent in his own nature 
 to fill the highest offices; to claim the highest honors; 
 and to do the greatest works. If extraordinary divine 
 communications are necessary to qualify him for these 
 things, it follows that he is not divine. 
 
 If Christ's superior excellence and dignity arises not 
 from his nature, but from the communications, which 
 the Father made to him, it is difficult to draw a line 
 of distinction between him and the prophets. God 
 endued Moses with an extraordinary degree of power, 
 by which he exhibited signs and wonders before Pha- 
 raoh. But who actually wrought these miracles? 
 When God called Moses to send him to the king of 
 Egypt; and he hesitated to go, God said unto him, "I 
 will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with all my 
 wonders, which / will do in the midst thereof." The 
 power, which God communicated to Moses for this 
 purpose, did not become a property ol Moses' nature, 
 any more than it became the property of the rod, 
 which he carried, wherewith, God said, he should do 
 signs. Moses never pretended to act by his own 
 
56 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 
 
 strength in his exhibition of miracles, excepting at the 
 rock in Horeb; Efnd there he greatly displeased the 
 Lord. When Elijah restored to life a dead child of 
 the woman with whom he abode, he did not attempt 
 the undertaking in his own name, nor by his own might. 
 But "he cried unto the Lord and said, O Lord my 
 God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him 
 again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and 
 the soul of the child came into him again, and he 
 revived." Before Elisha raised the child of the 
 Shunammite, he prayed unto the Lord. When Peter 
 was about to give health to a sick man, he said, "Jesus 
 Christ maketh thee whole." When he cured a lame 
 man, he said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, 
 rise up and walk." Before he raised Tabitha from 
 the dead, he kneeled down and prayed. These were 
 wonderful works, which God wrought through them. 
 They professed to act undei' authority; and they 
 refused divine honors when they were offered to them. 
 If Christ was endued with divine fulness in a simi- 
 lar manner, it might be expected that his miracles 
 would be attended with similar circumstances. When 
 Christ turned water into wine, he addressed no supe- 
 rior power. When he healed the impotent man at 
 the pool, he simply said, "rise, take up thy bed, and 
 walk." When Jesus gave sight to a blind man, he 
 applied clay to his eyes; and sent him to the pool of 
 Siloam. When he healed a man of the leprosy he 
 said, "I will, be thou clean." When he cured a man 
 of the palsy, he said, "arise and take up thy couch and 
 ^o unto thine house." The other miraculous cures, 
 which he eifected, he accomplished in a similar manner. 
 When he raised the widow's son of Nain, he only said, 
 "Young man, I say unto thee, arise." Before he 
 raised Lazarus from the grave he addressed the 
 Father. But for what purpose did he address him? 
 Was it that the Father would put forth his power 
 through him? Christ assigns the reason himself; 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 57 
 
 "because of the people which stand by I said it." He 
 then cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 
 
 The circumstances attending the miracles, which 
 he wrought, did not give the least appearance that 
 he acted by power, which was not properly his own. 
 When, in consequence of divine works, divine honors 
 were addressed to him, he never refused them, nor 
 rebuked his worshippers. When people heard his 
 instructions they ^^were astonished at his doctrine; for 
 he taught them as one having authority.'''' The proph- 
 ets never pretended that they were the authors of 
 divine works; and they never claimed divine honors. 
 If the Son had performed divine works, only by the 
 intervention of the Father's power operating through 
 him, he would be no more entitled to divine names 
 and divine homage than the prophets. 
 
 It has been supposed that, because the Father hath 
 given all things into the hand of his Son; because God 
 hath exalted and glorified him; because God hath put 
 all things under his feet and exalted him with his own 
 right hand to be a Prince and a Savior; because God 
 ordained him to be Judge of quick and dead; because 
 God created the world by him and sent him into the 
 world, Christ is inferior to the Father; that he is of a 
 lower nature than the Father; that he has no claims 
 to divinity excepting on the ground of a constituted 
 character, or by the reception of divine fulness. Tiiis 
 sentiment arises from not making a distinction between 
 the Son's nature and the offices which he sustains. 
 
 Had there been no apostasy; had no projection of 
 a method of salvation been made and put in operation, 
 it is probable the divine plurality would never have 
 been manifested. In the scheme of redemption the 
 distinctions in the divine nature are brought into view, 
 and into distinct operation. In this great work there 
 is perfect arrangement; there is perfect order. In 
 respect to office there is priority and posteriority. 
 In respect to authority and works there is subordina- 
 tion. The Father sends the Son; the Son sends the 
 8 
 
58 IN WHM SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 
 
 Holy Spirit. It is the office of the Father to send. 
 The offices of the Son and of the Holy Spirit require 
 that they should be sent. They fill as iuiportant 
 offices in the work of salvation as the Father; and 
 they appear no less glorious in their offices, than the 
 Father does in his. The glories of divine nature 
 shine in each. Subordination in the work of redemp- 
 tion is one of its divine perfections; and it argues 
 nothing against the divinity of the Son; it is not derog- 
 atory to his nature or character that he manifests this 
 perfection. 
 
 Some names and works are attributed exclusively to 
 the Father, and others are attributed exclusively to 
 the Son. This does not appear strange, when it is 
 considered that they had diiferent offices, and had 
 different parts to perform in the work of salvation. 
 As the Father holds a precedence in respect to office, 
 it is not surprising that those names and works, which 
 have an immediate relation to his office, should appear 
 to have a preeminence over the names and works, 
 which have an immediate relation to the Son's office. 
 The Father is called, "The God and Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ;" Eph. 1:3. and 1 Pet. 1:3. He is 
 called the Head of Christ. "The Head of every man 
 is Christ — and the Head of Christ is God;" 1 Cor. 
 11:3. The Son is called "the only begotten of the 
 Father;" John 1:14. He is called "the image of the 
 invisible God;" Col. 1:15. He is called Mediator. 
 "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God 
 and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Tim. 2:5. To 
 infer from these names of the Son that his nature is 
 inferior to the nature of the Father is not logical. 
 The name Father is more dignified than the name 
 Son. But who ever supposed that the nature of a 
 father was essentially different from, or superior to, 
 that of his son? The 7nan Christ Jesus had a Head, 
 a God, as well as other men; even the Father. His 
 office required subordination. Because the Son is 
 called the image of the invisible God, it does not fol- 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 59 
 
 low that his nature is Inferior. It is common language 
 to say, one person is the very image of another. But 
 this expression is never understood to mean that he, 
 who is called the image, is inferior to him, of whom 
 he is the image. The name, or the office of Mediator 
 does not necessarily imply that he, who acts in this 
 office, is inferior to either party, between whom lie 
 mediates. There is no higher name given to tfie 
 Deity than the name Jehovah. This name is given 
 to the Son. It is believed that the unqualified name 
 Jehovah is not given to any creature. If there be 
 any proof of divinity from a name, the Son has as high 
 proof as the Father. 
 
 Some works are peculiar to the Father. Others 
 are peculiar to the Son. This is not strange, as they 
 hold different offices. The Father begat the Son. 
 "This day have / begotten thee;" Ph. 2:7. The 
 Father sent the Son into the world. He gave him all 
 authority in heaven and in earth. He hath highly 
 exalted him. Christ ivas begotten. He came into the 
 world and assumed human nature. "The Word was 
 made flesh;" John 1:14. He humbled, or emptied 
 himself. He died; rose, ascended to the Father; and 
 makes intercession. He made an atonement for sin. 
 
 We are taught by the word of inspiration in what 
 sense the Father begat the Son. "God hath fulfilled 
 the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised 
 tip Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 
 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;" 
 Acts 13:13. This act of begetting, therefore, relates 
 only to the body of Jesus Christ. Nothing, of course, 
 can be inferred from this respecting that nature of 
 his, which had glory with the Father before the world 
 was. 
 
 The act of sending does not imply that he, who 
 sends, possesses a higher nature than the one who 
 was sent. It only designates superiority of office. 
 The chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador 
 to a foreign court. This act affords no evidence that 
 
/ 
 
 [^ SE 
 
 
 60 IN WH^ SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 the fortri'er possesses a nature superior to the latter; 
 or that he possesses higher quahfications. It only 
 proves his iiigher office. All things were delivered 
 unto Christ by the Father. All authority in heaven 
 and in earth were given to him. This communication 
 does not imply an imparting of any qualities or qualifi- 
 cations to him. It rather implies that he possessed^ 
 the necessary qualifications lor this office. It is not 
 difficult to imagine what qualifications are necessary 
 in order to exercise all authority in heaven and in 
 earth. To receive this authority only implies a subor- 
 dination of office. 
 
 Because Christ was exalted by the Father, it has 
 been inferred that he was not divine, as Divinity is not 
 capable of exaltation. The man Christ Jesus receives 
 great reward, great honor, great exaltation in conse- 
 quence of the part he performed on earth. He is 
 seated on the right hand of God. If it be admitted 
 that the Son of God was in a state of humiliation 
 when he was upon earth; that he emptied himself of 
 that glory, which he had with the Father before the 
 world was, there will be no difficulty in admitting his 
 exaltation, when he returns to his former glory; and 
 as Savior receives the bowing of every knee, of things 
 in heaven and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth; and the confession of every tongue that he is 
 Lord. Such is the union of nature and connexion of 
 office between the Son and the Father, that this exal- 
 tation, this glory of the Son will also be "to the glory 
 of God the Father." 
 
 The peculiar union of the Son of God with humanity 
 affijrds no evidence against his Divinity. While he 
 was in the man Christ Jesus, he concealed, in a great 
 nieasu.e, the glories of his nature; and he suffered a 
 reproach, an ignominy, which before had not been 
 given him. But this concealment of his glory, this 
 dishonor offered to him does not imply a change in 
 his nature. If a king descend from his throne, assume 
 the appearance of one of his subjects, and receive rude 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 1 
 
 treatment from them, these circumstances effect no 
 change in his nature, nor do they imply it. We do 
 not attempt to explain the union, which subsists 
 between the Son oi" God and the son of man. When 
 those, who maintain that God the Father was in 
 Jesus Christ; that the fulness of the Godhead, which 
 dwelt bodily in him was the Father, not the Son, 
 will explain that union of Deity with humanity, their 
 explanation will answer our purpose as well as theirs. 
 
 If Adam could with propriety be called Son of 
 God, with tlie same propriety could Christ, in respect 
 to his human nature, be called Son of God. Adam 
 was formed by the immediate act of divine power. 
 The child Jesus was also formed by the immediate 
 act of the same power. But in a different, and in a 
 higher sense is Christ the Son of God. He is not 
 only called Son, but he is called the oivn Son; the 
 dearly beloved Son; the first begotten, the only begot- 
 ten Son. These additions to his name are marks of 
 peculiar distinction. 
 
 The term son, when applied to Adam, in relation 
 to his heavenly Father, has a signification different 
 from what it has, when applied to any of the human 
 race, in relation to their earthly parents. If the rela- 
 tive term son, necessarily implied derived existence, 
 then the first man as literally derived his nature from 
 the substance of God, as children derive their natures 
 from the substance of their parents. But a word 
 does not always signify the same thing. Sometimes 
 it is used in an extensive, sometimes in a restricted 
 sense. Sometimes it is used literally, sometimes 
 figuratively. When a word is used figuratively, there 
 is a resemblance between the thing signififd by it 
 literally, and the thing signified by it figuratively. 
 When God is called a rock, the propriety ol the figure 
 arises from some points of resemblance betwjen God 
 and a rock. The rpialities of this hard substance are 
 expressive of the steadfastness and durability of the 
 divine nature. Christ is called a shield. This piece 
 
62 m WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 
 
 of armor was formerly used in war to secure the body 
 from the weapons of the enemy. Christ is a defence 
 against the attacks of the great adversary. The 
 Savior is called a vine. A vine has many branches, 
 and it supports them all. The Savior has many mem- 
 bers, and they all derive support from him. Christ is 
 called a shepherd. A shepherd feeds and defends 
 his flock. Christ feeds his followers with spiritual 
 food; and he defends them against the attacks of their 
 enemies. Many other names are figuratively applied 
 to Christ. Because he is called a Shield, a Vine, a 
 Shepherd, it does not follow that he is literally a 
 shield, a vine, a shepherd. The propriety and force 
 of these appellations arise from some striking resem- 
 blance there is between the Savior and those things, 
 by whose name he is called. Figurative language is 
 peculiarly significant and striking. When it is wished 
 to convey ideas of an object, with which people are 
 but little acquainted, no method is so concise and eligi- 
 ble, as to compare it with something, or call it by a 
 name, with which people are acquainted. Then, by 
 selecting the most prominent qualities of the best 
 known part of the comparison, they may be applied 
 to that part of the comparison, which is less known. 
 By this method ideas are frequently conveyed with 
 greater clearness and force. When Christ wished to 
 impress it upon the minds of people that he pointed 
 out the course, which led to heaven; that only through 
 his merits and mediation mankind could have access 
 to the mercy-seat; that he communicates only truth; 
 that he was th^ origin and support of spiritual life in 
 the soul, it was with peculiar pertinence and force he 
 said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." 
 
 It may be inquired how it can be known when a 
 passage of scripture is to be understood literally, and 
 when it is to be understood figuratively. Without 
 giving any general directions in answer to this inquiry, 
 it is sufficient for the present purpose to lay down one 
 particular rule; viz. if any text or expression of scrip- 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 63 
 
 ture, taken literally, be an impossibility or an absurdity, 
 it must be taken figuratively. For example, "If any 
 man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, 
 and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, 
 and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." As 
 it is impossible that a real hating of these near con- 
 nexions should be a necessary ingredient in the char- 
 acter of Christ's disciples, the word hate, must be 
 understood in a comparative or figurative sense. The 
 phrase, Son of God, cannot be understood in a literal 
 sense; because it is Impossible that God should have a 
 Son derived from his nature, as a child is derived from 
 its parents. It is impossible that divine nature, and 
 divine attributes should be communicated, unless the 
 original proprietor sustained a loss of them. It is 
 impossible there should be two separate and distinct 
 divine natures, without admitting the existence of two 
 gods. If the expression. Son of God, cannot be taken 
 literally, it must be taken figuratively. 
 
 As Christ is called the Son of God, as he cannot be 
 his literal and proper Son, it may be expected there 
 is a striking resemblance between the relationship, 
 which Jesus Christ bears to the Father, and the rela- 
 tionship, which a son bears to his parents. Although 
 we cannot comprehend the mode of divine subsistence, 
 yet there are points of coincidence in the comparison, 
 which give beauty and force to the figure. 
 
 1. There is a similarity of nature between a son 
 and his father. There is often a family likeness. A 
 son often inherits the aspect of his father. He often 
 inherits the distinguishing characteristics of body and 
 mind, which his father possessed. His moral nature 
 and character often resemble those of his father. 
 Though there be some dissimilarity between a father 
 and his son; yet there are probably no two objects in 
 the rational world, which sustain a more striking 
 resemblance. Their bodies are of similar substance 
 and of similar configuration. Their minds are of simi- 
 lar natures, and of similar powers and faculties. 
 
64 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 The resemblance there is between a son and his 
 father, is one reason why Christ is called Son of God; 
 and that God is called his Father. His nature is simi- 
 lar to that of the Father. By this expression it is 
 not designed to convey the idea that the Son and 
 Father are two distinct natures; nor is it designed to 
 convey the idea that the Son is the Father, and the 
 Father is the Son. Like the Father, the Son is divine. 
 Like the Father, he is eternal, self-existent, and inde- 
 pendent. There is a perfect resemblance between 
 them; and there is a mysterious union, by which many 
 things may be predicated of both. Tbis striking 
 similarity is one reason why Christ is called Son of 
 God. 
 
 2. There is a near and endearing relationship sub- 
 sisting between a son and his father. The former 
 proceeded from the latter. There is no relationship 
 more near and endearing than this. This then is 
 another reason why Jesus Christ is called the Son of 
 God. The union, which subsists between them, forms 
 a relationship, which is nearer than any, which can 
 be formed by flesh and blood. He is in the bosom 
 of the Father; he is one with the Father; they, who 
 have seen him, have seen the Father also. Mutual 
 affection subsists between them. 
 
 3. A son, while under the care and support of his 
 father, is subordinate to him. He is not subordinate 
 in respect to nature. For he possesses all the essential 
 qualities, which his father possesses. But he is in 
 subjection to him. He submits to parental authority; 
 and he appears to the greatest advantage when he 
 is in his proper place, the place of obedience. Christ 
 may, with propriety be called a Son, in respect to his 
 subordination to his heavenly Father. In the economy 
 of redemption different works are to be performed; 
 different offices are to be occupied. Methodical 
 arrangement must be established and acknowledged. 
 The Father holds the place of authority; Christ holds 
 the place of submission. This order of offices implies 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 65 
 
 no arbitrary power, nor servile subjection. It is es- 
 tablished with the greatest cordiality. It is the office 
 of the Father to appoint; it is the office of Christ 
 to act under his commission. It is the office of Christ 
 to ask, and it is the office of the Father to grant his 
 requests. The Father is under as much obligation, 
 according to the covenant of redemption, to grant 
 the intercessions of his Son, as the Son is to submit 
 to the authority of the Father. The sacred scrip- 
 tures represent the Holy Spirit to be as subordinate 
 to the Son, as the Son is to the Father. Christ said 
 to his disciples, "It is expedient for you that I go 
 away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
 come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto 
 you." 
 
 4. A father loves his son. The similarity of nature, 
 the relationship, and the subordination, produce a 
 strong atfection in a father's breast. God the Father 
 loves the Lord Jesus Christ. He loves him for his 
 excellence of nature. He loves him for his holiness. 
 He loves him for his union with himself He loves 
 him for the faithful performance of the duties of his 
 office. The Father has declared him to be his own 
 Son; his dearly beloved Son, in whom he is well 
 pleased. The love, which he exercises toward him 
 is another reason, for which he calls him his Son. 
 
 Christ is not only called a Son, but he is called a 
 begotten Son. People, who have understood the 
 term Son, literally, have also understood the term 
 beget, or begotten, literally. They have supposed 
 there was a power in the Father to generate, and a 
 power in the Son to be generated. They were aware 
 that this method, if it were not qualified, supposed a 
 posteriority of existence in the Son. To remedy 
 this difficulty they maintained that the essence of 
 the Son was not begotten; but his perso}i was begotten. 
 The distinction between his nature and person, they 
 made to consist in something, which was incommuni- 
 cable from the Father to the Son, or from the Son to 
 9 
 
66 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 the Father. They held, that the Father had a 
 power to beget, and the Son had a power to be 
 begotten. 
 
 There appears to be no small degree of inconsist- 
 ency in this hypothesis. It supposes that there is no 
 other difference between the Father and the Son. than 
 this; the Father had a power to beget. But wiiat 
 did he beget? He begat the person of the Son; i. e. 
 according to the hypothesis, he begat a power in the 
 Son to be begotten. The hypothesis first supposes 
 the existence of the Son; then it supposes the pro- 
 duction of some distinguishing personal quality, which 
 he already possessed. Or it supposes that he possesses 
 some adventitious quality, for which he was entirely 
 dependent. To avoid the imputation of dependence 
 to Christ, they maintained the eternal generation of 
 the Son. Thus they secured their sentiment from 
 refutation in the obscurity of language. 
 
 The human nature of Christ was begotten; but his 
 divine nature was unbegotten. The Son of God was 
 always the same in his nature and attributes, and in his 
 union and relationship to his heavenly Father. In a 
 figurative sense he might be said to be begotten, 
 when he actually came into the office of Redeemer; 
 received mediatorial authority, and became submissive 
 to God the Father. He might be said to be begot- 
 ten, when he was manifested on earth in the office of 
 Redeemer; and by the name. Son of God. Those 
 are said to be begotten, who are brought out of one 
 state into another. Paul to the Corinthians says, "In 
 Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." 
 To Philemon he says, "1 beseech thee for my son 
 Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." 
 Christ may be said to be begotten by his resurrection 
 from the dead. By this act he was more fully declared 
 to the world than he before had been. Before this 
 time, even his disciples were exceedingly ignorant of 
 him; the design of his coming, and the nature of his 
 kingdom. By his resurrection his own prophecy was 
 
 I 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 67 
 
 fulfilled, and he was in a capacity for making more full 
 displays of the divine will by making more copious 
 communications of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul 
 appears to have viewed the resurrection of Christ in 
 this light when he said to the Jews, "God hath ful- 
 filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath 
 raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second 
 Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee." The circumstances attending Christ in his intro- 
 durtion into office; his introduction into the world; his 
 resurrection from the dead, are similar in some respects 
 to the production of a human son. The circumstances 
 are so analogous that there is a foundation for calling 
 Christ a begotten Son. 
 
 Christ is also called the only begotten Son. By the 
 law of analogy there is a striking propriety in this 
 expression. In his human nature no one was ever so 
 begotten as he was. In his divine nature no one ever 
 sustained those offices; that intimate union and near 
 relationship to the Father, which he sustained. Par- 
 ents often feel an extraordinary affection for an only, or 
 an only begotten son. When God required Abraham 
 to offi3r Isaac in sacrifice, he commanded him saying, 
 take now thy son, thine only son. The apostle, speak- 
 ing of the faith of Abraham, calls Isaac his only begot- 
 ten son. At that time Abraham had another, and an 
 older son. But he had an extraordinary affisction for 
 this younger son; and on account of this strong afTec- 
 tion, God called him his only son; and by the mouth of 
 his apostle he called him his only begotten son. There 
 is analogy in nature, therefore, for calling Christ the 
 only begotten Son of God. The Father loves him with 
 an everlasting love. He loves him for the excellence 
 of his nature, and for the fulfilment of the duties of 
 his oflices. No language was better calculated to 
 convey the idea of God's great love to Christ than 
 this. 
 
 Christ is repeatedly called in the scriptures the first 
 horn., the, first begotten. This language is also figura- 
 
68 IiV WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 tive. The propriety and force of this figure arise 
 from the peculiar prerogatives of the first born of 
 God's ancient chosen people. The first born was 
 principal heir of his father's substance. He had 
 dominion over his brethren. Isaac, in blessing Jacob, 
 said, "Be lord over thy brethren; and let thy mother's 
 sons bow down to thee." It was the privilege of the 
 first born to have the priest's office. In all these 
 respects there is such a similarity between the pre- 
 rogatives of the first born and the prerogatives of 
 Christ, that there is a peculiar propriety in calling 
 him the first born. God hath appointed him heir of 
 all things. Christ is said to be the first born among 
 many brethren, denoting he has dominion over them. 
 It is written, that the Father hath given him authority 
 to execute judgment; that all power is given to him 
 in heaven and in earth. He performed the duties of 
 a priest. He was formally consecrated to the priest's 
 office. He made intercession for the people, and 
 offered sacrifice for their sins. 
 
 Christ is called the first born of every creature. 
 Some have understood by this that he is the first cre- 
 ated being. It has been shewn in what sense he is 
 the first born; and it appears that in all things he has 
 the preeminence. Besides, the original, from which 
 this passage is translated, might with equal propriety 
 be rendeied, horn before every creature. Christ is 
 likewise the first born, the first begotten from the 
 dead. He is called the first fruits of them that slept. 
 Christ was first born from the dead in respect to his 
 dignity. He was Lord of the dead. Never did the 
 tomb hold so glorious a prisoner. Never did such 
 circumstances attend the resurrection of any other. 
 This holy One did not see corruption. His resurrec- 
 tion was first, or he was the first born from the dead, 
 inasmuch as his resurrection proved, and was the pro- 
 curing cause of the resurrection of those, who had 
 been, or would be, under the dominion of death. "If 
 the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; but now 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 69 
 
 is Christ risen and become the first fruits of them 
 that slept." 
 
 In the writings of the Old Testament God called 
 Christ tlie Son, and my Son. From these expressions 
 the Jews expected that the Messiah was the Son of 
 God; and it appears they expected he would appear 
 with that title, and in that character. Although Jesus 
 Christ was somewhat obscurely revealed under the 
 Jewish dispensation; yet the phrase, the Son, my Son, 
 had, in their opinion, a peculiar and appropriate 
 meaning, a meaning different from the term son, when 
 applied to any of the human race. 
 
 The Jews, in consequence of the revelations, which 
 they possessed, expected a glorious personage in the 
 Messiah. Had their expectations been realised in 
 respect to his appearance, it seems, according to human 
 calculation, that they would have acknowledged him 
 to be the Messiah; that they would not have been 
 offended, if he had claimed the title. Son of God. 
 But when they saw his humble appearance; when 
 they saw his object was different from Vv^hat they 
 expected, they viewed him as a mere man. When 
 he called God his Father; when he called himself the 
 Son of God, they considered him making pretensions 
 to divinity; assuming the place of the Messiah; and 
 making himself equal with God. They supposed the 
 title implied divine nature. They, of course, consid- 
 ered him blasphemous when he made such preten- 
 sions. As he did not correct them for error in their 
 construction of the title Son of God, it is presumable 
 they put a right construction upon it. 
 
 Because a son signifies a natural descendant from 
 parents, it does not follow that the divine Son is a 
 natural descendant from his heavenly Father. We 
 often reason from one thing to another. But the rules 
 of analogy are of limited extent; and they are greatly 
 confined in their application. There is a resemblance 
 and proportion between different things in some par- 
 ticulars. But beyond a certain extent resemblance 
 
70 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 and proportion fail. There is a resemblance between 
 a man and a brute. Their bodies are material, and 
 they are both sensitive. But, because the rational 
 principle in man is capable of improvement, it does not 
 follow that the instinct of brutes possesses the same 
 capacity. Because the bodies of both are mortal, 
 it does not follow that both will be reorganized and 
 reanimated. The human mind bears some resem- 
 blance to the divine mind. It was formed after its 
 likeness. But there is no proportion between what is 
 finite and what is infinite. Because God has given a 
 power to human nature to produce and perpetuate its 
 kind, it follows, God has a power to produce the same 
 kind. The inference is corroborated by the fact, that 
 he did originally produce it. But from these premises 
 it does not follow that he has a power to produce a 
 divine species. No rules of logic, no analogy of nature 
 will justify such an inference. It is a natural impos- 
 sibility that infinite power should produce infinite 
 power; that an eternal Being should produce an eter- 
 nal Being; that self-existence should produce self-exist- 
 ence. Because this confounds cause and effect. It is 
 a natural impossibilitj^ that a divine nature should not 
 have divine attributes. Because a nature is designa- 
 ted by its attributes. It is a natural impossibility 
 that divine attributes should be limited by any thing 
 foreign from their own nature. Because it is the pre- 
 rogative of divine attributes that they have no supe- 
 rior. As far as there are points of likeness and pro- 
 portion between things there is analogy; and so far 
 analogical reasoning may be used, and no further. 
 
 To obviate the sentiment that Christ is Son of God 
 by derivation, it is not necessary to have recourse to 
 the peculiar mode of the conception of his humanity 
 as a priynary reason of his sonship. Without doubt 
 this is one reason, for which he is called Son of God; 
 but for other and more important reasons he is called 
 the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten, 
 the dearly beloved, the own Son. If the humanity of 
 
,IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 71 
 
 Christ was the principal ground of calling him Son of 
 God, then Adam was Son of God in as high sense as 
 Christ; for his nature was no less the immediate effect 
 of God's power than the humanity of Jesus Christ. 
 The angels, beiug of a more exalted nature than 
 humanity, they would be sons of God in a higher sense 
 than the human nature of Christ. When the apostle 
 Paul to the Hebrews describes the excellence of 
 Christ, and contrasts him with angels, he infers his 
 superiority from this circumstance, that God called 
 him his Son; but never gave this distinguishing appel- 
 lation to them; and that he promises to be to him a 
 Father, and that he should be to him a Son. Because 
 this promise is in future tense, it does not follow that 
 his humanity is the primary ground of his sonship, or 
 that his sonship originated with his incarnation. As 
 he had not been clearly manifested to the world by 
 that name and in that relationship to the Father before 
 this prediction, it was proper, in view of the manifes- 
 tation of him as Son in the flesh to make the promise 
 in future time, although the relationship then actually 
 existed. After God delivered Israel from Egyptian 
 bondage, he promised them saying, I will walk among 
 you; and will be your God; and ye shall be my people. 
 This promise is in future time; but who doubts that 
 God walked among them at that time; and at that 
 time he was. their God and that they were his people? 
 As the relationship was to continue, it was proper to 
 make the declaration in future tense. As the rela- 
 tionship between the Father and the Son was perma- 
 nent, it was no lef«j proper to declare it in future than 
 in present time. 
 
 "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." 
 If God's declaration to Christ that he would be his 
 Father and that Christ would be his Son, must neces- 
 sarily be taken in future tense, this declaration of the 
 Psalmist must, by the same necessity, be taken in the 
 present tense. It would, of course, follow that the 
 Son was begotten at the time the Psalm, containing 
 
72 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 this declaration, was written. But in prophetic lan- 
 guage it is not uncommon that one tense is put for 
 another. The prophet Isaiah described the sufferings 
 of the Messiah many centuries before he suffered, in 
 the present, and in the past tense. The prophetic 
 writings, and the peculiar idiom of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage admit some variation of tense. "Thou art my 
 Son, this day have I begotten thee." The apostle 
 Paul does not consider this passage to have relation 
 to the nativity of Jesus, but to his resurrection. In his 
 address to the men of Israel he said, "We declare unto 
 you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was 
 made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same 
 unto us their children in that lie hath raised tip Jesus 
 again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou 
 art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." It ap- 
 pears, of course, that, when Christ is called the first 
 begotten, the only begotten Son, these terms do not 
 designate the origin of his human nature, but are 
 applied to him in a higher and in a more distinguish- 
 ing sense. The apostle Paul to the Romans, speaking 
 of Christ says, "Declared to be the Son of God with 
 power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resur- 
 rection from the dead.^'' He is also called "the first 
 born from the dead." Hence it follows that the terms 
 begotten and born when applied to Christ are not 
 always to be understood literally; that they do not 
 always apply to his nativity. 
 
 The discourse, which Gabriel had with Mary, has, 
 more than once, been used to prove that the filiation 
 of Christ originated from his incarn;»tion. "The angel 
 answered and said unto her. The Holy Ghost shall 
 come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
 overshadow thee, therefore, also, that holy thing that 
 shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." 
 The holy thing, which was to be born of Mary, was 
 the holy Child Jesus. This Child was called the Son 
 of God. Christ was called the Son of God, the first 
 begotten, the only begotten Son; when the Father 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 73 
 
 declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
 pleased." These distinguishing and endearing appel- 
 lations were not applied exclusively to the humanity 
 of Christ. They were applied to him when Divinity 
 and humanity were united. If the humanity of Christ 
 sustained a nearer relationship to the Father than his 
 Divinity, there would be ground for applying the 
 terms, importing the nearest relationship, primarily 
 to his human nature. But as there is not that near- 
 ness of relationship between God and a creature that 
 there is in the divine nature, it is presumable that 
 those appellations, which import the nearest relation- 
 ship, were applied primarily to that nature of Christ, 
 which bore the nearest relationship to the Father. 
 Consequently they could not have a primary reference 
 to his humanity. So intimate was the union between 
 the Divinity and humanity of Christ, that it is not 
 doubted that the name Son might with propriety, be 
 applied to either nature distinctly or to both natures 
 conjointly; and at the same time primary reference 
 be made to his divine nature. 
 
 The apostle to the Galatians, speaking of Christ, 
 says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman; made under the 
 law, to redeem them that are under the law." This 
 text does not teach how Christ became God's Son. It 
 does not teach that his Sonship originated from his 
 being made of a woman. The original word in this 
 text, translated mac?c, might with much more propriety 
 be translated born. The text, thus translated, would 
 stand in this manner, "God sent forth his Son, born of 
 a woman, born under the law." It is not true that 
 the humanity of Jesus was wholly made of a woman. 
 His human spirit was not derived from Mary. She 
 did not impart any portion of her spirit to his b6dy. 
 Spirit is not divisible; and of course it is not a subject 
 of propagation. The body and soul of Jesus were 
 both 6orn of Mary. It is presumable that Divinity 
 was united to his body before his birth, that it was 
 10 
 
74 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOLf. 
 
 united at the time of his conception; that both natures 
 were brought into the world in union. Before Jesus 
 was born, he was called that holy thing. Though the 
 holj thing might embrace only his humanity; yet it 
 was probably called holy, not only on account of his 
 immaculate conception, but on account of his union 
 with Divinity. It is evident that divine nature was 
 in union with the child Jesus immediately after his 
 birth, because he was called Emmanuel, which signi- 
 fies, "God with us." The name would not be appro- 
 priate if divine nature were not united with the human 
 nature of Jesus. As there is nothing recorded, which 
 affordi? e\ldpnr.p that such union occurred after his 
 birth, it is presumable that it occurred before this 
 event. In view of these suggestions the text under 
 consideration reads naturally, "God sent forth his 
 Son." He sent him forth from heaven. He was 
 "born of a woman" in conjunction with human nature. 
 He was "born under the law;" he was born under the 
 Jewish dispensation, and was subject to the institutions 
 and ordinances of the ceremonial law. In his human 
 nature he was subjected to death. Though he knew 
 no sin himself; yet he suffered death for the sins of 
 others. 
 
 "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the 
 Father, he hath declared him." These words Christ 
 spoke, when he was in the flesh. When he made 
 this declaration, did he design to convey the idea that 
 his human nature was in the bosom of the Father, 
 and that his human nature had declared him? Were 
 these the primary ideas that he designed to convey 
 by this declaration? Does the appellation, the only 
 begotten Son, in this text, apply primarily to the 
 humanity of Christ? Christ's Divinity is in more inti- 
 mate union with the Father than his humanity. 
 When he is said to be in the bosom of the Father, 
 it has of course a primary reference to his Divinity. 
 Christ, in his divine nature has declared the Father 
 much more than he has in his human nature. When 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 75 
 
 he is said to declare him, it has, of course, a primary 
 reference to his divine nature. 
 
 Some communication was made in the Old Testa- 
 ment respecting the Father and the Son. If the rela- 
 tionship, which these names import, actually existed 
 at that time, why was it not more fully and distinctly 
 revealed? For the same reason, undoubtedly, for 
 which the doctrine of the Trinity, and the scheme 
 of redemption were not so fully and distinctly revealed 
 in the Old, as in the New Testament. God revealed 
 himself, and unfolded his gracious designs by degrees. 
 So intimate was the connexion between the doctrine 
 of the Trinity and the plan of salvation, that the 
 unfolding of the one would, in a great measure, unfold 
 the other. As God designed not to make a full 
 display of the method of salvation till after the incar- 
 nation of his Son, he of course, withheld a propor- 
 tionate display of the rfilationship which subsisted in 
 the divine nature. As the economy of redemptioa 
 depended on this relationship, it appears proper that 
 they should be revealed proportionably and together. 
 In the Old Testament the divine nature was revealed 
 by many names. Among others, it was revealed by 
 the names Father and Son. Did not a relationship then 
 subsist between these two, which was a proper ground 
 for applying to them these relative names? Or, were 
 these names applied to them only in view of a rela- 
 tionship, which was afterwards to subsist? In support 
 of the affirmative of the latter question it is argued, 
 "We say, when king David kept his father's sheep. 
 But he was not king when he kept them. We say, 
 when king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born 
 king nor Solomon. But afterward being known by 
 both the office and the name, these are carried back 
 to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, 
 my father was born in such a year. He does not 
 mean that he was born his father.'''' From these 
 premises it is inferred that when it is said, "God so 
 loved the world that he sent his only begotten Sou; 
 
76 IN \VHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE! SON OF GOEfr 
 
 God sent forth his Son;" these declarations do not 
 import that Christ was son before he was sent; but 
 that "the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his 
 beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom. Infinitely 
 dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, 
 and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God." 
 This reasoning does not appear to be correct. 
 Because the examples adduced are not parallel with 
 the subject under consideration. The examples take 
 the present name, relationship and office of persons, 
 and apply the same to them at a past period of their 
 life. But, according to the argument, the subject 
 takes the Jutiire naaie of Christ, and applies it to him 
 at the present time. If it be proper to apply the 
 present name of a person to him in a past condition 
 of life, it does not follow that it is proper to apply 
 the future name of a person to him in his present 
 state. The premises and the conclusion are not 
 analogous; and of course the argument is not correct; 
 and the inference is not conclusive. 
 
 In the divine nature the same relationship always 
 has subsisted and always will subsist. Among creatures 
 Hew relationships arise; and as creatures come into 
 existence relationships arise between them and their 
 Creator. But there is no change in the divine Being. 
 If there be ground in the divine nature now for 
 calling one of the Trinity Father and another Son, 
 there always was ground for the application of these 
 relative names. If one of the Trinity was manifested 
 to the world as Son of God, there was ground in his 
 nature for this manifestation before he appeared in 
 the world. His coming into the world and assuming 
 human nature did not affect his relation to the others 
 pf the Trinity. His humanity commenced its rela- 
 tionship with God, but his Divinity no more com- 
 menced a relationship with the Father, than it 
 commenced existence. Whatever his human nature 
 may be called, it does not affect the proper name of 
 his divine nature. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 77 
 
 There is a certain relationship subsisting between 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holj Spirit. The ques- 
 tion now is, whether there appears to be ground iu 
 the divine nature for calHng one of them Son? There 
 is no dispute that one is called Father. He is not so 
 called in relation to creatures; because when their 
 Father is named, it is God without the distinction of 
 individuality. When one of the Trinity is called 
 Father, it is in relation to another of the Trinity^ If 
 it be proper to call the first Father m relation to the 
 second, it is proper to call the second Son in relation 
 to the first. 
 
 The sfreat love of God toward the human race is 
 argued in the scriptures from his not sparing his own 
 Son; but delivering him up for us all. If God's Son 
 imports no more than the man Christ Jesus, God did 
 not manifest an extraordinary love for the human 
 race in giving him up in sacrifice. If a prince 
 should subject to death one of his subjects for the 
 sake of the preservation of the rest, he would not 
 display an extraordinary love for them. Any prince 
 would do the same. But if, for this purpose he 
 should expose to death his own, and only son, who 
 was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, he would 
 give decisive evidence of his exceedingly great love 
 for his subjects. If God has exposed one of the 
 Trinity, who was in the most near and endearing rela- 
 tionship to himself, to all the insolence and violence, 
 which an ungrateful world could offer him, it cannot 
 be doubted that he entertained an affectionate regard 
 for his human rebellious subjects. Because the 
 sacrifice of his Son was eflicacious and satisfactory, 
 there is the strongest evidence that the Son was of 
 higher nature and dignity than mere humanity. 
 
 The sacred scriptures testify that God sent his Son 
 into the world. This mode of expression conveys 
 the idea that Christ was his Son, when he sent him: 
 and that the act of sendino; him, or of attachino; 
 human nature to him, did not make him his Son. If 
 
78 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD, 
 
 it be said that a man sends his son on business it is 
 understood that the child is reallj a son at the time 
 he was sent; and not that he is to be made a son by 
 any future act. God's sending his Son into the world, 
 signifies his sending one of" the Trinity upon earth 
 among mankind. This act of sending the Son, can- 
 not have reference to his introduction to the duties of 
 his office, because he was in the world before this 
 time. To say he was sent into the world after he 
 was in the world, would not be a correct mode of 
 expression. If the Son whom God sent into the 
 world, was one of the Trinity, there was the same 
 ground for calling him Son before, as there was after 
 he was sent. No new relation has ever been formed 
 between them; and he that was sent from heaven, 
 has, ever since the apostasy, stood in the same rela- 
 tion to the human race. He has been appointed to 
 no new office since that time. He has acted in no 
 office since that time, which would appropriately give 
 him the name Son. 
 
 The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, has given infor- 
 mation on what ground he received this name. He 
 obtained by inheritance, or he hath inherited, (accord- 
 ing to the original) the name Son. "Being made so 
 much better than the angels, as he hath by inherit- 
 ance obtained, or he hath inherited a more excellent 
 name than they. For unto which of the angels said 
 he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I 
 begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, 
 and he shall be to me a Son." The apostle gives us 
 to understand that the name, which was better than 
 that of the angels was Son; and he expressly says he 
 inherited this name. Many of his names were official. 
 He was called Messiah, Jesus, Lord, Christ, Media- 
 tor, Redeemer. These names he did not inherit in 
 the same sense. They were given him on account 
 of the offices, which he sustained. The name Son, 
 he inherited. He was entitled to it by the relation- 
 .^hip, which subsisted between him and the Father. 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 79 
 
 Angels and men have received the name Son of God. 
 But they did not inherit it, in the same sense, in which 
 he did. Christ obtained this name in a pecuhar and 
 distinguishing sense, in a sense, in which no creature 
 ever obtained it. This is an evidence that he is in 
 nearer relationship to the Father than any created 
 being. If Christ was called Son, only on account of 
 his human nature, then he was not Son in any higher 
 sense than angels and men; and he inherited it in no 
 other manner than they. But the apostle reasons 
 otherwise. He argues Christ's nearer relationship to 
 the Father, and his superior excellence and dignity 
 from this fact, that he inherited a more excellent name 
 than the angels; that he inherited the name Son of 
 God. 
 
 It is admitted that the humanity of Christ is some- 
 times called Son of God. The scriptures testify that 
 he raised his Son from the dead. But the man Christ 
 Jesus was not Son of God in a higher sense than Adam. 
 When Christ is called God's own and only Son; his 
 dearly beloved, his first begotten, his only begotten 
 Son, these appellations primarily designate his divine 
 nature. If either of these appellations are applied to 
 his humanity, it is because his humanity is united with 
 him, who is in a peculiar sense the Son of God. 
 
 If the sonship of Christ originated from his human- 
 ity, then the Holy Spirit was Father of the Son. 
 The angel declared to Joseph, "that which is con- 
 ceived in her, (1. e. Mary,) is of the Holy Ghost." 
 When Christ addresses his Father, he does not address 
 the Holy Spirit. He addresses another of the Trinity. 
 Why is this, if the Holy Spirit is the Father of the 
 Son. When Christ addresses his Father, he addresses 
 him, who sent him from heaven into the world, and 
 whom he obeys. He addresses him who stands first 
 in order in the work of redemption. 
 
 It is natural to inquire why two of the Trinity arc 
 called Father and Son? It is not supposable that finite 
 minds can fully understand the ground of relationship 
 
80 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 in the divine plurality. It appears reasonable that 
 the relationship between the Father and the Son is 
 not literal; that there is not that priority and poste- 
 riority of existence, and those claims and obligations, 
 which there are between a human father and son. 
 If there be a striking analogy in several prominent 
 points in the relationship between Christ and the 
 Father, and between a human son and his father, there 
 is sufficient ground for calling Christ the Son of the 
 Father, or the Son of God. Such analogy appears; 
 and there appears to be just ground for applying to 
 them the relative names Father and Son. 
 
 The relationship between God and the human 
 nature of Christ is not a sufficient ground for calling him 
 literally^ Son of God. The origination of his existence, 
 and the origination of the existence of a human son, 
 in the ordinary way, were too different to be a ground 
 for calling him, by this name. Yet there is such a 
 resemblance between the origination of the two, that 
 figuratively the man Christ Jesus, may, with propriety, 
 be called Son of God. If this appellation be applied 
 figuratively to Christ, either In his human, or divine 
 nature, it is also used figuratively, when it Is applied 
 to him without the distinction of natures. 
 
 In the Old Testament, Christ, in relation to the 
 Father, is called Son. He is called by this name in 
 connexion with the present, the past and future tense. 
 By one prophet God said of Christ, "Thou art my 
 Son; he shall be to me a Son." By another prophet 
 he said, "I called my Son out of Egypt." These pas- 
 sages appear to furnish evidence that the sonship of 
 Christ may be traced as remotely, at least, as the time 
 when these declarations were made. But in the pro- 
 phetic writuigs tenses are not always used literally. 
 Revelation was much more obscurely made in the Old, 
 than in tlie New Testament. There Is much greater 
 reason for explaining the Old Testament by the New, 
 than there is for explaining the New Testament by 
 the Old. It is much more reasonable to explain pro- 
 
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 81 
 
 phecy by its even(, than to explain an event by its 
 prophecy. The reahty affords more correct and 
 definite ideas than the representation. The Sun of 
 Righteousness sheds more copious light than all the 
 shadows, which had dimly prefigured him. The Old 
 Testament, like the lesser light in the firmament, 
 rejleds light from its obscure representations. But the 
 New Testament, like the sun in the heavens, sheds its 
 own native splendor. 
 
 Christ's being begotten, first begotten, only begot- 
 ten, import his introduction into the world; his intro- 
 duction into office; his reception of all authority, and 
 his resurrection from the dead. These acts did not 
 bring him into a new relationship with the Father. 
 They did not make him Son. They declared, or 
 manifested that he was the Son of God.* 
 
 ^ If there be distinctions in the divine nature, it is not incredible that names 
 should be given tliem to designate their relationship with each other. Whatever 
 that relationshii) is, it cannot be expected that any name, or names, can give us 
 a full conception of it. There is nothing, which falls under our notice, which 
 can give an adequate representation of those distinctions, which constitute the 
 divine plurality. Hut when God would reveal himself to us, he uses various 
 similitudes, so that he may, in some measure, bring himself down to our con- 
 ception. Wheti he would express the near relationship between himself, the 
 Creator, and ourselves his creatures, he calls himself Father, and us his chil- 
 dren. W'hen he would acquaint us with his knowledge of the affairs of this 
 world, he represents himself, as if he possessed organs of sense. This is figura- 
 tive language, and it conveys the ideas, which were designed. If he would reveal 
 to us the distinctions and relationships, which exist in his nature, he must, un- 
 doubtedly, use words in a figurative sense; because these are subjects, different 
 from all those, with which we are acquainted. When he reveals himself by the 
 relative terras, P'ather and Son, these distinctive appellations must be understood 
 in a sense not inconsistent with the divine perfections. Whatever is predicated 
 of the Son of God, as it respects his nature, which implies literal sonship, literal 
 generation, derivation, emanation, or procession, appears to be directly against 
 his independence and his eternal, self-existence. Or, in other words, it 
 appears to be directly agaitist his divinity. But if it be admitted that the dis- 
 tinctive terras. Father and Son, are to be understood in a figurative sense, this 
 difficulty ceases to exist. 
 
 If the phrases. Son of God, first begotten, only begotten, first born, are un- 
 derstood figuratively, they may be consistently applied to Christ, in his divine 
 nature, unless certain texts of scriptuie, render tliis application inadmissible. 
 So far from this, the scriptures apply to him the term Son, before he took upon 
 him the form of a servant. The apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, speaking 
 of the Son, says, "By whom also he made the world'i." John, in his Gospel, 
 attributes the creation of the world to the Logos. There is no doubt that the 
 Son and Logos are the same; and it appears that both are names given to his 
 divine nature. When it is consiilned that oeveial names are gHen to God with- 
 out a view of the distinctions in his nature, it is not incredi'olc that more names 
 than one should be given to the Son of God. It is not doubted that he derived 
 names from his offices, from his works, and from his union with human nature. 
 But it appears that, independently of these, he in/ieviied by ris^ht, one name, 
 and that was Sox. 
 
 11 
 
DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 Names, in the sacred scriptures, are frequently signifi- 
 cant of the nature or qualities of the thing or being 
 named. W^hen language was in its infancy, names 
 were given to different classes of beings, whose natural 
 signification would distinguish one class from another. 
 In giving names to individuals of a species, words were 
 used, which designated some characteristic quality; 
 or some remarkable circumstance attending them. 
 The word Adam, which was used for a name of the 
 first man, signifies ruddy, earth, man."- His name, 
 therefore, denoted the substance and one of its quali- 
 ties, of which his body was formed. The name. Eve, 
 given to the first woman signifies "the manifester, 
 because she was, or was to be the mother of all that 
 live." This denotes her relative situation to the 
 human family. The word Moses signifies to draw 
 out. This name was given to a child, which was 
 hidden among the flags on the river's brink; and this 
 name was given him because he was drawn out of the 
 water; and this was the most prominent circumstance 
 of his early life. The name, angel, is given to that 
 elevated order of spirits, which stand around God's 
 throne, and receive messages from him to this world, 
 because the original word, both in Hebrew and in 
 Greek signifies messenger, or one sent. The name 
 characterizes their office. Instances of significant 
 names in the sacred scriptures are too numerous to 
 
DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 83 
 
 be quoted. Those already cited are sufficient for the 
 present purpose. 
 
 "The Hebrew names of God, as Jerome (the best 
 Hebrecian of the fathers) observes are ten; three 
 come from being; three from power; three from gov- 
 erning; one from excellence." He is called the holy 
 One, which name denotes his moral excellence. As 
 the names of things, of persons, and of God in the 
 sacred scriptures are significant, it is not improbable 
 that the names of his Son are significant; that they 
 are expressive of his nature and attributes. 
 
 "What is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" His 
 name is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and 
 the Word was with God, and the Word was Gorf." 
 When Thomas saw Christ after his resurrection, and 
 had full evidence that it was he, who had been cruci- 
 fied, he exclaimed, "My Lord and ray God." In the 
 original it is expressed with peculiar emphasis, and 
 conveys the clearest idea of his belief of his divinity, 
 (d -/.vi^iog IJ.OV nui 6" ^eo? (j.ov.^ Christ, instead of upbraid- 
 ing him for his faith, and for ascribing to him this di- 
 vine title, manifested his approbation. "Of whom, as 
 concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God 
 blessed forever." All the forced constructions of this 
 text have not destroyed its natural and most obvious 
 import. The Father himself bears testimony to the 
 same truth. ""Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O 
 God, is forever and ever." The truth of this witness 
 cannot safely be disputed. God said to Moses, "be- 
 hold 1 send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the 
 way, and to bring thee into the place, which I have 
 prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, pro- 
 voke him not; for he will not pardon your transgres- 
 sions; for my name is in him." This Angel was Christ; 
 and God's name was in him. He is therefore called 
 with propriety by the name, God. 
 
 Those, who deny the Divinity of Christ, are neces- 
 sitated to admit that he is called by this divine name; 
 but they endeavor to evade the force of it by say- 
 
84 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 j'ng, that he is not called God to signify his divinity; 
 but only to express his high offices, and his delegated 
 authority. This is mere assertion; and of course it 
 requires onlj-^ contradiction. To say that the name 
 God, when applied to the Father, signifies divine na- 
 ture, but when applied to the Son signifies something 
 different, is asserting the very thing to be proved. 
 There is as much evidence that Christ is divine, from 
 the application of the name God to him, as there is 
 that the Father is divine from the application of the 
 same name to himself. If a certain name, attribute, 
 or work will not prove Christ's divinity, the same 
 name, attribute and work will not prove the Father's 
 divinity. It ought to be admitted that what will prove 
 the divine nature of the latter will also prove the 
 divine nature of the former. 
 
 Christ is called in the sacred scriptures the mighty 
 God. He is also called the Almighty. The prophet 
 Isaiah speaking of the Child, which would be born of 
 a virgin, says, "his name shall be called Wonderful, 
 Counsellor, the Mighty GolV This latter title is given 
 to the one supreme God of Israel. If this name has 
 any evidence in proof of liis divine nature, it has equal 
 evidence in proof of the divine nature of Christ. In 
 the Apocalypse it is written, "I am Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending, salth the Lord, which 
 is, and which was, and which is to come, the Jllmighly. 
 It has been objected that this text does not apply to 
 the Son, but to the Father. But the text, viewed in 
 connexion with what precedes and what follows it, 
 was evidently spoken by Christ, and applied to himself. 
 
 Another name given to Christ is everlasting Father. 
 When the word Father is applied to Christ it is not 
 to be considered of the same import as it is when ap- 
 plied to him, whom Christ calls his Father, and we 
 call our Father. He does not sustain a paternal rela- 
 tion to himself, nor to the human family. The word 
 father in the sacred scriptures has dllFerent significa- 
 tions, and it is used in various senses. It signifies one 
 
J)1VINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 85 
 
 who has children; it signifies the author or inventor of 
 a thing; an instructor; a ruler, a desire. In all these 
 senses Christ may be called a Father, either figura- 
 tively or literally. He is the J^uthor of" salvation. He 
 is an Instructor. He taught the world a system of re- 
 ligion. He is a Rider, He is frequently styled a King. 
 He has a kingdom. He is a Desire. He is called the 
 desire of nations. He is much to be desired; for he 
 is much needed. The original words, translated ever- 
 lasting Father, might more naturally be rendered, 
 Father of eternity (-|»^ '>'2'ii.') This naturally expres- 
 ses his eternal existence. 
 
 Christ is called King of glory, Lord of glory, and 
 God of glory. No terms could be selected, which 
 could express in a higher degree the glory of Christ. 
 The glory of the Father cannot be represented by 
 language in a brighter light. 
 
 Christ is styled King of kings and Lord of lords. 
 The same titles are applied by the apostle to God the 
 Father. "Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the 
 King of kings and Lord of lords." These names imply 
 that the Son hath dominion over the highest created 
 powers, and that his authority is equal to that of the 
 Father. As his titles are the same, there is no evi- 
 dence from this source that his authority is inferior. 
 
 Another name given to Christ, is true God. "We 
 are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. 
 This is the true God and eternal life." At the time 
 John wrote his epistles there was a sect which denied 
 the divinity of the Savior, and maintained that he was 
 merely a man. Another sect denied his humanity. In 
 vieAV of these heresies it appears that he designed to 
 establish two points, that Jesus had come in the flesh, 
 and that he was truly divine. With reference to those 
 who denied the humanity of Christ, he said, "Hereby 
 know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confess- 
 eth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; 
 and every spirit, that confesscth not that Jesus Christ 
 is come in the flesh, is not of God. It appears impos- 
 
86 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 sible that language could be used, which would bo 
 more decidedly against the two prevailing heresies of 
 his day than this. What language could more clearly 
 convey the idea of the real Deity of the Son than this 
 declaration of John, "this is the true God?" Its con- 
 nexion is so intimate with what is said of the Son, that 
 attempts to evade its force are vain. Besides the ad- 
 ditional appellation, "eternal life," is peculiar to the 
 Son. 
 
 God, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the 
 heathen, styled himself Jehovah. This name denotes 
 independent existence. The Jews had this name in 
 such superstitious veneration that they would not pro- 
 nounce it in private or public worship; nor would they 
 pronounce it when reading the scriptures. The ob- 
 servations of a certain Jewish Rabbi upon the word 
 Jehovah are pertinent and forcible. Treating on the 
 names or attributes, which the prophets ascribe to 
 God, he observes, "All the names of the most High, 
 which are found in the books (i. e. of the bible) are 
 derived from his actions; and that, which has no de- 
 rivation in it is only one, i. e. the Tetragrammaton, 
 which is appropriated to the most High only; there- 
 fore it is called a declared name, which signifieth the 
 very essence of the most High with clear demonstra- 
 tion, in which there is no equal or partner with him. 
 But the rest of his names, i. e. Judge, Mighty, Right- 
 eous, Merciful, God, &rc. are all names, which declare 
 the eifects and derivation, Sic. But the Tetragramma- 
 ton name is unknown as yet as to its certain deriva- 
 tion; and therefore it is attributed to him only." But 
 even this name, which is significant of the divine es- 
 sence, is applied to Christ. The prophet Jeremiah, 
 in view of the advent of 'Christ, observes, "Behold the 
 days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David 
 a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and pros- 
 per, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 
 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
 safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called 
 
DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. H7 
 
 Jehovah our righteousness." This prophecy is beHev- 
 ed generally to be applied to Christ. As this name 
 is expressive of divine nature, it follows that Christ 
 possesses divine nature, or the name was wrongly ap- 
 plied. There are many other passages in which Christ 
 is implicitly called Jehovah. Was it not Christ, who 
 held intercourse with the Israelites in their departure 
 from Egypt, and in the wilderness? Did he not make 
 himself known to them by the name Jehovahj and did 
 he not style himself, I am? 
 
 To this it has been objected that the name Jeho- 
 vah has been given to places and altars. Abraham 
 called the place where he was aboyt to offer his son 
 Isaac Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will see or provide. 
 After Moses had prevailed in battle against Araalek, 
 by the special interposition of divine Providence, he 
 erected an altar unto the Lord, and called the name 
 of it Jehovah-nissi, the Lord, my banner. After Gideon 
 had seen an angel and had holden converse with the 
 Lord, he built an altar unto the Lord, and called it 
 Jehovah-shalom, the Lord send peace. From the 
 application of this divine name to inanimate things, it 
 is inferred by some that the application of it to Christ 
 does not imply his divinity; and that this name might 
 appropriately be given him, if he were but a mere 
 man. It ought to be considered that Avhen the name 
 Jehovah was given to those places, it was used with 
 some qualifying addition; it was used not to express 
 the nature of the place or thing, but to express some 
 circumstance which was signalized by divine presence 
 or agency. As the cases fire not parallel, the objection 
 loses its force. 
 
 Another significant name given to Christ is Imman- 
 uel. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, 
 and shall call his name Immanuel." This prophecy 
 was fulfilled. A virgin brought forth a Son, and his 
 name was Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God 
 with us. The apostle Paul to the Corinthians saith, 
 "God was in Christ reconciling the woild unto himself.'" 
 
88 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 Christ salth, "the Father is in me." No language 
 could more clearly prove that divinity was united to 
 the man, Christ Jesus. But it is objected that this 
 divine name is applied to Christ in no other sense than 
 divine names were formerly applied to places and 
 things. It has been said that when divine names were 
 given to places and things they did not, neither were 
 they designed to, express their nature or qualities; but 
 they expressed the manifestation of divine presence, 
 or some divine interposition. When Jacob had seen 
 the vision of the ladder and angels ascending and de- 
 scending, he was afraid and said, "surely the Lord is 
 in this place." From this circumstance he called the 
 name of the place Bethel, which signifies house of God. 
 After Jacob had wrestled with a man and prevailed 
 and obtained his blessing, he called the name of the 
 place Peniel; and he gives this reason, "I have seen 
 God face to face." Peniel signifies face of God. These 
 distinguished places were not divine, because they had 
 received names, made up in part of the divine name; 
 neither did they receive these names because they 
 were divine. But these names were given them 
 because God was there. The name Immanuel was 
 not given to the child of Mary, because that child was 
 divine, (for it was not) but because God was there; 
 because the divine Son was in the child. Allowing 
 the objection to have all its force, it serves to prove 
 that divinity was united with the humanity of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The name. Lord God of hosts, is applied to Christ. 
 The prophet, adverting to the wrestling of Jacob with 
 the angel, said, "By his strength he had power with 
 God; yea, he had power over the Angel and prevailed; 
 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." The 
 original words translated Lord God signify Jehovah 
 God. God declared to Moses, "this is my name forever, 
 and this is rov memorial unto all orenerations." Jacob 
 
DIVINE NAME3 GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 89 
 
 called the Angel with whom he wrestled God. This 
 Angel was undoubtedly Christ. Consequently his 
 name is Lord God; or more properly Jehovah God. 
 Those, who deny the divinity of Christ contend that 
 divine names have been frequentlv given to men. The 
 Lord said unto Moses, see, 1 have made thee a god 
 unto Pharaoh. When God gave laws to Israel he 
 commanded him saying, "Thou shalt not revile the 
 gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." The apos- 
 tle Paul acknowledges that there be that are called 
 gods, for there be lords many and gods many. It is 
 true some divine names have been given to men and 
 things. But all divine names have not been given to 
 them. The unqualified name Jehovah was never 
 given to any man or place. No created being is called 
 in the scriptures mighty God, Lord God, true God, 
 great God, God over all blessed forever more. Almigh- 
 ty, Lord of glory. King of kings. Lord of lords. Alpha 
 and Omega, Lord God of hosts. But these names, 
 without any qualification, without any intimation that 
 they are to be understood in a reduced sense, are 
 given to Christ. God, by his apostle saith he has given 
 him a name, which is above every name. If no other 
 divine names were given to Christ but those, which 
 have been given to men, there would be some ground 
 for denying that his names prove his divinity. But 
 other and higher titles are given to him. The same 
 exalted names, which were given to the one God of 
 Israel are given to him. If these names do any thing 
 toward proving the divinity of Israel's God, they do 
 the same toward proving the divinity of Christ. If 
 the divine names have no meaning, they are useless. If 
 they have an unappropriate meaning, they are worse 
 than useless; they lead to error. 
 
 "What is his name and what is his Son's name?" 
 The manner of this question implies that it is equally 
 difficult to give a fully characteristic name to one, as 
 to the other. The names of the Father and the Son 
 are significant and characteristic; b?it they do not con- 
 12 
 
90 DIVINE NAMEE5 GIVEN TO CHRfST. 
 
 vey to our finite minds adequate ideas of the divine 
 nature, nor of the mode of divme subsistence. God 
 has not left himself without witness, nor his Son with- 
 out witness that he is God. When the masficians 
 wrought, or feigned to work miracles in imitation of 
 those, which God wrought by the hand of Moses, 
 God was pleased to give a visible superiority to his 
 own miracles, that it might appear that the power 
 ■was of God. So when God suffered his creatures to be 
 called by divine titles, to prevent misapprehension of 
 the nature and dignity of his Son, he gave him decid- 
 edly superior titles; he gave him a name, which is 
 above every name.* 
 
 *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
 was (iod. John 1: 1. It appears that one design of John in writing his Gospel 
 was to confute the heresies, which had sprung up in the churches. Tlie most 
 promiuenl of which were those of the Uocetse, and the Ebionites. The former 
 believeil the divinity of Christ, but denied his humanity. They maintained that 
 he had a body only in appearance; that he did not actually suffer and die; that 
 he only seemed to do those things, which were related of him. The latter admitted 
 the history of Jesus was founded on reality; but they denied his divinity. "For 
 the most part looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, born of Mary and her bus- 
 band, though a man of a most excellent character." "The opinions of the 
 Docetse, on the one hand, and of the Corinthians on the other," (who were nearly 
 coincident with the Ebionites) concerniug tlie person and offices of Christ, make 
 it probable that the apostles taught, and that the first Christians believed Christ 
 to be both God and man. For if the Docet» had not been taught the divinity 
 of Christ, they had no temptation to deny his humanity. And if the Corinthians 
 had not been taught the humanity of Christ, they would have been under no 
 necessity of denying his divinity." (See Mosheim's Eccles. hist. Milner's Chh. 
 hist. Macknight's pref to the 1st Epis. of John.) In opposition to these here- 
 sies St. John positively declared that the Word was God; and that the Word 
 was made flesh. 
 
 I5y some it is denied that John used the word Logos to signify Christ; but 
 admit, tdat if the Logos were Christ, it would prove his divinity. In the revela- 
 tion ot St. John he is called the Word of God. There is a peculiar significancy 
 in calling him the Word, or the Word of Goil. For as words are the medium, 
 of conveying thought, so Christ was the med'um of conveying the will of God to 
 man. When the Evangelist asserts that the Word was made flesh, it appears 
 to be proved as clearly as language can prove it, that the Word was Christ. 
 When he asserts that this Word was God, it appears equally clear that Christ is 
 truly divine. If the Evangelist had designed to express his divinity in an inferior 
 sense, he would undoubtedly have employed some qualifying lei'in. But as he 
 did not, we are not authorized to make the addition. The absence of the article 
 before Ss;? in this place does not affect its meaning. 
 
 After St. John had represented the Word existing in the beginning; existing 
 with God; and asserted that it was God, he adds, "The Word was made 
 iycviro or became flesh. By this assertion he did not mean that the nature of 
 the Word was changed into the nature of flesh. He undoubtedly meant that 
 the Word appeared in the likeness of flesh. "God sending his own Son in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh — God sent forth his own Son, made of a woman. Who 
 being in the form of God, — took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of mei," The phraseology of John, and also of the apostle, in 
 the quotations just made, naturally conveys the idea that the Word existed sepa- 
 rate from, and before the flesh. 
 
DIVINE PJAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 91 
 
 The translation, "The M''oid was flesh" (see the Improved Version of the New 
 Testament) purporting that it was a mere man, savors more of a preconceived 
 opinion, than of a correct knowledge of the Greek. Previous to this declaration, 
 the Evangelist had used the verbxv nine times and uniformly to express simple, 
 past existence. He had used the verb e-yivero and its inflexions six times to convey 
 the idea of something made or done. If he had designed to convey no other idea 
 than, the Word ivas flesh, he would undoubtedly have used the verb uv, as he had 
 done, to express past existence. Oh the other hand, if he designed, by connect- 
 ing the terms, the Word and flesh by a copula, to convey an idea that something 
 was made or done, he undoubtedly would have used the same verb, which he 
 had used in that signification. If, after having used this verb uniformly in one 
 sense, he should, without giving the least notice, use it in a different sense, he 
 would mislead, rather than rightly direct his readers. It appears therefore that 
 the translation in our Bible is correct. The Word was made flesh. 
 
 The verb tyniTO in the New Testament is sometimes translated Tvas. But it 
 is presumable that it is not synonymous with iiv, which precisely corresponds 
 with our English verb, was. In John 1:6, jj^sto is translated was. "There was 
 a man sent from God." It would be a literal translation, and agreeable to the 
 translation of the verb in many otliei- places in the New Testament, to render 
 the passage thus, it came to pass a man was sent from God. It could not be the 
 design of the Evangelist in using the verb lyiviro to declare the existence of the 
 man, who was sent from God. The declaration that he was sent, implied his 
 existence; iymTo is translated was, in Luke '24:19, "Concerning Jesus of Naz- 
 areth, which 7yas a prophet." It is worthy of remark, that this was the lan- 
 guage of a disciple after the crucifixion; that he was disappointed in his expecta- 
 tions; that, although he had heard of the resurrection of Jesus, he did not under- 
 stand it. In this state of disappointment and grief; not knowing with whom he 
 was travelling; not knowing to what disgrace and danger he might be exposed, if 
 he attributed divinity to his crucified Master, he diffidently and cautiously said. 
 Of iyiHTO avup jrpo^j^Tsxc. Literally translated it is, who was made a man prophet. 
 "The Word was made flesh." The next clause illustrates this. "And dwelt 
 [itTKHvaio-iv) among us." According to the original word the Logos dwelt as in a 
 tent among us; i. e. he occupied human nature, the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Mi; Lord and my God. Jolin 20:28. These words of Thomas, addressed to 
 Christ, appear not to be an ellipsis, as some have maintained, but an exclamation; 
 an exclamation of such a kind that it amounts to a confession that Christ was his 
 Lord and God. It is in vain to object that Kvgto; and ©is?, are in the nominative 
 case. For the nominative is frequently used tor the vocative. ^Vhen Christ on 
 the cross addressed the Father, he addressed him in the nominative case, 
 
 B-io; juov, dm/J-ou, as it is recorded by St. Mark. The LXX use the nominative 
 for the vocative. The great advantage of considering the words of Thomas an 
 ellipsis is, that people may complete the sentence so as to favor their owa 
 
 system. , j, , r,i • 
 
 Whose are the fathers, and ofiuhom as concerning the flesh Christ came, -who 
 is over all, God blessed for ever. Rom. 9:5. If the received text be genuine; if 
 the construction and pointing of this passage be correct, it otters its aid to prove 
 the doctrine of Clirist's divinity. He descended from the fathers, according- to 
 the flesh; he "was made, (or born) of the seed of David, according to the flesh." 
 This mode of expression intimates that he had another nature, according to 
 which he did not descend from the fathers, or from the seed of David. Who 
 in this passage, relates to Christ; and he is over, or above, all. God is in appo- 
 sition with Christ. The term blessed, which is applied to the Father, is applied 
 to him. 
 
 But this text has suffered the same fate with many others, which teach the 
 same doctrine. It is maintained that many copies want 6£oc. "Some, there- 
 fore, may have inferred, that this text cannot fairly be adduced in support of the 
 Trinitarian scheme; and yet the received reading is confirmed by all the manu- 
 scripts, which have been hitherto collated; by all the ancient versions; and by 
 all the fathers, exeept Cyprian, in the printed copies, and ;.lso Hilary and Leo, 
 who, according to Griesbach, ha»e each of them once referred to this text with- 
 out noticing fijoc. Whence the notion arose that 6io; is wanting in many MSS. 
 
 1 am not able to discover. There is scarcely a verse in the New Testament, in 
 which ancient authorities more nearly agree." (Middleton on the Greek Ai- 
 
92 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST* 
 
 tide.) The passage under consideration has been transposed and pointed in such 
 a manner that it imports a doxology to the Father. But this transposition oft'ends 
 against the idiom of the Greek language; against the usage of the LXX. and of 
 the writers of the New Testament, ^^ee Middleton in loco) 
 
 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. By some it is supiiosed that the 
 Psahu, from which the apostle quoted this passage, was composed in celcbratioa 
 of Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. This Psalm is entitled, "A 
 song of loves." It is not probable that David would have composed a song upon 
 his son's love for strange Moraen; women, with whom he was forbidden to have 
 connexion. If he had made this the subject of his song, he could iiardly have 
 said, "My heart is inditing & geod matter." In this view of his son, he would uot 
 probably have addressed him by the title, "O God." Besides, Solomon's king- 
 dom lasted but forty years. It could not, therefore, be said to be "for ever and 
 ever." It was permanent but partially in the line of his posterity; for ten tribes 
 revolted from his son, and did not return. In view of his strange loves, which 
 were prohibited by divine authority, the Psalmist would not probably have said, 
 "thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity." 
 
 The Psalm was undoubtedly applied to the Messiah; for It appears to be ap- 
 plicable only to him. The quotation, which the apostle makes from it, he applies 
 to the Son. In the beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews, he contrasts the 
 Son with the angels; and to give him the preference, to give him an infinite 
 superiority, he applies to him a part of the 45th Psalm. "Unto the Son he 
 saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Thtre is no danger in apply- 
 ing this declaration as the apostle applied it, notwithstanding the ingenious crili- 
 eisms of the learned. 
 
 Some critics have given to the passage under consideration a translation, essen- 
 tially different from our English version. "God is thy throne for ever and ever. 
 The everlasting God is thy throne." But neither the scope of the apostle's 
 discourse, nor the ])hraseology, which he used, favors this translation. He was 
 setting forth the superior excellence and dignity of the Son. After represent- 
 ing angels as servants, it was necessary, to make the contrast, to represent the 
 Son having authority. But if he designed to attribute to him only a limited or del- 
 egated authority; that God, not himself, supported his throne, where would be 
 the superiority of Christ above them; for they have a limited, a delegated au- 
 thority? When it is brought into one view, that the Son hath inherited a more 
 excellent name than they; that the angels of God are commanded to worship 
 him; that in the beginning he laid the foundation of the earth, and that the 
 heavens are the works of Iiis hands; that he is the same, and that his years shall 
 not fail, it would be an unhappy descent in the descriptian to assign him a throne, 
 -which he could not support himself; a throne, which ke did not inherit, which 
 he did not occupy by right. 
 
 'O flsoc being in the nominative case does not justify the improved version of 
 the text. For the LXX often use the nominative for the vocative; and it was 
 from them the apostle made the quotation. The Atticks used the same manner 
 of writing. If throne was the predicate of the verb, it would, according to the 
 rules of Greek criticism, want the article. But as it has the article prefixed, 
 there is evidence that it is the subject of the verb; and that the common English 
 Version is correct. The application of this text to Solomon; the unnatural 
 transposition of its parts; and the unfounded criticisms, which have been made 
 upon it, give evidence that the cause is desperate, whicii requires such means 
 for its support. 
 
 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, 
 that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his 
 Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life; I John 5:20. The 
 most natural reference of the pronoun this, is to Jesus Christ in the preceding 
 sentence. It is a general rule that the demonstrative pronoun refers to th& 
 nearest antecedent. But there is sometimes a departure from this rule when a 
 more remote aiilecedetit is the principal subject; and a reference to it is so visible 
 in the sense that it occasions no ambiguity. But this exception does not apply- 
 to the text under consideration. The Son of God is the leading and most prom- 
 inent subject. Neither the sense, nor the nature of tlie subject would warrant a 
 departure from the general rule in this instance, Ui^less it be £rsi assumed th^t 
 Jesus Christ is not divine, the very point to be proved. 
 
DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 93 
 
 The terms used in the text, viewed in connexion with olher parts of llie Epis- 
 tle, favor ihe opinion that they are applied to the Son of God Thei-e is no 
 small degree of evidence that the phrase, him that is true, signifies Clirist. At 
 the time John wrote, there were false teachers. They represented Christ very 
 differently from what he really was I'liese he calls antichrist; and gives a cau- 
 tion to try their spirit. After describing the errors which then prevailed, and 
 shewing how tliey might be detected, he observed at the close of his first Epistle, 
 that Jesus Christ had come; that he had given them an understanding (Jiavcia.) 
 i. e. knowledge, or the means of knowing him that is true; of diitingnishnig the 
 true Christ from false ones; that by signs and wonders, by doctrine and life, he 
 gave such evidence that he was the true Messiah that they needed not to be de- 
 ceived. "We are m A/w that is true " This manner of expression is applied 
 elsewhere to Christ. "If any man be iii Christ, he is a new creature." "Put 
 ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." I'he figure of the vine and the branches implies 
 that the members of Clirist are in him Besiiles, Jesus applies to himself the 
 terras true and truth. The additional clause, "in his Son Jesus Christ," appears 
 to be explanatory of the two preceding, viz. "in him that is true." 
 
 "This is the true God and eternal life." Life and eternal life are titles often 
 given to Christ, 'n the beginning of the Epistle John calls him "the Word of 
 life, the Life, eternal Life " Wlien it is considered that he apPlits this title to 
 iiim in the beginning of his letter, it is presumable, at least, that at the close, he 
 applies the same title to the same personage. Of Christ it is said, "In him was 
 life, and the Life was the light of men. I am the resurrection and the Life. 
 God hath given to us eternal Life; and this Life is in his Son." These eviden- 
 ces appear to be conclusive that the title, true God in the text, is applied to the 
 Son. 
 
 B' hold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Im- 
 mamiel; Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps this prophecy in its primary ap[)lie!itioii was 
 fulfilled soon after its delivery by a person, born in an extraordinary manner; 
 who delivered Judah from his threatening enemies; and, for the remarkable in- 
 terposition of divine Providence attending him, was called Immannel. If such 
 an ajjplication of the text be correct, it is admitted that the name is appropriate; 
 that (iod was with his people by cjuallfying him for their deliverance. But tiiis 
 concession does not militate against the application of this prophecy in a secon- 
 dary and higher sense. The successor of Vloses was called Joshua; (ihe same 
 in the original as Jesus;) and the nanie was appropriate. But who doubts that 
 the name Jesus, when given to the Son of God, is of a higher and more impor- 
 tant meaning!" 
 
 There is evidence that the prophecy, under consideration, was ultimately 
 applied to Christ, becaus<' St. Matthew, in giving the history of his nativity ap- 
 plies it to him. "Now all this was done," (says the Evangelist) "that it might 
 be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying. Behold a 
 virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his name 
 Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us." Not a little exertion 
 lias been used to shew that this part of St. Matthew's account of Christ is spuri- 
 ous But as no proof hus been produced to this eifect, it is not presumptuous to 
 ofter it in support of the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It is a matter of surprise 
 that texts to this effect should, more than any others, be charged with spurious- 
 ness, with incorrect readings and incorrect versions. Should the charge be sup. 
 ported against St. .Matthew, a similar difliculty will be found in St. Luke's gos- 
 pel. He states the miraculous conception of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Though 
 he does not sav that this event is a fulfilment of the prophet's prediction; yet, 
 according to his account of the matter, it was no less a fulfilment, than if he had 
 declared it to be so. If God was with his people, when he sent them deliverers, 
 who rescued them from temporal evils, more specially was he with them when 
 lie united himself in a peculiar manner with human nature, and delivered them 
 by his own hand from spiritual enemies, from the bondage of sin. 
 
 Looking- for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God 
 and our Savior Jesus Christ; I'itus 2:1.3. Through the righteousness of God 
 and our Savior Jesus Christ; 2 Peter 1:1. There are several other passages in 
 the Epistles, in which the name God and Jesus Clirist have a similar i onnexion. 
 If the second noun (Savior) were not in apposition with the first (God) or an 
 attributive of the same article, it would have an jirticle before itself. But as it 
 has not, it is inferred that it is a predicate of the article, which stands before 
 
94 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 God; and of course the title. Great God, is given in this text to Jesus Christ. 
 The rules of Greek criticism are so well established that this conclusion is 
 drawn with confidence. See Middleton on the Greek Article. In the second 
 text quoted, there appears to be additional evidence that God and the Savior 
 Jesus Christ are the same. Peter directs his salutation to those, who had ob- 
 tained like precious faith with themselves through the righteousness of God. 
 Righteousness in this sense and application is repeatedly attributed to Christ; 
 but it is presumed that it is not so applied to the Father exclusively. It is 
 through the righteousness, t. e. the obedience and sufferings of Christ that people 
 receive any Christian grace. 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 Who belng....the express image of his person. Heb. 
 1:3. This is predicted of the Son, Jesus Christ, in 
 relation to God the Father. The original is some- 
 what more expressive. It signifies that he is the 
 character of his (i. e. God's) substance. 
 
 AH that is known of the nature of a thing is by its 
 qualities. One class of beings is distinguished from 
 another by its different properties. Human nature is 
 known by its distinguishing qualities. Divine nature 
 is known in the same manner. What has human qual- 
 ities is human nature; and what has divine qualities 
 is divine nature. If it can be shewn that Jesus Christ 
 possesses divine qualities, it consequently follows that 
 he possesses divine nature. 
 
 Although Christ possessed human nature; yet there 
 is evidence from the inspired writings that he posses-^ed 
 a nature, which distinguished him from a mere man. 
 Paul, in his salutation to the Galafians, begins thus: 
 "Paul, an apostle, not of mefi, neither by man, but by 
 Jesus Christ.^'' He inquires, "Do 1 seek to please 
 men? for if I yet pleased men, 1 should not be the 
 servant of Christ. But 1 certify you, brethren, that 
 the gospel which was preached of me, is not after 
 man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I 
 taught it, but by the revelation of /e.s?/5 Clirist.^^ The 
 apostle makes a plain distinction between Christ and 
 a man or men. He is therefore understood ascribing 
 to him a nature, which ihcv had not. 
 
96 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIS"!'. 
 
 The sacred scriptures ascribe eternity to the Lord 
 Jesus. After the apostasy God held intercourse with 
 man, through the medium of his Son. The voice of 
 the Lord God, whom Adam heard walking in the 
 garden, was the Son. It was the Son, who njade the 
 covenant with Abraham. It was the Son, who ap- 
 peared unto Jacob; changed his name, and blessed 
 him. It was the Son, who led Israel out of Egypt; 
 conducted them through the Red Sea; guided and 
 supported them in the wilderness; and led them to 
 the land of promise. All the divine appearances and 
 communications, which are mentioned in the Old Tes- 
 tament, were made by the Son of God. If these 
 exhibitions of himself do not prove his eternity, they 
 prove that he had existence before he was conceived 
 by his mother Mary. It proves that he was more 
 than mere humanity. 
 
 Christ saith of himself, '•^before Abraham was I am.'''' 
 He prayed to the Father, saying, "Glorify thou me 
 with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with 
 thee, before the world was^ Solomon, personifying 
 Wisdom, which is generally understood to be Christ, 
 says, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his 
 way, before his works of old. I was set up from 
 everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 
 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him." 
 In these texts is conveyed the idea not only of his 
 pre-existence, but also of his eternal existence. His 
 being by him, as one brought up with him, easily con- 
 veys the idea of two, who had always lived together; 
 and upon equal terms. When Christ appeared unto 
 John in Patmos, he styled himself, "Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, 
 and which is to come, the first and the last." This 
 title was given to God by his prophet; and if it is an 
 evidence of his eternal existence, it aifords the same 
 evidence of the eternal existence of the Son Jesus 
 Christ. The prophet, in view of the birth of Christ, 
 makes this address to the place of his nativity. "Thou 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 97 
 
 Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 
 the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
 come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, 
 whose goings forth have heen from of old^ from ever- 
 lasting:^ This text is clearly applied to Christ. It 
 mentions his coming forth, which would be at his 
 birth. It mentions also his goings forth, which had 
 been of old, from everlasting. This reduplication of 
 time, according to the nature of the Hebrew language, 
 clearly and forcibly conveys the idea of his eternity. 
 Christ is the express image, or character of the divine 
 nature, or substance. His nature is, of course, divine, 
 and his attributes are divine. It is absurd to suppose 
 that the character of divinity should be ascribed to 
 Christ, and he be not divine; or that he should pos- 
 sess some divine attributes, and not others. If he be 
 the character of divine existence, he is of course 
 eternal. 
 
 The title Jehovah, is repeatedly given to Christ. 
 This name signifies self-existence. What is self-exist- 
 ent had no cause nor origin of its existence; and of 
 course must always have existed. If the name Jeho- 
 vah is rightly applied to Christ, it implies his eternal 
 existence. 
 
 The sacred scriptures ascribe immutability to 
 Christ. This is a divine attribute. Whatever has 
 been created is subject to change by the same power, 
 which created it. But he, that is not subject to 
 change, exists without a cause, and of course is divine. 
 The apostle Paul to the Hebrews is clear and deci- 
 sive on this point. "Thou Lord in the beginning, hast 
 laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are 
 the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but 
 thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a 
 garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
 and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and 
 thy years shall not fail.'''' The apostle made this ad- 
 dress to Christ; and it as decisively proves his divinity, 
 as the same description proves the divinity of the one 
 13 
 
&8 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 (rue God, when applied to him by the Psalmist. Paul 
 to the Hebrews says, "Jesus Christ, the same yester- 
 day, to-day, and for ever." This mode of speaking, 
 expresses duration past, the present time, and dura- 
 tion to come. As he is the same^ in the past, present, 
 and future time, he changeth not. 
 
 Christ has been manifested to the world in various 
 manners. To Jacob he appeared in the form of a 
 man. To Moses he appeared in, or in the likeness 
 of, a burning bush. To the Israelites he appeared in, 
 or in the form of, a pillar of cloud, and a pillar of fire. 
 After his incarnation he appeared in human form, in 
 the form of a servant. Since his resurrection he is 
 united to a spiritual body; and is seated on the right 
 hand of divine Mijesty. His appearances were differ- 
 ent at different times; and his state of humiliation 
 appeared very different from his state of exaltation. 
 But these appearances made no alteration in his nature. 
 He was no less God in the man Christ Jesus, than he 
 was on the right hand of God the Father. His power 
 was not less when he was in the hands of men, and 
 was condemned, or when, his body was under the 
 dominion of death, than it was when he created the 
 world. All the adventitious circumstances, which 
 attended him while he was upon earth, produced no 
 change in his nature or attributes. 
 
 The scriptures attribute omnipresence to Christ. 
 The Lord Jesus, when he was upon earth, said, "No 
 man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
 down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is 
 in heaven." This implies that he was in heaven at 
 the same time he was upon earth. After Christ was 
 received up into heaven, his apostles "went forth and 
 preached every where, the Lord working with them.^^ 
 At this time he sat on the right hand of God. But 
 he was present with them, otherwise he could not 
 have wrought with them. "Where two or three are 
 met together in my name, (said Christ) there am I in 
 the midst of thena." Jesus said unto his disciples, 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 09 
 
 *'Lo, I am with jou alwaj, even unto the end of the 
 world." These are individual instances of Christ's 
 presence on earth, while he is in heaven. If these 
 instances do not prove his universal presence, it proves 
 his presence to a great extent. If his presence is 
 extended to a great proportion of his creatures, there 
 is no reason why it should not be extended to all. By 
 hira all things were created, and by him all things 
 consist, i. e. are supported. His presence must have 
 been as extensive as his works; and it must now be 
 as extensive as that influence of his, which upholds all 
 things. It is true, all this only proves his presence to 
 be as extensive as the works of creation. The scrip- 
 tures cannot prove the presence of God the Father 
 to be more extensive. It is not important to prove 
 that divine presence is where nothing feels its influ- 
 ence, nor beholds its glory. 
 
 There is abundant evidence from scripture that 
 Christ is omniscient. The apostle Paul says he is 
 before all things. Whether he be before all things in 
 respect to duration or dignity, or in respect to both, 
 he undoubtedly has a capacity for this extent of knowl- 
 edge. As he made all things, he perfectly knows 
 their natures, and the eifects, which would arise from 
 any particular combination of things. As he is omni- 
 present he knows all events, which take place. Noth- 
 ing is concealed from his view. The word of inspira- 
 tion confirms this sentiment. His disciples said unto 
 him, "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things, 
 and needest not that any man should ask thee." When 
 Peter was interrogated concerning his love toward 
 his divine Master, he replied, "Lord, thou knowest all 
 things.'''' Jesus did not commit himself unto them; 
 because he knew all men; and needed not that any 
 should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. 
 Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were, that 
 believed not. When prayer was made to the Lord 
 Jesus for direction in filling a place among the apostles, 
 which had been vacated by Judas, he was addressed 
 
100 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 thus: "Lord, which knowest the hearts oi all men, shew 
 whether of these two thou hast chosen." "The 
 Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper 
 than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the divid- 
 ing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and 
 marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents 
 of the heart. Neither is there any creature, that is 
 not manifest in his sight." Christ, sending word by 
 his servant John, unto the church in Thyatira, says, 
 "all the churches shall know that I am he, which 
 searcheth the reins and hearts,^"* To these may be 
 added another testimony "In whom (i. e. Christ) are 
 bid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 
 The sacred scriptures do not ascribe a greater extent 
 of knowledge to God the Father. The office of 
 Mediator between God and man, which Christ sus- 
 tains, renders it necessary that his knowledge should 
 be adequate to the work. If he was not perfectly 
 acquainted with his Father's will, he would not be 
 capacitated to treat, in his stead, with the human 
 race. If he was not perfectly acquainted with the 
 thoughts, desires, and conditions of the human race, 
 he would not be capacitated to mediate between them 
 and their offended Sovereign. He needs to be per- 
 fectly acquainted with both parties, in order to fill the 
 Mediator's office. In addition to this, he has a knowl- 
 edge of all the works of his hand; and of course he 
 possesses the highest degree of knowledge which 
 can be conceived. 
 
 But there are texts of scripture which appear to 
 limit his knowledge; and these texts have been eagerly 
 used for the purpose of robbing Christ of his divine 
 nature. Christ saith, "I do nothing of myself; but as 
 my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." 
 From this it is inferred that he derives his knowledge 
 from the instruction of his heavenly Father. In this 
 discourse with the Jews, Jesus taught them his union 
 with the Father, and his subordination to him. He 
 taught them that he was not alone; that his Father 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 101 
 
 was with him, and that he acted in perfect coinci- 
 dence with his will. In the same manner that he 
 was from God, so was his knowledge from God, or he 
 was taught of God. The scriptures represent perfect 
 order, subordination and agreement subsisting in the 
 Trinity, in the work of redemption. If it is the 
 place "of the Son to do his Father's will, it is proper 
 to saj the Father teaches, or communicates to him 
 his will. This appears to be a correct method in 
 official transactions, although the Son knew all his 
 Father's purposes. It is true Christ knoweth nothing 
 of himself, and he doeth nothing o/* himself. He is in 
 concert with the Father; and the Father is with him 
 in all his operations. The order of offices justifies 
 the mode of expression, which gives priority to one, 
 and posteriority to the other. 
 
 Christ speaking of the day of judgment says, "Of 
 that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
 angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
 Father." From this text has been inferred the limited 
 knowledge of the Son. It has been suggested that 
 so much of this text as relates to the Son was an 
 interpolation by the Arlans. But it is not necessary 
 to make this resort in order to explain the passage 
 consistently with the omniscience of the Son. There 
 are various passages, in which Christ expresses his 
 inferiority to the Father; and there are various other 
 passages, in which he expresses his equality with tiic 
 Father. It is impossible to account for this difference 
 of representations of himself without admitting the 
 union of two natures, the human and divine. He 
 might speak of his humanity in a limited degree. He 
 might also speak of his divinity in an unlimited degree; 
 and in both instances adhere to the truth. In his 
 capacity as Son of man he might not know the time 
 of the day of judgment; but as Son of God ho might 
 have a perfect knowledge of it. It is reasonable to 
 suppose that he, who is to raise the dead and pass 
 sentence upon them, should foreknow the day ol' these 
 
102 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 important events. It can be said with truth that man 
 is mortal. It can be said with equal truth that he is 
 immortal. Our Lord said at a certain time, "Now / 
 am no more in the icorld." Again he said, "Ye have 
 the poor always with you, but me ye have not always.''^ 
 In another place he says, "Lo I am with you always.''^ 
 The fact was, his bodily presence was soon to be 
 removed from them; but his spiritual presence was 
 to be continued. Of course, what he denied respect- 
 ing his humanity hie might with propriety and sincerity- 
 assert respecting his divinity. If he could make this 
 distinction in one point of view, there is no reason why 
 he miffht not make the same distinction in another 
 point of view. This mode of speakmg did not prob- 
 ably convey distinct ideas to the minds of his disciples. 
 He often taught them in obscure figures. He did not 
 design to make a full revelation of himself till after 
 his resurrection. A full disclosure of himself while 
 he was upon earth would have had a tendency to 
 frustrate the object of his coming into the world. 
 "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery^ even the 
 hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world 
 unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world 
 knew; for had they known it, they would not have cru- 
 cified the Lord of glory,^'' 
 
 Goodness or holiness is attributed, in an eminent 
 degree to Christ, in the sacred scriptures. In his 
 incarnate state he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, sep- 
 arate from sinners. He did no sin, neither was guile 
 found in his mouth." The object of his coming into 
 the world and the works, which he performed while 
 he was upon earth, indicated, in the highest degree, 
 the holiness of his nature. If it was an act of divine 
 goodness to create the world; form man upright and 
 place him in paradise, it was an act of equal goodness 
 to make a propitiation for sin; to pay a ransom for 
 sinners; and to prepare mansions for them in Paradise 
 above. Those particular acts of goodness, which 
 characterize the nature of God, are also ascribed to 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 103 
 
 Christ. Is God called merciful? Of the Son it is said, 
 "Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto 
 eternal life." Is God called gracioug? Of Christ it 
 is said, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is 
 
 fmcious." Is God called long-suffering? The apostle 
 aul sajs, "I obtained rnercj, that in me first Jesus 
 Christ might shew forth all long-suffering^ Is right- 
 eousness ascribed to God? Christ is called the right- 
 eous Judge; the Lord our righteousness. It is bj 
 his righteousness that sinners are justified. St. John 
 heard the angel say, "Thou art righteous O Lord." 
 
 When the rich young man addressed Christ by the 
 title, good Master, he seemed to check him by saying, 
 "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but 
 One, that is God." By this interrogation and asser- 
 tion, Christ did not design to deny his claim to good- 
 ness, not even to divine goodness. It appears that 
 the young man was not apprehensive that Christ was 
 divine; that he viewed him only as a man of more 
 than ordinary endowments; that he viewed him as a 
 prophet. According to the young man's apprehension 
 of Christ he gave him a title higher than he deserved; 
 though not higher than he really deserved. On this 
 ground Christ made his reply. 
 
 The Jews formed their ideas of God from the same 
 titles, attributes, or characters, which are applied to 
 Christ. If they had evidence from this source that 
 there was a God, there is the same evidence that 
 Christ is God. Had only a single divine title or attri- 
 bute been ascribed to Christ, there would have been 
 ground to suspect that they were applied to him figu- 
 ratively, or applied to him as they have been applied 
 to men. But when it is considered that all divine 
 titles and attributes, except those which distinguish 
 the Father from the Son, in their relationship or in 
 their distinct offices, are applied to Christ, it is impos- 
 sible to account for their just ap})lication without 
 admitting that he is divine. It pleased the Father 
 that iu him should all fulness dwell. In him dwelt 
 
104 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He is the 
 express image of his person; the very character of his 
 substance. If there were no plurality in the divine 
 nature, which is the ground of the distinctions, Father 
 and Son, it appears to be improper to say that in him 
 dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead. If, on this 
 principle, all divine fulness dwelt in him, there would 
 be no ground for addressing divinity out of himself. 
 There would be no ground of his addressing the 
 Father. If the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in 
 Christ, divine nature and divine attributes dwelt in 
 him; otherwise, all the fulness of the Godhead did not 
 dwell in him; he was not the character of divine nature. 
 
 If God made communications to Christ as he did to 
 the prophets, only in a greater degree, he would not 
 possess one divine attribute. Divine Julness would 
 not dwell in him. If there be no ground of distinction 
 in the divine nature, and God should communicate 
 his Julness to the man Christ Jesus, he would only 
 change his condition, (if the expression may be allowed) 
 but there would be no ground of distinction between 
 the Father and the Son; nor would there be ground 
 for one to address the other. It is absurd to say that 
 Christ possesses divine attributes only in a limited 
 degree. Divine attributes are infinite, or in the 
 greatest possible degree. What is less is not divine. 
 if this be not true, it is impossible to draw a line of 
 distinction between human and divine attributes. 
 
 As divine attributes are as clearly and fully ascribed 
 to the Son as they are to the Father; and as a nature 
 is known only by its attributes, it follows that there 
 is as clear evidence, from this source, of the divine 
 nature of the Son, as of the Father.* 
 
 * Who being the express image of his person. ^ag*KT»!g Ttt?" C'Troa-Ta.miie 
 di/Toy. Heb. 1:3. These original M'ords signify the character of his substance. 
 A character is an exact rei)resentation of the seal or stamp, which inaiies the. 
 impression. They are of the same dimensions; and they perfectly correspond 
 in all their parts. According to the perfection of the former, so is the perfec- 
 tion of the latter. If Christ represents the Father as a character represents its 
 seal, there is an exact correspondence between thein. They are of the same 
 extent. Their attributes are correspoadent, and of equal perfection. If Christ 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 105 
 
 be of finite nature and finite properties, there is no proportion, there is no 
 coriespondence between him and the Father, who is of infinite perfection. If 
 extraordinary powers were delegated to him, they would make no addition to 
 his riHiure; and of course they would not make him the chiiracter, or exact 
 likenes of the Father's substance. 
 
 "Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58. We produce this text, not to prove 
 the eternal existence of tlie Son, but to prove liis pre-existence. Attempts 
 have been made to evade even this proof from the text. It is contended that 
 Christ did not design to convey an idea that he iiad existence before Abraham, 
 but that before his day he was appointed by the counsel of Heaven to the ofiice 
 of Alevsiah; that he was ordained to be the Christ. If this be the meaning of 
 the te.vt, he gave a very indirect answer to the question of the Jews. Their 
 inquiry related to his age; and if his answer related to the time of his apponit- 
 ment to oflice, there is not the least connexion between the answer and the 
 question. Uather than to suppose this prevarication, we woul<l use the text 
 according to its most easy and natural construction; that Christ was before 
 Abraham. 
 
 ''Glorify thou me with thine ownseif, Avith the glory, which I had with thee 
 before the world was." John 17:5. This text is offered to prove Christ's pre- 
 existence only It is an unhappy evasion to say that this glory, whicb Christ 
 once had witii the Father, and for which he prayed, was a glory, which v/as 
 reserved (or him, which was in the Father's purpose and decree. It could not, 
 with truth be said that he ever had a glory, which was only reserved or pur- 
 posed ior him. Besides, if he prayed for this degree of glory, he would pray 
 only for a glory to be kept in reserve or purpose; for this, upon the present 
 hypothesis, is the glory he had with the Father, 
 
 "I am Alpha and Omega,' the beginning and the end, the first and the last." 
 llev. 22:13. It is admitted by Unitarians that these are the words of Christ. 
 The terms, first and last, are applied in the Old Testament to God. If these 
 terms, when applied to him, express his eternal existence, they equally express 
 the eternal existence of Christ, when applied to him. It is admitted that many 
 ■words in the scriptures, which, according to their natural meaning, are taken in 
 their greatest latitude, are restricted by their application. But there is no re- 
 striction, or qualification intimated, when the terms first and last are applied to 
 Christ. To say "they signify that Jesus Christ, is contemporary witli tiie ear- 
 liest and latest events in that dispensation, over which he has been ordained by 
 the Almighty to preside," is begging the question. It is assuming that he had 
 no authority, or that he did not preside over any thing till he commenced the 
 dispensation of mercy with mankind. When the prophet Isaiah applies the same 
 terms to the God of Israel, some captious critic might as well say, they signify 
 that God is contemporary with the earliest and latest events of the Jewish dis- 
 pensation. With such license, it would be impossible to prove one divine attri- 
 bute of God the Father. 
 
 "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be httle among the thousands of 
 Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in 
 Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. 
 The original words standing for "shall he come forth," and "whose goings forth," 
 are radically the same. It is contended that the first, signifies his birth at Beth- 
 lehem; and that "the last clause must therefore be understood thus: "tuhose 
 birth has been of old from everlasting;" i. e. "whose birth has been determined, 
 or appointed from everlasiiiig." Even though the ex\n-ession, "goings forth," 
 should be referred to an earlier period of our Lord's e.\istence than his birth from 
 the Virgin Mary, it must signify generation in some way or other, and 
 therefore favors the Unitarian doctrine, that he haA & beginning, rather than 
 the orthodox opinion of his eternity." (See Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism.) 
 
 This learned author makes the assumption, that the phrase, "shall he come 
 forth," signifies his natural birth. The original word does not necessarily 
 signify birth. It is sumetimes applied to it. But it is also ".ipplied to the pro- 
 ductions of the earth, or of vegetables; to the solar lights going forth upon the 
 earth; so to the stellar lights, to the springing, or coming forth of waters; to 
 come or go forth, or out, in almost any manner." (See Park. Heb. Lex. on the 
 word.) ''Out of thee," i. e. Bethlehem, "shall he come forth to me." However 
 common the supposition may be, it is hard to conceive that Christ's coming 
 forth out of the city Bethlehem to his Father, should signify his natural 
 
 14 
 
106 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 birth. But if this suppositioti were correct, and the latter phrase, "his goings 
 fortli,^^ signified the same thing, the inference would be, thai he had a natural 
 birth l)efore lie was born of Mary. As the latter phrase is in the plural number, 
 it would follow that he had had several natural births be.'bre that time, the 
 learned author, however, only infers that '-it must signify generation in some 
 •way or other " But this is making the conclusion broader than the premises. 
 To apply the first [ihrase lo his natural birth, and the latter to an unintelligible 
 generation, is neither agreeable to sound logic, nor to the rules of strict criti- 
 cism. The LXX did not understand, by the original terms, an} kind of birth or 
 generation. If we understand the terms according to their natural and true 
 import, as they stand in our translation, we shall find that he, who came torth 
 from Bethlehem on his Father's business, had also gone forth from him, from of 
 old, from everlasting. 
 
 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." Heb. 1.3:8. It is 
 contended by some that Jesus Christ, in this text, is put for the doctrines which 
 he taught; and that this text proves not the immutability of his nature; but only 
 the immutability of his doctrines. It is admitted that his name is sometimes 
 used to signify his religion. But it does not lollow from this that it is always 
 used in this sense, or that it is so used in this passage. But if this were the 
 true meaning of the text, it would aftbrd some evidence of his immutability. 
 If he be the Author and Supporter of an unchangeable religion; if his kingdom be 
 of one nature, and his laws and administration be without essential variation, 
 there is strong evidence that he himself does not essentially change. If his de- 
 signs are always the same, there is no reasonable doubt that he is always the 
 same. In the former part of the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle, after at- 
 tributing the work of creation to the Son, asserts his immutability by the same 
 terms, thou art the same (o at/ roc.) To speak of the visible changes, which 
 Christ sustained during his humiliation is mere evasion. It is to speak of the 
 mutability of his humanity, which all admit. 
 
 •'No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
 even the Son of man, which is in heaven." John 3:13. Trinitarian commen- 
 tators are not agreed in their explanations of this text. It appear s, howe*er, that 
 the first clause cannot be understood literally. For Enoch and Elijah were taken 
 up bodily into heaven. The connexion of this text authorizes a belief that Christ, 
 by his declaration, "no man hath ascended up to heaven," designed to shew 
 that no person beside himself was fully acquainted with the counsel of heaven. 
 He positively asserted that he spoke what he kneiv, and testified what he had 
 seen. He knew and he had seen what mere man never knew nor saw. If the first 
 part of the text is understood figuratively, there is no necessity of understand- 
 ing the second clause in this manuer. Other texts, without the appearance of a 
 figure, assert that he came down from heaven. Christ himself says, "1 came 
 down from heaven." The Jews understood him to speak literally; for they said, 
 •'is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know, how is 
 it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" The apostle Paul, speaking 
 of Christ's ascension, saith, "now that he ascended, what is it but that he also 
 descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the 
 same also, that ascended up far above all heavens." 
 
 The latter part of the text, "the Son of man, who is in heaven," natural!^ 
 conveys the idea that he, who had descended from heaven, and was then speak- 
 ing, was also in heaven. This construction is ea.sy, if it be admitted that divinity 
 was united with the Sod of man. If this union be denied it is diificult to explain 
 this passage. 
 
 •'They went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, 
 and confirming the word with signs following," Alark 16:20. "Where two or 
 three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," 
 Mat. 18:'20. •'Lo, lam witli you alway, even unto the end of the world," Matt. 
 28:20. A learned Unitarian, (see Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism, p 225,) 
 admits that these texts "prove, that he was virtually present with his disciples, 
 to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apostolic labors." To prove his om- 
 nipresence, he considers it necessary to shew that his substance is extended 
 through all space. Tbis extension of substance he considers to be the omni- 
 presence of God. The distinction between actual and virtual omnipresence of 
 God is a subject better calculated for the speculations of metaphysicians than 
 for the discussion of theologians. Let the conclusion be which waj' it will, the 
 effect will be the same. Whether he be actually or virtually present, it is in 
 
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 107 
 
 (or rather by) him we live, move, and have our being. We know too little of 
 spiritual substance to have definite conceptions of its extension, or of its relation 
 to place. We cannot define the limits of owr spii-iis; but we have reason to be- 
 lieve that we have perceptions, and we produce effects far beyond the extension 
 of our material or spiritual substance, if a finite spirit can produce effects 
 where its substance does not actu;illy extend, it does not appear to be necessary 
 to suppose that the substance of the divine Spirit should be actually extended 
 wherever he operates. If it be admitted that the virtual presence of Christ is 
 "with his disciples, to guard, comfort, and assist them in theii- apostolic labors," 
 it is believed that the presence of <iod with them is not superior to this, either 
 in its nature, or in its efi'ects; and till it is proved to be superior, there appears 
 to be no presumption in the belitf We do not maintain that these texts alone 
 prove Christ's universal presence; but th.y appear to prove his presence to be 
 of such a nature, that it may as well extend to every other creature. But we 
 are not left to inference on this subject The apostle expressly tells us, "by 
 him all t h in ffs consist. ," Col. 1:17. "U|ihol(ling a// things \)\ the word of his 
 power," Ht-b. 1:3. 'I'hese texts prove, (and it is presumed it will be admitted) 
 that Christ's virtual presence is as extensive as the works of creation; and till 
 it is proved that the presence of God the Father is more extensive and of a 
 higher nature, we shall call it omnipresence, and a divine attribute. 
 
 *'Now we are sure that thouknowest all things and needest not that any man 
 should ask thee." John 10:30- "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, 
 because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he 
 knew what was in man," John 2:24, '25. 
 
 "Lord, which knoivest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou 
 hast chosen," Acts 1:'24. It is probable that the address in the last verse quoted 
 was made to Christ. It was his province, while he was upon earth to designate 
 men to the apostleship. After his resuriection his authority was not abridged. So 
 far from it that all authority in heaven and in earth was given unto him. Of 
 course he retained the authority of selecting and sending forth apostles. It was 
 with petuUar propriety that they should direct their requests to him to desig- 
 nate which of the two candidates should fill the place, which Judas had 
 vacated. 
 
 In these texts Christ is said to know all things; to know all men; to know 
 what is in man. But we are told that "the word all, does not always denote 
 strict universality." The very same phrase, of knowing all things, is used in ap- 
 plication to men. "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all 
 things," 1 John 2:20. It is admitted that the word all, is sometimes used in the 
 scriptures in a limited sense. Because it is sometimes used in this manner, it 
 does not follow that it is uhuays used so. Because it is used in a restricted sense, 
 when it is applied to men, it does not follow that it is to be restricted, when it is 
 applied to Jesus Christ. But we are not left to ambiguous terms and phrases to 
 prove the divine knowledge of Christ. He is said to know what was in man At 
 different times he gave evidence that he possessed this knowledge. But we are 
 told that this knowledge might be revealed to him; that "numerous instances 
 of this occur in scripture." Ahijah the prophet, although blind through age, was 
 inspired to know the wife of Jeroboam and the intentions of her heart, notwith- 
 standing she feigned herself another. It is asserted, concerning Elijah the 
 prophet, that he could tell the things, which the king of Israel should do in his 
 bed chamber; an expression denoting a knowledge of the most secret transac- 
 tions. Much in point is the declaration of Elisha. And the man of God said, 
 "Let her alone, for her soul is vexed within her; and the Lord hath hidden it 
 from me, and hath not told me." We have a memoi-able instance in the Acts of 
 the Apostles, in which Peter knew by inspiration, that Ananias had kejit back 
 part of the price of the land, though he declared he had not; and, also, that he 
 and his wife had secretly agreed to maintain the falsehood. "My lord is wise 
 according to the wisdom ol an angel of God, to know all things that are in the 
 earth." 
 
 These are particular cases of extraordinary knowledge. In the case of Ahijah, 
 it is expressly asserted, that the Lord told him the errand and the deception of 
 Jeroboam's wife. In respect to Elisha's knowledge of the words, which the king 
 of Syria spoke in his bed chamber, it is only a declaration of a servant of the 
 Syrian king. But admitting his declaration to be literally true, it only proves 
 that a particular fact was revealed to him. When th« Shunamite went unto 
 Elisha with the sad tidings of the death of her son, he did not know her errand; 
 
108 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 
 
 and for this reason, the Lord had hid it from him, and had not told him. This im.' 
 plies that when he had extraordinary knowledge, it was by inspiration. It is not 
 recorded horv Peter knew the secret deception of Ananias and his wife. But there 
 is no doubt that he received knowledge of this event, from Him, who gave him 
 power to heal a lame man. When the widow of Tekoah perceived that David had 
 discovered her deception; and convinced of his sagacity, she in a complimentary 
 manner compared him with an angel of God to know all things that are in the 
 earth. In all these instances, extraordinary knowledge was communicated by 
 the divine Being. But these communications were made only hi particular 
 cases, and for special purposes. Those men, who were thus endowed, had 
 not a knowledge of the hearts of men generally, nor had they a knowledge of a 
 single heart at all times. 
 
 Christ's knowledge appears very different from this. He knew not only a 
 particular thought of a particular person, but he knew uU men; and needed not 
 that a?it/ should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. This text ex- 
 presses his knowledge of what is in the hearts of mankind; and he possesses this 
 knowledge without antj one's testifying to him what passes in the human mind. 
 There is no intimation given that he received this knowledge by inspiration. 
 This and some other texts, which are applied to Christ, are as expressive of 
 divine knowledge, as any texts, which are applied to the Father. But we ace 
 told, there are texts, which represent Christ's knowledge to be inferior to the 
 Father's, or to be derived from him. It is admitted there are two classes of 
 texts, which are applied to Christ. One class represents him having knowledge, 
 ■which is peculiar to Deity. Another class represents him having limited knowl- 
 edge; having knowledge, or doctrines, given, shewn, taught him trom above. 
 These two classes of texts exhibit Christ in his divine and human nature. When 
 things are said to be given, shewn, and taught to Christ, he is either exhibited 
 in his humanity, or in his mediatorial, subordinate office. When Christ says, 
 ,"The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things, that himself doeth," he 
 asserts his perfect knowledge of all the operations of the Father; and also the 
 intimate union, which subsists between them. To express their equality of 
 knowledge in unequivocal language he says, "^s the Father knoweth m«, even 
 so know I the Father." 
 
 •'I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto 
 every one of you according to your works," Rev. 2:23. It will not be pre- 
 tended that Christ searcheth, by inspiration, the reins and hearts. A persoa 
 may be inspired tvith a knowledge of what passes in another's heart; but it is not 
 proper to say, one is inspired to search his heart. But it is asserted that power 
 may be delegated to Christ for this purpose; and it is supposed he "will at the 
 day of general judgment be endued with all the knowledge of men's thoughts 
 and dispositions, which is necessary to the discharge of his office." Let it be 
 observed, that a text in the book of Jeremiah predicates of God the same power. 
 "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according 
 to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Now let it be asked why 
 the same unqualified words, when Christ applies them to himself, do not import 
 the same power, as when God applies them to himself? By what rule are they to 
 be restricted in one case, and not in the other? A delegation of power to a 
 creature to know all things is an impartation entirely disproportionate to the 
 capacity of the recipient. Christ, to express his union and equality with the 
 Father, says, "What things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
 At the same time he disclaimed all pretensions to acting separately from him. 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 
 
 All things were made by him, and without him was 
 not any thing made that was made. John 1: 3. There 
 are various sources, from which information may be 
 derived respecting the nature of beings. Sonsething 
 may be learned from their names. Something may 
 be learned from their attributes; and much may be 
 learned from their operations. Those exercises, which 
 are limited in degree and in extent, are justly attribu- 
 ted to finite beings. Those exercises, which are un- 
 limited in degree and extent, or are in the highest 
 possible degree, characterize a nature of infinite power. 
 In the chain of visible existences there is a visible 
 chain of dependencies. Those limited powers, which 
 are discovered, are dependent; and may be traced to 
 a power, as their origin, which is independent. This 
 power resides in a nature, which is distinct from all 
 other natures, and is superior to them. It resides in a 
 nature, which alone is divine. That power, from which 
 all other power originated, is infinite and independent. 
 This power is attributed to the Son of God, and it 
 designates his divinity. 
 
 The apostle Paul, in one place says that God made 
 the worlds by Jesus Christ. In another place he says, 
 by him he created all things. From this mode of 
 expression it has been inferred that the Son had no 
 inherent power in his nature adequate to the work 
 of creation; that he was merely an instrument in God's 
 
110 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OP CREATION. 
 
 hand, by which he performed this great work. The 
 phrase, by him (pi avrov) has been considered import- 
 ing an instrumental, but not an efficient cause. But this 
 phrase does not necessarily import mere instrumen- 
 tality} nor does it usually import it in the sacred scrip- 
 tures. The same particle is connected with the 
 Father and with the Holy Spirit, as well as with the 
 Son. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
 by the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul speaking of 
 God says, "Of him and by him, and to him are all 
 things." If the particle (5i) connected with God and 
 the Holy Ghost, does not import instrumentality, it 
 does not necessarily import it, when it is applied to 
 the Son. The same particle repeatedly imports, in 
 the sacred scriptures, the principle and efficient cause. 
 After Peter had healed a lame man, he ascribed the 
 cure to the power of the Son -of God as its cause. 
 "The faith, which is by him, hath given him this per- 
 fect soundness in the presence of you all." Christ 
 was the Author of this faith; and this faith was the 
 instrumental or secondary cause of the cure. The 
 apostle Paul, speaking of Christ, says, ''''By whom we 
 have received grace and apostleship." The scriptures 
 abundantly testify that Christ is the Author, or cause 
 of grace and apostleship. Paul, in his salutation to 
 the Galatians begins thus, Paul, an apostle not of men, 
 neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. 
 The same efficiency is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by 
 (Ji) the eternal Spirit offisred himself without spot to 
 God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve 
 the living God." "God is faithful, by whom (5/ ov) ye 
 were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ 
 our Lord. It became him for whom are all things, 
 and by whom (J/ ov) are all things, in bringing many 
 sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation 
 perfect through suffering." From this indiscriminate 
 use and application of the terms, by him, it follows that 
 they do not necessarily import mere instrumentality. 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. Ill 
 
 The common use of the term, as well as the scripture 
 use, shews that the particle by (^i) is often connected 
 with the principal agent, or efficient cause. 
 
 It is not only said in scripture that God created the 
 worlds by Jesus Christ; but it is also said that all things 
 were made by him; and the word God, is not connect- 
 ed with the declaration. There is no doubt that these 
 different forms of expressing the same thing were not 
 accidental; but were designed to express the co-ope- 
 ration of the Father and the Son in the work of crea- 
 tion. Christ frequently declared his union and co-ope- 
 ration with the Father. "My Father worketh hith- 
 erto and I work. What things soever he doeth, these 
 also doeth the Son likewise. He that sent me is with 
 me; the Father hath not left me alone. He that 
 hath seen me, hath seen the Father. Believe me that 
 I am in the Father and the Father in me." These 
 passages in their connexion prove the union and opera- 
 tion of Christ with the Father. (See Macknight, 
 and Schleusner's Lex. on 5/.) 
 
 Other passages of scripture, whose signification does 
 not turn on prepositions or doubtful expressions, ascribe 
 the work of creation to Christ. In the Revelation of 
 St. John, Christ is called "the beginning of the crea- 
 tion of God." The original word («?%vi) rendered be- 
 ginning, is used in different senses. It signifies efficient 
 cause, author, or head. (See Poole on the text.) Upon 
 this construction, which is the most natural, the text 
 proves that Christ was Author of Creation. («f%ti 
 Christus vocatur, quia fuit ante omnes res cuatas. 
 Schleus. Lex.) If any doubt remain respecting the 
 translation of this word, other texts offer their assis- 
 tance to prove the subject under consideration. Christ 
 saith of himself, "The Son can do nothing of himself, 
 but what he seeth the Father do; for what things 
 soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
 This text authorizes a belief that there is such a union 
 between the Father and the Son, that the same work 
 may be ascribed to both. All things are of the Father, 
 
112 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 
 
 but they are hy the Son. All the works of nature 
 may be traced to them both as one undivided Cause. 
 
 Another passage is clearly to the present purpose. 
 "By him were all things created that are in hearen 
 and that are in earth; whether they be thrones or 
 dominions, or principalities or powers; all things were 
 created by him, and /or him; and he is before all things 
 and by him all things consist," Col. 1: 16, 17. These 
 textsdescribe the extent of his works. ./^// if /im«-5, wheth- 
 er in heaven or in earth, visible or invisible, were crea- 
 ted by him. They were not only created by him, but they 
 were createdybr him. He was not only the cause of their 
 existence, but he was the ultimate object, for which 
 they were created. They were made for his service 
 and glory. His power did not cease to operate at the 
 close of creation; but it continued in sustaining the 
 works of his hand. "By him all things consist^ i. e. 
 are supported. He was before all things. Before 
 creatures were, he was. He was begotten before the 
 whole creation. (^(^aloTov.og -tt^cvjc uTiffsug.) Of course he 
 was not himself any part of creation. (Christus vocatur 
 T^wTOTo/o? %aa-viQ uriaeug princeps- & dominus omnium 
 rerum creatarum. Schleus. Lex.) 
 
 The apostle to the Hebrews ascribes the work of 
 creation to Christ in the clearest terms. Speaking 
 of Christ, he says, "Thou Lord, in the beginning hast 
 laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are 
 the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but 
 thou remainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a 
 garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
 and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and 
 thy years shall not fail." The connexion justly admits 
 of application to no other than to Christ. But the 
 prophet says, "The gods that have not made the heav- 
 ens and the earth shall perish." This makes a visible 
 distinction between Christ and the gods of this world. 
 The same, which the apostle applies to Christ, 
 the Psalmist applies to God. If, what the Psalmist 
 says has any weight in proof that God created the 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 113 
 
 world, it has the same weight of proof that Christ 
 created the world. The whole declaration is explicit. 
 It contains none of those prepositions (liu, fv, &c.) 
 •which have been construed to answer any purpose. 
 If plain language has any weight, there is proof that 
 the Son is the Creator of the world. "Some have 
 been willing to think, and bold enough to say, that 
 these four verses were fraudulently added, and were 
 not originally a part of this epistle. But all the copies 
 and ancient versions of this epistle retain these four 
 verses; so that any pretence of forgery or interpola- 
 tion does but expose the man that makes it, and the 
 cause that needs it." 
 
 Many other texts have a direct bearing upon this 
 subject, and prove that the sacred scriptures attribute 
 the work of creation to Jesus Christ. Notwithstand- 
 ing the scriptures are so explicit on this subject, a ques- 
 tion has arisen whether Christ created the world by 
 his own inherent power, or whether he created it 
 merely as an instrument, or by power delegated to 
 him. If he was divine, or if divine nature was united 
 with his humanity, he performed, by his own power, 
 the works attributed to him. If he was not divine, or 
 if this union did not subsist, he performed his works 
 by delegated, or borrowed power. God maketh his 
 angels ministering spirits. He sometimes deputizes 
 man to act in a more elevated sphere than that, for 
 which his native powers had qualified him. The 
 prophets and apostles were endued in this manner. 
 God led Israel by the hand of Moses. By him he 
 wrought miracles. By his prophets and apostles he 
 also wrought miracles. If there be no difference in 
 the nature, decree and circumstances between their 
 works, and the works of Christ, then it may be admit- 
 ted that he was but a man, furnished with extraordina- 
 ry power, as were the prophets and -apostles. 
 
 When they exhibited signs and wonders; when they 
 performed works, which exceeded the efforts of human 
 power, they never pretended to do them in their own 
 15 
 
114 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 
 
 names, nor bj their own native strength. When they 
 wrought miracles, they addressed a power foreign 
 from themselves. When Paul had healed a cripple by 
 saying, "Stand upright on thy {eet,'''' the Lycaonians 
 reputed him as a god; and would have offered him sac- 
 rifice. But he denied all claim to divine honors; all 
 claim to anything above humanity. When any proph- 
 et or apostle wrought miracles, there was always 
 clear and decided evidence that he acted entirely under 
 authority; that he acted under the operation of a 
 power, which was occasionally communicated to him 
 for special purposes. 
 
 But Christ performed greater works. He performed 
 them with higher authority, and under different cir- 
 cumstances. "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid 
 the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the 
 works of thine hands. All things were made by him 
 and without him was not any thing made that was 
 made." The first of these two passages was not design- 
 ed to convey the idea that Christ created the world 
 exclusively of the Father and Holy Spirit. In the 
 history of the creation it is said, ^'In the beginning 
 God created the heavens and the earth." It is wor- 
 thy of notice, that the original word in this text ren- 
 dered God, is in the plural number; and is used uni- 
 formly in the plural number through the whole history 
 of the creation. This plural noun embraces the divine 
 nature generally. It embraces the Father, the Son 
 and the Holy Spirit. Creation is ascribed to them 
 collectively; it is also ascribed to them individually, 
 (Heb. 1:2. John 1:3. Psalm 33:6, and 104:30.) 
 There appears to be no ground for ascribing the work 
 of creation to the Father exclusively, primarily, or 
 officially. There appears to be no ground for ascrib- 
 ing it to the Son, or to the Spirit, under either of these 
 qualifications. All those works, recorded in the scrip- 
 tures, which do not immediately and directly include 
 the work of redemption, are attributed to God, to di- 
 vine nature in plurality, without special regard to dis- 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 115 
 
 tinction of character, of order, or of office. They are, 
 of course, attributed with the strictest propriety either 
 to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. There is 
 design, wise design in exhibiting the works of creation 
 in this manner. It conveys the idea that there is but 
 one Godj that there is a distinct plurahty in the divine 
 nature; that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
 are divine; that they are united in nature; in design; 
 and in operation. 
 
 When the scriptures represent God creating the 
 world by Jesus Christ, they do not design that it should 
 be understood that Christ was a mere instrument in 
 the work. The original word, (lH) translated by^ often 
 signifies, or implies in the sacred scriptures an efficient 
 cause of any kind. Consequently, this mode of expres- 
 sion helps to prove that Christ, by his own inherent 
 power was author of creation. The same original 
 word often signifies, and is often translated in. With 
 this signification of the word, it would be understood 
 that God created the world in Jesus Christ. This 
 would be an evidence of the union, which subsists in 
 the divine plurality. 
 
 There is the clearest evidence that the sacred writ- 
 ings attribute creation to Jesus Christ. This forms 
 an argument to prove that he is divine; for the scrip- 
 tures attribute divinity to the Creator. "The invisi- 
 ble things of him from the creation of the world are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, even his eternal power and Godhead." As the 
 works of creation prove the eternal power and divinity 
 of their Creator; and as Christ is their Creator, it fol- 
 lows that he possesses eternal power and divinity. 
 "Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said, O Lord 
 God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, 
 thou art the God, even thou,alone of all the kingdoms 
 of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth." In 
 this passage Hezekiah ascribes the works of creation 
 to God alone. As the same works are ascribed to 
 Christ, it follows that Christ is God. "Thus saith the 
 
116 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 
 
 Lord, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker, — I have 
 made the earth and created man upon it; I, even my 
 hands, have stretched out the heavens and all their 
 host have I commanded." Whether the names Lord, 
 Holy One, and Maker, in this text stand for the Trinity 
 or not, creation is attributed to the Lord; to the Holy 
 One of Israel. As Christ is proved to be Creator, it 
 follows that Christ is Lord, the Holy One of Israel. 
 
 There is no necessity of supposing that Jesus Christ 
 is a subordinate or instrumental agent in the work of 
 creation. If it be admitted that there is a plurality 
 in the divine nature, it is easy to perceive that the 
 creation of all things may be attributed with equal 
 propriety to the Son, as to the Father. 
 
 It is not necessary that God should employ an in- 
 strument in the work of creation. Almighty power 
 needs no foreign aid. He can and does accomplish all 
 his pleasure, and none can stay his hand. There is 
 no intimation in the history of creation that God em- 
 ployed a subordinate agent. "In the beginning God 
 created the heavens and the earth. God said, let there 
 be light and there was light." There is not the least ap- 
 pearance of any medium through which he operated. 
 
 In the formation of the first creature, it is impossible 
 that God should operate through the medium of any 
 agent. There was a date in duration, in which there 
 was no agent, or active medium between self-existence 
 and non-existence. The first creature, therefore, was 
 necessarily made by the immediate act of God. There 
 is no intimation given in the scriptures that the first 
 creature was formed in a manner different from suc- 
 ceeding creatures. It is written, "^// things were 
 made by him, (i. e. Clirist;) and without him was not 
 any thing made that was made. As he made all 
 things, he, of course, made the first creature. If he 
 made the first creature without an instrumental medi- 
 um, he was able to make them all in the same manner. 
 
 It is absurd to suppose that Christ was a created 
 medium, through which God made the world; because, 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 1 1 7 
 
 Without him was not any thing made that was made. 
 If Christ were a mere creature, he must, if this text 
 be true, have created himself, which is absurd. If 
 God used a medium in the formation of the world, 
 it must have been a created one. If he made it a 
 passive instrument, the work could not propej'ly be 
 attributed to the instrumental medium. If God should 
 make an absolute impartation of creative power to a 
 creature, he would divest himself of that power; and 
 the creature would possess the prerogative of divinity. 
 Such inconsistency proves that God did not create the 
 world through the medium of a subordinate agent, 
 but that he made it immediately by his own power.* 
 
 * Mr. Yates maintains "that when a New Testament writer employs the pre- 
 posilion AlA, (witli a genitive case) to point out the cause of any effect, he 
 means the instrumeittal cause, and refers to some other being, either expressly 
 mentioned, or contemplated, who is considered as ihejirst, or original cause." 
 In view of this principle let us examine a few of many texts. "It must needs 
 be tliatofilencescome; l)ut woe to that man, by whom {SI ou) the offence cometh," 
 Mat. 18: 7. This learned Unitarian remarks thus upon this passage. " li tnnst 
 needs be." — "Who imposed the necessity;' Undoubtedly, the Almighty Creator 
 and Governor of the universe." We would inquire, was this imposed necessity 
 natural, or moral? If it was moral, how could it be imposed? Or liow could it 
 consist with the efficiency of an extraneous "original cause.''" If the necessity was 
 natural, if it was imposed by "the Almighty Creator and Governor of the uni- 
 verse—as the first or original cause," what then is man;' He is but the medium, 
 or instrument, through which divine power produced the off'ence. What! Is 
 God then the author of sin? Has the subject come to this dilemma, that Christ 
 possessed creative, i. e. divine power, or moral evil must be traced up to God, as 
 its original cause? I would rather believe the mystery of the Trinity, than believe 
 that the holy nature of God is the "original cause" of moral evil. 
 
 "Woe to that man, by whom {fi iu) the Son of man is betrayed," Mat. 26: 24, 
 "Was Judas also," (says Mr. Yates) "an original cause! Was then the salvation 
 of the world by the death of Christ left to depend upon the supreme power and 
 uncontrolled discretion of an insignificant mortal? The scriptures teach a very 
 contrary doctrine. He was betrayed by the determinate counsel and forekno-wl- 
 ed^e of God." 
 
 "By one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin," Rom. 5:12. 
 "The clear meaning of the apostle's words (says Mr. Yates) is, that sin entered 
 into the world by the decree of God, through one man as his instrument, and 
 death through sin." 
 
 This learned Unitarian appears to be unwilling to allow that a creature is the 
 efficient cause of any effect, but that he is only a medium, through which divine 
 power operates. We shall not here examine whether this hypothesis destroys 
 moral agency or not. But he does not appear to make a distinction between the 
 natural powers of a creature, and those jmwers, which are supernaturally com- 
 municated. He does not appear to distinguish the nature of the act of Moses in 
 killing an Egyptian, from that of dividing the Red Sea. In the latter case he was 
 the iustrumental, in the former, he was the efficient cause. The conclusion we 
 would draw from the foregoing remarks is this, that Christ, in the work of cre- 
 ation, and in the performance of miracles, wrought by his own natural power, 
 and not by power which was extraordinarily communicated to him; and it may 
 be added, the Greek particle, which is connected with him as agent does not 
 militate against this opinion. 
 
118 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 
 
 Had the Greek preposition TnO been used in connexion with Christ instead 
 of tf}a, the case would not be materially different, as Mr. Yates supposes. For 
 this preposition is frequently connected with created beings to express their 
 efficiency. See Mat. 2: 16. iMat. 3: 6, 13. Mat. 4: !, and many other places. 
 
 In the case under consideration, there appears to be a similarity between the 
 idiom of the Greek, and the idiom of our own language We say, an illustrious 
 deed is performed by a certain man; and we say, a certain man has performed 
 an illustrious deed. We consider the expressions equivalent. In like manner, 
 it appears to be the same thing, whether it be said, all things were made by 
 Christ, or he made all things. In 1 Cor. 1:9, the preposition tf/st is connected 
 with God. "God is faithful, by whom ye were called into the fellowship of his 
 Son Jesus Christ our Lord." This shews that this Greek particle is connected 
 with an efficient cause. Also in Heb. 2:10, i\ is connected with the Father. 
 "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by -whom (/« ci/) are all things," 
 &c. This latter text, Mr. Yates has passed unnoticed. 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 Christ, in union of operation with the Father and the 
 Holj Spirit, created the world; and held authority in 
 common with them. Had creatures preserved order, 
 and yielded obedience to their Creator, it is probable 
 that the distinctions in the divine nature, which are 
 manifested by the titles and characters of Father, Son 
 and Holy Ghost, would have lain forever concealed 
 from the view of created intelligences. Revelation 
 has proved that it was the divine purpose to repair 
 the ruins of the fall, and subdue all enemies. To 
 effectuate this purpose it was necessary that different 
 offices should be established, and diiferent works be 
 assigned to each of the sacred Trinity. This method 
 is said to be necessary^ because this method was chosen; 
 is revealed; and is in actual operation. Authority, by 
 reciprocal consent, was given to each to act in his 
 respective office. This giving and receiving of author- 
 ity implies no superiority of nature in one; nor does it 
 imply any essential loss or acquisition of power in the 
 other. Christ's official, or mediatorial authority com- 
 menced immediately after the apostasy. No commu- 
 nications have been made from heaven to this fallen 
 world, excepting by him. 
 
 The Son of God did not exercise mediatorial author- 
 ity to the greatest extent till after his resurrection. 
 The union of human and divine nature was essential 
 to the complete filling of this office. Though there 
 was no alteration in Christ's divinity in the diilercnt 
 
120 CHRIST POSSESSES D I VINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 stages of the work of redemption; yet there was 
 alteration in his humanity. He was made perfect 
 through suffering, (Heb. 2:10.) When he had suffered 
 the pains of death and had risen to life, he was fully 
 capacitated; and he received authority for every part 
 of the work of the mediatorial office. It was then 
 he said, "AH power is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth." This text ought to have been translated. All 
 authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
 His divine power always was and always will be the 
 same. But his mediatorial authority had its beginning; 
 its progress; and it will have its consummation. When 
 he shall have raised the dead; when he shall have 
 "gathei'ed together in one the children of God;" when 
 all things are put under his feet, then will he give up 
 his kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom to God, even the 
 Father. Having accomplished his mediatorial work, 
 having given up those, whom the Father had given 
 him, he will relinquish all that rule and authority, 
 which he received. "When all things shall be subdued 
 imto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject 
 unto him, that put all things under him, that God may 
 be all in all." Christ may be said to be subject to him, 
 who put all things under him in a comparative view. 
 In comparison with that mediatorial authority, which 
 he once had, but which he relinquishes at the judg- 
 ment day, he may be said to be subject; or subjects 
 himself to that state, which he before occupied. 
 When the work of redemption is completed; when 
 that kingdom, which was purchased with the price of 
 blood is given up, there will be no need of the inter- 
 vention of a Mediator; those offices, which are pecu- 
 liar to the work of redemption will cease; and God in 
 plurality (D^1^N) who created the world will hold 
 the reins of government. The kingdom of saints will 
 be an everlasting kingdom; and the dominion over it, 
 like the work of creation, may, with strict propriety 
 be ascribed to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 121 
 
 Thus God will be all in all as he was before the 
 apostasy. 
 
 When it is said that all authority is given unto 
 Christ, it is not designed to convey an idea that the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit did not retain a?2i/ author- 
 ity. The import of the text is, Christ received all 
 authority, which was necessary to eflfectuate the work 
 of redemption; that work, for which he came into the 
 world. The word all is frequently used in the scrip- 
 tures in a restricted sense. 
 
 It is necessary to take a more particular view ot 
 Christ's authority, as it is exercised in the various 
 departments of the mediatorial office. He exercises 
 authority over holy and fallen angels. As they both 
 affect his kingdom, it is pertinent to view his dominion 
 in relation to them. "All authority is given unto me 
 in heaven." If this ie-^t does not extend Christ's 
 authority to fallen spirits, other passages assign him 
 this extent of authority. It was early predicted that 
 Christ should bruise the serpent's head. At a time 
 the devil, under advantageous circumstances,i!empted 
 Christ. But with authority he repelled him and pre- 
 vailed against him. At various times he cast out evil 
 spirits, and sent them whither he pleased. At a time 
 they called upon his name, that he would not torment 
 them; and they inquired of him whether he had come 
 to torment them before the time; which implied that 
 there would be a time, in which he would have 
 authority to torment them. When the seventy re- 
 turned from their mission, they said unto Christ, 
 "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through 
 thy name." Christ took upon himself flesh and blood 
 and suffered death, that through death he might de- 
 stroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. 
 Christ has also authority over the holy angels. 
 God set his Son "far above all principality and power, 
 and might and dominion, and every name that is named, 
 not only in this world, but also in that which is to 
 come." When Christ was upon earth angels minis- 
 IG 
 
122 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 tered unto him. When he shall come to raise the 
 dead and judge the world, angels will attend him; 
 and he will send them to gather the elect from the 
 four winds. The apostle Paul speaking of Christ 
 says. "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right 
 hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being 
 made subject unto him. God hath highly exalted 
 him and given him a name, which is above every name; 
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
 the earth." The holy angels are concerned with the 
 work of redemption. They desire to look into it. 
 They are ministering spirits, "sent forth to minister 
 for them, who shall be heirs of salvation." They are 
 employed by the great Head of the Church as instru- 
 ments in his work. 
 
 Christ's authority in heaven extends to the send- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit into this world to aid the work 
 of redemption. John the Baptist foretold that Jesus 
 would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Christ himself 
 promised, that after his departure from the world, he 
 would send the Holy Spirit. "When the Comforter 
 is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, 
 even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
 Father, he shall testify of me. It is expedient for 
 you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Com- 
 forter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will 
 send him unto you." After Christ's ascension, and 
 agreeably to his declaration, he sent the Holy Spirit. 
 At a time, when Peter was preaching Christ, "the 
 Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word." 
 On the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were 
 together, "there appeared unto them cloven tongues, 
 as of fire, and it sit upon each of them. And they 
 were all filled with the Holy Ghost." These texts 
 prove that Christ has authority to send the Holy 
 Spirit into the hearts of sinners for their conversion; 
 and into the hearts of saints for their comfort. 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 123 
 
 All the prophets and apostles, which have taught 
 mankind the will of heaven, were sent by Christ, and 
 were under his authority. It was Christ, who ap- 
 peared unto Moses, and sent him to lead Israel out of 
 Egypt. It was Christ, who sent the Spirit of pro- 
 phecy to the prophets, by which they taught the 
 people, and foretold events. After Christ appeared 
 in the world, in human flesh, he selected men, quali- 
 fied them and commissioned them to preach the gos- 
 pel. When Christ was teaching the multitude and 
 his disciples, he said, "Neither be ye called masters; 
 for one is your Master, even Christ." Here the Sa- 
 vior claims an authority over men, which he did not 
 allow to men. He called his twelve disciples unto 
 him; gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast 
 them out, and to heal all manner of sickness. He 
 sent them forth; he directed them where to go; what 
 to preach, and he foretold what would befal them. 
 He declares himself to be the Door, through which 
 his shepherds shall go in unto the sheep. This 
 denotes that they derive all their authority from him. 
 The apostle Paul acknowledged that he received his 
 commission from the Lord Jesus. "That I might finish 
 my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have 
 received of the Lord Jesus.'''* The apostle Paul ex- 
 presses entire dependence on Christ, for spiritual 
 strength. He says, "I can do all things;" but he 
 adds, ''Hhrougk Christ strengthening me." When he 
 besought the Lord that the messenger of Satan might 
 depart from him, the Lord answered, "My grace is 
 sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in 
 weakness." The apostle adds, "most gladly there- 
 fore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the 
 'power of Christ may rest upon me." He acknowl- 
 edges himself and the other apostles to be ambassa- 
 dors for Christ. Paul and the other apostles, in their 
 salutations to the churches to which they wrote, 
 style themselves the servants or apostles of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
124 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 The aposlles not only received their ministry from 
 the Lord Jesus, and acted under him; but they must 
 give an account to him. The Master of these servants 
 will return and reckon with them. They must stand 
 before the judgment seat of Christ. The Lord said 
 to his disciples, "Watch ye therefore, and pray always 
 that ye may be accounted worthy.... to stand before 
 the Son of man." The apostle Paul said, "To me it 
 is a very small thing that I should be judged of you 
 or of man's judgment. He, who judgeth me is the 
 Lord;" that is, Christ. 
 
 Christ possesses a decided and a distinguishing supe- 
 riority over his prophets, priests, and apostles. The 
 apostle, contrasting him with Moses, gives him a strik- 
 ing pre-eminence. "This man, (said he, speaking of 
 Christ) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, 
 inasmuch as he, who hath builded the house, hath 
 more honor than the house." If the prophets had the 
 distinguishing honor of foretelling the advent of the 
 Messiah, he had the greater honor of being the object 
 of their predictions. 
 
 The priesthood under the law, was temporary and 
 mutable; but Christ had an unchangeable priesthood. 
 The priests, who attended at the altar, offered sacri- 
 fices continually for the people; and they first offered 
 sacrifice for themselves. But their sacrifices could not 
 take away sin. Christ "needed not as those high 
 priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and 
 then for the people's." "But after he had offered one 
 sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand 
 of God. For by one offering he hath perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified." 
 
 The apostles acknowledge Christ's superiority. He 
 is the great, the chief Shepherd. They are subordi- 
 nate shepherds. They feed the sheep, which he 
 purchased. The apostle saith, "we preach not our- 
 selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your 
 servants for Jesus' sake." He appeared to glory in 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 125 
 
 humbling himself, and in ascribing all excellence and 
 authority to his divine Master. 
 
 The kingdom of Christ will not be perfected till 
 he has raised the dead. His mediatorial authority 
 therefore, embraces the resurrection. When he 
 was upon earth he gave evidence of this authority. 
 In several instaiices he raised the dead. Of himself 
 he said, "I have power to lay down my life, and I 
 have power to take it again." "Destroy this temple, 
 and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of 
 the temple of his body. For as the Father raiseth 
 up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son 
 quickeneth whom he will." Jesus saith of himself, 
 "I am the resurrection and the life. I say unto you 
 the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall 
 hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear 
 shall live." This is the testimony, both by word and 
 deed, which Christ has given of himself respecting the 
 resurrection of the dead. 
 
 Some passages of scripture ascribe resurrection of 
 the dead to the Father and to the Son indiscriminate- 
 ly. "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
 eneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he 
 will." Christ, when he was upon earth, raised cer- 
 tain individuals from the dead. As he performed this 
 same kind of work, which the Father had performed; 
 as he performed it in cases, in which he ivould, there 
 was the highest evidence that he possessed divine 
 power and divine authority. When the resurrection 
 is attributed exclusively to the Son of God it is the 
 general resurrection at the last daj. 
 
 After Christ has raised the dead, he will sit in judg- 
 ment, and pass sentence upon their characters. Christ 
 saith all things are delivered unto me of my Father. 
 The apostle Paul saith, "He hath appointed a day in 
 the which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
 that man, whom he hath ordained. He commanded 
 US to preach unto the j)cople and to testify that it is he, 
 which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick 
 
1^6 
 
 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 and dead. We shall all stand before the judgtaent 
 seat of Christ. Before him shall be gathered all 
 nations, and he shall separate them one from another 
 as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats. 
 The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son." 
 
 When Christ passes sentence on the human race, 
 he has authority to confer reward on the righteous, 
 and inflict punishment on the wicked. "Before him shall 
 be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one 
 from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from 
 the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right 
 hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King 
 saj unto them on the right hand, come ye blessed of 
 my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world. Then shall he say unto 
 them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed into 
 everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
 These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but 
 the righteous into life eternal." Near the close of the 
 volume of inspiration Christ saith, "Behold I come 
 quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man 
 as his work shall be." Many other passages might be 
 produced in further proof that Christ has authority 
 to raise the dead and to administer retribution. 
 
 Because all authority was given to the Son; because 
 he was made better than the angels, and appointed 
 heir of all things; because the Father committed all 
 judgment unto the Son and hath ordained him for this 
 purpose, it has been inferred that he does not possess 
 inherent qualifications for these great works and ele- 
 vated offices; that he is only constituted to these works 
 and offices; and endued with divine communications 
 superior to those made to the prophets. 
 
 The great superiority which Christ holds over all 
 the prophets and apostles affords but little ground for 
 comparison. In comparison with angels, he hath ob- 
 tained by inheritance a more excellent name than they. 
 By inheritance be hath obtained a divine name. If it 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 127 
 
 be by inheritance, it is by right, not by favor or reward. 
 If the Father and the Son are two separate and dis- 
 tinct beings, and the Father should communicate his 
 fulness to the Son, the Son would possess the sum 
 total of divinity; and the Father would retain only 
 his name, without one divine attribute. He would 
 possess no power to recal that fulness, which he had 
 imparted. To have authority over all things in heav- 
 en and in earth; to have the government of angels 
 and the power of sending the Holy Spirit; to have the 
 superintendence of the Church universal and the direc- 
 tion of all its ministers; to raise the dead; to judge the 
 world; to distribute reward and punishment propor- 
 tionate to every character, must require attributes, 
 mediately or immediately, which are divine. Christ, 
 in all his works, appeared to act by his own power. 
 His language was, "I will, be thou clean. Arise and 
 walk. Thy sins are forgiven thee. Young man, I 
 say unto thee arise. Lazarus, come forth." This is 
 not the language of dependence. This is not the lan- 
 guage of borrowed power. When the apostles 
 wrought miracles, they attributed the efficiency to 
 Jesus Christ; and they wrought in his name. When 
 Peter was about to heal a lame man, he said, "In the 
 name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.'" 
 To Eneas, who was sick of the palsy, he said, "Jesus 
 Christ maketh thee whole." Before he raised Dorcas, 
 he prayed. When Paul healed a lame man, and the 
 people reputed him as a god, he disclaimed the title, 
 and arrogated no superior power to himself. It would 
 have been highly improper for them to attribute their 
 efficiency to Christ, if he had not an efficient power 
 in himself. 
 
 It is hard to conceive why God should appoint a 
 creature; vest him with authority; endue him with 
 powers for the purpose of perforuiing works and sus- 
 taining offices in the scheme of redemption, which 
 divinity alone can perform and sustain. When the 
 supreme power of a nation appoints a minister to treat 
 
128 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY 
 
 with another, he vests him with authority for the pur- 
 pose; but he furnishes him with no extraordinary quali- 
 fications. When God appointed the Son to mediate 
 between him and a rebelHous world, he gave him 
 authority to do the duties of that office. But he com- 
 municated to him no divine powers. For he needed no 
 such communication. He was in his own nature, ade- 
 quate to all the works, which were peculiar to a Re- 
 deemer. He knew the will of the Father; and what 
 would satisfy his law. He knew all things in heaven 
 and on earth. He knew what was in man; and he 
 selected and qualified individuals, who acted under 
 him in the great work of salvation. He had power 
 in himself not only to lay down his own life and take 
 it again; but he had power to raise the dead; and 
 destroy him, that had the power of death. As he 
 knows all things, and as he is righteous, he is competent 
 to pass final judgment upon the human race, and dis- 
 tribute reward and punishment. Having power in 
 his own nature to do these things, he did not need 
 that any communications of divine power should be 
 made to him. He only needed authority, that is, the 
 appointment or consent of the Father to act in this 
 capacity. 
 
 There appears to be no necessity that God should 
 deputise a creature to do those divine works and sus- 
 tain those divine offices, which Christ did and sustained. 
 It appears that God might as well directly commission 
 his ambassadors to publish the gospel and officiate in 
 the church, as select one from his creatures and author- 
 ize him to commission them for this important work. 
 When the chief magistrate of a state or nation appoints 
 officers to act in various departments, and authorizes 
 them to appoint subordinate officers, it is because he 
 cannot attend to so great extent of business himself. 
 But the divine Being is not circumscribed in his nature, 
 nor limited in his attributes. His eye discerns all 
 things. His power sustains all things. His wisdom 
 directs all things. He needs no assistance. He admits 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 129 
 
 no partner on his throne. He communicates no divine 
 prerogative to his creatures. It is not disputed that 
 God employs agents; that he employs angels and men. 
 But there is no evidence that he employs one to send 
 another. If apostles were authorized to ordain others 
 to the work of the Christian ministry, they ordained 
 those only, who appeared to them to be sent of God. 
 It is as easy for the divine Being to send ambassadors 
 by his iaimediate power, as it would be to send them 
 mediately by a delegated agent. It would be as easy 
 for him to raise the dead and judge the world by his 
 own immediate act, as it would be to do the same 
 through the medium of one of his creatures. 
 
 There appears to be a striking impropriety that 
 God should ordain any one of his creatures to do the 
 works, and to do them in the manner, in which Christ 
 did them. As great works as ever have been done 
 are attributed to Christ; and there are no works to 
 be done, which are mentioned in the scriptures, greater 
 than those which he will do. These works he did, 
 or will do, in his own name and by his own power. 
 When any of mankind have performed works superior 
 to human power, they gave decided evidence that the 
 power was of God. If God communicated to Christ a 
 power to work in his own name, he communicated an 
 independent power. This is an essential attribute of 
 the Deity. It is impossible to communicate divine 
 attributes. As well may divine nature be destroyed, 
 as divine attributes be communicated. 
 
 Many things are said of Christ, which appear to 
 give him an inferiority to the Father. He increased 
 in wisdom. Speaking of the end of the world he 
 says, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no 
 not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, 
 but the Father." "I seek not mine own will, but the 
 will of the Father, which hath sent me." The time 
 will come, when he will give up all authority and him- 
 self become subject. If these and the like passages 
 gave the only characteristic features of the Savior, it 
 17 
 
130 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 might well be supposed that he was inferior, infinitely 
 inferior to the Father. But other texts attribute to 
 hira the highest degree of knowledge; they attribute 
 to him every divine attribute. They not only style 
 him King; but they give him a kingdom; yea, an ever- 
 lasting doiT.inion. When Christ is viewed in his 
 humanity and in his mediatorial office, these difficulties, 
 these 5ee7nw^ contrarieties vanish. "The man Christ 
 Jesus increased in knowledge and wisdom. When he 
 was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended upon him. 
 When he departed from Jordan he was full of the 
 Holy Ghost. He was led by the Spirit into the wil- 
 derness. God gave the Spirit, not by measure unto 
 him. He anointed him with the oil of gladness above 
 his fellows." These texts give abundant evidence that 
 the Holy Spirit was bestowed in more copious effu- 
 sions upon Jesus than upon the prophets or apostles. 
 The descent, or unction of the Holy Ghost at his 
 baptism was an inaugural rite to his office. In ancient 
 times, kings and priests were introduced into their 
 respective offices by the application of the anointing 
 oil. As a prototype of these distinguished characters 
 he w^as visibly introduced into his office by the anoint- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit. Christ, as a man, needed the 
 extraordinary iiifluence of the Spirit as much as any 
 king, prophet, or priest; and in the performance of 
 the duties of his offices, he received a greater degree 
 of the Spirit's influence than they. 
 
 The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus Christ 
 did not convey divine nature to him. The Son of 
 God was united to the Son of man. During this union 
 he received the influence of the Holy Spirit. After 
 his baptism, after his consecration to his office, it is 
 recorded of him that he was full of the Holy Ghost. 
 Christ, in his mediatorial office is subordinate to the 
 Father. By mutual consent he has taken this place. 
 But the order of offices does not derogate from his 
 divinity. 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 131 
 
 When it is brought into one view that Christ had 
 authority over the angels; authority to send the Holy 
 Spirit; authority to send apostles and ministers, till the 
 end of time, to preach the gospel for the edification of 
 the church; authority to forgive sins, to raise the 
 dead, to judge the world, and to give reward and pun- 
 ishment, there is evidence that there was ground in 
 his nature for possessing such authority. There is 
 evidence that he is divine.* 
 
 • There is a difference between t^oua-U and (Ty va^u/c ; between authority and power 
 By observing this difference, we' shall discover additionallight on the subject. 
 Power may be greater than authority; but authority cannot be, strictly speak- 
 ing, greater than power. Both are transferable. Both were communicated to 
 the apostles by the Lord Jesus. They were enabled, and they were autliorized 
 to work miracles. Poiuer wa% communicated to Jesus. In his human nature 
 he was capable of receiving foreign aid and support; and he actually received 
 them When he was in agony, "there appeared an angel unto him From heaven 
 strengthening him." Peter, preaching to Cornelius, said, *'Ye know — how God 
 anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power, {S'wa.y.u.) 
 This consecrating unction was communicated to him at the time of his baptism. 
 The giving of the Spirit to him without measure endued him with an ability, 
 which did not belong to his human nature. 
 
 Christ, speaking of his authority, says, "All /(ower {i^ouaia.) is given unto me 
 in heaven and in earth." Mat. 28:18. "And hmh given him authority to ex- 
 ecute judgment also." John 5:27. "As thou hast ^we/i h\m. power (i^oiktUv) 
 overall flesh." John 17:'2. Other texts of scripture are of similar import. "And 
 there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom." Dan. 7:14. "The 
 Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35. 
 "Ail things are delivered to mc of my Father." Luke 10:'22. ''Thou hast put 
 all things in subjection under his feet." Heb. 2:8. This official authoi-ity 
 Christ received from the Father. But the giving of authority does not imply the 
 communication of any new powers. Authority is a hberty to exercise one's pow- 
 ers in a particular way for a particular purpose. When Christ received authority, 
 it did not imply that he received extraordinary qualifications. It rather implied 
 that he possessed the necessary qualifications for his office. When Peter spoke 
 of the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power, he spoke of it 
 in connexion with his death and resurrection. It is natural, therefore, to infer 
 that it was the man, Jesus, who was thus anointed. The apostle to the Hebrews, 
 quoting a passage from the forty -fifth Psalm, describes the same unction. "God, 
 even thy God, hath anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy fellows." His fellows 
 were prophets and priests, who wet-e anointed with oil, and with the gilts of 
 the Spirit. It was only in respect to the humanity of Christ, they could be call- 
 ed his fellows; and in this nature lie received greater communications of the Holy 
 Spirit than they. But it was not in this nature the angels of God were command- 
 ed to worship him. It was not in this nature he inherited a more excellent name 
 than they. It was not in this nature he upheld all things by the word of his 
 power. It appears, tlierefore, that he had another nature besides that which was 
 anointed with tlie Holy Ghost and with power. 
 
 While we find that an angel strengthened the humanity of Christ; and that the 
 Spirit communicated to it a supernatural power, and that he received official au- 
 thority from the Father, wc find him possessing a power, which appears to be 
 underived and independent. Christ speaks of a glory he had with the Father 
 before the world was. He does not intimate that this glory was given him. In 
 the course of his address to his Father, he says, "The glory, which thou gavest 
 me, I have given them " The glory, which he gave them, was the influence of 
 the Spirit, which enabled them to do extraordinary works. The glory, then, 
 which was given him, was the anointing of the Holy Ghost. But he had a glorv 
 
132 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTH<i>RITY- 
 
 prior to this period; a glorj, which was before the world. This could not be 
 the self same glory, which was communicated to him m the flesh. Because 
 glory or power was given to the man Christ Jesus, it does not follow that the 
 Lord from heaven had his glory or power by gift, or by derivation. 
 
 Christ, in the continuation of his prayer for his disciples, says, "Father, I will 
 that they also, whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they 
 may behold my glory, which thou hast given me." From this part of Christ's 
 prayer, it has been inferred that this glory, which was given him was the same, 
 which he had with the Father before the world was. Whether this is true or 
 not, there is no apparent connexion between the premises and the conclusion. 
 These glories, which he mentions in the different parts of his prayer belong to 
 two different states, or periods. One belongs to that state, in which he was be- 
 fore he came to this world; the other belongs to that state, in which he is after 
 he has returned to heaven with the trophies of his victory. To infer something 
 immediately from one state respecting the other, is very far from correct reason- 
 ing. The scriptures state that he is to receive glory in consequence of his incar- 
 nation and humiliation. The apostle Paul, speaking of him in the form of a ser- 
 Tant, and obedient unto death, saith, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
 and given him a name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every 
 knee should bow." Again he saith, "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower 
 than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." From 
 this statement of the apostle it appears, that Christ has a glory since his incarna- 
 tion, which he had not before; and that he receives this glory as a reward for his 
 work of redemption. From this view of the subject it appears that Christ has 
 an essential glory, which he originally had with the Father; and that he has an 
 acquired glory, which was given him tor establishing a kingdom and bringing 
 it to a state of blessedness. 
 
 It is readily admitted that Christ received power, from the Holy Spirit, in his 
 human nature; and received authority-, from the Father, in his mediatorial ca- 
 pacity. This reception of power and authority has given rise to the opinion Ihat 
 Christ is absolutely dependent on, and inferior to, the Fatlier. Whether this 
 opinion is correct or not, it does not conclusively follow from the premises. 
 Because Christ possessed human nature, and received power from heaven in 
 that nature, it does not follow that he does not possess another and a higher na- 
 ture. The scriptures abundantly testify that the material nature of man is mortal. 
 Rut it would not be correct to infer that he had no other than a material nature; 
 and that he was wholly mortal. But this inference would be just as conclusive, as 
 the inference that Christ is only human, because the scriptures testify of this 
 humanity. Because the chief Magistrate of a nation commissions certain officers, 
 and authorizes them to do particular duties, it does not follow that their natures 
 are inferior to his. Because Christ is commissioned and authorized by the Father 
 to perform the duties of an office, to which he was appointed, it does not follow, 
 by pnrity of reasoning, that his nature is inferior to the Father's. Other testi- 
 monies beside those, which relate to his humanity and mediatorial office, must 
 be produced to ascertain what was that nature, which he possessed, when he 
 had glory with the Father before the world was, or the nature, which was united 
 with the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Christ, speaking of his coming to raise the dead, says, "They shall see the Son 
 of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power ((Tuva^iy') and great glory. 
 If this be a work, which belongs to his office, it does not follow that this power 
 was to be given to him. As there is no intimation that he received this power 
 from the Father, it is natural to infer that he was to come with his own underiv- 
 ed power. When i^oua-nt, authority is applied to Christ in the New Testament,' 
 it is generally expressed or implied that it was^itewhim. Wlien J^uv^t/xic, power, 
 is applied to him, it is neither expressed, nor implied that it was given him, ex- 
 cepting when he was consecrated to the priest's office by the anointing of the 
 Holy Spirit. This unction was evidently imparted to his human nature. 
 
 The manner of Christ's performing miracles is an evidence that Yn^ power was 
 not given him. At a wedding in Cana of Galilee he turned water into wine. It 
 is recorded, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and shew- 
 ed forth his glory. If this miraculous power had been given hin> by the Father, 
 it is not strictly true that he manifested his glory; for it was liis Fathers ginry. 
 When the prophets and apostles wrought miracles, it never was recorded ofthenA 
 that they manifested or shewed forth their glory. 
 
CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE ATUTHORITY. 133 
 
 When Chi-ist wrought miracles, he appeared to work in his own name and by 
 his own power. His prayer at the grave of Lazarus does not militate against this 
 opinion. He was wont to pray. In his human nature, and in his mediatorial ca- 
 pacity, there was an evident propriety in his making intercession with the Father. 
 Before he raised Lazarus, "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father I thank 
 thee that thou hast heard rae; and I know that thou hearest me always; but. 
 hecause of the people, which stand by, J said it, that they may helieve that tliou 
 hast sent me." Tliis is a prayer of thanks. It contains no request for favor, or 
 for extraordinary pOYwer to perform this miracle. He gave thanks to the Father 
 that he had heard him. It is natural to suppose that he gave thanks for what he 
 had said he was glad, or rejoiced, in the former part of the chapter. When 
 Jesus heard of the sickness of his friend, he said, this sickness is not unto death, 
 but for the glory of God; that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. This 
 ■was X.\\Q intent of his sickness. Instead of going directly to visit and heal his 
 sick friend, "he abode two days still in the same place where he was." When 
 he knew that he was dead, he stated the fact to his disciples; and he added, "/ 
 am glad for your sakes that J was not there, to the intent ye may believe." It 
 was for the opportunity of glorifying himself and of producing conviction in his 
 disciples that he was the Son of God; that he h.ad life in himself and quickened 
 ■whom he would, that he was glad. It appears that it was for this opportunity 
 he prayed; that it was for the hearing of this prayer; for the occurrence of this 
 opportunity he gave thanks at the grave of Lazarus. This was the cause of his 
 gratitude. But he said it, i. e. he gave thanks because of the people that stood 
 by, that tliey might believe that the Father had sent him. By this act of prayer 
 and the acceptance of it, he manifested the union of wilTand operation, which 
 subsisted between him and the Father. But there is not the least intimation, nor 
 evidence that he asked [ov po-mcr. When the prophets and apostles wrought 
 miracles, they gave decisive evidence that the power was not of themselves, but 
 of God. 
 
 "As the Father hath life in himself, so halh he given to the Son to have life 
 in himself," John 5:'26. From this passage it is inferred by some that the Father 
 gave /)otDer to the Son to raise the dead. The inference is not conclusive; and 
 the sentiment appears to be unfounde<l. The life, which the Father had in 
 himself was an eternal independent life; or it was the power of communicating 
 life in any period of eternity. Either is a divine attril)ate and cannot be com- 
 municated to a creature. But this is not the intent of the text The import of 
 it appears to be this. As the Father hath power in himself of giving life, so he 
 hath given authority to the Son, to exercise the same power, which he has in 
 himself. That the gift, which the Father made to the Son was authority, not 
 poiuer, is evident from the following vei'se. "And hatli given him authority to 
 execute judgment also. It ajipears that the same qualification, which was neces- 
 sary for executing judgment, was also necessary lor raising the dead. As the 
 ((ualification requisite for doing the former was authority, it is inferred that the 
 same qualification was necessary for doing the latter. When Christ had received 
 this authority, it was then true, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
 enethtliem, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." 
 
 Jesus Christ calls himself Z/je Life; the resurrection and the life. St. John 
 says, "In him was life; and the Life was the light of men. The life was mani- 
 fested and we have seen it; and bear witness and siiew unto you that eternul 
 Life, ivhich -was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." If Christ had 
 not life in himself, and had not power in himself to communicate it, (here appears 
 to be no propriety, no pertinence in calling him the Life. St. John calls this 
 Life, eternal Life, which was with the Father. By this name he meant Christ; 
 for, said he, 'we have seen it; and it was manifested unto us." If he was with the 
 Father, and was eternal, he had the same power to communicate life, which the 
 Father had. 
 
 Jesus Christ had authority to forgive sins. This work belongs to his mediato- 
 rial oflfice; and, of course, his authority to do it was given him. He exercised 
 this authority when he was upon earth. At a certain time "They brought to 
 him a man, sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus, seeing thtir faith, .said 
 unto the sick of the i>alsy, son, be of ii;ood cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. 
 And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, this man bLisphemeth. 
 "Xnd Jesus knowing their tlioughts, said, wherefore think ye evil in your hearts; 
 for whctiier is it easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and 
 
134 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 •walk. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power (e^oya-iav autlioi- 
 ity) on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy) arise, take 
 up thy bed, and go into thine house." From this account, it is inferred by some 
 that the forgiving of the sins of the paralytic man was nothing more than the 
 removing of his disorder; and that the power Christ exercised on this occasion, 
 did not belong to his nature; but it was given him. In answer to this, let it be 
 observed, that the cures, which Christ wrought upon invalids, appear to have 
 been generally accompanied, or followed by a spiritual cure upon the subject. 
 Admitting this to be fact, it would be generally of the same import, whether 
 Christ said to an impotent person, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and 
 walk. Besides, Christ sometimes declared forgiveness of sins, when no bodily 
 disease existed in the object; at least, when no bodily disease was named. A 
 certain woman, who was a sinner, went to Christ; washed his feet with tears; 
 and wiped them with her hair. She kissed his feet and anointed them. Christ 
 said unto her, "Thy sins are forgiven. — Thy faith hath saved thee." This is not 
 a solitary case of forgiveness for sin through faith in Christ. Pardon of sin 
 through faith in the Lord Jesus is a prominent doctrine of the New Testament. 
 When Jesus met Saul of Tarsus on his journey to Damascus, he commissioned 
 l»im to be a minister to the Gentiles, ••that they may receive forgiveness of sins 
 and inheritance among them, wliich are sanctified by Jaith that is in me." It 
 would seem strange that faith in Christ should be a condition of forgiveness, if 
 he had not \>»wer in hUnse If to forgive. It is the office of Christ to pronounce 
 sentence upon the human race in the day of judgment; as it is his prerogative 
 to give reward to the righteous, it appears rational that he should forgive their 
 sins. There is no intimation given that he depends on foreign power for assist- 
 ance in performing the duties of this high and important office. When he for- 
 gave sins here upon earth, he spoke not the language of dependence. When 
 he awards retribution to the human race at the great last day, he is represented 
 a King, speaking the language, not of borrowed power, but the language of 
 divine sovereignty. 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 "That all men should honor the Son, even as they 
 honor the Father," John 5:23. Christ has performed 
 and will perform works, which require almighty 
 power. Divine titles, even the highest, are given to 
 him. He possesses divine attributes. He exercises 
 divine authority. These things are revealed. These 
 are articles of belief. These produce a practical 
 effect. These demand divine honors. The sacred 
 scriptures ascribe the same kind of honor to the Son, 
 which they ascribe to the Father, i. e. divine honor. 
 It is of importance to form correct ideas of all the 
 doctrines of the scriptures. But it is peculiarly im- 
 portant to form correct ideas of those doctrines, which 
 directly affect the practice. It is of the first import- 
 ance to render supreme honor to whom it is due, and 
 to avoid idolatry. 
 
 The sacred scriptures are a safe and sure guide on 
 this subject. They ascribe divine honors to the Son, 
 in connexion with the Father. Christ's commission 
 to his apostles, when he sent them to evangelize the 
 world was, "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost." Whether this text signifies that 
 the apostles, in administering the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, acted in the name, and under the authority, of the 
 sacred Three; or whether it signifies that by this 
 rite they initiated persons into Christianity; and united 
 them to Christ's visible kingdom, it has the same bear- 
 
136 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 ing upon the subject under consideration. In either 
 case, it connects the Son with the Father, and gives 
 to each the same authority and honor. If it is divine 
 honor to the Father to have control over ministering 
 servants, and to have persons formally introduced into 
 his kingdom, the same acts give the same honor to 
 Christ. 
 
 The Son of God, speaking of his power and author- 
 ity to raise the dead, and judge the world, draws this 
 conclusion, "they should honor the Son, even as they 
 honor the Father." As these works require divine 
 perfections, it is a just and natural inference that they 
 should give him divine honor. 
 
 Paul in his salutations to the churches, repeatedly 
 says, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father, 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ." If divine honor is due to 
 the Father for giving grace and peace to the world, 
 the same honor is due to Christ; for they come from 
 him no less than from the Father. God has given to 
 Christ a name, "which is above every name, that at 
 the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things 
 in heaven and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." To 
 bow the knee to Jesus, signifies to worship him. That 
 the knee of every thing in heaven, inearth, and under 
 the earth, should bow to him, implies the universality 
 of his worship. To confess Jesus Christ to be Lord, 
 is to acknowledge his sovereignty; and this acknowl- 
 edgment will be to the glory of God the Father. This 
 acknowledgment would not be to his glory, if his Son 
 were not divine. But a confession of his Son's divinity, 
 ♦implies the divinity of the Father. In the book of 
 the Revelation of St. John, it is written, "And every 
 creature which is in heaven and on the earth, and 
 under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
 that are in them, heard I saying, blessing and honor, 
 and glory, and power, be unto him, that sitteth upon 
 the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. I 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 137 
 
 beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could 
 number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
 tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, 
 clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 
 and cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our 
 God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
 Lamb." In one of these texts, all creatures are 
 brought to view, giving divine honors to him that sat 
 upon the throne; and giving equal honors to the Lamb. 
 In another of these texts an innumerable multitude of 
 saints, ascribed the same glory to Christ, which they 
 ascribed to the Father. Divine honor, or worship, 
 was given to Christ, without naming the Father. By 
 the Psalmist it was predicted of Christ, "blessed be 
 he that cometh in the name of the Lord." This as- 
 cription of honor was actually made to him by the 
 multitude, who went before and followed him, when 
 he was riding up to Jerusalem. 
 
 When it was known abroad that Jesus was born, 
 wise men came from the East to do him honor. Their 
 design of going, was to worship him. See Matt. 2:2. 
 When they saw him, they fell down and worshipped 
 him. At a time when Christ was on his way to Jeru- 
 salem, "The whole multitude of his disciples began 
 to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, saying, 
 blessed be the King, that cometh in the name of the 
 Lord, peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." 
 Their praising God consisted in giving blessing to the 
 King, i. e. Christ; and they gave him glory in the 
 highest. When the Pharisees called upon him to 
 rebuke his disciples for giving him this divine homage, 
 he replied, "If these should hold their peace, the 
 stones would immediately cry out." Christ could not 
 have expressed his approbation of their homage, nor 
 his claim to divine honor, in stronger language. One 
 of the malefactors, who was crucified with Jesus, 
 addressed him by prayer, "Lord, remember me, when 
 thou coraest into thy kingdom." Christ approved and 
 answered his petition. When Christ was about to 
 18 
 
138 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 leave the world and ascend to the Father, he hlessed 
 his disciples. "And it came to pass while he blessed 
 them, he was parted from them, and carried up into 
 heaven. And they worshipped him.'''' 
 
 When Stephen was stoned he ojOfered up a peti- 
 tion, "saying. Lord Jesus, receive mj spirit." This 
 was a prayer addressed to Christ; and it was addressed 
 to him, when he saw him on the right hand of God. 
 He continued his petition to his Lord and said, "Lord, 
 lay not this sin to their charge." 
 
 The primitive Christians called upon the name of 
 Christ; which was an act of prayer or worship. When 
 the Lord commanded Ananias to g-o and heal Saul of 
 his blindness, he replied,"! have heard by many of this 
 man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at 
 Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the 
 chief priests to bind all, that call on thy name.'''' When 
 Paul began to preach, his hearers inquired, saying, "Is 
 not this he that destroyed them, which called on this 
 name in Jerusalem.'^" "Be baptized and wash aw?y 
 thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. The same 
 Lord is rich unto all that call upon him.'''' Whosoever 
 shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
 When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, 
 he saith, let all the angels of God worship him. St. John 
 heard many of the inhabitants of heaven, "saying with 
 a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to 
 receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
 and honor, and glory, and blessing." 
 
 The pagans reproached the prniiitive Christians for 
 giving divine honors to Christ. "Pliny, a Roman pro- 
 consul celebrated for his works, giving an account to 
 the emperior Trajan of their morals and doctrine, 
 after being forced to confess that the Christians were 
 pious, innocent and upright men, and that they assem- 
 bled before the rising of the sun, not to concert the 
 commission of crimes, or to disturb the peace of the 
 empire, but to live in -'iety and righteousness, to detest 
 frauds, adulteries, and even the coveting of wealth of 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 139 
 
 others; he only reproaches them with chanting Iiymns 
 in honor of their Christ, and of rendering to liiin the 
 same homages as to a god." 
 
 It clearly appears from the sacred scriptures and 
 from history that divine honors were given to Ciirist. 
 There is no evidence that he ever discountenanced 
 the practice. There is evidence that he approved 
 it. When the early Christians were accused of giving 
 divine worship to Christ they did not deny the charge; 
 but they gave evidence that they esteemed and rev- 
 erenced him as God. 
 
 The character, which the sacred scriptures give to 
 the Son of God entitles him to divine honors. By 
 inheritance he possesses a more excellent name than 
 the angels. The work of creation, the performance of 
 miracles in his own name, the government of all tilings 
 are attributed to him. He has power to raise the 
 dead, to judge the world, and distribute reward and 
 punishment. Divine perfections are attributed to him; 
 and he manifested the holiness of divine nature. As 
 great works, as great authority, as exalted titles, as 
 much love and excellence, are attributed to the Son as 
 to the Father. If the Father is entitled to love, obedi- 
 ence, aild worship, on account of the excellence pf his 
 nature, and the communications of his goodness, Christ 
 is entitled to equal love, obedience and worship. It 
 is not an arbitrary act of divine power to require peo- 
 ple to honor the Son even as they honor the Father; 
 for Christ, in his own nature and communications, 
 demands this homage. 
 
 It cannot justly be denied that the sacred scriptures 
 require divine honors to be paid to the Son of God. It 
 cannot be denied that primitive Christians, and Chris- 
 tians in every age, have esteemed and worshipped 
 Christ as God. This esteem and reverence for the 
 Lord Jesus was derived directly from the character 
 which he exhibited, and from the system of religion 
 which he published, and his apostles propagated. The 
 Christian religion was designed to be, and it has been 
 
140 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 published, among Jews and Gentiles. One great object 
 of Christianity was to turn them from idolatry to the 
 worship, the spiritual worship, of the only living and 
 true God. When it is considered how prone mankind 
 v\^ere to idolatry, it might be expected that the great- 
 est care would be taken to avoid any intimation, which 
 would give the least encouragement to idolatry. If 
 Christ be a mere creature; if he be not entitled to 
 divine worship, precaution was not used in the sacred 
 writings against idolatry. On the contrary, they laid 
 its foundation, and gave it an extensive and perpetual 
 patronage. Christ claimed union with the Father in 
 design and operation. He thought it not robbery to 
 be equal with God. He inculcated the duty of honoring 
 the Son even as they honored the Father. He allow- 
 ed his disciples to call him God. He allowed them to 
 worship him, and he forbade them not. His church 
 has, in every age, acknowledged him to be God, and 
 have worshipped him as God. If this is error, if this 
 is idolatry, Christ is the author of it; the inspired 
 writings support it. 
 
 It is true, tiie sacred scriptures, in certain instances 
 give great limitations to Jesus Christ. He acknowl- 
 edges that the Father is greater than he; that he is sent 
 by the Father. As Jesus Christ was both human and 
 divine, it is highly jjrobable that he would sometimes 
 speak of one nature, sometimes of the other. When he 
 spoke of his human nature, he would of course speak 
 of it with limitations. If it be just to infer from that 
 class of texts, which attribute limited properties to 
 Christ, that he possesses only human nature, it is equally 
 just to infer from that class of texts, which attribute 
 divine works, names, attributes, and worship to him, that 
 he possesses only divine nature. But this is not a cor- 
 rect method of reasoning. Instead of attempting to 
 make one part of scripture destroy another, care ought 
 to be taken to compare part with part; discover their 
 connexion and object; and if possible discover their 
 coincidence. If it be previously determined that the 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 141 
 
 divinity of Christ shall not stand, every thing is made 
 to bear against it. The plainest texts are tortured till 
 they unwillingly speak the language of those who 
 use them. If it be admitted that human and divine 
 nature are united in Christ, it is easy to account for 
 those divine ascriptions, which are made to him, while 
 he speaks of himself possessing limited qualities. 
 
 The sacred scriptures attribute to the Son divme 
 names, divine attributes, divine offices, divine works, 
 and divine worship. If Christ possessed divine nature, 
 he was entitled to divine honors. If he did not possess 
 divine nature, his works, his titles, his offices could not 
 claim those honors, which are due to the Father. 
 Moses, the other prophets, and the apostles, performed 
 works which required divine power; and they filled 
 high and important offices. Why was not Moses en- 
 titled to divine honor for bringing miraculous plagues 
 on the land of Egypt? Why was not Joshua entitled 
 to divine honor for stavinof the sun and moon in their 
 courses? Why Avere not the prophets and apostles 
 entitled to divine honor for healing diseases and raising 
 the dead? Because they did not perform these works 
 by their own power. It was the power of God oper- 
 ating through them, which performed these extraor- 
 dinary works. This they acknowledged. They dis- 
 claimed superior excellence. They disclaimed all 
 title to divine honor. Moses was buried in a secret 
 place to prevent the idolatry of the people at his 
 grave. The apostles used the greatest care to ascribe 
 all efficiency in their extraordinary works to God; and 
 to prevent people from giving them divine worship. 
 As well might human qualities be attributed to the 
 instruments we use, as divine qualities be attributed 
 to men for works, which God performed through them. 
 
 If Christ performed his works by his own natural 
 power; if his names were significant of his nature; if 
 he possessed those attributes, which are ascribed to 
 him in the scriptures; if he was competent in his own 
 nature to fill those offices, which he sustained, he had 
 
142 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 a claim to divine honors. But if he was only constituted 
 Creator; if he was only the medium through which 
 the Father created the world; if divine names and 
 attributes were attributed to him merely because he 
 acted by the influence of the Father, and was appointed, 
 constituted, ordained to the highest offices, he is no 
 more entitled to divine honors than were the prophets 
 and apostles. It is admitted that people are entitled 
 to honor proportionate to their offices, if they be ade- 
 quate to the duties of their respective stations. But 
 an elevated office does no honor to a man, unless he 
 does honor to the office. Should our government 
 appoint a minister to a foreign court, who did not 
 possess one qualification for that office, and needed 
 and received mediately or immediately the instruc- 
 tions of the chief magistrate in every step of his pro- 
 ceedings, is such a man entitled to ministerial honor? 
 Ought the foreign court to honor him even as they 
 honored the chief magistrate? By giving him presi- 
 dential honors, would they honor the chief magistrate 
 of our country? If Christ derived all his qualifications 
 for his offices from the Father, the honor of all his 
 official transactions would be due to the Father, not 
 to him. If he were honored according to his offices, 
 the Father, who established them by his own author- 
 ity, and filled them with his own fulness would be 
 entitled to greater honor. It would be disproportion- 
 ate to honor the Son even as they honor the Father. 
 It is not doubted that it is an honor to a chief magis- 
 trate to honor his ministers; but it would not be an 
 honor to him to transfer to them the honor, which 
 was due only to himself. 
 
 If the Son be inferior in nature to the Father, it is 
 impossible to honor the Father by giving divine honors 
 to the Son. It is in vain to say that those divine 
 honors, which are given to the Son are given ulti- 
 mately to the Father; that he is the constituted 
 medium, through which God the Father is worship- 
 ped; and that he does not receive divine honors for 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 143 
 
 any excellence of his own nature, nor for any acts of 
 his oivn power. The pagans have ever cherished a 
 sentiment similar to this and they have worshipped 
 accordingly. They appeared to suppose that God 
 was a holy Being and that they had oflended him. 
 They, therefore, sought some medium, through which 
 they might pay him their homage and render him 
 propitious. When the heathen worshipped the sun, 
 they did not design that their religious homage should 
 terminate in that luminous body. But they designed 
 to worship it as the most striking image of the Deity; 
 or as the medium, through which he bestowed his 
 greatest blessings. When they worshipped the ele- 
 ments or any of the brutal creation, they imagined 
 that the Deity either resided in them; or that through 
 them he would operate in their favor. W hen they 
 worshipped departed spirits, they imagined that they 
 would intercede with God for them; and through 
 their influence they should receive divine favors. In 
 all this kind of worship they probably designed to 
 extend their homage ultimately to the Deity; unless 
 it were in some instances, in which thev had lived so 
 Ions: in idolatry, and had become so gross in their 
 worship, that they lost sight of the Deity in their 
 similitudes. 
 
 God's first command to Israel was to prevent them 
 from having more than one God, and his second was 
 to restrain them from idolatry. If Christ possess not 
 divine nature, if he be only a subordinate Deity, it 
 appears to be no less idolatry to worship him than it 
 is to worship the sun, moon, the host of heaven, the 
 elements, individuals of the brutal creation, or depart- 
 ed spirits. 
 
 Another argument, of no inconsiderable weight in 
 favor of Christ's claim to divine honors, may be drawn 
 from his own words at the institution and celebration 
 of the ordinance of the supper. This do in remem- 
 brance of me, Luke 22:19. The design of the Lord's 
 Supper was to keep in remembrance the Lord Jesus 
 
144 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Christ. When we attend the celebration of this ordi- 
 nance, we are naturally carried back to him, who 
 instituted it; and to the purposes he intended to 
 accomplish by its observance. We find that it was 
 Christ himself, who instituted this rite; and that he 
 intended this as a mean of keeping in remembrance 
 himself, his sufferings, and the blessings which are 
 conferred in consequence of them. In the ordinance 
 ■we behold the figure of the Lamb of God, who taketh 
 away the sin of the world; the figure of the sacrifice, 
 which was offered upon the cross; the figure of that 
 blood, without the shedding of which there can be no 
 remission. We fix our attention upon Jesus Christ, 
 the Author and Finisher of faith; the Author of eternal 
 salvation. This ordinance, then, not only serves to 
 keep the Savior in remembrance, but it tends to excite 
 in the heart love and gratitude to the Author of these 
 inestimable blessings. It was enjoined by the Savior 
 that this ordinance should be perpetuated in the 
 Church till his second coming, the end of the world. 
 He specified the object of this duty. He required 
 that it should be done in remembrance of himself. 
 
 The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians respect- 
 ing their irregular attendance upon this ordinance, 
 attaches the highest importance to a right perform- 
 ance of this duty; and distinguished guilt to a violation 
 of it. His language on this subject is strong and plain. 
 "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 
 of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
 and blood of the Lord. He that eateth and drink- 
 eth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to him- 
 self, not discerning the Lord's body." There is no sin, 
 blasphemy against the Holy Spirit excepted, for which 
 greater punishment is threatened, or against which it 
 is made more sure, than a profanation of the Lord's 
 supper. There is no duty, which appears more 
 solemn or interesting than this. It is solemn, because 
 it brings to view the crucifixion of the Lord of glory; 
 and because he grants his special presence on the 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 145 
 
 occasion. It Is interesting, because without the sac- 
 rifice, which is represented by this ordinance, there 
 can be no remission of sin. Christ himself hath said, 
 "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink 
 his blood, there is no life in you." "Whoso eateth 
 my flesh, and drinketh ray blood, hath eternal life." 
 Let it be remarked, and let it be remembered, that 
 Christ established this positive institution, and that he 
 made himself the object of this duty, "This do in 
 remembrance of me." 
 
 It is generally, if not universally, admitted, that a 
 celebration of the Lord's supper is a religious service. 
 It is required in the same scriptures, and by the same 
 authority, by which every duty is required. After 
 the work of creation was completed, God set apart the 
 seventh day, that his rational creatures might com- 
 memorate this important event, and observe it as a 
 day of holy rest. This was undoubtedly a religious 
 service, and directed to the Creator. vYhen a more 
 important event, the redemption of the world, took 
 place, then the dav on which it occurred, the day of 
 the resurrection, was appointed for the commemora- 
 tion of the work of redemption, and for divine service. 
 The Lord's supper is an institution of divine appoint- 
 ment, no less than the Sabbath, or public w^orship. 
 
 When the members of a church attend rightly upon 
 this ordinance, they bring to view what the Savior 
 has done for them. They consider him the procur- 
 ing cause of salvation. They look over the favors 
 they have received, and those which are offered 
 them; and they find none greater than the provision 
 made and offered by Christ for their salvation. Was 
 it a favor that thev received natural life and support 
 from the divine hand; it is no less a favor that they 
 were redeemed from the second death, and enjoy 
 spiritual support. Look over the whole catalogue of 
 blessings which have come upon this world, and there 
 are none greater than those conferred by Christ, and 
 recognized in this ordinance. In attending upon this 
 19 
 
146 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 rite the attention is fixed on Christ, on the benefits he 
 has communicated, and those, which he offers. Love 
 and gratitude are excited toward their Benefactor; 
 and in the spirit of obedience, they do it in remem- 
 brance of Him. Here is a rehgious service, as solemn 
 as devotional, as interesting as any which is required 
 at their hands, and it is offered to Christ. It is done 
 in remembrance of Him. It is done to the honor of 
 his name; and a greater honor they do not give in any 
 rehgious service whatever. Do we honor God by 
 sanctifying the Sabbath, by waiting upon him in his 
 court? We honor Christ no less by professing his 
 name, and commemorating his death, his love, and his 
 blessings. 
 
 Pagans had long given divine honors to distinguished 
 men. Those, who were renowned in arms, or had 
 done extraordinary things for their nation, were, after 
 their decease, enrolled among the gods, and made the 
 objects of honors, which were not due to created 
 beings. This practice was displeasing in the divine 
 sight. One object of Christ's coming into the world, 
 was to expose the error of idolatry, and to establish 
 the worship of the only living and true God. He 
 knew the proneness of the human heart at that day^ 
 to have lords many, and gods many. He knew their 
 eager disposition to catch at every thing, which would 
 encourage them in the deification of departed men of 
 uncommon character, and in the practice of idolatry. 
 With these circumstances in view, suppose Christ 
 was simply a created being, of pure intentions, and 
 designing to establish a religion, which would give all 
 glory to God alone, can it be supposed he would estab- 
 lish a religious rite for the purpose of exalting himself 
 in the affections of mankind; of keeping himself in 
 everlasting remembrance in the church; and denounc- 
 ing the heaviest punishment, even condemnation upon 
 those, who should not suitably observe his decree, and 
 do honor to his name? Had he adopted this method, 
 what more could his friends have desired to justify 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 147 
 
 themselves in placing his name among the gods, and 
 of rendering him divine honors? The church generally, 
 ever since the institution of this ordinance, have given 
 divine honors to Christ in its celebration, and if they 
 have, in this respect, fallen into idolatry, it appears 
 that they have been led into this error, by the nature 
 and design of this rite, and by the time and manner of 
 its institution. It is strange indeed, if this holy ordi- 
 nance, which was designed to be the central, the 
 rallying point, of the church of God, should be the 
 occasion of drawing it principally into idolatry. It is 
 readily admitted, that the holiest things are perverted 
 by the wicked to their destruction. But to suppose 
 as intelligent and as pious part of the world as exists 
 should generally, from the first institution of this ordi- 
 nance, have given themselves up to idolatry, is a 
 hypothesis too big with absurdity to be believed bv 
 those, who w^ould solve every difficulty in our religion 
 by the efforts of reason. 
 
 We are aware of the objection made against this 
 sentiment; that the religious service, which is offered 
 to Christ, is given ultimately to the Father; that the 
 Son is an ambassador; that he is respected as such, 
 but all the honor terminates in God. But this opinion 
 appears very different from the language, which Christ 
 used in the institution of the ordinance; "This do in 
 remembrance of me.'''' If he was only ;•; ambassa- 
 dor, or an inferior agent, this language appears to be 
 entirely inappropriate. It appears that it would be 
 offensive to God. When Moses, at the rock, made 
 an assumption of power, which detracted from the 
 authoritj' of the King of Israel, he felt his sore dis- 
 pleasure, and suffered for his rashness. Shall we 
 offer religious service to Moses, because he was God's 
 messenger to deliver the Hebrews from the land of 
 bondage? Shall we offer religious service to the 
 prophets and apostles, because they were messengers 
 of God for the good of the world, and say, this reli- 
 gious honor terminates in hisn, who sent them? So 
 
148 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 reason the heathen and the papists, when they bow 
 down before beasts and images. But with the hght 
 of revelation in our eye, and the second command 
 in our hand, is it possible that we can fall into this 
 gross absurdity? Were there danger that we should 
 love Christ too much, or that we should give him 
 too much honor, would this ordinance have been 
 instituted, which is calculated to excite the devoutest 
 affections of our hearts toward our Redeemer, unless 
 a caution were given to prevent us from holding him 
 in too high estimation; and of rendering him too 
 much of our service. Let us illustrate the case by an 
 example: Suppose a king, whose subjects had been 
 guilty of treason, and had exposed themselves to 
 capital punishment, should select one of his people, 
 who had not fallen into the common transgression, or 
 one from another nation, to be an ambassador to treat 
 with them on the terms of reconciliation between 
 them and their sovereign. After every thing is done 
 on his part to effect his benevolent purpose, the 
 ambassador appoints a certain celebration to be ob- 
 served from generation to generation, to keep himself 
 in remembrance, for the services he had rendered 
 them. Would he, by this method, give suitable honor 
 to his king, and would not the subjects overlook the 
 sovereign in the more pleasing and interesting view of 
 his agent? Or, suppose the man, who was most prom- 
 inent in the deliverance of our country from foreign 
 oppression, should, at the declaration of independence, 
 have appointed a day of festivity to be observed for 
 ever, to keep himself in their remembrance, who would 
 not perceive the incongruity? Who would not shudder 
 at the thought that a sight of God should be lost in 
 a view of the man? 
 
 When we argue that the honor attached to this 
 ordinance should be given to the Son, we would not 
 be misunderstood. We hold that the Father and 
 Holy Spirit, participate with him the glory of man's 
 redemption. 
 
DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 149 
 
 When we look upon this ordinance, observe its 
 nature, design, and manner of its institution; when we 
 consider the blessings, which are involved in this rep- 
 resentation, and the magnitude of the sin of profaning 
 this rite; when we consider, that no duty is more 
 solemn, or momentous than this; that it is required of 
 every believer; that it is a religious service of the 
 highest grade, and that it is offered to ChrisI; who 
 can withhold the conclusion, that we should honor the 
 Son, even as we honor the Father?* 
 
 " It is readily admitted that the word worship, the act of kneeling and of falling 
 on the face to the ground, do not designate the degree of respect, which ia offered 
 to an object. But as these acts wei'e often used to tender homage to God, it 
 might reasonably be expected that Jesus, if he had been merely a creature, 
 would have cautioned his worshippers lest they should offer hina the highest 
 degree of respect. When the people of Lystra would fiave sacrificed to Paul and 
 Barnabas., they suffered them not; and told them plainly that th«y were men 
 of like pwsions with themselves. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and 
 worshipped, "Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself also am a man." 
 When St. John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel, who had shewed 
 him many things, the angel said, "see thou do it not." But Christ laid no pro- 
 hibition upon those who offered him similar expressions of respect. The infer- 
 ence is plain, that there was no danger of their offering him too high a degree of 
 homage 
 
 "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," John 
 5:23. It has been attempted to weaken this testimony by improving the transla- 
 tion in this manner; ''that all men should honor the Son, because they honor the 
 Father." (See Yates' Vindication of Uiiitarianism.) This appears to be not only 
 a wrong translation of the particle, x.^fS'*?, but a perversion of the design of the 
 text. The text is the effect, or consequence of the preceding verse. The Fath- 
 er — hath committed all judgment unto the Son, 'tva, to the end that, "all men 
 should honor the Son." "Though 'Ivct commonli/ denotes the end, for tuhicha 
 thing is done, it often signifies the effect, or consequence of an action simply, 
 without expressing the intention of the agent. 'Iva. sometimes denotes the effi- 
 cient cause." (Macknight. See Schleus. Lex. on the word.) The end, or con- 
 sequence of committing all judgment unto the Son is, therefore, that all men 
 should honor him. But according to the proposed translation, the former part 
 of the verse is the consequence of the latter part; the honoring of the Son, is to 
 be the effect, or consequence of honoring the Father. By this construction the 
 force of the particle, ''v<t, which connects this with the preceding verse, is en- 
 tirely destroyed. 
 
 Ka-9-(»c, which stands for even as, in our translation, is compounded of kato. Sc 
 «;. CI; is often used to denote comparison, "fie is snmetinies used affirmatively, and 
 must be translated indeed, truly, certainly, actually. Kara, increases the meaning 
 of the word, with which it is compounded." (Macknight. "I According to these 
 principles, the particle, khQ-oi;, is used to compare the honoring of the Son with 
 the honoring of the Father. The same force, or degree of menning, which this 
 particle has in relHtion to the honoring of the Father, the same it has in relation 
 to the honoring of the Son. See the force of KaS-ac in Mat. 21:6. 26:24. Mark 
 9:13, and 15:18, 
 
 \Ve are not left to the natural ex|)lication of particles, and to the homage which 
 Christ received on earth from his disciples, to prove that he is entitled to divine 
 honors, and that he is a proper olject of supplication. The scriptures testifv 
 that he was invoked; that he was addressed by prayer after he left the world". 
 In addition to the texts, which have been cited already for this pur])ose, tlu re arc 
 others of similarimport, which may be adduced, and on which, and on those, which 
 have been already quoted, we would make some critical remarks. I'snl, in the 
 beginning of hi.s first Epistle to the Corinthians, says, "Unto the chnich of God, 
 
150 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be 
 saints, with all, that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our 
 Lord." I'his phraseology naturally leads to the conclusion that Christians, in 
 the apostles' time, addressed prayers to Jesus Christ. But this conclusion is 
 evaded by an improved versioti of this, and parallel texts. They are translated 
 passively; viz called hy, or after the name of the Lord. (See the Improved Ver- 
 sion of the N. T,; Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism; L.indsey's Second Address, 
 &c.) To make this translation consist with grammatical principles, it is coiiceived 
 that the dative, not the accusative case, ougtit to have been used after the par- 
 ticiple. This observation is sanctioned by the authority of the LXX. See Isaiah 
 43:7. But if this evidence be not sufncientto settle the meaning of the word, its 
 common use by the writers of the New Testament, and by the Septuagint owfi-A^ 
 to determine whether it is to be taken passively or actively. When the inspired 
 writers and the seventy would convey the idea that any person or thing was 
 called by the name of the Lord, they uniformly used, as far as I haye examined, 
 a different pliraseology. .\ translation, which violates the idiom of the original, 
 and is contrary to the usual meaning of words and phrases does not become 
 critical inquirers after truth. 
 
 "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice. And he said unto me, my grace is 
 sufficient for thee; for my strength [J'uvcijuU) is made perfect in weakness; most 
 gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power (J't/va^iV) 
 of Christ may rest upon me," .'Cor. 12:8,9- The latter part of this passage plainly 
 shews that the Lord, whom Paul besought thrice, was Christ. Here ve have a pray- 
 er offered to him without any objection arising from the passive form of the verb; 
 and it might reasonably be expected without a7iij objections arising from the 
 phraseology, or from the circumstances. But in opposition to this expectation, 
 and to the natural tenor of the passage, as it is admitted by the most candid Uni- 
 tarians, it is stated that, "St. Paul appears here to have directed his prayer to 
 God, the Father. N. B. The apostles were not so exact in the use of the words. 
 Lord, Savior and the like, which they indifferently gave both to Ciod and to 
 Christ, never supposing that any would mistake their Lord and .Vlaster, so lately 
 born and living amongst men, to be the supreme God and object of worship." 
 (Lindsey's Apology, p. 147.) It is of no use to argue with men on this subject, 
 who accuse the ai)ostles with a disregard to exactness in the application of the 
 names, "Lord, Savior and the like." It is of no use to i-eason with them upon 
 the doctrines of the Bible, till they are established in the belief of its divine 
 authority; ttiat it was written Avith exactness. 
 
 But when it is admitted that Christ was the object of the apostle's invocation, 
 who can object to offering him prayer? But it is thought "probable, that, when 
 Paul besought him, he was present with the Apostle either in vision, or person- 
 ally." (Yates.) From this suppositi>in it is inferred that it is not proper to address 
 prayer to Christ, unless he be, in some manner, visible. If visibility be a necessary 
 qualification in Christ to be an object of supplication, why is so much labor spent 
 to shew that he did not receive it, and was not entitled to it, when he was 
 visibly present on earth? If visibility be a necessary qualification in a being in 
 order to receive divine worship, then God the Father, is destitute of a necessary 
 qualification. 
 
 "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lerd Jesus, receive 
 my Spirit; and he kneeled down ami cried with a loud voice. Lord lay nut this 
 sin to their charge," Acts 7:59, 60. If ever a man was qualified to make an 
 appropriate prayer, and to direct it to a proper object, it seems that Stephen was 
 qualified. He -was full of the Holy Ghost. He was just going to enter the world 
 of spirits. He saw, either ocularly, or mentally, the Son of man or the right 
 hand of God; of course he saw both. In this plenitude of inspiration, in this 
 most solemn and interesting situation, in view of death, of heaven, and of the 
 glory of (iod, he breathed out his soul in jirayer to that Savior, in whose service 
 he had lived; for whose cause he was about to die; and who was able to save 
 his soul. It is in vain to urge the peculiar circumstances of Stephen as the prin- 
 cipal ground of his petition to Christ. The circumstances of the supplicant make 
 no alteration in the being supplicated. The circumstance of Christ's being seen 
 or unseen makes no alteration in his will or power to hear. He, who knew what 
 was in man, when he was upon earth, is not limited in knowledge now he is in 
 heaven. When he was upon the cross he granted the humble request of a 
 penitent. Now he is upon a throne, he is not less entitled to prayer; nor is he 
 less able to grant requests. It must be, at all times, proper to call upon him, 
 because he ig always able to save to the uttermost. 
 
CHRIST'S RAISING THE DEAD, AND JUDGING 
 THE WORLD, ARE EVIDENCES OF HIS 
 DIVINITY. 
 
 "He hath appointed a day in the which he will judge 
 the world in righteousness bj that man, whom he hath 
 ordained," Acts 17:31. In every part of Christ's char- 
 acter; in every office which he sustains; and in every 
 work, which he performs, there is evidence of his 
 divinity. The sacred scriptures afford abundant proof 
 that he will raise the dead. Christ declared his power 
 to raise himself from the dead. Speaking of laying 
 down his life, he said, "/ have power to lay it down; and 
 / have power to take it again," John 10:10. "Destroy 
 this temple and in three days / will raise it up." He 
 spake of the temple of his body. It is no more incredi- 
 ble that Christ should raise his own body, than he 
 should raise any other human body. The same power, 
 which could raise one, could raise the other. The 
 resurrection of the body of Christ is attributed to 
 God. The apostle Peter in his sermon to a mixed 
 multitude on the day of Pentecost, preached Christ. 
 Among other things he said, "This Jesus hath God 
 raised up. Ye killed the Prince of life, wliom God 
 hath raised from the dead. Him God raised up the 
 third day, and shewed him openly." The apostle 
 Paul to the Romans makes this article oi" belief essen- 
 tial to salvation. "If thou shalt believe in thine heart 
 that God hath raised him (i. e. Christ) from the dead, 
 thou shalt be saved." Again he says, ''God hath both 
 raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his 
 
J 52 EVIDENCES OF CHRIST's DIVINITY. 
 
 own power." Many other passages in the sacred 
 scriptures assert that God raised up Christ. If the 
 self-same work, the resurrection of the body of Jesus, 
 is attributed in the same unquahfied manner, both to 
 Christ and to God, it follows that Christ is God. Upon 
 this ground there is no impropriety in saying that 
 Christ raised himself, and that God raised him from the 
 dead. 
 
 The scriptures furnish abundant evidence that Christ 
 will raise the dead. Christ himself asserts, "The hour 
 is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
 hear his voice, and shall come forth." Jesus said of 
 himself, "I am the resurrection and the life." The 
 apostle Paul, contrasting Christ with Adam, says, "For 
 since by man came death, by man also came the res- 
 urrection of the dead." To the Thessalonians he 
 writes thus, "The Lord himself shall descend from 
 heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, 
 and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ 
 shall rise first." The general resurrection is no less 
 attributed in the scriptures to God. The apostle Paul, 
 in his plea before Agrippa, inquires, "Why should it 
 be thought a thing incredible with you that God should 
 raise the dead.^^" To the Corinthians he declares the 
 same sentiment, ^'■God hath both raised up the Lord, 
 and will also raise up us by his own power." As the 
 scriptures attribute the resurrection to Christ as abso- 
 lutely as to God, it is natural to infer that Christ is 
 God; that there is such an inseparable union between 
 him and God the Father, that the same work may, 
 with propriety, be attributed to each. 
 
 The resurrection of Christ's body is attributed to 
 the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. The 
 apostle Paul, in his salutation, attributes it to the 
 Father. "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, 
 but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised 
 him from the dead." Christ, upon the subject of his 
 own resurrection, says, "Destroy this temple, and in 
 three days / will raise it up. I have power to lay it 
 
153 
 
 (i. e. his life,) down and I have power to take it again." 
 The same work is attributed to the Holy Spirit. 
 "Christ also hath once suffered for sin; — being put to 
 death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit^ — 
 "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth 
 them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Know- 
 ing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise 
 up us also by Jesus." The two last passages, and many 
 others attribute the resurrection indiscriminately to 
 the Father or the Son. As the work of creation is 
 sometimes attributed to God, sometimes to the Father, 
 to the Son, to the Spirit, in like manner is the resur- 
 rection attributed to them. The observations of the 
 learned Macknight on this subject, in a note on I Peter 
 3:18, are important. "As Christ was conceived in the 
 womb of his mother, by the Holy Spirit; Luke 1:35, 
 so he was raised from the dead by the same Spirit; 
 on which account he is said, 1 Tim. 3:16, to have been 
 justified by the Spirit; and Heb. 9:14, to have offered 
 himself without fault to God through the eternal Spirit. 
 it is true the resurrection of Christ, is ascribed to the 
 Father, I Cor. 6:14. 2 Cor. 4:14. Ephes. 1:20. But 
 that is not inconsistent with Peter's affirmation in this 
 verse. For the Father may, with the strictest pro- 
 priety, be said to have done what the Spirit did by his 
 appointment; especially as it was done to shew that 
 God acknowledged Jesus to be his Son: What our 
 Lord said concerning his own resurrection, John 2:19, 
 Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up, 
 is to be understood in the same manner. For haying 
 told the Jews, John 10:18, / have power to lay down 
 my life., and I have power to take it again^ he added, this 
 commandment 1 received of my Father. Christ's resur- 
 rection being an example as well as a proof of our res- 
 urrection, he was raised by the agency of the Spirit, 
 perhaps, to shew that we shall be raised by the same 
 power, exerted agt-eeably to the will of God and of 
 Christ; on which account the resurrection of the dead 
 is ascribed sometimes to the Father, Acts 26:8. 1 Cor. 
 20 
 
154 EVIDENCES OF CHRISt's DIVINITY. 
 
 6:14. Heb. 11:19; but more frequently to the Son, 
 John 5:28. 6:39, 40. 1 Cor. 1.5:21, &c. 1 Thess. 6:16, 
 &c. As the resurrection is attributed indiscriminately 
 to the Father and the Son, it appears there is a union 
 between them, which does not subsist between two 
 distinct natures. As the Son acts insubordination to, 
 and by the appointment of, the Father, what he does 
 may, with propriety, be attributed to the Father. As 
 the Spirit acts in subordination to, and by the appoint- 
 ment of, the Son, what he does may, with propriety, 
 be attributed to the Son. As there is a union of 
 nature subsisting between the Father, the Son and the 
 Spirit; as the two latter act in offices subordinate to 
 that of the former, the same work may be attributed 
 to each individually, or to them all collectively. Upon 
 this ground, the resurrection of Christ's body, and the 
 general resurrection, may be attributed to the Father, 
 to the Son, to the Holy Spirit, or to God, without 
 these distinctions. 
 
 It is impossible to determine how great are the 
 powers of the highest created intelligence, or what 
 he could, or could not do by his native strength. But 
 there are certain works recorded in the Scriptures, 
 which were effected by divine power. "In the begin- 
 ning God created the heavens and the earth. The 
 Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man 
 became a living soul." It appears that it would 
 require no less power, knowledge and wisdom to 
 reorganize and reanimate a human body reduced to 
 dust, than it required originally to form one of dust. 
 He, who will raise the dead, must have knowledge of 
 all the human bodies deceased from the beginning to 
 the end of the world. He must discriminate between 
 that matter, which composed those bodies and other 
 matter. He must know whether that matter, which 
 was united with the soul at the time of separation, or 
 whether the matter, which was united with it at some 
 other period, or whether all the matter, which had 
 
EVIDENCES OF CHRIST's DIVINITY. 155 
 
 ever been attached to it, is to be raised. At different 
 ages the body is composed of different matter. It 
 sometimes occurs that, in consequence of amputation, 
 different parts of the body are laid in places far re- 
 mote from each other. Many human bodies have 
 been consumed by beasts of prey and by fishes of the 
 sea; and have made additions to their bodies. Souie 
 of the human race have been devoured by their fellow 
 creatures; and one human body has become incorpo- 
 rated with another. What eye can bring into one 
 view all the disorganized human matter which from 
 the first to the last age of the world, lies scattered 
 through the earth? What eye can distinguish between 
 human dust and common dust? What eye can distin- 
 guish between human matter and those animal bodies, 
 which have been nourished by it; or can distinguish 
 between human bodies, which have been blended by 
 cannibals? What power can, with one call, collect 
 from the four winds all the slumbering dust of the 
 whole human family? What wisdom can reorganize 
 the inanimate bodies of the human race; and give to 
 each its former proportion, features and likeness; and 
 unite with each its own spirit? What power, knowl- 
 edge, and wisdom, are competent to the performance 
 of this work? This appears to be as great as the 
 works of God; and it appears that divinity only is 
 equal to its accomplishment. 
 
 Christ will not only reorganize human bodies, but 
 he will effect a certain change upon them. The bodies 
 of the righteous, whether in the grave, or alive upon 
 the earth, will be made incorruptible and spiritual. 
 "We look (says St. Paul) for the Savior, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it 
 may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." It is 
 probable that the bodies of the wicked will undergo a 
 change by the resurrection, not less than that of the 
 righteous; that they will appear as much more inglo- 
 rious, as the righteous will appear more glorious than 
 they did in this world, fhe prophet Daniel observes, 
 
156 EVIDENCES OP CHRISt's DIVINITY. 
 
 "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
 shall awake, some to eferlasting life, and some to 
 shame and everlasting contempt.'^'' This relates prima- 
 rily to Israel; but it undoubtedly alludes to the resur- 
 rection at the end of the world. He alone, who 
 formed the natural body, can make it a spiritual and 
 glorious body; or change it for its shame and everlasting 
 contempt. 
 
 After Christ has raised the dead he will judge the 
 world. The Scriptures abundantly testify that Christ 
 will be Judge at the last day. "The Son of man shall 
 come in his glory and all the holy angels with him; 
 and then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. 
 And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he 
 shall separate them, one from another, as a shepherd 
 divideth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set 
 the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
 The Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son; and hath given him authority 
 to execute judgment because he is the Son of man," 
 When Peter preached Christ to Cornelius and to those, 
 who were with him, he said, "He commanded us to 
 preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he, 
 which was ordained of God to be Judge of quick and 
 dead. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of 
 Christ.^^ The apostle Paul charged Peter "before 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, who shaW judge the quick and 
 the dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 
 
 The judgment of the world is also attributed to 
 God. "He, (i. e. Jehovah) shall judge the world with 
 righteousness, and the people with his truth." The 
 judgment of God is according to truth. I saw the 
 dead small and great stand before God, and the books 
 were opened, and another book was opened, which 
 is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of 
 those things, which were written in the books, accord- 
 ing to then- works. He hath appointed a day, in the 
 which he will judge the world in righteousness by that 
 man {iv uvdi^i) whom he h#th ordained, Acts 17:31. 
 
157 
 
 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men 
 by Jesus Christ, (Sia /vjo-oO x^iarov.^ In that passage, 
 in which it is said God will judge the world by that 
 man, the word in the original, translated by, frequently 
 signifies in. Admitting this translation to be correct, 
 the text will stand thus, "He hath appointed a day in the 
 which he will judge the world in righteousness in that 
 man, whom he hath ordained." This is parallel with 
 another passage of scripture, which says, "God was 
 in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." The 
 original words in both texts are the same. In the 
 other passage, in which it is said, "In the day when 
 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." 
 The original word rendered by, (with a genitive) is 
 connected sometimes with the efficient cause; and 
 sometimes it signifies in* Admitting these construc- 
 tions, and it follows that Christ was God, or that 
 God was in Christ. When it is asserted that the 
 Father judgeth not; but that God judgeth and Christ 
 judgeth, it is a fair inference, that Christ is the God 
 who judgeth. 
 
 Christ will pronounce sentence upon the human 
 race, and he will distribute reward and punishment. 
 "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, 
 with his angels; and then he shall reward every man 
 according to his works," Matt. 16:27. To them on 
 his right hand he will say, "Come, ye blessed of my 
 Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world," Mat. 25:34. "Then 
 shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the king- 
 dom of their Father," Mat. 13:43. 
 
 Christ will inflict punishment on the wicked. 
 "Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart 
 from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
 the devil and his angels. These shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment. The Lord Jesus Christ shall 
 be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
 flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not 
 
 • See M acknight on iTw- 
 
158 EVIDENCES OF CHRISt's DIVINITY. 
 
 God; and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
 from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
 of his power. The wrath of God abideth on him." 
 
 He that will judge the world, must know all the 
 secrets of the human heart, and all the actions of 
 human life. He must know the motive, he must know 
 the quality of every act. He must know the differ- 
 ent degrees of guilt, of different sins; and he must 
 know the exact proportion of reward, which is prom- 
 ised to the various servants of God. What intelli- 
 gence possesses this vast extent of knowledge? What 
 intelligence can hold the balance, and weigh with 
 perfect accuracy every thought, word, and action of 
 the human race? What intelligence can hold the bal- 
 ance, and weigh out retribution in just proportion to 
 human characters? What intelligence can hold the 
 scales of justice in one hand, and the scales of mercy 
 in the other; weigh with both, without partiality, and 
 without interference? He, whose eyes are as a flame 
 of fire, who searcheth the hearts, and trieth the reins 
 of the children of men; he, whose mercy unites with 
 justice without counteraction; he, who unites in him- 
 self divinity and humanity; he alone, is competent to 
 judge between God and man. 
 
 The awful grandeur, which will attend Christ at 
 the last day, proves his superior nature and dignity. 
 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and 
 all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
 the throne of his glory." He will come "in the clouds 
 of heaven, with power and great glory; and he shall 
 send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and 
 they shall gather together his elect from the four 
 winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Then 
 shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Before him 
 shall be gathered all nations." To add, if possible, to 
 the solemnity and grandeur of this scene, "The 
 heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the 
 
EVIDENCES OF CHRIST's DIVINITY. 159 
 
 elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, 
 and the works that are therein shall be burnt up." 
 Who is this personage, and Avhat is his nature, who 
 will display all this power and authority; who will 
 receive all the honors, which heaven and earth can 
 bestow, and will sit on the right hand of the Father.'* 
 It is he, who was in a manger. It is he, who thought 
 it not robbery to be equal with God. It is he, who 
 searcheth the hearts and trieth the reins of the chil- 
 dren of men; who is "the true God;" who is "God 
 over all, blessed for ever." 
 
ON THE HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION OF 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not rob- 
 bery to be equal with God; but made himself of no 
 reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, 
 and was made in the likeness of men; and being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
 Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given 
 him a name, which is above every name; that at the 
 name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
 heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," 
 Philippians 2:6 — 11. Much ingenuity and learning 
 have been bestowed upon this quotation of scripture 
 to deprive it of its natural meaning, and to prove the 
 Son's essential inferiority to the Father. The phrase, 
 "being in the form of God," has been thought to 
 import no more than that similarity of nature, which 
 may subsist between a creature and its Creator; as 
 God made man in his own image. If Christ had been 
 in the form of God in this low sense only, he would 
 have thought it robbery to represent himself to be 
 equal with God. He would have considered it an 
 infringement upon the divine prerogative. There 
 would be no pertinency in the assertion of the apostle, 
 that he was made in the likeness of men, and was 
 found in fashion as a man. It would not be true that 
 he humbled himself by appearing in this manner. 
 
Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 161 
 
 The time, in which ihe apostle says Christ was in 
 the form of God, was prior to his incarnation. The 
 wordybrm(/xo§Cf)vi)inthis passage does not signify nature 
 or essential attributes. It signifies the external appear- 
 ance, or similitude. It signifies that visible light, in 
 which the Deity dwells, which no man can approach 
 unto; and by which he appeared to the world before 
 the incarnation. When Christ was transfigured, his 
 form (according to the original) was changed; i. e. 
 his outward appearance became different from what 
 it was before. Whatever the jorm, of God was, in 
 which Christ was before he appeared in human nature, 
 he laid it aside while he tarried upon earth, previous 
 to his crucifixion. He made himself of no reputation. 
 In the original it is, he divested himself; he laid 
 aside those glorious appearances which he exhibited 
 in heaven; and relinquished those divine honors which 
 he there received. But during his humiliation, he 
 did not lay aside his divinity; he did not lay aside his 
 authority, nor his right to divine honors. He only 
 concealed the glories of his divine nature, under the 
 veil of humanity. On particular occasions he dis- 
 played divine power in the performance of miracles. 
 At a time when he was with his disciples on a moun- 
 tain, his appearance was changed. "His face did 
 shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the 
 light. Jesus charged them, saying, tell the vision to 
 no man until the Son of man be risen again from the 
 dead." Christ used great precaution against display- 
 ing the glories of his nature. W^hen he did display 
 them, he did it on special occasions, for the 
 special purpose of giving evidence that he was the 
 Messiah. 
 
 "Christ, being .in the form of God, thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God." The latter part of 
 this passage in the original, has been variously under- 
 stood, and variously translated. Some have thought 
 it imports that Christ did not think of the robbery of 
 21 
 
162 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 
 
 making himself equal with God; that he was conscious 
 he had no claim to such high pretensions; and there- 
 fore, he did not make them. Others have thus trans- 
 lated the text, he thought it not robbery to be like 
 God. This translation reduces the sense of the origi- 
 nal. The other wholly perverts it. The original 
 word, (/<3-«,) which is rendered like, literally signifies 
 equal, as the translators of the Bible have rendered it. 
 If like were a correct translation of the original word, 
 the apostle made no advance in sense, as he progressed 
 in his observations. It would be worse than tautology 
 to say, "who being in the form" (or likeness) of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be like God. The phrase, 
 "form of God," imports divine likeness. Having said 
 that he was in the likeness of God, it amounts to 
 nothing, to say, it was not robbery to be in the like- 
 ness of God; or to be what he was. The apostle Paul 
 was too well versed in language to be guilty of such 
 gross incorrectness. Likeness does not necessarily 
 imply equ iility. Let the apostle say, who being in the 
 form or likeness of God, thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God, and he rises in his ideas, as he pro- 
 gresses in his observations. Judicious critics in the 
 Greek language admit that the translation of this 
 passage, as it stands in the Bible, is correct. If any 
 creature should claim equality with God, it would be 
 a daring robbery of divine honors. If Christ be not 
 eternal, self-existent and independent, he cannot justly 
 claim equality with God. A learned and distinguished 
 divine,* of the beginning of the last century, speaking 
 of the correctness of the translation of the text under 
 consideration, as it stands in the Bible, observes, "The 
 ancientest versions of the New Testament favor this 
 rendering; the Greek and Latin fathers, from the 
 fourth century downwards, do as plainly countenance 
 it. Nay, Tertullian of the second or third century, 
 seems to have understood it in the same sense. The 
 
 • Waterland. 
 
Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 163 
 
 words will, in strict propriety, bear it; and not only 
 so, but more naturally and properly than any other." 
 
 Although Christ claimed equality with God; yet 
 "he made himself" of no reputation;" he divested him- 
 self of the form of God, and relinquished those honors, 
 which he had received; "and took upon him the form 
 of a servant, and was made" (or born) "in the like- 
 ness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, 
 he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, 
 even the death of the cross." His taking the form 
 of a servant, does not mean that he was actually a 
 servant; that he was under those restraints, which are 
 peculiar to a state of servitude. But he had the 
 appearance of a servant. He performed the duties 
 of a servant. He said to his disciples, "I am among 
 you as he who serveth." Like a servant, he had no 
 property; he lived in poverty, and was used with 
 contempt. "At length he died the death of a con- 
 demned slave; being publicly scourged and crucified." 
 
 Christ's being born in the likeness of men does not 
 mean that he had the appearance of a man without 
 the reality. The original word (d/xoiw/xa) signifies not 
 only likeness, but sometimes sameness of nature. (See 
 Macknight on the text.) Christ had a human body; 
 he had human passions. He felt those joys and afflic- 
 tions, which are common to humanity. "Being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
 He not only took upon himself human nature and ap- 
 peared in fashion as a man, exposed to all the natural 
 evils common to human life. He not only humbled 
 himself to do the obliging offices of a servant; but he 
 became obedient unto death, even to the most igno- 
 minious death. He, who had shared divine honors 
 in heaven with the Father, condescended to assume 
 human nature; to appear in the lowest condition of 
 human life; to receive all the ignominy and reproach 
 which the world could cast upon him; and to suffer 
 
164 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 
 
 his body, with which he had been in the most intimate 
 union, to expire under the tortures of the cross. 
 
 If Christ was only a man, there is nothing very 
 pecuhar in his state of humiHation. There is nothing 
 surprising that a man should have been born in the 
 likeness of men and be found in fashion as a man. 
 There is nothing surprising that a man should be in 
 the form of a servant and do the duties of a servant. 
 It is not a singular case that a man has suffered the 
 tortures of the cross. Nor is it a singular case that a 
 man has died in defence of his religion, whether it was 
 true or false. But that he, who claimed equality with 
 God, should descend to this low condition is a degree 
 of humiliation to which created intelligence cannot 
 descend. 
 
 On account of Christ's exceedingly great condescen- 
 sion and humiliation,Godhath exalted him exceedmgly; 
 "and given him a name, which is above every name." 
 As a consequence or reward of Christ's sufferings, 
 God hath exalted him. He hath raised him from that 
 low condition, in which he was upon earth, and exalted 
 him to that glory, which he had with the Father 
 before the world was. Christ humbled himself in 
 union with human nature, and he will be exalted in 
 union with the same nature. Some have supposed 
 that Christ's exaltation has made real additions to his 
 dignity and glory. They argue that divinity is inca- 
 pable of advancement, and of course they infer that 
 he is not divine. It is readily granted that no real 
 accession can be made to divinity. It is as perfect 
 and glorious at one point in duration as at another. 
 Before creation, before redemption, Christ was as per- 
 fect in his nature as he is now. He had power to 
 create, and he had power to redeem. As he had not 
 then exercised those powers, the honor of those works 
 could not be actually ascribed to him. If he had not 
 descended from heaven to earth, and stooped to the 
 lowest conditions of human nature, he could not be 
 glorified for his condescension. If he had not suflfered 
 
Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 1615 
 
 and died, the glory of redemption would not have 
 been ascribed to him. The attributes, which he has 
 displayed in the work of redemption, appear more 
 distinguishing than those he displayed in creation. He 
 appears more exalted than he would have done, if he 
 had not performed this work. God has given him 
 the name Jesus, signifying Savior, which is above 
 every name; and he requires all, who are in heaven, 
 in earth, and under the earth, to worship him, not only 
 as Creator and Lord, but as Savior of the world. 
 Before his incarnation he was not honored as actual 
 Savior. But since he has wrought out a complete 
 redemption, and returned to heaven, a new glory ap- 
 pears, and higher honors are attributed to him than 
 those he received before his incarnation. After he 
 had completed the work of redemption by rising from 
 the dead, he declared to his disciples that all author- 
 ity was given to him in heaven and in earth; and when 
 he ascended to heaven he was seated on the right 
 hand of the Father. Because he was the Son of man; 
 because he did great and benevolent deeds in his 
 union with human nature all judgment was committed 
 to him. 
 
 This high exaltation of the Son will be to the glory 
 of God the Father. Is it possible that any creature 
 is raised to such an amazing degree of elevation above 
 every other creature, and be the object of their most 
 respectful homage.'* Is it possible that God has ad- 
 mitted a creature to his right hand, and suffers him 
 to possess all authority.'* Would this be for the glory 
 of God the Fathei? Such is the union of nature, 
 design and operation, between the Son and the Father, 
 that they, who honor the Son, honor the Father; and 
 what exalts and glorifies one, exalts and glorifies the 
 other. If this inseparable union of nature do not 
 subsist between the Father and the Son, two distinct 
 and separate objects are holden forth, each of which 
 commands supreme love and veneration, and we are 
 
l66 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 
 
 left in the unavoidable dilemma of paying religious 
 homage to two divinities, or to none. 
 
 Christ in his state of exaltation makes intercession 
 for believers. In that body which was offered in sac- 
 rifice, he appears before the Father in their behalf. 
 He pleads the merits of his own sufferings, and the 
 Father, who remembers his covenant and loves his 
 Son, hears his requests, and his intei'cession is effec- 
 tual.* 
 
 * The phrase,ybrm of God, [fAOgipn ©ssi/,) may be explained b)' the subsequent 
 \>hrase, form of a servant, ijucp<piiv j'oukov.) The v/ordjorm, in the latter phrase, 
 does not signify reality, or nature. For Christ was not literally a servant, or 
 bondman, to any one. But he assumed the appearance of one in this low con- 
 dition; and occasionally officiated in this servile capacity. Christ said to his dis- 
 ciples, "I am among you as he that serveth," Luke '22:27. If the form of a 
 servant does not literally signify a servant, the /bnn of God does not literally 
 signify God. But the viorAform, in connexion with God, expresses the resem- 
 blance of appearance, on the same ground as it does when it is used in connexion 
 •with servant. If it was in human nature, Christ appeared in \.\\p form of a ser- 
 vant, it appears to be a fair conclusion, it appears to be giving equal meaning to 
 the word form in both cases, that it was in divine nature he appeared in the 
 form of God. 
 
 It is evident from the language of the apostle, that Christ was in the form of 
 God, before he was in the form of a servant. This proves his pre-existence The 
 primitive form of God, which he possessed, was undoubtedly that glory which he 
 had with the Father before the world was; and to be restored to which he prayed. 
 This construction appears evident, both from fact and from the language of the 
 apostle. It is fact that when Christ was upon earth, he had ndt that glory, that 
 form of God, which he had before. This is proved by his prayer, "O Father, 
 glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the 
 ■world -was," iohn 17:5. The apostle's language is consonant with this. But 
 made himself of no reputation, (iuurov (Kiviein,) These words literally signifj', 
 he divested, or emptied himsef. But of what did he divest himself? Not of his 
 original nature, nor of his miraculous powers For he retained both while he 
 was upon earth. He undoubtedly divested himself of that, which he formerly 
 had; but of which he was then destitute. This was the glory, or the form of 
 God, which he had with the Father before the world was. 
 
 We do not maintain that this, simply considered, proves the divinity of Christ. 
 But let us proceed with tlie apostle, in his consequence, as he rises on the subject. 
 Thought it not robbery to he equal -with God. It is not necessary to quote all 
 the translations of this contested text. Some of the best critics of the Greek 
 language, have decided that our cominon translation is correct. The principal 
 difference of opinion respecting this text, at the present day, arises from the dif- 
 ferent translations of the word ia-a. Some translate it equal; others translate it 
 as, or like. It is agreed on both sides that /s-oc, from which itol is derived, signi- 
 fies equal. But we are not informed by what authority, or by what misfortune, 
 the derivative has lost more than half its meaning in its descent from its primitive. 
 The original word in the New Testament, standing for like and as, is not, as far 
 as I have examined, /era. That it should occur in this place, for the first time in 
 this sense, appears not a little extraordinary. A remark of the learned Poole, 
 on this word, is pertinent and forcible. JK'am verba substantiva cum adverbio 
 scepi adverbii significationem faciunt nomenclem. This signification of an ad- 
 verb, in connexion with a substantive verb, he proves by quotations from Homer. 
 The connexion of the apostle's discourse renders it necessary that kj-o. should 
 signify more than likeness. The expression, form of God signifies, at least, as 
 much as divine likeness. Admitting the position, in the first place, that Christ 
 was like God, the apostle said nothing to the purpose, if he only said that Christ 
 
Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 167 
 
 thought it not robbery to be like God; i. e. he thought it not robbery to be like 
 what he was like. The learned apostle did not waste his words in such repeti- 
 tion, such impertinence. 
 
 The design of the apostle was to inculcate a spirit of humility from the exam- 
 ple of Christ But if Christ was only like God, in consequence of extraordinary 
 communications made to him, his humiliation was no greater, to appearance, 
 than the humiliation of the prophets and apostles; at least, it was not of a differ- 
 ent kind. For they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and they officiated 
 as Servants of the people. But they are not exalted as Christ was. The rea- 
 son is plain Being creatures, they were not capable of so low humiliation as the 
 Son of God was; neither were they capable of such exceeding exaltation. 
 
 Christ not only divested himself of divine glory while he was upon earth; but 
 he humbled himself in his human nature. He not only lived like a servant, but 
 he died like a malefactor He was obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross; a death the most painful, and the most ignominious. This he suffered, 
 not by compulsion, but voluntarily. In consequence of this low state of humilia- 
 tion, God highly exalted him. He restored him to that glory, which he origi- 
 inally had; and made all intelligent beings bow the knee in religious veneration 
 at his name; and every tongue confess that he is Lord of all. This exaltation, 
 which was the consequence, or reward of his humiliation, added nothing to his 
 real dignity, nor to the attributes of his nature. But it displayed perfections of 
 his nature, which would not otherwise have been manifested; and it called forth 
 honors from his creatures, which would not otherwise have been rendered. 
 
CHRIST'S DIVINITY ARGUED FROM THE PLACE 
 HE HOLDS IN OUR SYSTEM OF RELIGION, AND 
 IN BELIEVERS' HEARTS. 
 
 In the history of creation, God, without the revealed 
 distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit, is the grand 
 agent; the grand object of love and reverence. He 
 created the world and tenanted it with animal and in- 
 telligent life; and established laws for their support 
 and regulation. This history is concise; and the 
 period, from the date of creation till the apostasy, 
 is undoubtedly short. Here commences a new era; 
 here a new and prominent personage rises to view. 
 A new character is exhibited to repair the ruins of 
 the fall; and this character runs through the Old; and 
 it is the leading, the distinguishing subject of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Immediately after the history of creation, the his- 
 tory of redemption begins. No sooner is human 
 nature defaced, than a method begins to be unfolded, 
 by which it is to be repaired. It was early promised 
 that the Seed of the woman should bruise the ser- 
 pent's head. A promise of similar import was made 
 to Abraham; "In thee shall all families of the earth 
 be blessed." It is evident that this prediction related 
 to Jesus Christ, because the apostle Paul quoted it in 
 allusion to him, "The scripture foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
 
Christ's divinity argued. 169 
 
 before the p-ospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall 
 all nations be blessed." This promise was repeated to 
 Abraham; and it was renewed to his son Isaac. Jacob, 
 when blessing his sons, spoke in the language and in 
 the spirit o( prophecy. When he came to bless his 
 son Judah, he perceived that from him the Messiah 
 would descend; and he pronounced this striking 
 prophecy, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, 
 nor a law-oivei- from between his feet, until Shiloh 
 come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people 
 be." When laws were given to Israel to regulate 
 their conduct in the land of promise, a prediction con- 
 cerning the Messiah was also communicated by Moses. 
 "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet 
 from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, 
 unto him shall ye hearken." When Balaam took up 
 his parable respecting Israel, the most prominent part 
 of his prediction related to the Messiah. He speaks 
 of him under the similitude of a Star, that should come 
 out of Jacob, and a Sceptre that should rise out of 
 Israel. 
 
 As the time of Christ's advent approached, proph- 
 ets appear to have been endued with a greater portion 
 of the spirit of prophecy. They appear to have had 
 clearer views of the Messiah; and they predicted his 
 coming with greater clearness and precision. The 
 
 Srophet Isaiah had a clear and aiimating view of the 
 lessiah. So lively were his apprehensions, that he 
 gave some of his prophetic descriptions in the present 
 time. In view of the nativity of Jesus, he said, "The 
 Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold a virgin 
 shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name 
 Immanuel. Of the increase of his government and 
 peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of 
 David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to estab- 
 lish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth 
 even for ever. There shall come forth a rod out of 
 the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his 
 roots. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; 
 22 
 
170 CHRISTJ^'S DIVINITY ARGUED. 
 
 and the government shall be upon his shoulder. Be- 
 hold my Servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom 
 mj soul delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon him; 
 he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. Thus 
 saith the Lord God, behold 1 lay in Zion for a founda- 
 tion, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
 sure foundation." The same prophet proceeds to de- 
 scribe his state of humiliation. "He hath no form nor 
 comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no 
 beauty that we should desire him. He is despised 
 and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with grief; and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; 
 he was despised and we esteerof^d him not. He was 
 wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
 iniquities, &c. — He shall see of the travail of his soul 
 and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my 
 righteous Servant justify many; for he shall bear their 
 iniquities." 
 
 Other prophets had a view of an approaching 
 Savior; and they foretold his coming. They even 
 pointed out the time and place of his nativity. "When 
 Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my 
 Son out of Egypt. Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, 
 though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 
 yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to 
 be Ruler in Israel. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of 
 Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy 
 King coraeth unto thee; he is just, and having salvation, 
 lowly and riding upon an ass; and a colt, the foal of 
 an ass. One shall say unto him, what are these wounds 
 in thy hands? Then shall he answer, those with 
 which I was wounded in the house of my friends. 
 They weighed for my price thirty' pieces of silver. 
 Awake, O sword; smite the Shepherd and the sheep 
 shall be scattered. They pierced my hands and my 
 feet. They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my 
 thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. They part my 
 garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 
 He was numbered with transgressors. Thou wilt not 
 
Christ's divinity argued. 171 
 
 leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
 Holy One to see corruption. They shall look on me 
 whom they have pierced." 
 
 These are some of the prophecies in the Old Tes- 
 tament, which relate to the Messiah. So important 
 and conspicuous a place did they hold in the Jewish 
 scriptures that Christ was the grand object of the 
 desires and expectations of the nation of the Jews. It 
 is evident that these predictions related to the Mes- 
 siah, because they were visibly fulfilled in him. 
 
 Other characters and other events, are also pre- 
 dicted in the Old Testament. Cyrus was foretold; 
 he was called by name. He was appointed to an 
 important place; to do important business; to subdue 
 nations; to loose the loins of kings. But he was only 
 an instrument in the hand of God, by whom he did his 
 pleasure on Babylon. He is only glanced at in pro- 
 phecy. His deeds were of limited consequence; nor 
 were they followed by a lasting and important train 
 of events. John the Baptist was foretold. But his 
 character becomes interesting and distinguishing, prin- 
 cipally because he was the forerunner of him, that 
 should come. Like the harbinger of the morning, he 
 shone with considerable distinction till the Sun of 
 righteousness arose; then his lustre was lost in the 
 splendor of the great Light of the world. But Christ 
 was the grand object of prophecy, from the apostasy 
 till his appearance in the world. Patriarchs and 
 prophets, by an eye of faith, saw his day and were 
 glad. Balaam, a prophet of the Gentiles, saw the 
 Star of Jacob shining at a distance; and under the 
 guidance of God's Spirit he blessed Israel with a prom- 
 ise of a Savior. The believing Jews understood those 
 prophecies, which particularized the Messiah, pur- 
 porting a divine Redeemer. Those appearances of 
 divinity, recorded in the Old Testament, were un- 
 doubtedly understood to be those of the Son of God. 
 Moses, by faith, had knowledge of Christ; for he 
 "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
 
172 Christ's divinity argued. 
 
 the treasures of Egypt." God sent his Ansjel before 
 Israel in the wilderness. He informed them that his 
 name was in him. He cautioned them not to provoke 
 him. They undoubtedly understood that this Angel 
 was Christ. The apostle Paul says, some of them 
 tempted Christy and were destroyed of serpents. All 
 other prophecies in the Old Testament, are of small 
 consideration, excepting in their connexion with the 
 prophecies respecting the Messiah; or as they have a 
 bearing upon his coming into the world. The pro- 
 phecies respecting the rise and fall of nations and 
 empires are of small importance, excepting in their 
 bearing upon the kingdom of the Redeemer. The 
 prophecies respecting the nation of the Jews, derive 
 almost all their importance from this consideration, 
 they were the people, to whom the Messiah was 
 revealed; and from whom he was to descend. 
 
 The most important events recorded in the Old 
 Testament, relate, in some way, to the Messiah. The 
 preservation of Noah and his family, from the general 
 destruction by the deluge, represents, in a lively man- 
 ner, the preservation of the church by Christ, from 
 the destruction of the corrupt mass of the world. 
 Abraham was called that he might receive a revela- 
 tion of an approaching Savior. Isaac was spared, 
 when his father was just ready to sacrifice him upon 
 the altar, because, from him the desire of nations was 
 to descend. Jacob and his family were preserved 
 during a long famine, because from his lineage a 
 Savior was to arise. They were selected to be the 
 peculiar depository of divine revelation, and from 
 whom a Savior was to proceed. For this purpose 
 they were preserved, in a great measure, distinct 
 from other people. For the same purpose they were 
 preserved in Egypt; delivered from bondage; miracu- 
 lously preserved in their passage through the Red 
 Sea; supported in the wilderness; led to Canaan, and 
 carried through all their vicissitudes, till the grand 
 Object of their expectations appeared. The history 
 
Christ's divinity ARGUEit. 173 
 
 • 
 of the Old Testament would lose much of its import- 
 ance and interest, were it not for its distinguishing 
 character, the Messiah. 
 
 Sacrifices and oflferings were early instituted by 
 divine authority. Rites and ceremonies were estab- 
 lished. Types and symbols denoted that some great 
 personage would appear. Of what importance was 
 the blood of beasts; of what importance was it to burn 
 their bodies in sacrifice on the altar? Of what im- 
 portance were all the rites and ceremonies, which 
 were instituted? The blood of beasts had not virtue 
 in itself to take away sin. But it represented the 
 blood of the Lamb of God, which was to make expia- 
 tion for the sins of the world. It became an expiation 
 for sin only^ as it was appointed to represent the pre^ 
 cious blood of Jesus, which was oflered as an expiatory 
 sacrifice. The Jewish rites and ceremonies were 
 important only^ as they were appointed to prefigure 
 some trait in his character, some circumstance in his 
 life, or some feature in his offices. Priests were ap- 
 pointed by divine authority, to make intercession for 
 the people; and to oflfer sacrifice upon the altar. 
 Their character and office became important only, as 
 they were appointed emblems of the character and 
 office of the Savior. The grand scope of the Old 
 Testament history, of the prophecies, of the promises, 
 of the sacrifices, of the types and shadows, was the 
 Messiah. They derive their importance from their 
 concentration in him. Blot this grand personage from 
 the Old Testament, and its history becomes insipid; 
 its promises become fallacious; its sacrifices lose all 
 their efficacy; its types and shadows are shadows still; 
 and the Jewish economy was but a prototype of the 
 present, gross idolatries of the eastern nations. 
 
 The New Testament commences with a history of 
 the same illustrious character. Preparations are fully 
 made. The predicted time arrives. Representations 
 cease; and the glorious reality, the Desire of all nations, 
 appears. The first books of the New Testament 
 
174 Christ's divinity argued. 
 
 give a history of the birth, life, and death of Jesus 
 Christ. In these books he inculcates, upon his own 
 authority, a system of the most sublime and interest- 
 ing truths, demands assent; and by the same authority 
 he lays down a system of rules for the regulation of 
 human life. He exhibits himself in union with the 
 Father; doing the same works, which the Father did; 
 and claiming the same honors. He exhibits himself 
 Savior of the world; requires faith in his name; requires 
 supreme love; requires the relinquishment of every 
 thing for his sake. Upon his own authority, and by 
 virtue of his own merits, he promises forgiveness of 
 sin, upon conditions, which he proposes. He holds all 
 authority in heaven and on earth. He sends the 
 Holy Spirit into the human heart, to prepare a people 
 for himself. He magnifies the divine law, and makes 
 it honorable, by making a propitiation for sin. He is 
 the foundation of the church; and his word secures it 
 against every attack. He will raise the dead; judge 
 the world, and distribute retribution. 
 
 To confirm these truths he exhibited a holy life; 
 and in his own name he performed works, which 
 almighty power alone could perform. To confirm 
 the faith of his followers, as well as to make expiation 
 for sin, he suffered what he had predicted. He com- 
 missioned apostles to spread and inculcate the religion, 
 which he had taught. He vested them with authori- 
 ty to work miracles in his name. In their writings 
 they illustrated and enforced his doctrines. The 
 most prominent feature of their epistles was Jesus 
 Christ crucified; and the remission of sin through faith 
 in his name. If they gloried, they gloried in Christ. 
 They gloried in tribulation for his sake. They rejoic- 
 ed that they were accounted worthy to suffer for 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 The revelation which Jesus Christ made to St. John, 
 completes the sacred Scriptures; and it completes the 
 history of the world. The leading subject of this 
 book is Christ and his church. This subject runs 
 
Christ's divinity argued. 175 
 
 through the whole New Testament. It is its life and 
 its spirit. 
 
 Who is this personage that appears so often in the 
 Old, and breathes in almost every line of the New 
 Testament? Is it a man, a mere man? Was it for a 
 man, that a series of prophets during four thousand 
 years predicted his coming, and longed to see his day? 
 Was it in allusion to a man, that during this long period, 
 beasts without number were consumed upon the altar? 
 Was it to represent a man, that, during this long period, 
 types and shadows were used? Or was it for a super- 
 angelic creature, or for a temporary, limited depend- 
 ent son, that the vast preparations of four thousand 
 years were made? Was it to introduce either of these 
 into the world, that the wheels of providence rolled 
 on undisturbed during this vast length of time? The 
 preparation would then be vastly disproportionate to 
 the dignity of the personage. The representation 
 would far exceed the reality. Infinite wisdom decides 
 against this disproportion. Would the divine Being 
 employ a second volume to give the character, and 
 record the doctrines and precepts of any of his most 
 exalted creatures? Would he give to the world a 
 religion formed by created wisdom? 
 
 Extraordinary characters are left upon sacred 
 record, which represent Jesus Christ. So illustrious 
 was Abraham, that he was called the father of many 
 nations; the father of believers. But Christ was King 
 of kings and Lord of all In him all nations of the 
 earth were blessed. He is the Head of the church. 
 His union with believers is more intimate, supporting 
 and endearing than was Abraham's. Moses was ap- 
 pointed to be as God unto Pharaoh. He delivered a 
 nation from bondage. He wrought miracles. He 
 covered Egypt with plagues. He was admitted to 
 the mount where God was; and when he returned, 
 the skin of his face shone. He is a lively representa- 
 tion of the Messiah. But the Messiah suffers no dim- 
 inution of character by contrast with this illustrious 
 
176 Christ's divinity argued. 
 
 man. Christ was with God not a few days only; but 
 from the beginning he was with God. He came not for 
 the deliverance of one nation only; but for the dehv- 
 erance of all the nations of the earth, not from tem- 
 poral calamities, but from spiritual bondage. When 
 he wrought miracles, he wrought them not to plague 
 the land; but to do good to the people; to confirm his 
 authority; to display the mighty power of God; and 
 he wrought them in his own name and by his own 
 might. At the time of his transfiguration, splendor 
 was not confined to his face; nor was his brightness 
 reflected by beholding the glories of the Deity. But 
 his divinity, as if impatient of confinement in a human 
 body, burst through the vail, and covered his whole 
 body with light. Not like Moses did he conceal his 
 glories by wrapping them in a vail lest people should 
 pay undue respect. But he suflfered his disciples to 
 gaze, admire, and pay him homage. Moses never 
 communicated power to others to work miracles; for 
 his power was from God, and he could not transfer it. 
 But Christ commissioned apostles to work miracles in 
 his name; and he commissioned them upon his own 
 authority. When Moses died, the Lord buried him, 
 and suffered no man to know the place of his sepulchre, 
 lest people should go to his grave and pay divine hon- 
 ors to that illustrious man. But such precaution was 
 not used at the interment of the body of Jesus. VV^hat 
 is the conclusion.'^ There was no danger that people 
 would pay too high honors to the Savior. 
 
 Other patriarchs and prophets represented Jesus 
 Christ. But they represented only some individual 
 trait in his character. They were but obscure rep- 
 resentations. If such and so many illustrious charac- 
 ters were employed to prefigure the Messiah, very 
 great must he be, who was thus represented. As 
 God made a visible distinction between those miracles, 
 which were wrought by his servant upon Egypt, and 
 those, which the magicians did by their enchantments, 
 "^o he has made a visible distinction between the 
 
Christ's divinity argued. 177 
 
 Messiah and all those illustrious characters, which 
 prefigured him. 
 
 Christ suffers no diminution of character in contrast 
 with the highest orders of created intelligences, of 
 which we have knowledge. Angels are his minister- 
 ing servants. At his birth an angel was sent to an- 
 nounce the joyful event; and a multitude of the angelic 
 host sang praise to God in the highest, on that impor- 
 tant occasion. Angels afforded Christ their minister- 
 ing aid while he suffered the hardships of life; and 
 especially while he suffered agony in the garden. 
 They will wait upon him in the clouds of heaven at 
 the last day. When he came into the world, divine 
 authority required that all the angels of God should 
 worship him. To none of the angels did God ever 
 say, sit thou at my right hand. But to the Son he 
 said, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever." It is evident 
 that Christ is a being of more exalted nature and 
 character than the angels. To whom then shall he 
 be likened; or with whom shall he be compared? 
 
 He is far above all creatures. He is their Creator. 
 By him all things consist. He is the Author, he is 
 the Substance of our religion. He is the believer's 
 hope. 
 
 The representations, which the sacred Scriptures 
 give of Jesus Christ are calculated to convince man- 
 kind that he is a divine character. He is the leading 
 subject; he is the most prominent character of our 
 system of religion. The Scriptures attribute to him 
 the qualities, the works, the names, the honors which 
 they give to God. When people called him divine; 
 when they worshipped him as if he were divine, he 
 never charged them with error. He indulged, he 
 encouraged the deception, if deception it was. Moses 
 used caution to prevent a superstitious people from 
 venerating him as a Deity. John the baptist, to pre- 
 vent people from mistaking himself for him that 
 should come, declared that he was not the Christ; 
 that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of his 
 23 
 
178 Christ's divinity argued. 
 
 shoes. When the apostles, by signs and wonders 
 excited the admiration of the people at Lystra; and 
 they reputed them as gods, and would have offered 
 sacrifice to them, they corrected the error, and forbade 
 the idolatry. When the angel, whom Christ sent to 
 testily unto the churches, had finished the work of 
 his mission with John, he fell down to worship the 
 angel; but the angel said, "See thou do it not; for I 
 am thy fellow servant. — Worship God." When the 
 patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the angel, 
 excited the veneration of people, they were cautious 
 to disclaim all pretensions to divine honors. They 
 suffered not their idolatry. Christ excited the vener- 
 ation of men more than they. Through belief of his 
 divinity they rendered him divine honors. Had he 
 been only a created being; and had he been a holy 
 being; and had he been jealous for the honor of God's 
 name, like them he would have refused their worship; 
 he would have forbidden their impiety. But when 
 worship was offered him he received it with compla- 
 cency. 
 
 If the Scriptures are true, there appears to be 
 decisive evidence that Christ is divine; and they are 
 calculated to convince mankind of this truth. They 
 ascribe as much excellence, and as much honor to 
 Christ as they ascribe to the Father. The Christian 
 church has, from its first establishment, ascribed 
 divinity and divine honors to the Son of God. If some, 
 with the Scriptures in their hands, have attempted to 
 rob Christ of divine glory; others, with the same 
 Scriptures, have attempted to do the same to God the 
 Father. These are exceptions, which prove the 
 darkness of the understanding and the obduracy of 
 the human heart. 
 
 In every age of the world, people have manifested 
 a strong propensity to idolatry. They were not less 
 prone to this impiety when Christ was upon earth, 
 and when his system of religion was committed to 
 writing. Would God set his seal to a system of relig- 
 
Christ's divinity argued. 179 
 
 ion, which attributed divine nature and divine prerog- 
 atives to one of his creatures? Would he suffer his 
 church to be thus imposed on from the beginning of 
 the world to the present day, and to the end of time; 
 and by his word encourage the error? If the Scrip- 
 tures may be credited; if Christ was sincere and spoke 
 the truth, there appears to be as high evidence, as 
 language can afford, that Christ is divine. 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 
 
 "There is none other name under heaven given among 
 men, whereby we must be saved," Acts 4:12. The 
 sacred scriptures abundantly testify that human nature, 
 by the apostasy, lost its purity and dignity; lost divine 
 approbation; contracted guilt, and incurred the dis- 
 pleasure of heaven. The sacred scriptures testify 
 that from this sinful, unhappy condition, it could not, 
 by its own power and wisdom, extricate itself. With- 
 out foreign aid it must for ever remain in a state of 
 sin and wretchedness. The same sacred scriptures 
 reveal a Savior; a personage, who came to seek and 
 save that which was lost. He was early promised to 
 the world; and he was revealed by the name Savior. 
 Salvation was promised through him. God, by his 
 prophet declared, saying, "Israel shall be saved in the 
 Lord, with an everlasting salvation^ By the same 
 prophet he foretold the blessing of the Messiah to 
 the world. "I will give thee for a light to the Gen- 
 tiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end 
 of the earth. My salvation is gone forth, the isles 
 shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust. 
 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem 
 shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith he 
 shall be called. The liord, our Righteousness." 
 
 A short time before Christ was born, an angel 
 appeared unto Joseph, and directed him to call the 
 child, which was to be born of Mary, Jesus. This 
 name was given him on account of its appropriate 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. Uil 
 
 Signification. He was to be a Savior; and the name 
 Jesus, has that import. Christ said of himself, "The 
 Son of man is come to save that wliich was lost." 
 Zacharias, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 said, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath 
 visited and redeemed his people; and hath raised up 
 an horn of salvation for us." At the birth of Christ 
 an angel declared the joyful event, saying, "Unto you 
 is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which 
 is Christ the Lord." The devout Simeon took the 
 child Jesus in his arms. Under the influence of God's 
 Spirit, and in rapture with the prospect of Christ's 
 blessings, he said, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant 
 depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes 
 have seen thy salvation.'''' Christ, speaking of the 
 love of God said, "God sent not his Son into the world 
 to condemn the world, but that the world through 
 him might be saved.'''' Christ repeatedly conveyed 
 the idea that he was the Savior of the world; and the 
 universal tenor of his works confirmed his word. 
 
 The apostles abundantly inculcated the sentiment 
 that Christ is the Savior of the world. "Through 
 this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
 sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
 shalt be saved. Christ Jesus came into the world to 
 save sinners. He is also able to save them to the utter- 
 most, that come unto God by him. The Father 
 hath sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." It 
 is a prominent doctrirte of the New Testament that 
 Christ is the Savior of the world. 
 
 Christ saves sinners from their sins. When he 
 surveyed mankind after the apostasy, and by his all- 
 seeing eye looked through every generation to the 
 close of time, he perceived that all were corrupt; 
 that all had gone out of the way; that there was none 
 that did good, no not one. He perceived that they 
 might be saved from their sins; and he undertook the 
 work. He had authority to send the Holy Spirit into 
 tlie world to repair human nature; to support and 
 
182 CHRIST THE AUTHOR GF SALVATION. 
 
 comfort people in the way of obedience. This step 
 was necessary, because, according to divine constitu- 
 tion, no unclean thing was suffered to enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven. Christ had authority to adopt 
 and prosecute this method; for all authority in heaven 
 and on earth was given to him. When he saw his 
 disciples sorrowful because he was about to leave the 
 Avorld, he promised to send them the Comforter, who 
 would reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
 and of judgment; and who would guide them into all 
 truth, and teach them all things. The scriptures 
 attribute a change of heart, or the washing of regen- 
 eration to the Holy Spirit. As Christ sends the Holy 
 Spirit into the world to do this office, the same work, 
 the work of sanctification is attributed to him. Paul, 
 to the Corinthians, makes his salutation to those who 
 are sanctified in Christ Jesus. He adds, "ye are 
 sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus." By sancti- 
 fying sinners by his Spirit, Christ saves sinners from 
 their sins. Those, who are born of his Spirit are 
 saved from the dominion of sin. They cease to relish 
 it. They cease to practise it habitually. They are 
 saved from the bondage of the great adversary. If 
 sanctification be not complete in this life; if ihey, at 
 times fall into transgression, yet they experience a 
 great deliverance from sin and from the power of the 
 great adversary; and they are brought into the liberty 
 of the sons of God. 
 
 Christ saves the human body from the dominion 
 of death. In consequence of sin, a sentence of mor- 
 tality was pronounced upon the human race. This 
 sentence, with a few individual exceptions, and with 
 the exception of those, who will be living on the earth 
 at the day of the resurrection, has been, and will be 
 carried into execution. The human family generally 
 have been and will be under the empire of death. 
 Christ has given assurance that death will, one day, 
 be swallowed up in victory; that he will reanimate 
 and reorganize the lifeless bodies of the human race, 
 and render them immortal. 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. J 83 
 
 Clirlst not only saves sinners from sin; their bodies 
 from a continuation of death; but he saves their souls 
 from destruction. He has obtained reprieve for the 
 human race. He has magnified the divine law and 
 made it honorable. He has proposed conditions, 
 favorable conditions to the guilty race of man, on 
 which he will forgive their sins, and present them to 
 the Father justified in his sight. Had not Christ inter- 
 posed in behalf of sinners; became a curse for them, 
 they must have suffered the penalty of the law, and 
 be for ever banished from the enjoyment of God, and 
 suffer his indignation for ever. But Christ has pre- 
 pared the way for the return of sinners to holiness 
 and happiness. He offers gracious conditions on which 
 he will restore them; and he affords aid to assist them 
 to fulfil those conditions. He has given assurance 
 that he will save from the second death all those, 
 who repent of sin and put their trust in him. 
 
 Christ saves sinners by his own sacrifice. He made 
 his soul an offering for sin. By this sacrifice he sup- 
 ported the honor of God's law; and the rights of God's 
 throne while he procured remission of sin for penitent 
 sinners. 
 
 After Jesus Christ had paid a ransom for sinners, 
 he was in a capacity to make intercession with the 
 Father for those, who believed on his name. The 
 Sacred Scriptures bear testimony that he is a Media- 
 tor; makes intercession for believers; and that his 
 intercession will be prevalent. "There is one God 
 and one Mediator between God and men, the man 
 Christ Jesus. He is the Mediator of a better cove- 
 nant. He made intercession for the transgressors. 
 Who also maketh intercession for us. We have an 
 Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the rii>ht- 
 eous." God by covenant has assured his Son that he 
 shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. A 
 portion of the human race will listen to the calls of 
 the Gospel; will yield to the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit and embrace the Savioi-. For this portion of 
 
184 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION- 
 
 the human race, Christ will intercede. The Father 
 dehghteth in his Son and he dehghteth to grant his 
 requests. None that cometh to the Father by him 
 shall in any wise be cast out. 
 
 The near relationship, which subsists between 
 Christ and his subjects, argues that he will save them. 
 He is the Ruler of his people. He is frequently 
 styled, in the Scriptures, Governor and King. God, 
 by the Psalmist, saith, "I have set my King upon my 
 holy hill of Zion." The prophet Zechariah, in view 
 of the approach of the Messiah, breaks out in this 
 elevated strain, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; 
 shout O daughter of Jerusalem, thy King cometh 
 unto thee, he is just and having salvation.'''' Nathanael, 
 that Israelite, in whom was no guile, addressed Christ 
 in the most decisive language; "Thou art the Son of 
 God; thou art the King of Israel." It was prophesied 
 of the Messiah, that the government should be upon 
 his shoulder. As Christ is King of his people, he will 
 save them from all their enemies. It is the charac- 
 teristic of a good ruler, as he has ability, to save his 
 subjects from their foes; to deliver them from evils, 
 and secure them from danger. Christ is a wise, 
 powerful, and good Ruler. He will therefore save 
 his own peculiar people. If he suffers them, at times, 
 to be chastised by their enemies; he suffers it no far- 
 ther than it serves as salutary discipline. He will 
 hnally lead them to victory and to salvation. 
 
 Christ styles himself a shepherd, "the good Shep- 
 herd." As it is the duty of a shepherd to feed his 
 sheep and secure them from beasts of prey; so Christ 
 supports his flock; secures them from their enemies, 
 and finally saves them. Christ claims the relationship 
 of bridegroom to his church. This figurative appel- 
 lation conveys the idea of the most intimate union, and 
 of the most endearing care and affection. A mother 
 may forget her tender offspring, but Christ declares 
 that he will not forget his church. Arguments need 
 not be multiplied to prove that Jesus Christ is the 
 
CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 185 
 
 Author of salvation. The Sacred Scriptures bear 
 testimony to the truth of this doctrine; and if they be 
 true, the doctrine of salvation by Christ is also true. 
 Upon this ground mankind are, with propriety, re- 
 quired to put their trust in him; to apply to him for 
 every aid, and commit their highest concerns to his 
 hands. 
 
 The inference then is plain that Christ is not mere- 
 ly a man. The Scriptures expressly declare, "Cursed 
 be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh 
 his arm." But, -'Blessed is the man (hat trusteth in 
 the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." It is not 
 reasonable that a mere man could work out such a 
 complete righteousness, that offers of pardon and sal- 
 vation could be consistently made to the human race. 
 No man liveth, or ever lived, and sinned not. Conse- 
 quently no man can save himself. He can make no 
 expiation for his own sins, excepting by suffering the 
 threatened penalty. If he cannot save himself, it is 
 presumable that he cannot save others. If a man 
 were appointed to be the author of salvation, by 
 making satisfaction for sin, by officiating as mediator 
 between God and the human race, and forgiving their 
 offences; it would greatly diminish the dignity of the 
 divine character; it would greatly diminish the evil of 
 sin; it would greatly diminish the price and the value 
 of salvation; it would contract every part of the work 
 of redemption. 
 
 Similar objections lie against the hypothesis that a 
 superangelic creature was the author of salvation. 
 Whoever the Savior is, whatever his nature and his 
 character are, the Sacred Scriptures attribute to him 
 the highest excellences; the highest honors; tiie 
 highest authority; and require the highest love to be 
 exercised toward him. God has given us the Sacred 
 Scriptures to be the object of our faith and the rule 
 of our practice. Can it be supposed that God, who is 
 jealous for the honor of his name; who is jealous for 
 the rights of his throne, would appoint a creature, (of 
 24 
 
* 
 186 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 
 
 however exalted nature,) to take his place; to receive 
 his authority; to do his works; to receive the glory 
 which is due only to himself and be the object of the 
 highest love of the human race? Will God suffer a 
 creature to be on equality with himself in the work of 
 redemption, the noblest of all his works? Will he, 
 who has manifested the strongest displeasure against 
 idolatry, encourage, nay, require the human race to 
 pay divine honors to one of his creatures? There is 
 not such inconsistency; there is not such contradiction 
 in the divine Mind. 
 
 It is rational to suppose that the Author of salva- 
 tion has a nature and character proportionate to the 
 work. It appears that it would require as great 
 power, as deep wisdom, as much goodness, to repair 
 and restore a ruined world, as it required to create it. 
 He alone, that required obedience to the divine law, 
 has authority to forgive sin. He alone that formed 
 the mechanism of the human mind can repair it. He 
 alone that organized the human body and animated 
 it with a rational soul, can reorganize and reunite it 
 with its kindred spirit. He alone that hath all author- 
 ity in heaven and in earth, can distribute reward and 
 punishment at the day of judgment. He that doth 
 these things is Christ; and consequently Christ is 
 divine. 
 
ON THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS 
 CHRIST. 
 
 To form correct ideas of the nature and character of 
 Jesus Christ, it is important to notice his offices and 
 his duties arising from them. It is not from one attri- 
 bute, one name, one office, or one work, we can learn 
 the quahties of his nature. But from an examination 
 of them all, we have a more extensive view of the 
 subject; and shall more probably be unbiassed in our 
 inquiries, and be better qualified to discover the truth. 
 When we examine a large structure, we notice its 
 parts; their connexion; and then the general design 
 and appearance of the whole. When we contemplate 
 on Jesus Christ, the subject appears so vast, that we 
 need to examine it, as it were, by parts, or in diffisrent 
 points of view. When we have made these distinct 
 investigations, we can bring them together and see 
 what is the amount of the whole. It will cast some 
 light on this subject to examine the mediatorial office 
 and work of Jesus Christ. 
 
 It appears that the Father has holden intercourse 
 with mankind since the apostasy, through a mediator. 
 He, who conversed with our first parents in Eden 
 after their transgression, was probably the Word. 
 The Angel, who appeared to the patriarchs and made 
 important communications of the divine will; who led 
 Israel out of Egypt, conducted them through the Red 
 Sea, and directed them in the wilderness; who appear- 
 ed many other times, and spoke with divine authority 
 
188 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 and power, exhibited traits of character, which iden- 
 tify him with the Lord Jesus. He was the Angel of 
 the covenant. So is Christ. He was the Mediator 
 between God and mankind after the covenant of 
 mercy began to be revealed. Christ is the Mediator 
 of the new covenant. He was tempted in the wilder- 
 ness. So was Christ. It was implicitly declared, 
 that the Angel could forgive sin. When Christ was 
 upon earth, he proved that he had authority to forgive 
 sins. It is admitted by those, who grant that Christ 
 is a Savior, that the saints, during the first four thou- 
 sand years of the world, were saved in view of the 
 merits, and through the mediation of Christ. 
 
 The Mediator between God and men, the apostle 
 calls "the man Christ Jesus." From this and similar 
 expressions in the Scriptures, it has been inferred, 
 that Christ was merely a man. This inference does 
 not appear to be conclusive. The Angel, who wrestled 
 with Jacob, was called a man. Angels, who appeared 
 at various times on special occasions, were called men. 
 God himself is called a man, "a man of war." But 
 this mode of expression does not prove that they were 
 really men. The Angel, who wrestled with Jacob, 
 and frequently appeared to the patriarchs, and those 
 ministering angels, who were occasionally sent into 
 the world on important business, were called men, 
 because they assumed a human appearance. God is 
 figuratively called a man of war, because he has 
 power to overcome, and actually does overcome his 
 enemies. But for other reasons, was Christ called a 
 man. He really was a man. He was made flesh. 
 He was made of a woman. He was tempted in all 
 points like as we are. Because he was a man, it does 
 not follow that he was simply a man. If the appear- 
 ances of men had a different nature connected with 
 them, there appears to be no absurdity, in admitting 
 that a real man might have a different nature con- 
 nected with him. If Christ consist of human and 
 divine nature, it is not surprising that he should some- 
 
THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 189 
 
 times be called man, and sometimes God. He is called 
 one or the other in the Scriptures, according to the 
 subject of discourse. If" the subject be his humanity, 
 he is called man, or the Son of man. If the subject 
 be his divinity, he is called God, or Son of God, or by 
 some name, or in some way ex[_!ressive of his divine 
 nature. The apostle Paul, in his address to the rulers 
 of the synagogue at a certain time, says, "Be it known 
 unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through 
 this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." 
 He had just before spoken of his crucifixion and res- 
 urrection. As he had been speaking of him in respect 
 to his human nature, it was proper and natural to 
 continue to speak of him in respect to the same nature, 
 till he had closed this subject of his discourse. 
 Besides, it was through the sufferings of Christ that 
 the forgiveness of sin is made possible. In another 
 place, the same apostle says, "He has appointed a 
 day, in the which he will judge the world in right- 
 eousness by that man, whom he hath ordained." In 
 connexion with this, he spoke of his human nature; of 
 the resurrection of his body. It was natural therefore 
 to speak of hmi in this connexion by the name, or in 
 the character of a man. Again he says, "For since 
 by man came death, by man also came the resurrection 
 of the dead." The same observations apply to this 
 text. The apostle had been speaking of the resur- 
 rection of Christ's body, and was contrasting him with 
 Adam. It was correct, therefore, to continue to speak 
 of him, in that connexion, as a man. When he is 
 exhibited in connexion with his work of creation, he 
 is called God. When it is said he will raise the dead, 
 he is called the Son of God. When he is contrasted 
 with angels, and his vast superiority is set forth, he 
 was addressed by the divine title, O God; a title sig- 
 nificant of the nature, in which he had just been rep- 
 resented; and in which he was so much superior to 
 the angels. If Christ be both human and divine, 
 these observations shew the propriety of exhibiting 
 
190 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OP JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 him sometimes in one nature and sometimes in the 
 other. The connexion between the son of man and 
 the Son of God, is so intimate that the name and prop- 
 erties of one are sometimes applied to the other. 
 "The second man is the Lord from heaven." Here 
 the humanity of Christ is called the Lord from heaven. 
 *'Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased 
 with his own blood." In this text, human blood is 
 called the blood of God. "Which none of the princes 
 of this world know, for had they known it, they 
 would not have crucified the Lord oj" glory,'''' 1 Cor. 
 2:8. In this text the tortures of the cross are applied 
 to the Lord oj" glory, the divine nature of Jesus Christ. 
 By this phraseology we are not to understand that 
 the divinity of Christ suffered pain; but we are to 
 understand the intimate connexion between his two 
 natures. This kind of phraseology is not uncommon. 
 We say, a man dies, when we only mean that his body 
 suffers dissolution. W^e say, man will live for ever, 
 when we only mean that his soul will never see death. 
 Jesus Christ, in his mediatorial office on earth, 
 suffered deep humiliation of his divine nature, and 
 extreme torture of his humanity. The Son of God 
 not only took upon him human nature, but he took it 
 in the form of a servant. He made himself of no 
 reputation. He suffered the scorn and reproach of 
 the wicked. The gracious miracles, which he wrought 
 by his own divine power, were attributed to the oper- 
 ation of the evil spirit. The prayer, which he made 
 to the Father to glorify him, with that glory which 
 he had with him before the world was, implies that 
 he was divested of his glory for a season, and that he 
 was in a state of humiliation. So intimate was the 
 union of his two natures, that all the ignominy which 
 w^as directed against his human nature, extended to 
 his divinity. He endured extreme suffering in his 
 human nature. He was grieved for the hardness of 
 the human heart. He wept over Jerusalem, when 
 he beheld her approaching destruction. He was 
 
THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 191 
 
 touched with a feeling of our infirmities. He suffered 
 the temptations of the great adversary, and the per- 
 secutions of those, whom he came to save. In the 
 near approach of his crucifixion, when the tortures of 
 the cross presented themselves to his mind, he almost 
 recoiled at the prospect. He sweat, as it were, great 
 drops of blood, and prayed that if it were possible 
 the cup of suffering might pass from him. When he 
 was suspended upon the fatal wood, and the Father 
 withdrew his consoling presence, he exclaimed in the 
 anguish of his soul, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me?" 
 
 Jesus Christ, by his humiliation and suffering, became 
 fully qualified for the work of his mediatorial office. 
 "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by 
 the things which he suffered. And being made per' 
 fect^ he became the Author of eternal salvation unto 
 all them that obey him. It became him, for whom 
 are all things, and by whom are all things, in brings 
 ing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain 
 of their salvation perfect through suffering," He- 
 brews 5:8, 9; and 2:10. By these declarations 
 of the apostle we are not to understand that there 
 was any imperfection in his nature, which was remov- 
 ed by his suffering; or that he was more perfect in 
 his nature after, than he was before, his humiliation. 
 But the things which he suffered, were a necessary 
 qualification for his mediatorial office. The act of 
 consecration was necessary under the law, to perfect 
 men for the priest's office. But this act added noth- 
 ing to their natural qualifications. So the sufferings 
 of Christ were a necessary preparation for his medi- 
 atorial office; but made no addition to the perfection 
 of his nature. Was there no Mediator then before 
 the humiliation and sufferings of Jesus Christ? His 
 mediation was then efficacious for man, and acceptable 
 to the Father, by virtue and in view of his abasement, 
 and the shedding of his blood, which were to take 
 place. Saints, before the incarnation of the Son of 
 
192 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 God, were saved by faith in a Savior to come; and the 
 Son of God was an effectual Savior, during that period, 
 bj virtue of that sacrifice which he was to make. 
 
 The union of divine and human nature, the suffer- 
 ings of the one, and the humihation of the other, 
 appear to be revealed truths; and they appear to be 
 necessary qualifications for a Mediator between God 
 and man. Were the Mediator only divine, one party 
 only would be literally represented. He could not 
 be touched with the feeling of human infirmities. He 
 could not have a personal sympathy for suffering 
 humanity. Nor could he feel what allowance ought 
 to be made for the weakness of human nature. He 
 could not suffer the penalty of the law for sin; and by 
 suffering magnify and honor it. Condescension and 
 concession would appear to be only on the part of 
 Deity. On the other hand, if the Mediator were 
 only of a human or created nature, one party only 
 would be literally represented. It is not probable 
 he would have an adequate knowledge of all the 
 rights and prerogatives of divine authority; at least, he 
 could not have a feeling sense of them. He could do 
 no more than his own personal duty. He could have 
 no surplus of merit, which he could transfer to the 
 destitute. He could make no expiation for sin; and 
 without expiation, every instance of pardon would 
 dishonor the divine law, and weaken divine authority. 
 But by the union of the Son of God with the Son of 
 man, both these difficulties are removed. Both par- 
 ties are literally represented. Satisfaction can be 
 made to the violated law of God; and the Father can 
 be just while he justifies penitent sinners. In this 
 method, "Mercy and truth are met together; right- 
 eousness and peace have kissed each other," Ps. 85:10. 
 If a whole nation had revolted from their legal sove- 
 reign, what individual would be suitable to mediate 
 between the parties to produce reconciliation? Would 
 the King's son alone be suitable for the undertaking? 
 However wise and virtuous, and benevolent he might 
 be, would he alone probably accomplish the object? 
 
THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 193 
 
 Would not rebels view him with a jealous eye? Would 
 an individual of the nation, one, who had not fallen 
 into the same transgression, be suitable to mediate 
 between the parties? However wise and virtuous he 
 might be in his private capacity, would he have an 
 adequate knowledge of the rights of his sovereign; 
 and would he feel a suitable interest in the support 
 and honor of his throne? Would he have adequate 
 weight of character, either in the sight of his nation 
 or of his sovereign, to produce reconciliation between 
 them? Let him unite with the King's Son, in the work 
 of mediation; and the plan appears more reasonable, 
 and more probable of success. The application, in 
 some important respects, cannot be misunderstood. 
 
 The man Christ Jesus, after his resurrection, re- 
 ceived great honor and authority. He had endured 
 extreme ignominy and suffering. But for the joy that 
 was set before him, he endured the cross, despised the 
 shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of 
 God. Like other men, he had human feelings, and 
 was actuated by a hope of reward. Many passages 
 of sacred scripture represent the honor, or exaltation, 
 which he received after his resurrection; and some 
 of them represent it to be a consequence, or reward 
 of his sufferings. "After the Lord had spoken unto 
 tliem, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the 
 right hand of God," Mark 16:19. "Which he wrought 
 in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set 
 him at his own right hand in the heavenly places; Jar 
 above all 'principality and power, and might, and domin- 
 ion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, 
 but also in that which is to come,^'' Eph. 1:20, 21. 
 "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down 
 on the right hand of the Majesty on high,^'' Heb. 1:3. 
 "Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a 
 Prince and a Savior," Acts 5:31. "He humbled him- 
 self, and became obedient unto death, even the death 
 of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
 him, and given him a name, which is above every name; 
 25 
 
194 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
 the earth; and that every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.''^ 
 Phil. 2:8 — 11. "But we see Jesus, who was made a 
 little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, 
 crowned with glory and honor,^'' Heb. 2:9. In all these 
 texts, it will be seen by examination, that the man 
 Christ Jesus was exalted and honored. Divinity is in- 
 capable of absolute exaltation. The Son of God, who, 
 for a time, divested himself of the form of God, might 
 be said to be comparatively exalted, when he was re- 
 stored to that glory, which he had with the Father, 
 before the world was. But the foregoing texts evi- 
 dently relate to the humanity of Christ. 
 
 After Jesus was risen from the dead, he said to his 
 disciples, "All power is given unto me in heaven and 
 in earth," Matt. 28:18. Before his crucifixion, when 
 he was speaking of his power and authority, he said, 
 "The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall 
 hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear 
 shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so 
 hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and 
 hath given him authority to execute judgment also, he- 
 cause he is the Son ofman^'' John 5:25,26,27. "When 
 the Son o/*m«?i shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
 angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of 
 his glory; and before him shall be gathered all na- 
 tions," &c. Matt. 25:31,32. The apostle Paul, speak- 
 ing of the resurrection and day of judgment, says, 
 "He hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the 
 world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath 
 ordained," Acts 17:31. From these and several 
 other texts, it is evident that the resurrection of the 
 dead, and the final judgment, are attributed sometimes 
 to the Son of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ; and 
 sometimes to the Son of man. When the subject of 
 discourse is the man Christ Jesus, then these great 
 works are ascribed to him as man, or Son of man. 
 
THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OP JESUS CHRIST. l95 
 
 When Christ would exhibit himself on an equality 
 with the Father, in respect to the gieatness of his 
 works and the honor to be given him, he calls himself 
 the Son of God. Speaking of the resurrection, he 
 says, "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; 
 and they that hear shall live." The cause he assigns, 
 for which he is vested with authority to judge the 
 world, is, that he is the Son of man. When the Son of 
 God is called the Son of man, the expression is parallel 
 with this text, "The Word was made flesh." By 
 this phraseology, it is not to be understood that the 
 Word, or Son of God, changed his nature and became 
 only a man. But it is to be understood that he came 
 into a peculiarly intimate union with a man. "Foras- 
 much then as the children are partakers of flesh and 
 blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same," 
 Heb. 2:14. His taking flesh and blood implies that he, 
 who took, and that, which was taken, were not iden- 
 tically the same. 
 
 Since the resurrection and ascension of the body of 
 Jesus, the Son of man, in union with the Son of God, is 
 seated on the throne, at the right hand of the Father. 
 In this situation the martyr Stephen saw him just be- 
 fore his execution, when he was filled with the Holy 
 Ghost and looked up to heaven. In this state of 
 exaltation, the Son of man participates with the Son of 
 God, the government of the mediatorial kingdom. At 
 the last day, the man Christ Jesus in union and in joint 
 operation with the divine Son, will raise the dead and 
 judge the world. At this time, and in this union and 
 joint operation with the Son of God, he will put down, 
 or subdue, all rule and all authority and power, which 
 were opposed to his mediatorial government. He 
 will put all enemies under his feet. He will destroy 
 death and him that had the power of death, that is, 
 the devil. Then will the first Gospel predictiori be 
 fulfilled, "The Seed of the woman shall bruise the 
 serpent*s head." This work will he perform, and this 
 exaltation will he receive as a reward of his suflerings. 
 
196 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 This is a great work, and a great honor. Of this 
 work and of this honor, the man Christ Jesus par- 
 ticipates with the Son of God. 
 
 Now Cometh the end of this economy. The media- 
 torial kingdom is completed. Christ delivers it up to 
 God, even the Father. The mediatorial office and 
 work terminate. A new dispensation commences. 
 The Son himself, i. e. the Son of man, the man Christ 
 Jesus, no longer exercises authority in that depart- 
 ment, which has now ceased; but becomes subjected 
 to him, who gave him this authority; and God, 
 (Aleim) without the distinctions of Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, and without different departments of ad- 
 ministration, which were manifested during the work 
 of redemption, will be all in all. He will hold the 
 reins of government, without any medium, as he did 
 before the work of redemption commenced. 
 
 That the subjection of the Son, at the close of the 
 mediatorial economy, signifies the subjection of the 
 Son of man, or the man Christ Jesus, appears evident 
 from the design and connexion of the apostle's dis- 
 course. He had been speaking of the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of Christ. From his resurrection he 
 argued the resurrection of the dead. "For since by 
 man came death, by man also came the resurrection 
 of the dead," 1 Cor. 15:21. Without the least in- 
 timation of change of the subject, he speaks of the 
 subjection of the Son. It is a fair inference then, 
 that this Son is the Son of man. 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 "Behold 1 send an Angel before thee," Exodus 23:20. 
 Many extraordinary appearances of an angel, or of 
 the Angel of the Lord, are recorded in the Old Testa- 
 ment. It is important to know who this Angel was. 
 Satisfactory information, on this subject, may be 
 found in the names, which were given him, in what he 
 said of himself; in what he did; and in the respect 
 which was paid to him. The name angel, signifies 
 messenger, or one sent. It designates not the nature, 
 but the office, of the agent. 
 
 The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Hagar, after 
 she had fled from her mistress; and commanded her 
 to return and be subject to her authority. He prom- 
 ised her saying: "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, 
 that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And she 
 called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou 
 God seest me," Gen. 16:10, 13. In this account of 
 the Angel's appearance, it is noticable that he prom- 
 ised to do a work, which divine power alone could do; 
 and he promised it in a style peculiar to God. "I will 
 multiply thy seed exceedingly." He spoke, to appear- 
 ance, upon his own authority; and it appears that 
 Hagar understood him so; for "she called the name 
 of the Lord, (rtin^) that spake unto her. Thou 
 God seest me.^'^ 
 
 After Hagar and her son were cast out from the 
 house of Abraham; and she apprehended that her 
 son would die for want of sustenance, "she lifted up 
 
198 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 her voice and wept; and God heard the voice of the 
 lad; and the Angel of God called to Hagar out of 
 heaven, and said unto her, what aileth thee, Hagar? 
 fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad 
 where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in 
 thine hand; for I will make him a great nation; and 
 God opened her ejes, and she saw a well of water," 
 Gen. 21:16 — 19. In this history of the bond woman 
 and her son, God, and the Angel of God, are repre- 
 sented, having the same knowledge, the same care, 
 and the same authority over them. God heard the 
 voice of the child. The Angel of God called to Hagar. 
 God opened her eyes. The Angel of God promised 
 to make the lad a great nation. There appears to 
 be a certain distinction here made, between God, and 
 the Angel of God; but in this history the latter does 
 not appear inferior in the qualities of his nature to 
 the former. 
 
 God tried Abraham; and commanded him to take 
 his son Isaac and offer him for a burnt offering. Abra- 
 ham obeyed. He took his son; went to the place, 
 which God had told him of; built an altar; laid on 
 the wood; bound his son; laid him upon the wood, 
 and took the knife to slay him. "And the Angel of 
 the Lord called to him out of heaven and said, Abra- 
 ham, Abraham! and he said, here am I. And he said. 
 Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do any thing 
 unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, see- 
 ing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from 
 me. And Abraham called the name of that place 
 Jehovah-jireh," i. e. the Lord will see or provide. 
 "And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out 
 of heaven the second time, and said, by myself have 
 I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done 
 this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
 son; that in blessing I will bless thee; and in multi- 
 plying, I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven," 
 Gen. 21:11, 12, 14— J 7. 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 199 
 
 In the first of these two appearances of the Angel 
 of the Lord, he speaks as God himself. He addressed 
 Abraham in the same manner, and, to appearance, 
 with the same authority, with which God had before 
 addressed him. The offering of Isaac was to be made to 
 God. But mark the words of the Angel. "For now I 
 know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with- 
 held thy son, thine only son from mc," Gen. 22:12. The 
 conclusion is, that it was the same thing to offer his 
 son to God, or to the Angel of the Lord. The second 
 time the Angel called to Abraham, he speaks not his 
 own words; but addresses him in the words of the 
 Lord. But these words are precisely the same in 
 effect, which the Angel had before spoken. The 
 Angel said to Abraham, "seeing thou hast not with- 
 held thy son, thine only son." The Lord said by the 
 Angel, "because thou hast done this thing, and hast 
 not withheld thy son, thine only son." The Angel 
 passed his word respecting Ishmael, "I will make 
 him a great nation." The Lord passed his word with 
 an oath to Abraham, by the mouth of the Angel, "I 
 will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven." While 
 a certain distinction is made between the Angel of the 
 Lord, and the Lord himself, there is such a union 
 manifested, that the Angel declares, upon his own 
 authority, that a certain important purpose shall be 
 accomplished. He then communicates the declara- 
 tion of the Lord, to the same or similar effect. The 
 offering of Isaac to God, according to his command, 
 was not withholding him from the Angel; and it was 
 also not withholdins: him from the Lord. It is hard 
 to conceive that there should be such union, such 
 intimacy, such equality between the Creator and a 
 creature. 
 
 When Jacob was on his way from Laban to his own 
 country, he was left alone; "and there wrestled a 
 man with him until the breaking of the day." This 
 man changed his name, blessed him, and told him that 
 he had power with God and with man, and that he 
 
200 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 had prevailed. "And Jacob called the name of the 
 place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face," Gen= 
 32:30. The prophet Hosea tells us who this man 
 was, with whom Jacob wrestled. Speaking of Jacob 
 he says, "By his strength he had power with God; 
 yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; 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," Hosea 12:3 
 — 5. The prophet testifies that the man, with whom 
 Jacob wrestled was the Angel. He was probably 
 called a man, because he assumed the appearance of 
 a man. The prophet goes on and says, that Jacob 
 found him, i. e. the Angel, in Bethel. We find that 
 he, whom the patriarch found in Bethel, was the 
 Lord, who said, "1 am the Lord God of Abraham thy 
 father, and the God of Isaac. — And Jacob awaked 
 out of his sleep, and he said. Surely the Lord is in 
 this place and I knew it not," Gen. 28:13, 16. The 
 prophet calls this Angel "^/le Lord God of hosts; the 
 Lord is his memoriaV It has been objected, that 
 "when the scripture informs that it was the Angel of 
 the Lord, who said, I am the God of Abraham," &;c. the 
 account is equally plain to the understandings of men, 
 that he spake not his own words, or in reference to 
 himself, but the words of Jehovah, or in the name of 
 God.* If this objection were valid against what the 
 Angel said of himself, it would not lie against what 
 the prophet said of him. If a created angel could 
 personate his Creator, by what figure of speech, by 
 what license, could the prophet call him the Lord 
 God of hosts; and say that "the Lord (i. e. Jehovah) 
 is his memorial?" 
 
 When Moses kept the flock of his father-in-law at 
 Horeb, "The Angel of the Lord appeared unto him 
 in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he 
 looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire; and 
 
 * ShermaD. 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 201 
 
 the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will 
 now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush 
 is not burned. And when the Lord saw that he turned 
 aside to see, God called to him out of the midst of the 
 bush, and said, Moses, Moses, and he said, Here ami. 
 And he said, draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes 
 from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest 
 is holy ground. Moreover, he said, I am the God of 
 thy father, tiie God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
 and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for 
 he was afraid to look upon Go(/," Ex. 3:2 — 6. During 
 the interview between Moses and him who was in 
 the bush, the Lord said unto him, "I will send thee 
 unto Pharaoh, that thou raayest bring forth my peo- 
 ple, the children of Israel, out of Egypt," ver. 10. Moses 
 then inquired of God, by what name he should call 
 him, when he should go with his message to the chil- 
 dren of Israel. "And God said unto Moses, / am that 
 1 am; and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the chil- 
 dren of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," ver. 14. 
 
 In this history we find that the Angel of the Lord 
 appeared unto Moses. There is no mention that any 
 other appeared to him in the bush. Ho that was in 
 the bush called unto him; and we are informed by the 
 inspired historian, that it was God, who called to him. 
 It is a natural conclusion, therefore, that this Angel 
 was the God who spake, who called himself the God 
 of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who called himself 
 I AM, a name implying self-existence. 
 
 Stephen, in his answer to the council, before whom 
 he was accused, gave a brief history from the time of 
 Abraham to the time of Solomon. In this epitome 
 he mentions the extraordinary appearance of the 
 burning bush. Speaking of Moses, he says, "The 
 same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by 
 the hand of the Angel, which appeared to him in the 
 bush." The immediate agent who sent Moses, is, 
 therefore, the Angel. In the history which Moses 
 gives, we find but one agent, i. e. the immediate agent, 
 26 
 
202 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 introduced, the Angel of the Lord. In the course of 
 the history, we find, that, without any change of the 
 subject, the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to see; 
 God called unto hiai out of the midst of the bush; he 
 said, I am the God of thy father; I will send thee to 
 Pharaoh; / am that I am. The subject, and the only 
 subject to which all these names refer, is the Angel of 
 the Lord, ver. 2. Consequently, the names. Lord, God, 
 and I AM, are applied to him. But if he were merely 
 a created angel, and said and did nothing on this occa- 
 sion, he is introduced to great disadvantage; and his 
 appearance does not seem to answer any important 
 purpose. But the fact is, he did send Moses to deliver 
 the children of Israel; and we have dirine testimony 
 that God sent him. 
 
 After the Israelites had departed from Egypt, God 
 led the people through the way of the wilderness of 
 the Red Sea. "And the Lord went before them by 
 day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way, and 
 hy night in a pillar of fire to give them light," Ex. 
 13:21. When the Israelites had travelled as far as 
 the Red Sea, and the Egyptians pressed hard upon 
 them, it is recorded that, "The Angel of God, which 
 went before the camp of Israel, removed and went 
 behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
 before their face, and stood behind them," Ex. 14:19. 
 By a comparison of these two representations we find 
 that he, who went before the children of Israel in a 
 pillar of cloud to the Red Sea, was called the Lord, 
 (mn*) But on the shore of the Red Sea, he that 
 was in the cloud changed his position, and went from 
 before the camp of Israel, and stood behind them; 
 and the cloud moved in like manner. He is here 
 called the Angel of God. It is evident that he, who 
 went before them, is he, who removed and went be- 
 hind them. It follows, of course, that the Angel of 
 God is the Lord himself. 
 
 Jehovah promised Moses that his presence (or his 
 face) should go with him. We find that the divine 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 203 
 
 presence in the cloud, did accompany him and the 
 people, during their journeyings in the wilderness. 
 But we learn by Stephen, that it was the Angel, that 
 was with Moses in the church in the wilderness. It 
 follows, of course, that the presence of the Angel was 
 the presence of Jehovah. 
 
 God, in his preface to the decalogue, addresses his 
 servant Moses thus, "I am the Lord thy God, which 
 have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of 
 the house of bondage." He then proceeds to give 
 him the law. But who was it that brought Moses 
 out of Egypt? It was the Angel, who appeared to 
 him in the bush, who styled himself I AM; and sent 
 him to Pharaoh, to let Israel go; it was the Angel, 
 who went before him in a pillar of cloud, to the bor- 
 ders of the Red Sea; and went behind him through 
 the deep, to protect him from the Egyptian host; it 
 was the Angel, who was with him in the wilderness, 
 Avho protected, guided, and supported him. This 
 Angel was called Jehovah; and I AM was his memo- 
 rial. Stephen, speaking of Moses, testifies to the 
 same effect. "This is he that was in the church in 
 the wilderness, with the Angela which spake to him in 
 the mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received 
 the lively oracles to give unto us," Acts 7:38. From 
 this testimony it appears that the Angel, who was 
 with Moses in the wilderness, spake the law to him; 
 and it has been shewn that that Angel was the Lord 
 Jehovah. 
 
 But the same Stephen testifies thus, "Who have 
 received the law by the disposition of Angels," Acts 
 7:53. The apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians 
 concerning the law, says, "It was ordained by angels 
 in the hand of a mediator," Gal. 3:19. To the 
 Hebrews he says, "if the word spoken by angels was 
 steadfast," &c. From these declarations, it has been 
 inferred that angels gave the law from Sinai. Enough 
 has been said to shew that he, who led Israel out of 
 Egypt, guided them in a pillar of cloud, and appeared 
 
204 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 in the bush, gave the law from mount Sinai; and that 
 the Angel, who performed this was not a created 
 angel, but was Jehovah. Moses states expressly, that 
 Jehovah descended upon the mount in fire; that 
 Jehovah conversed with him; that God spake all 
 these words, viz. the words of the law. It is neces- 
 sary therefore to reconcile the account, which Moses 
 gives of the publication of the law, with the account 
 which Stephen and the apostle Paul give of it. The 
 first states that God spake all the words of the law; 
 the latter states that it was received by the disposition 
 of angels; that it was ordained and spoken by angels. 
 
 There can be no doubt that God was the Author 
 and prime Communicator of the law. That he em- 
 ployed angels on mount Sinai on the important occa- 
 sion of promulgating the law, is abundantly evident. 
 Moses, before his death, blessed the twelve tribes of 
 Israel. In the introduction of his blessing, he says, 
 "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir 
 unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he 
 came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand 
 went a fiery law for them," Deut. 33:2. The Psalm- 
 ist, describing the majesty of God, saith, "Sinai itself 
 was moved at the presence of God, the God of Isra- 
 el," Ps. 68:8. "The Lord gave the word; great was 
 the company of them that published it," ver. 11. 
 "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
 thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in 
 Sinai, in the holy place," ver. 17. From a view of these 
 texts, and from a general view of the subject, it ap- 
 pears that that uncreated Angel, who spake with 
 Moses in mount Sinai, and was repeatedly called Jeho- 
 vah, was attended with a host of angels on Sinai; and 
 that he employed them as subordinate agents in pro- 
 mulgating the law. But there is no evidence that 
 they personated Jehovah, saying, I am the Lord God. 
 
 The Lord, to encourage Moses on his way to the 
 land of promise, says, "Behold I send an Angel before 
 thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEI. OF THE COVENANT. 205 
 
 the place, which I have prepared. Beware of him, 
 and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not 
 pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him," 
 Ex. 23:20, 21. In this description of the Angel, there 
 are characteristic marks of divinity. It was required 
 to obey his commands, and not to excite his anger; and 
 the reason assigned is, "he will not pardon your trans- 
 gressions." We are ready to adopt the language of 
 the Jewish doctors of the law, and inquire, "\Vho can 
 forgive sins but God only?" Forgiveness of sin is the 
 prerogative of him, against whom it is committed. 
 God says of the Angel, whom he sent, "my name is in 
 him." The Angel is called by his name. He is called 
 Lord, God, Jehovah, I AM. The name of a thing is 
 frequently used as synonymous with the thing itself. 
 The name of God is often used for God. When Christ 
 prays, "Father, glorify thy name," his request is, that 
 the Father would glorify himself. In many other 
 places in the scriptures the word name^ is used in the 
 same manner. From this it is inferred, if God's name 
 was in the Angel, God himself was in him. This 
 phraseology, while it conveys an idea of a distinction 
 between God and the Angel, also conveys an idea of 
 a most intimate union; a union, which authorizes the 
 same names to be applied; and the same operations 
 to be attributed to each. The original word, ren- 
 dered, in him, is of greater force than the translation, 
 and expresses the inmost, or most intimate part of 
 any thing; the inner or inmost part of man, his mind, 
 heart, or inmost thought." Park. Lex. No word, per- 
 haps, could express a more intimate union between 
 God and the Angel, than this. 
 
 This Angel is called "the Angel of his (i. e. God's) 
 presence." He saved Israel. "In his love and in 
 his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and 
 carried them all the days of old," Isaiah 63:9. The 
 name. Angel of his presence, or as it may be accu- 
 rately translated, jingcl of his face, imports that he 
 manifested the presence of God; that where he was. 
 
206 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 there was the face of God. That it was God, who 
 saved and redeemed Israel, is not doubted. But this 
 salvation is attributed to the Angel; and there is 
 no intimation given that he did not do it by his own 
 power. 
 
 He is called the messenger, i. e. Angel of the cove- 
 nant. This name imports that he communicated the 
 covenant; or that he was a contracting party in the 
 covenant; or that he was the leading subject of it. 
 Either of these significations implies that he is the 
 Lord. Besides, he is called the Lord in the same 
 text, in which he is called the Angel of the covenant. 
 See Mai. 3:1. 
 
 Three men called on Abraham, in the plains of 
 Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the 
 day. They were travelling toward Sodom. Abraham 
 respectfully addressed them; and courteously invited 
 them to. stop and take refreshment. In the course 
 of their conversation with this pious man, one appears 
 to be much more eminent than the others. He not 
 only takes the lead in conversation, but he appears to 
 speak with independent authority. When he speaks 
 to Abraham, the sacred hfstorian states that it is the 
 Lord, (nili*) who speaks to him; and this he does 
 repeatedly. At length "the men turned their faces 
 from thence and went toward Sodom; but Abraham 
 stood yet before the Lord." It appears evident that 
 one of those three men, who appeared to Abraham, 
 vvas the Lord, who conversed with him. They were 
 called men, because they were in the appearance of 
 men. While they were conversing with the patri- 
 arch, without intimation of a new speaker, one in the 
 character of Lord, i. e. Jehovah, addressed him. This 
 one remained with Abraham, while the others went 
 their way. It is evident, or at least, it is in the high- 
 est degree probable, that he, who remained, was one 
 of the three. Because, at even, two angels, and two 
 only, are named, went into Sodom to destroy the 
 place. 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COTENANT. 207 
 
 Divine honors were paid to the Angel of the Lord. 
 Jacob, a short time before his death, commanded that 
 the sons of Joseph should be brought unto him, that 
 he might bless them. When their father presented 
 them before him, "he blessed Joseph and said, God^ 
 before whom mj fathers, Abraham and Isaac did 
 walk, the God, which fed me all my life long unto this 
 day, the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil, 
 bless the lads." Jn this passage there is a supplica- 
 tion to the Angel, as well as to God; and as the verb, 
 bless, (in the original) is in the singular number, he 
 made no distinction between them, or rather he ad- 
 dressed them as one, or distributively. Of course, 
 prayer was addressed to the Angel; and it was ad- 
 dressed for a blessing, not verbal, but real, which 
 divine power only could bestow. 
 
 "And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at 
 the tabernacle door; and all the people rose up and 
 worshipped, every man in his tent door," Ex. 33:10. 
 It cannot be supposed that they paid homage to the 
 pillar of cloud; but to him, that was in it. The scrip- 
 tures are express, that it was the Angel, who was in 
 the cloud, and guided Israel. It appears therefore, 
 that they worshipped the Angel. 
 
 "And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, 
 that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, 
 there stood a man over against him, with his sword 
 drawn in his hand, and Joshua went unto him, and said 
 unto him, art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he 
 said, nay; but as Captain of the host of the Lord, am 
 I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, 
 and did worship; and said unto him, what saith my 
 Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the Lord's 
 host said unto Joshua, loose thy shoe from off thy 
 foot; for the place whereon thoustandest is holy; and 
 Joshua did so," Joshua 5:13,14,15. This man, who 
 appeared to Joshua, was undoubtedly the same, that 
 appeared to Jacob and wrestled with him. But after-^ 
 
208 CHRltST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 ward Jacob said he had seen God face to face. This 
 man is called Captain of the Lord's host. The Isra- 
 elites were called the host, or the armies of the living 
 God. The Captain, who led this host was the Angel 
 who went with theoi in the pillar of cloud. If Joshua's 
 falling on his face to the earth and worshipping, do 
 not prove that he gave him divine reverence, the 
 command to loose his shoe from off his foot, because 
 the place where he stood was holy, implies it. When 
 God called to Moses out of the bush, he commanded 
 him to put off his shoes from his feet, because he stood 
 on holy ground. This was commanded as an expres- 
 sion of respect to the divine Majesty. It is presum- 
 able that no creature would claim this homage, which 
 God claimed for himself. (Hoc exemplo sacerdotes 
 Judaici calceas exuunt in templo ministrantes. Pool 
 in loco.) 
 
 In the history of Gideon we find that the Angel of 
 the Lord appeared to him. In the course of the his- 
 tory he is called the Lord. Gideon, unconscious who 
 he was, prepared a present, and offered it to him. 
 The Angel, not needing the sustenance of mortals, 
 appropriated it as a burnt offering. Thus Gideon 
 unwittingly sacrificed unto him; or rather the Angel 
 caused him to make this sacrifice unto himself. 
 
 From what has been said respecting the Angel, 
 whose appearances are recorded in the Old Testament, 
 it appears that he was not a created angel, but that 
 he was divine. But it is objected that it is absurd "to 
 suppose that a certain being, may send a messenger on 
 an errand to transact a particular business, and yet be 
 that very messenger, who is sent;" or that God and 
 the Angel of God are the same. However great is 
 this absurdity, we are not answerable for it; for we 
 neither invented, embraced, nor shall we attempt to 
 defend it. But when we find in the inspired writings, 
 that the Angel of God assumes the highest of divine 
 titles, that he performs divine works, and that divine 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 209 
 
 honors are given to him, we infer that there is a 
 ground of distinction in the divine nature, on which a 
 reciprocal relationship subsists; covenant engagements 
 are ratified; different offices are sustained; and differ- 
 ent works are performed. This distinction was per- 
 ceived by the ancient Jews; but it was more clearly 
 seen under the Gospel. 
 
 "Philo makes all the appearances, which we meet 
 with in the books of Moses, to belong to the Word; 
 and the latter Cabalists, since Christ's time, not only 
 do the same, but deny that the Father ever appeared, 
 saying, it was the hoyoa only that manifested himself 
 to their fathers, whose proper name is Elohim. He 
 (Philo) expressly affirms of the Angel, that delivered 
 Jacob from all evil, that he was the Aoyocr. And so 
 does Onkelos in his Chaldee paraphrase, translating 
 the words of Jacob, simply as they lie in the text, with- 
 out any addition." The Jews after Christ's time 
 retained the same sentiment. (See Allix judgment 
 of the ancient Jewish Church.) When Abraham 
 received the promise that his seed should be as the 
 stars of heaven, it was the word of the Lord, that 
 came unto him, and made him this promise, Gen. 15. 
 As the promise which the word of the Lord made to 
 Abraham is similar to that, which the Angel of the 
 Lord made to Hagar, it is probable that the Word 
 and the Angel are the same. It is evident that the 
 Word was an agent, because he came to Abraham, 
 spake to him; told him that he was his shield, his 
 exceeding great reward. But if the word of the Lord 
 meant no more than his declarations and commands, 
 it seems improper to represent it in this manner. 
 
 Besides the appearance of the Angel, who is called 
 Jehovah, who did what divine power only could do; 
 and received, without prohibition, divine honors, there 
 is recorded in the Scriptures, the appearance of many 
 angels. Two angels appeared unto Lot, in Sodom, 
 and brought him out of that corrupt place. But they 
 did not call themselves by divine names; they did not 
 perform divine works; nor did they receive divine 
 27 
 
210 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 honors. An angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah 
 and his wife; and assured them that they should have 
 a son, who should be a Nazarite unto God. But he 
 refused to accept an offering at their hands; and told 
 thern expressly, that if they would ojETer a burnt offer- 
 ing, they must offer it unto the Lord. This implied 
 that he was not the Lord. David saw an angel with 
 his hand stretched out over Jerusalem to destroy it. 
 But the Lord stayed his hand. This angel bore no 
 marks of divinity. David did not sacrifice to him, but 
 to the Lord. It is recorded in the Scriptures that an 
 angel appeared to Joseph and to Mary, and made 
 known to them important things concerning the child 
 Jesus. Angels ministered unto Christ, when he was 
 upon earth. Two angels were seen in his tomb after 
 he had risen from the dead. 
 
 But there are visible marks of distinction, between 
 the appearance of these angels and the appearance of 
 that Angel, who redeemed Israel. The latter gave 
 evidence that he was God, while the former gave 
 equal evidence that they were created beings. Be- 
 cause God employs angels as ministering servants in 
 the affairs of this lower world, it does not follow that 
 the Angel of the covenant belongs to that class of 
 beings. Because they are both called by the name 
 angel, to denote that they are sent, it does not follow, 
 that they possess the same nature; do the same works; 
 or are entitled to the same honors. Each will be 
 viewed and esteemed according to their distinguishing 
 traits of character. 
 
 In the New Testament God is more clearly revealed; 
 a distinction in the divine nature is more clearly mark- 
 ed out, and he, who under the Jewish dispensation, 
 occasionally assumed a human appearance, under the 
 Gospel dispensation, actually took human nature into 
 union with his own. We find so exact correspondence 
 between Jesus Christ and the Angel of the covenant, 
 who redeemed Israel, that we infer that they are one 
 and the same. It was prophesied by Malachi, "Be- 
 
CHRIST THE ANftEL OF THE COVENANT. 211 
 
 hold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare 
 the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, 
 shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger 
 (or Angel) of the covenant, whom ye delight in," 
 Mai. 3:1. The Evangelists fipply this prophecy to 
 Christ and to his precursor. St. Mark, speaking of 
 the Son of God, says, "As it is written in the prophets, 
 behold I send my messenger before thy face, which 
 shall pj-epare thy way before thee." He then adds 
 a prophecy from Isaiah. "The voice of one crying in 
 the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make 
 his paths straight." The prophet Malachi foretels 
 that a messenger would be sent before the Lord; and 
 the Lord he represents to be even the Angel of the 
 covenant. The Evangelists apply this prediction of 
 the messenger to John the baptist; and the prediction 
 of the Angel of the covenant to Jesus Christ. The 
 conclusion then is, that the Angel and Christ are one 
 and the same. 
 
 When God promised to send the Angel before 
 Israel, he said, my name is in him. Christ speaks of 
 himself to the same effect. "Believest thou not that 
 I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words 
 that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the- 
 Father that dwelleth in me< he doeth the works. Be- 
 lieve me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
 in me," John 14:10,11. Of the Angel it was implied 
 that he could forgive sin. Christ actually exercised 
 this power and authority. The apostle Paul expresses 
 the same sentiment, "God was in Christ," 2 Cor. 5:19. 
 The name Emmanuel, signifying God with us, which 
 was given to the holy Child of Mary, implied (hat 
 God was \n him. These texts clearly evince that the 
 union of God with Christ is similar to the union of 
 God with the Angel; and such a union between God 
 and any other being, is not exhibited in the sacred 
 scriptures. There is strong evidence therefore, that 
 the Angel and Christ are the same. 
 
212 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 The apostle Paul, speaking of the privileges and 
 of the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness, says, 
 "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also 
 tempted, and were destroyed of serpents," I Cor. 
 10:9. 
 
 The apostle alludes to the Israelites, when "they 
 journeyed from mount Hor, by the way of the Red 
 Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of 
 the people was much discouraged because of the way; 
 and the people spake against God, and against Moses, 
 Wherefore have ye brought us^up out of Egypt to die 
 in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is 
 there any water," Numb. 21:4,5. The God, against 
 vphom they spake, was he, who brought them up out 
 of Egypt; but it was the Angel, who led them from 
 Egypt and guided them in the wilderness; it was the 
 Angel then, whom they tempted. But the apostle 
 Paul gives us to understand that it was Christ, whom 
 they tempted. Therefore the Angel was Christ. 
 
 It was the opinion of the ancient Jews, that the 
 Angel, who was called Jehovah, and led and redeemed 
 Israel, was not a created Angel, who personated God. 
 They believed generally that he was the Word. Philo 
 is explicit on this point. "In general, he asserts that 
 it was the Word that appeared to Adam, Jacob and 
 Moses; although in the books of Moses, it is only an 
 Angel that is spoken of. It was the Word, that ap- 
 peared to Abraham, (Gen. 18:1,) according to Philo; 
 for he saith, it was the Word, that promised Sarah a 
 son in her old age, and that enabled her to conceive 
 and bring forth. It was the Word, that appeared to 
 Abraham as an Angel, and that called to him not to 
 hurt his son, when he was about to sacrifice him. It 
 was the Word that appeared to Hagar. It was the 
 Word that appeared so many times to Jacob, although 
 he be called the Angel that delivered him out of all 
 his trouble. It was the image of God, which in other 
 places is the same with the Word, that appeared to 
 Moses in the bush. It was God that called to him 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 213 
 
 at the same time, even the Word, whom Moses de- 
 sired to see. It was the Word, who led Israel through 
 the wilderness, Exod. 33: He was the Angel, in whom 
 God placed his name. This Angel was he, that ap- 
 peared to Moses, and the elders of Israel on mount 
 Sinai, Exod. 24: It was the Word, whom those Jews 
 rejected that said, "let us make a captain and return 
 into Egypt," Numb. 14:4. 
 
 The appearances of the Angel recorded in the Old 
 Testament, were frequently in the form of a man. 
 Once he appeared in a burning bush; once on Sinai in 
 fire and smoke; at other times in a pillar of cloud. 
 These were similitudes, (Numb. 12:8,) or vehicles in 
 which the Angel appeared. But the Israelites did 
 not see the Angel himself. He was a Spirit, and of 
 course, he was not visible. "No man hath seen God 
 at any time. He dwelleth in the light which no man 
 can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can 
 see, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of 
 the Father, he hath declared him." It appears, that 
 ever since the apostasy, God the Father has holden 
 intercourse with this world, through a Mediator. 
 "There is one God, and one Mediator, between God 
 and men, the man, Chfist Jesus," I Tim. 2:5. 
 
 Christ officiated as Mediator between God and man, 
 before his incarnation. He spoke to our first parents 
 in Eden, after they had rebelled; and began to unfold 
 the second, or the new covenant, the covenant of 
 grace. He often spoke to the fathers; and commu- 
 nicated to them the divine will. He was the Angel 
 of the covenant; the Angel, who communicated to 
 this world the covenant of grace. "His goings forth 
 have been from of old; from everlasting," Mic. 5:2. 
 
 Christ has employed agents, or subordinate media- 
 tors between himself and this fallen world. Moses 
 was a mediator between the Angel and Israel. The 
 priests, who officiated at the altar were mediators 
 between the Lord and the people. But the prime 
 Mediator, the Mediator of the covenant, is the Son of 
 
214 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 
 
 God. It was through his mediation the saints before 
 the incarnation inherited the promises. They beHeved 
 in a Savior to come, who would make an offering for 
 sin once for all; and this faith was accounted to them 
 for righteousness. It was in view, and by virtue of 
 that sacrifice, which he was to make, that he made 
 uitercesslon for them, and saved them from their sins. 
 "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; 
 and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom 
 the Son will reveal him," Luke 10:22. This text, while 
 it conveys an idea that the nature of the Son is no less 
 unsearchable by finite intelligence, than the nature of 
 the Father, confirms the sentiment that it is the Son, 
 who, from the beginning, hath revealed the Father. 
 He was in the bosom of the Father, and the Father 
 was in him. He was perfectly acquainted with his 
 nature, and with his counsels. He was, of course, 
 perfectly qualified to declare, or manifest him to the 
 world. Under the former dispensation, his revela- 
 tions of the divine nature and will, were often seen 
 through shadows and similitudes. He gradually dis- 
 closed the perfections and will of the Deity. By types 
 and symbols he prefigured important realities. When 
 the fulness of the time was cotue, he appeared in the 
 world agreeably to ancient predictions and represen- 
 tations. He more clearly manifested the divine nature. 
 The Deity, who was often exhibited in plurality in 
 the Old Testament, he revealed with these specific 
 distinctions, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 The Angel, who delivered Israel from temporal evils, 
 and led him to an earthly inheritance, appears in the 
 New Testament a Savior from sin, not a Savior of the 
 Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. The Spirit, who 
 wasrepresented, just after the creation, hovering over 
 the waters to impregnate them with animal life; and 
 to impress form upon chaos, appears in the New Tes- 
 tament, giving spiritual life to human nature, and 
 restoring order in the moral world. In the Old Testa- 
 ment God is represented, in the relationship of Creator, 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT: 215 
 
 as the Father of the whole human race. In the New 
 Testanjoiit he is represented as the Father of a 
 spiritual seed; of obedient affectionate cliildren. In 
 the Old Testament he is exhibited in plurality creat- 
 ing the world. In the New, he is represented with the 
 peculiar distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 The same Savior, the same Sanctifier were revealed 
 under the former, which were revealed under the lat- 
 ter dispensation, but with less distinctness. 
 
 There is an intimate union between God and be- 
 lievers. John, in his first Epistle, says, "If we love 
 one another, God dwelletk in us. Hereby know we 
 that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath 
 given us of his Spirit. Whosoever shall confess that 
 Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he 
 in God." This union between God and believers is 
 manifestly different from the union, which subsists be- 
 tween God and the Angel, or between the Father 
 and the Son. The Angel, in whom was the name of 
 Jehovah was called by the highest of divine names; 
 he performed divine works; and he received divine 
 honors. There is no intimation that he was depend- 
 ent. Jesus Christ declares his union with the Father; 
 and for a confirmation (5f his declaration he appeals to 
 his works. " What things soever the Father doethy these 
 also doeth the Son likewise. If I do not the works of 
 my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye 
 belijeve not me, believe the works." From the union, 
 which subsists between the Father and the Son, the 
 same works are attributed indiscriminately to each; 
 and peo[)le are required to honor the Son even as 
 they honor the Father. But these consequences do 
 not accrue to believers by reason of their union with 
 God. Their union then is of a different kind; and 
 forms no argument against that higher and more inti- 
 mate union, which subsists between the Father and 
 the Son. 
 
 Those who disbelieve that the Angel of the cove- 
 nant was the Son of God, are not agreed in their opin- 
 
216 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT.- 
 
 ions respecting him. Some suppose that he was a 
 created angel; and personated Jehovah. If this be 
 correct, it is hard to draw a line of distinction between 
 the creator and a creature. 
 
 Others are of opinion that the Angel of God and 
 Jehovah are equivalent. "Jehovah, the Angel of 
 God, the God of Bethel, God almighty; the redeem- 
 ing Angel, are all but different names and descriptions 
 of Jehovah the one true God. (See Lindsey.) "It 
 should seem, therefore, that in Scripture language, 
 when describing the divine appearances, the Angel of 
 the Lord appeared, and Jehovah appeared, are equiv- 
 alent expressions." (Lowman's Tracts, p. 99.) We 
 are ready to admit the judgment of these learned au- 
 thors as to the equivalence of these names. We are 
 ready, also to admit the judgment of other learned 
 authors of the same class, who believe that the An- 
 gel and he who sent him are not, in all respects, the 
 same. From both we infer, as we apprehend, the 
 whole truth; that the Angel is equivalent to Jehovah, 
 and that there is such a distinction between them, that 
 they are not in every respect the same. 
 
 The apostle to the Hebrews contrasts the Mosaic, 
 with the Gospel dispensation, and gives a superiority 
 to the latter. "Therefore we ought to give the more 
 earnest heed to the things, which we have heard, lest 
 at any time we should let them slip. For if the word 
 spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgres- 
 sion and disobedience received a just recompense of 
 reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great 
 salvation, which, at first, began to be spoken by the 
 Lord; and was confirmed unto us by them that heard 
 him," Heb. 2:1,2,3. The apostle attributes greater 
 excellence, and requires a more earnest heed to the 
 Gospel, than to the law of Moses, because the Gospel 
 was spoken immediately by the Lord Jesus, and offer- 
 ed so great salvation; whereas the law was spoken 
 by angels; and under that dispensation, "every trans- 
 gression and disobedience received a just recompense 
 
CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 217 
 
 of reward." The prime Comtnunicator of the law, 
 communicated the Gospel. It was the Angel, who 
 spake to Moses in the mount Sinai and with our fathers, 
 who received the lively oracles to give unto us. This 
 Angel called himself, I AM. This Angel was with 
 the Church in the wilderness and was tempted. The 
 apostle informs us that this Angel, who was tempted 
 in the wilderness, was Christ. If he who gave the 
 law, and he who gave the gospel, are one and the 
 same, it is inquired, why has the Gospel, on this ground, 
 a preference to the law, and what is the force of St. 
 Paul's reasoning. It is readily admitted that angels 
 accompanied the Son of God on mount Sinai, and were 
 subordinate agents in promulgating the law. The 
 commandments which were given from Sinai, and all 
 the revelations which were made under the Jewish 
 economy, were of the same divine authority as the 
 Gospel. But the circumstances were different. The 
 former were communicated mediately^ the latter was 
 communicated immediately by the Son of God. Under 
 the former dispensation he revealed the will of the 
 Father through the medium of prophets. Under 
 the latter dispensation he revealed his will personally. 
 If that dispensation, which was communicated by God 
 through intermediate hands, and whose most promi- 
 nent retribution was of a temporal nature, demanded 
 attention, more earnest attention does that dispensa- 
 tion demand, which was communicated immediately by 
 the Lord himself, and whose rewards and punishments 
 are of a spiritual nature, and of eternal duration.* 
 
 * "Grotius remarks, that the Angel, spoken of in the last text, (Mai. 3:1.) 
 •was allowed even by the Jewish Rabbins to be Jehovah, and copies from Masius 
 a striking passage to this purpose, out of the comment of R. Moses, the son of 
 Nehenien, upon the 5lh chapter of Joshua. Isie Angelus, &c. i. e. "Thai An- 
 gel, to say the truth, is the Anijel Redeemer, of whom it is written, for luy name 
 is in him. He v/:\i^ the Anc;el, wiio said to Jacob, I am the God of Bethel; and of 
 ■whom it is said, God culled to vloses out of the midst of the bush. He was call- 
 ed an A;igel because he governs the •world; for it is written, Jthovah (i- e. the 
 Lord God,)brought us out of Egypt. It is moreover written, the Angel of his 
 presence saved them. And, without doubt, the Angel of God's presence was he, 
 of whom it is said. My presence shall go before thee, anil 1 will give tht.e rest. In 
 a word, He is the Angel, of v/hom the prophet spake. The Lord whom ye seek, 
 shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye 
 delight in. The face, or presence of God signifies God himself, which is confess* 
 ediy allowed by all interpreters." (HorK Solitariaj.) 
 
 28 
 
THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, 
 RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 It is of rt-o inconsiderable consequence to ascertain the 
 opinion of the Jews, before and after Christ's incar- 
 nation, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. They 
 formed their opinion of the divine nature from the 
 writings of the Old Testament. As they were per- 
 fectly acquainted with the idiom of their own lan- 
 guage, they were well qualified to determine the 
 meaning of their own Scriptures. It appears that 
 the plural name of God, which is so often used in the 
 Old Testament, naturally conveys an idea of some 
 kind of plurality in the divine nature. The plural 
 names, given to the idols of the heathen, form no 
 valid objection to this hypothesis, when it is consider- 
 ed there were many of the same name. 
 
 The writings of Philo the Jew, are very full and 
 explicit on the divine nature. That he wrote some 
 time before the birth of Christ has been clearly prov- 
 ed by a divine of the church of England, in a treatise 
 entitled, "The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church 
 against the Unitarians." In producing testimonies in 
 favor of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of Christ, 
 from the writings of this celebrated Jew, we shall 
 quote them as they are found quoted in this English 
 author. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, «fec. 219 
 
 Philo,* in several places of his writings observes, 
 "That Moses, the law-giver of the Jews, made this 
 his chief end to destroy the notion of polytheism." 
 He then affirms, "that though it is said, God is one, yet 
 this is not to be understood with respect to number." 
 Though this expression is obscure, there is no doubt 
 that he had an^itlea of purality in unity. He says, 
 "God begets his Word, and his Wisdom, and that his 
 Wisdom is the same with his Word; that this genera- 
 tion was from all eternity; for the Word of God is the 
 eternal Son of God." Philo speaks of two powers in 
 God; that these powers made the world, or by them 
 God created the world; that these eternal powers ap- 
 peared, acted, and spoke as real persons; and in a vis- 
 ible and sensible manner." 
 
 "It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that 
 there is a notion of plurality plainly imported in the 
 Hebrew ie\\, since they have forbidden their common 
 people the reading of the history of the creation, lest 
 understanding it literally, it should lead them into here- 
 sy. The Talmudists have invented this excuse for 
 the Seventy, as to their changing the Hebrew plural, 
 into a Greek singular; they say it was for fear Ptol. 
 Phil, should take the Jews for polytheists." St. Je- 
 rome observes the same. 
 
 Since the time of Christ the Jews have retained 
 the opinion that there is a plurality in the divine 
 nature. "Both the authors of the Midrashim and the 
 Cabalistical authors agree exactly in this, that they 
 acknowledge a plurality in the divine essence; and 
 that they reduce such a plurality to three persons as 
 we do. To prove such an assertion, I take notice 
 first, that the Jews do judge as we do, that the word 
 Elohim, which is plural, expresses a plurality. Their 
 ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Elohim 
 
 • The following quotations fi-om ancient Jewish authors are not made vith a 
 view to subscribe to all their opinions, but simply to shew that they believed 
 there was a plurality in the divine Nature; that tiie promised Messiah was the 
 Son of God; and that he was divine. 
 
220 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 
 
 is as if one did read El hem^ that is, they are God. 
 Bachaje, a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch, 
 who brin2;s in his work all the senses of the four sorts 
 of interpreters among the Jews, speaks to this pur- 
 pose upon the Parascha Breschit. fol. 2. col. 3." Allix. 
 p. 160. 
 
 "The author of Zohar is a voucher of great au- 
 thority; and he cites these words of R. Jose, (a fa- 
 mous Jew of the second century,) when examining 
 the text, Deut. 4:7, Who have their gods so near to 
 them? What, saith he, may be the meaning of this.f^ 
 It seems as if Moses should have said, Who have God so 
 near them? But saith he, there is a superior God, and 
 there is the God, who was the fear of Isaac, and there 
 is an inferior God; and therefore Moses saith, the Gods 
 so near. For there are many virtues, that come from 
 the only One, and all they are one." 
 
 "See how the same author supposes that there are 
 three degrees in the Godhead, in Levit. col. 116. 
 Come and see the mystery in the word Elohim, viz. 
 there are three degrees, and every degree is distinct 
 by himself; and notwithstanding they are all One, and 
 tied in one, and one is not, and separated from the 
 other. Upon the words of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Is- 
 rael, the Lord our God is one Lord;" they must 
 know that those three are one." 
 
 "You have this remark of the same author in Gen. 
 fol. 54, col. 2. de litera, \^ that the three branches 
 of that letter denote the heavenly Fathei^s, who are 
 there named Jeliovah, our Lord, Jehovah." 
 
 "R. Hay Hagahon, who lived seven hundred years 
 ago, said there are three lights in God; ihe ancient 
 light, or Kadmon; the pure light, the purified light, 
 and that these make but one God: and that there is 
 neither plurality nor polytheism in this. The same 
 idea is followed bv R. Shem Tov." 
 
 "If you would know their (i. e. the Cabalists) 
 opinion, to whom it was that God did speak at the 
 creation, Gen. 1:26, R. Juda will tell you God spoke 
 
RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 221 
 
 to his Word. If you would know of ihem, who is the 
 Spirit of whom we read, Gen. 1:2, that he moved on the^ 
 face of the waters^ Moses Botril will inform you, it is 
 the Holy Spirit." 
 
 The Chaldee paraphrases are consonant with the 
 opinion of Philo respecting the divine nature. "They 
 ascribe the creation of the world to the Word. Tiiey 
 make it the Word that apjjeared to the ancients under 
 the name of the Angel of the Lord. That Abraham 
 swore by the Word. The Word led Israel in the pil- 
 lar of a cloud. The Word spake out of the fire at 
 Horeb." The Jews inferred from their Scriptures 
 that the promised Messiah Avas the Son of God. "Philo 
 in his pieces hath preserved the sense of the ancient 
 Jews in this matter, that this Son was the Aoyo;, as 
 where he sailh, that the Word, by whom they swear 
 was begotten; that God begat his Wisdom according 
 to Solomon, Prov. 8:24, which Wisdom is no other 
 than the Aoyog; that the Aoyo; is the most ancient 
 Son; the eternal Spirit of God; that his Word is his 
 image and his first born; that the Word is the Son of 
 God, before the Angels; that the unity of God is not 
 to be reduced to number; that God is unus, not uni- 
 cus." 
 
 "Nothing can be more express for to prove that 
 there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read in 
 the Targum of Jerusalem, Gen. 3:22. 7\e word of 
 Jehovah said.^ here Jldam, whom I created^ is the only be- 
 gotten Son in the world, as I am the only begotten Son in 
 the high Heaven.'''' Pliilo calls the Aoyo; "the first 
 born of God, the eternal Word of the eternal God, 
 begotten by the Father." 
 
 "In Isaiah 4:2, the Messias is called the Branch of 
 the Lord, no doubt as properly as he is called the 
 branch of David, Jer. 23:5. "In that day, saith he, the 
 branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious," 
 which is in Jonathan's paraphrase interpreted of the 
 Messias. From which it is natural to conclude that 
 
222 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 
 
 the proper Son of God was to be the Messias, and 
 the Messlas was to be the proper Son of God." 
 
 "The Targum on Jer. 23: acknowledges the Messias 
 to be there treated of, and yet he is called in this place, 
 the Lord of our righteousness. See to the same pur- 
 pose the Targum on Jer. 33:14. The learned M. 
 Edzardi has proved that the same interpretation of 
 these words of Jeremy, hath continued among the 
 Jews from the time of Jesus Christ, without inter- 
 ruption, till these latter days; and this he hath done 
 from a great number of Jewish authors." 
 
 "Philo says that the eternal Word appeared to 
 Abraham. And elsewhere he names that Angel or 
 Word, Jehovah." 
 
 "Philo says that it was the Word which appeared to 
 the Jews upon mount Sinai; that God spoke to the 
 Jews when he gave them his laws." 
 
 "Philo avows that the Word was the eternal Son 
 of God. He calls him the first born and the Creator 
 of the world." 
 
 St. John expresses the same sentiment at the com- 
 mencement of his Gospel. "In the beginning was the 
 Word. All things were made by him and without 
 him was not any thing made that was made." He 
 expresses the same opinion of Christ, which the Jews 
 before him had expressed. 
 
 It has been attempted to invalidate the authority 
 of Philo, by saying that he learned his notions of the 
 Trinity from Plato. But the testimony of heathen 
 will remove this objection. "The very heathen au- 
 thors own that Plato borrowed his notions from Moses, 
 as Numenius, who (as Theodoret tells us) did ac- 
 knowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the doctrine 
 of the Hebrews, during his stay there for thirteen 
 years;" Theod. Serm. 1. 
 
 That the ancient Jews believed in a plurality in 
 the divine nature, and in the Divinity of the Mes- 
 siah, is supported by the Chaldee paraphrases. 
 These paraphrases exhibit the Messias or Word, 
 
RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 223 
 
 in a similar manner to that, which the writers 
 of the New Testament exhibit him. The Jerusalem 
 Targum on Gen. 1:27, says, "The Word of the Lord 
 created man in his own image." When God appeared 
 to our first parents after they had sinned, it is said, 
 "they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the 
 midst of the garden." Philo says that it was the 
 Word of the Lord, that appeared to them. "So both 
 Onkelos and Jonathan have it, that Adam and his wife 
 heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking 
 in the garden." The Jerusalem Targum makes use 
 of a similar mode of expression. 
 
 "The Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out 
 of heaven, the second time; and said, by myself have 
 I sworn, saith the Lord," &c. "There both Onkelos 
 and Jonathan have it. By my Word have I sworn, saith 
 the Lord-'''' When it is considered, that the ancient 
 Jews believed that the Word was God, they might 
 with propriety say that God swore by his Word; and 
 with equal propriety might the apostle say, that God 
 swore by himself. Many other quotations might be 
 made from the Targums of similar import and of sim- 
 ilar application. 
 
 But it is objected that there is no weight in the 
 argument drawn from the Targums, because the 
 Hebrew word for God, is often translated or para- 
 phrased in the Chaldee language, the Word of the 
 Lord; that this is the idiom of that language; and that 
 it signifies neither more nor less than God himself. 
 But the Chaldee word Mimra is sometimes used dif- 
 ferently and separately by the paraphrasts. "We 
 read in Jonathan's Targum, that Jacob vowed a vow 
 to the Word, saying, if the Word of the Lord will 
 be my help, &c. then shall the Lord be my God." In 
 the first part of this quotation, the term Word, or 
 Mimra is used by itself; and it is used as synonymous 
 with Lord. In the same manner does St. John use the 
 word AoyoQ. 
 
224 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 
 
 Onkelos on Exodus 29:42, says, "I will appoint my 
 Word to speak with thee there, and I will appoint 
 ray Word there for the children of Israel." Here 
 the paraphrast makes a distinction between I and 
 Word; a distinction not unlike that, M-hich Christians 
 make between the Father and the Word. When it 
 is considered, that Philo viewed the Aoyog as the 
 promised Messias, it is highly probable that his He- 
 brew brethren had the same idea of it when they 
 wrote their Targums, notwitiistandiijg all that Pri- 
 deaux, Louis Capellus, and father Simon have said 
 about the peculiar idiom of the Chaldee langurige. 
 
 Onkelos and Jonathan on Num. 22:9, paraphrase 
 thus, "The Word came from before the Lord, and 
 said." The objection drawn from the idiom of the 
 Chaldee language will not apply to this phraseology. 
 The manner of expression denotes a distinction be- 
 tween the Word and the Lord; and as the critics 
 upon the idiom of the Targums acknowledge that the 
 Word is synonymous with Lord, we have all we con- 
 tend for For a further view of this subject, see 
 Allix Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against 
 the Unitarians. 
 
 The quotations, which have just been made from 
 ancient Jewish authors are extracted from the works 
 of Allix. "And what advantage do we derive from 
 the labors of others, if we can never confide in them, 
 and occasionally save ourselves some trouble by their 
 means?"* 
 
 The Messiah was revealed to the Jews by the 
 name Son. When God speaks of him by that name, 
 he calls him my Son. In the 2d Psalm, God is intro- 
 duced addressing a certain personage, "Thou art my 
 Son, this day have I begotten thee." Then he com- 
 mands, saying, "Kiss the Son, lest he" be argry." It 
 is generally, if not universally, admitted that this Psalm, 
 or at least, so much of it as describes the Son, is ap- 
 
 * Priestlev. 
 
RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 225 
 
 / 
 
 plied to the Messiah. If there were any doubt on 
 this point, the apostle to the Hebrews can remove 
 the difficulty; for he quotes this passage in relation to 
 Jesus Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles it is quoted 
 in the same connexion: "I will be his Father and he 
 shall be my Son." If this prophecy had'a primary ref- 
 erence to Solomon, its ultimate reference was to Christ; 
 for the apostle Paul quotes it with this reference. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Messiah, saith, 
 "Unto us a Son is given." God, by the prophet Hosea, 
 saith, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and 
 called my Son out of Egypt." The prophecy, con- 
 tained in the latter part of this text undoubtedly relates 
 to Christ; for St. Matthew quotes it in relation to him, 
 and as fulfilled in him. 
 
 We learn in the New Testament, what opinion of 
 the Messiah the Jews had formed from these charac- 
 teristic descriptions. Jesus repeatedly called God his 
 Father. He therefore implicitly called himself his 
 Son. Many times he expressly called himself his Son, 
 his only begotten Son. On a certain occasion Jesus 
 called God his Father in the hearing of the Jews. 
 They were offended; because they understood him 
 by this expression and by claiming this title, to make 
 himself equal with God. (ftrov tcjT 0fw) The word 
 JVov literally signifies equal; and it is in vain to attempt 
 to reduce it below this signification. In other places 
 it is translated, and it is correctly translated equal. 
 St. John, describing the city Jerusalem, says, "The 
 length, and the breadth, and the height of it are (/Va) 
 equal. There can be no doubt respecting the correct- 
 ness of the translation of the word in this passage. 
 
 But if this word were of doubtful signification, what 
 the Jews said to Christ on another occasion exhibits 
 in a clear light their opinion of the name, Son of God. 
 Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The Jews 
 accused him of blasphemy because that he being a man 
 made himself God. It appears that they had formed 
 their opinion from the prophets that the Messias was 
 29 
 
226 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS. 
 
 the Son of God; and by their answers to Jesus, it ap- 
 pears that they considered the Son of God to be, or 
 to be equal to, God. Had they behoved that Jesus 
 was their expected Messias, they would not have 
 accused him of blasphemy because he called God his 
 Father. During the short time that they believed 
 that he was the Messias, no honors were too great to 
 be bestowed upon him. But when they found that 
 he did not grant them that deliverance which they 
 expected, their opinion changed. They viewed him 
 as a mere man; and of course, a blasphemer, because 
 he pretended to be the Son of God, Adam, Israel, 
 believers, and angels are called sons of God. The 
 Jews understood Christ, claiming a higher relationship 
 to God than these; a relationship, which implied 
 divinity. In answer to the accusing Jews, Christ vindi- 
 cated himself against the charge of blasphemy upon 
 their own principles, and agreeably to their own 
 Scriptures. If they might be called gods, to whom 
 the word of God came, he inferred that he himself, 
 whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the 
 world, might, without blasphemy, be called the Son 
 of God. But he referred them to his works for proof 
 of his union with the Father. 
 
 When Christ was on trial before the council, the 
 high priest adjured him by the living God, that he 
 should tell them whether he was the Christ, the Son 
 of God. This demand implied that the high priest 
 believed that the promised Christ was the Son of God. 
 His question was, whether Jesus was this personage. 
 When he answered in the affirmative; and told him 
 that he should see the Son of man sitting on the right 
 hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, 
 the high priest accused him of blasphemy. This rep- 
 resentation clearly implies that the high priest believ- 
 ed that the promised Messiah was the Son of God; 
 that the Son of God was divine; that Jesus was blas- 
 phemous for pretending to divinity, when he was, in 
 his estimation, a mere man. 
 
THE OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 The sacred scriptures contain a perfect system of 
 religion. Their parts correspond and harmonize. 
 Those doctrines, which are most momentous run 
 through the whole sacred volume. They not only 
 cast light upon each other; but they are their own 
 interpreters. The same doctrine, expressed in dif- 
 ferent ways, exhibited indifferent points of view, and 
 attended with different circumstances, presents itself 
 with greater clearness, than if it made but a solitary 
 appearance. So fully and clearly are the leading 
 truths of the Gospel expressed, that we need not de- 
 pend on the creeds of others for articles of our own 
 belief. On the other hand, we ought not to be so 
 self-wise as to refuse a hearing of the opinions and 
 arguments of others. We ought to examine them 
 with impartiality, and bring them, for decision, to the 
 test of God's word. 
 
 We feel an anxiety to know the religious senti- 
 ments of those eminent Christians, who were cotem- 
 porary with the apostles, or succeeded them during 
 a few of the first centuries. We do not look fo them 
 for infallibility. But if we look to any, since the 
 apostolic age, for the greatest correctness of senti- 
 ment and purity of character, we naturally look to 
 those Christians, who lived nearest to the time of 
 
228 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 divine inspiration; who were best acquainted with 
 apostolic example; and whose creeds were tried bj 
 tire. 
 
 In the first century disputes arose in the church, 
 which required the authority of apostles to decide. 
 It is not surprising that difference of sentiment should 
 early obtain in the church, when it is considered that 
 it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, who had not 
 entirely outgrown their attachment to their former 
 religions; and blended their different systems of phi- 
 losophy with Christianity. Modern writers are not 
 agreed in opinion, what was then truth, and what was 
 error; or what was orthodoxy, and what was heresy. 
 People of opposite sentiments find something in that 
 early period, which they enlist into the service of their 
 own cause. It is contended that the apostles taught 
 that Christ was merely human; and that a belief of 
 his divinity, and of the doctrine of the Trinity, were 
 innovations in the Christian system. The first, who 
 openly avowed the mere humanity of Christ, are con- 
 sidered by some the legitimate followers of the apos- 
 tles; and those, who believed his divinity, are consid- 
 ered by them, corrupters of the Christian faith. (See 
 Priestley's History of the Corruptions of the Church.) 
 
 In the latter part of the first, and in the beginning 
 of the second century, the Gnostics, or Docetje, and 
 the Ebionites, commanded considerable notice. The 
 Gnostics pretended to restore to mankind a knowl- 
 edge of the Supreme Being. They derived their 
 origin from blending the oriental philosophy with 
 Christianity. They held that the world was created 
 by one or more evil, or imperfect beings. They de- 
 nied the divine authority of the books of the O'd Tes- 
 tament. They said much in favor of the serpent, 
 who beguiled Eve. They held that evil resided in 
 matter as its centre; and many other things equally 
 repugnant to the mspired writings. When they had 
 so far departed from the simplicity of the Gospel, it 
 cannot be expected that they would entertain very 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 229 
 
 just notions of Christ. "Thej denied his Deity, look- 
 ing upon him as the Son of God, and consequently infe- 
 rior to the Father; and they rejected his humanity^ 
 upon the supposition that every thing concrete and 
 corporeal is in itself essentially and intrinsically evil. 
 From hence the greatest part of the Gnostics denied 
 that Christ was clothed with a real body, or that he 
 suffered really.''^ Some of them subjected themselves 
 to the greatest austerities; but others gave them- 
 selves up to almost unbounded licentiousness." (See 
 Mosheim's Eccles. His.) It is presumed that none, 
 at the present day, will contend that their sentiments 
 were congenial with those of the apostles; or that 
 they had not corrupted the doctrines of the Gospel. 
 John undoubtedly had this class of Christians in view, 
 when he wrote his first epitsle. "Hereby know ye 
 the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that 
 Jesus Christ is come in the fiesh, is of God. And 
 every spirit, that confesseth not^ that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the Jlesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit 
 of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should 
 come, and even now already is it in the world," 1 John 
 4-2 S 
 
 The Ebionites made their first appearance near the 
 close of the first century. These Jewish Christians 
 are thought to have derived their name from their 
 poverty. They disbelieved the miraculous conception 
 of Jesus; but held that he was the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, according to the ordinary course of nature. 
 They denied his divinity. But what evidence is there 
 that this class of Christians had kept the faith, as it 
 was delivered to the saints? They were members of 
 the church at Jerusalem, which had been planted by 
 the apostles, therefore, it is inferred, they must have 
 retained the doctrines taught by the apostles. This 
 inference is not conclusive, if the premises were 
 correct, because even in the apostle*s days, many had 
 departed from sound doctrine; and had imbibed gross 
 opinions of the Gospel. The church of Laodicea had 
 
230 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 departed from her first faith before the apostle John 
 had passed off from the stage. Of course, their prox- 
 imity to the apostles does not prove the correctness 
 of their sentiments. 
 
 The Ebionites beheved that the ceremonial law of 
 Moses was of universal obligation; and that an obser- 
 vance of it was essential to salvation. They held the 
 apostle Paul in abhorrence, and treated his writings 
 with the utmost disrespect. They incorporated with 
 the ceremonial law the superstitions of their an- 
 cestors, and the ceremonies and the traditions of the 
 Pharisees. They denied that Christ made a propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice for sin; and they believed that justifi- 
 cation came by the works of the law. (See Mosheini's 
 Eccles. His. vol. i, p. 174; and Milner, vol. i, p. 138.) 
 Is it to this class of Christians we are to look for 
 sound doctrine? Is it to those, who discarded a con- 
 siderable part of the New Testament, we are to look 
 for primitive faith; for right sentiments of Jesus 
 Christ? There appears to be as much authority for 
 admitting the correctness of the sentiments of the 
 Gnostics and Docetas, as for admitting the correctness 
 of those of the Ebionites. Suppose then we admit 
 them both. They counteract each other. One main- 
 tains the humanity of Christ; the other denies it. One 
 maintains his derived divinity; the other denies it. 
 Between them both, they deny his existence. 
 
 The writings of St. John were evidently levelled 
 against these two denominations of Christians. It is 
 generally admitted that his First Epistle was directed 
 against the Gnostics or Docetse. He was very par- 
 ticular; and very decisive. "Every spirit that con- 
 fesseth 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," 1 John 4: 
 2,3. These declarations bear also, directly against 
 the Ebionites. The Jews expected that the Messiah 
 was the Christ; that the Christ was the Son of God: 
 and that the Son of God was divine. Andrew said to 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 231 
 
 his brother, "we have found the Messias, which is, 
 being interpreted, the Christ." A woman of Samaria 
 said unto Jesus at a certain time, "I know that Mes- 
 sias Cometh, which is called Christ," John 1:41; and 
 4:25. Peter, at a certain time, expressed his behef 
 in the most decisive manner. "We beheve and are 
 sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the hving 
 God," John 6:69. When Jesus was tried before Cai- 
 phas, "the high priest, he answered and said unto him, 
 I adjure thee by the hving God, that thou tell us, 
 whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God," Mat. 
 26:63. In both these texts, Christ and Son of God, 
 are equivalent. When Christ called God his Father, 
 or himself the Son of God, the Jews understood him 
 to make himself God, or equal to God," John 5:18; 
 and 10:33. From this it is evident that it was an 
 opinion among the Jews, that the Christ had exist- 
 ence before he came into the world, and that he was 
 divine. With this in view we easily get the meaning 
 of John, when he applies his observations to the 
 Ebionites, who were Jews. "Every spirit that con- 
 fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
 God." In the flesh, expresses the manner, in which he 
 came. Is come in the flesh, conveys an idea, that he 
 had existence before he appeared in this manner. 
 
 If Christ had been a mere man, and John had be- 
 lieved him to be no more, it is not probable he would 
 have used this phraseology. That he did consider 
 him to be more than a man, appears evident from the 
 beginning of his epistle. Here he speaks of the 
 Word of life, which he had heard, seen, contemplated 
 on, and handled. In the next verse he calls the Word 
 of life, the Life. "For the Life was manifested, and 
 we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you 
 that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and wa?- 
 manifested unto us." What, or who was the Word of 
 life; that Life; that eternal Life, which was with the 
 Father, which was manifested to the apostles, and of 
 which they testified? It is evident that it was Jesus 
 
232 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 Christ. Christ, according to the record which John 
 made of him, called himself the Life. But we will 
 let St. John speak for himself. In the beginning of 
 his Gospel he says, "In the beginning was the Word, 
 and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 The same was in the beginning with God. In him 
 was life; and the Life was the light of men. And 
 the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John 
 1:1,2,4,14. It appears evident that St. John exhibited 
 the same personage in the beginning of his Epistle, 
 which he exhibited in the beginning of his Gospel; 
 and it is evident that he, whom he introduced in the 
 beginning of his Gospel was Jesus Christ. If St. 
 John designed, by the names, tiie Word, God, eternal 
 Life, to convey an idea of a mere man, he used these 
 words in an unusual sense. If a belief of the divinity 
 of Christ had been the prevailing heresy of the time, 
 it is not probable that St. John would have endeav- 
 ored to discountenance this error by applying a divine 
 attribute, a divine name, a divine work to Jesus Christ. 
 It cannot be supposed he would have used this lan- 
 guage to establish the mere humanity of Christ. 
 
 It is evident that the doctrine of the Ebionites 
 respecting the mere humanity of Christ, was consid- 
 ered heretical by the church in the time of Irenaeus, 
 "who wrote his books against heresies in the year 176 
 or 177. For in the list, which he hath given of her- 
 etics, lib. 1, he places the Ebionites between the Ce- 
 rinthians and Nicolaitans, both of them acknowledged 
 heretics. And in his third book, he refutes by testi- 
 monies from the scriptures, the opinion of those, who 
 affirmed that Christ was a mere man, engendered of 
 Joseph; which was precisely the opinion of the proper 
 Ebionites." (Macknight.') "It is certain that Gnostics 
 and Ebionites were always looked on as perfectly dis- 
 tinct from the Christian church. There needs no more 
 evidence to prove this than their arrangement by Ire- 
 naBUs and Eusebius under heretical parties." (Milner.) 
 If this doctrine was so early considered heretical, it is 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 233 
 
 not probable that it was a doctrine taught by the 
 apostles. (See Horseky's third Sup. Disq.) 
 
 In the second century Christianity suffered much, 
 by attempts to blend with it the oriental and Egyp- 
 tian philosophy. Praxeas, a man distinguished for 
 genius and learning, undertook to explain the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, so that it might be understood. "He 
 denied any real distinction between the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, and maintained that the Father, sole 
 Creator of all things, had united to himself the human 
 nature of Christ." (Mosheim.) His followers were 
 called Monarchians, and also Patropassians, because 
 they believed, or it was inferred from their belief, that 
 the Father was so intimately united with the man 
 Christ, that he actually suffered with him. But "it 
 does not appear that this sect formed to themselves 
 a separate place of worship, or removed themselves 
 from the ordinary assemblies of Christians." From 
 this circumstance it does not follow that they were 
 sound in faith; or that they were not considered her- 
 etics. The orthodox and the heterodox have, more 
 or less, worshipped together from the first century. 
 But this is essentially different from retaining in the 
 bosom of the church those, who had perverted the 
 doctrines of Christianity. Praxeas was persecuted for 
 the sentiments he inculcated respecting the Father, 
 Son and Spirit. If this cast a shade upon the dispo- 
 sition of his opponents, it proves that he was in the 
 minority; and the church esteemed his doctrine her- 
 etical. It can hardly be supposed that the church 
 generally, at so early a period, had lost the knowledge 
 of the nature and character of Jesus Christ; and that 
 this knowledge was preserved among those, who de- 
 nied the Lord Jesus Christ. It is more p|K]^able that 
 sound doctrine could, at this early period, be found in 
 the body of the church, than among those individuals 
 and parties, who had blended philosophy with Chris- 
 tianity; and attributed real suffering to the Father. 
 The opinion of Praxeas is not very different from the 
 30 
 
234 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 opinion of some of modern time. If he, so soon after 
 the apostle's days, was deemed a heretic, it is not sur- 
 prising that those of similar opinions, at the present 
 day, should be deeoied the same. 
 
 There is a number of men, who succeeded the apos- 
 tles, very different in sentiment from the Docetas, 
 Gnostics, Corinthians, Ebionites and Patropassians; 
 and much more like the apostles. We should rather 
 look to them for apostolic sentiments. 
 
 Clement, bishop of Rome, was for a time cotempo- 
 rary with the apostle Paul; but survived him a number 
 of years. The apostle makes honorable mention of 
 him; calls him his fellow laborer; and says that his 
 name was in the book of life. Many writings have 
 been attributed to him, of which, it is generally agreed, 
 he was not the author. This circumstance affords 
 evidence that his name was of great weight in the 
 church. One epistle to the Corinthians, bearing his 
 name is considered genuine. In this he expresses 
 much of the sentiuient and spirit of the apostles. 
 Speaking of Christ, he says, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Sceptre of the Majesty of God, came not in the 
 pomp of arrogance and pride; though who can under- 
 stand the thunder of his power? But he was meek 
 and lowly." The Sceptre of the Majesty when applied 
 to Christ conveys an idea of his authority and govern- 
 ment; and it appears lo be parallel with what Christ 
 said of himself after his resurrection. "All power 
 (i. e. authority) is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth." To be the Sceptre of God's Majesty; to pos- 
 sess all authority in heaven and in earth, conveys an 
 idea of divine authority. If it was delegated, it 
 appears that the recipient must be divine; or he would 
 not be capable of performing its functions. "Who 
 can understand the thunder of his power?" This 
 sublime language, which he applied to Christ, he bor- 
 rowed from Job, who applied it to God in his descrip- 
 tion of his Power and Majesty. In this he imitated 
 the apostles, who applied to Christ what had been. 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 235 
 
 in the Old Testament, applied to God. After Clement 
 had thus spoken of the divine dignity and glory of the 
 Savior, he adds, "he was meek and lowly." In this 
 manner, he imitated the apostles by exhibiting the 
 Lord Jesus in his divine and human nature; as the 
 Sceptre of God's Majesty; and as occu[)ying the low 
 condition of humanity. 
 
 Again Clement speaks of Christ, "Have we not all 
 one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace poured upon 
 us, and one calling in Christ?"— "Through him, that 
 is Jesus Christ, let us behold the glory of God shining 
 in his face." This language appears much like that 
 of the apostles; and if their's were not explained away, 
 it appears that this would naturally give us an idea of 
 Christ's divinity. When the dispute ran high, whether 
 Christ was merely divine, or merely human, it appears 
 that Clement, who was well acquainted with the 
 apostle's opinion on this subject, if he had believed 
 the simple humanity of Jesus, would not have spoken 
 of him in language, which was appropriate to God. 
 
 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, sulfered martyrdom in 
 the year 107. He was a disciple of St. John; and 
 was, undoubtedly, acquainted with his sentiments of 
 Jesus Christ. When he was questioned by Trajan 
 respecting his religion, among other things he said, 
 "There is only one God, who made heaven, and earth, 
 the sea and all that is in them; and one Jesus Christ, 
 his only begotten Son, whose kingdom be my portion." 
 By the name only begotten Son, he undoubtedly meant 
 "what Christ meant, when he called himself the Son 
 of God; what Peter meant, when he called him the 
 Son of the living God; what the higb priest meant 
 \vhen he adjured him to tell them whether he was 
 the Christ, the Son of God. It is evident that by Son 
 of God, the Jews understood God, or equality with 
 God. It 13 probable he used the name Son of God in 
 its popular sense. 
 
 Ignatius, in his salutation to the Church at Ephesus, 
 calls them "elect in the genuine sullcring, by the will 
 
236 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 of the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God," &c. It 
 is not surprising, that he should imitate the apostle, 
 whose disciple he was; and call his Master God; and 
 by this name mean the same, which he meant. 
 
 "One Physician there is, bodily and spiritual, begot- 
 ten and unbegotten, God appearing in flesh, in immor- 
 tal, true life, both from Mary and from God, first 
 suffering then impassible." This language appears 
 to be plain. It naturally conveys an idea of two 
 natures in the Physician Jesus Christ; that one nature 
 was literally begotten; that the other nature was not 
 thus begotten; that divine nature appeared in human- 
 ity; that the one was from Mary, the other from God; 
 that one was capable of suffering, and the other was 
 not. It is worthy of notice, that Ignatius called this 
 Physician God appearing in flesh; and alsoyj-om God. 
 If God without distinction in his nature dwelt in the 
 man Christ Jesus, there appears to be an incongruity 
 in saying that God was from God. He states that 
 this Physician is both from Mary and from God. 
 That he was from Mary in his human nature, is not 
 disputed. But in what sense was \\efrom God? Is it 
 in no other sense than he was sent from God as John 
 was sent? Suppose this to be the meaning. Suppose 
 Christ to be a mere man, as was his forerunner. In 
 what sense then was he unbegotten; in what sense was 
 he God appearing in flesh; in what sense was he 
 impassible? It is difficult to explain away all the parts 
 of this passage of Ignatius by any one rule; or by 
 difi*erent rules, which will not clash. 
 
 Ignatius, endeavoring to bring off, or preserve the 
 Ephesians from Judaism, observes, "The divine 
 prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For this 
 they were persecuted, being inspired by his grace to 
 assure the disobedient that there is one God, who 
 manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his 
 eternal Word. — But live according to the life of the 
 Lord, in which also our Life rose again by himself. — 
 That you may be well assured of the nativity, suffer- 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 23/ 
 
 ing and resurrection, during the government of Pon- 
 tius Pilate, of which literally and really, Jesus Christ 
 was the subject." This language, which he applied 
 to Christ, bears a strong resemblance of the language 
 of St. John. They both call Jesus Christ Son of 
 God. They both call him the Word. Ignatius calls 
 him eternal Word. They both call him Life. St. 
 John calls him "that eternal Life." They both attri- 
 bute to him eternity. This attribute cannot, with 
 propriety, be applied to a mere creature, or to a 
 derived being. 
 
 Ignatius, in view of his death speaks of Christ thus: 
 "He is my gain laid up tor me, suffer me to imitate the 
 passion of my God." In a preceding quotation he 
 represented Christ first suffering, then impassible. In 
 this quotation he calls him God, and in this name attri- 
 butes to him sufferings. He did not, probably, design 
 to convey an idea that divine nature suffered. He had 
 declared the contrary. In consequence of the inti- 
 mate union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ, 
 he called him God, without making a distinction of 
 natures; and without this distinction he attributed suf- 
 fering to him. This is agreeable to our manner of 
 speaking concerning man. We say he is mortal; 
 whereas his better part is immortal. The phraseology 
 of Ignatius clearly conveys an idea of two natures in 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Again he speaks of the Savior. "I glorify Jesus 
 Christ, our God, who hath given you wisdom. For I 
 understand that you are perfect in the immovable 
 faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, who really was of the 
 seed of David according to the flesh; born of the vir- 
 gin really; who really suffered under Pontius Pilate. 
 Consider the times, and expect him, who is above all 
 time, who is unconnected with time, the invisible One, 
 made visible for us, the impassible, but passible for 
 us; who bore all sorts of sufferings for us." When 
 Ignatius was led to execution, "He prayed to the Son 
 
238 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 of God in behalf of the churches, that he would put 
 a stop to the persecution." (^Milner.) 
 
 If we consider the time, in which Ignatius lived, his 
 writings will appear with greater perspicuity and per- 
 tinence. The Docetce and Ebionites had gained ground, 
 and were prevailing. He wished to discountenance 
 these sects, and he directed his observations against 
 them. When he said that Christ was really of the 
 seed of David, was born of the virgin really, and 7'eally 
 suffered under Pontius Pilate, he repelled the senti- 
 ment of the Doceta3, Avho held that Christ was not 
 really human, but had only the appearance of a 
 man. When he called him impassible, unconnected 
 with time, eternal Word and God, he repelled the 
 sentiment of the Ebionites, who believed that Christ 
 was merely human. Had Ignatius been of this opin- 
 ion, and designed to discountenance the behef that 
 Christ was divine, it is incredible that he should call 
 him impassible, eternal, and even call him God. This 
 language would be directly opposite to his design. 
 But if he believed that Christ was both human and 
 divine, his language appears to be appropriate. He 
 sets forth both natures in language, which is adapted 
 to both. When it is considered that Ignatius was the 
 disciple of John; that his language and sentiment bore 
 a striking resemblance of, and coincidence with, the 
 language and sentiment of that apostle, the testimony 
 of this Christian father appears with great authority. 
 After he had given such a representation of Christ, 
 he appears consistent with himself, when, at the close 
 of life, he directs his prayer to him in behalf of the 
 church.* 
 
 Justin Martyr bore testimony, in a clear and decisive 
 manner, to the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was "a 
 man of eminent piety and considerable learning, who 
 from a pagan philosopher, became a Christian martyr. 
 He had frequented all the different sects of philoso- 
 
 • Concerning the genuineness and authenticity of Ignatius' epistles, see 
 Horseley'b Letters to Priestley. 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 239 
 
 phy in an ardent and impartial pursuit of truth, and 
 finding neither among stoics nor Peripatetics, neither 
 in the Pythagorean, nor Platonic schools, any satis- 
 factory account of the perfections of the Supreme 
 Being, and the nature and destination of the human 
 soul, he embraced Christianity on account of the light 
 which it cast upon these interesting subjects." 
 
 This Christian philosopher expressed his belief in 
 the following manner, when he was arraigned before 
 an officer and questioned respecting his religion. "We 
 believe the one only God, to be the Creator of all 
 things, visible and invisible, and confess our Lord Jesus 
 Christ to be the Son of God, foretold by the prophets 
 of old, and who shall hereafter appear the Judge of 
 mankind, a Savior, teacher, and master to all those, 
 who are duly instructed by him. As for myself I am 
 too mean to be able to say any thing becoming his 
 infinite Deity. This was the business of the prophets, 
 who ages ago had foretold the coming of the Son of 
 God into the world." In this quotation, Justin makes 
 a distinction between God and the Son of God. But 
 he attributes to him unqualified divinity, viz. ^Hnfinite 
 Deityy He understood the prophets to prophesy of 
 Christ, possessing infinite Deity. He appeared to 
 agree with the Jews in this particular, that by the 
 name. Son of God, was to be understood God, or one 
 equal with God. 
 
 In his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, this enemy 
 of Christianity charges him with paradox and foolish- 
 ness. Justin takes him on his own ground, and shews 
 that if Christ's divinity could not be demonstrated, he 
 ought to be acknowledged the Christ of God, on ac- 
 count of the exact correspondence between his char- 
 acter and the Messiah, predicted by the prophets. 
 
 "in another part of the same dialogue, (p. 56,) he 
 speaks of Christ as the God of Israel, who was with 
 Moses, and shews what he meant when he said that 
 true Christians regarded what they were taught by 
 the prophets. In his First Apology, he tells the 
 
240 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 emperor in what sense the Christians were atheists, 
 they did not worship the gods commonly so called, 
 but they (p. 137) worshipped and adored the true 
 God and his Son, and the prophetic spirit, honoring 
 them in word and in truth." This quotation needs no 
 comment. It is plain, and expressive of the sentiment 
 which he entertained of the Son and Spirit. 
 
 Justin suffered martyrdom about the year 163. He 
 appears to have imbibed the sentiments of the apos- 
 tles respecting the Son and Spirit. He appears to 
 be clear in his belief of their distincfion and divinity. 
 His sentiments of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, are of 
 no inconsiderable weight. He was a man of learning. 
 He appeared to be an impartial inquirer after truth. 
 He evinced his sincerity by suffering death for the 
 cause of Christ. 
 
 Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, suffered martyrdom, 
 A. D. 167. "The apostles, and we may apprehend 
 St. John particularly, ordained him to this office. He 
 had been familiarly conversant with the apostles, and 
 received the government of the church from those 
 who had been eye witnesses and ministers of our Lord, 
 and continually taught that which he had been taught 
 by them."* It does not appear that he sought the 
 honor of martyrdom. But when he was brought to 
 execution he suffered death with Christian fortitude. 
 
 When he was bound, and the preparations were 
 made for burning him, he addressed the following 
 prayer to God. "O Father of thy beloved and blessed 
 Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have attained the 
 knowledge of thee, O God of angels and principalities, 
 and of all creation, and of all the just, who live in 
 thy sight, I bless thee that thou hast counted me wor- 
 thy of this day, and this hour, to receive ray portion 
 in the number of martyrs, in the cup of Christ, for the 
 resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and body, in 
 the incorruptionof the Holy Ghost, among whom may 
 
 * Milner's Church History, vol. i, p. 176, Soslon edition. 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 241 
 
 I be received before thee this day as a sacrifice well 
 savored, and acceptable, as thou the faithful and true 
 God hast prepared, declaring beforehand, and fulfil- 
 hng accordingly. Wherefore 1 praise thee for all 
 those things, I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eter- 
 nal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy well beloved Son; 
 through whom with him in the Holy Spirit, be glory 
 to thee, both now and forever. Amen." This prayer 
 is expressed in language truly apostolical. The mar- 
 tyr addressed the Father through his beloved and 
 blessed. Son. In connexion with him he named the 
 Holy Spirit. He called Jesus Christ the eternal High 
 Priest. There is nothing in his language, which 
 appears to be directed particularly against any pre- 
 vailing error. It appears to be truly devotional. 
 Whoever would gather the doctrine of the Trinity 
 from the language of the apostles, would undoubtedly 
 perceive it in his. 
 
 The church of Smyrna wrote a letter to the church 
 of Philomeliura concerning the character and death 
 of Polycarp. Speaking of Jesus Christ, they said, 
 "that it is not possible for us to forsake Christ, who 
 suffered for the salvation of all, who are saved of the 
 human race, nor ever to worship any other. For we 
 adore him as being the Son of God." This sentiment 
 expressed by a church, appears to be of no inconsid- 
 erable weight, when it is considered what honorable 
 mention was made of it by Christ to his servant John. 
 "I know thy works and tribulation and poverty, but 
 thou art richy 
 
 Melito, bishop of Sardis, belongs to the second cen- 
 tury. Speaking of the Christians, he says, "the Chris- 
 tians do not adore insensible stones, but that they 
 worship one God alone, who is before all things, and 
 in all things, and Jesus Christ, who is God before all 
 ages." Milner makes the following quotation from 
 Eusebius. "Who knoweth not that the works of 
 Irenaeus, Melito, and all other Christians, do confess 
 Christ to be both God and man. In fine, how many 
 31 
 
242 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 psalms and hymns, and canticles were from the 
 beginning by faithful Christians, which celebrate 
 Christ, the Word of God, as no other than God in- 
 deed?" 
 
 Irena3us lived in the latter part of the second, and 
 in the beginning of the third century. He suiFered 
 martyrdom under Septimius Severus. Speaking of 
 tradition, he said, "It is what several barbarous 
 nations observe, who believe in Jesus without paper 
 or ink, having the doctrine of salvation written on 
 their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and faithfully keeping 
 up to ancient tradition concerning one God, the Creator, 
 and his Son Jesus Christ." 
 
 Speaking of Christ, Irenasus observed, "He united 
 man to God; for if man had not overcome the adver- 
 sary of man, the enemy could not have been legally 
 conquered. And again, if God had not granted salva- 
 tion, we should not have been put in firm possession 
 of it, and if man had not been united to God, he could 
 not have beea made partaker of immortality. It 
 behoved then the Mediator between God and man, 
 by his afhnity with both, to bring both into agreement 
 with each other. The Word of God, Jesus Christ, 
 on account of his immense love, became what we are, 
 that he might make us what he is." In these quota- 
 tions Ircnffius has declared his belief that the Son of 
 God, or the Word of God, is Jesus Christ; and that he 
 partakes of human and divine nature. 
 
 The book, entitled the Epistle of St. Barnabas^ 
 though not the composition of the apostle Barnabas, 
 is allowed to have been written in the apostolic age. 
 "The Lord," says Barnabas, "submitted to suffer for 
 our soul, although he be the Lord of the whole earth, 
 unto whom he said the day before the world was 
 finished, "Let us make man after our image, and our 
 likeness." Again, — "for if he had not come in the 
 flesh, how could we mortals seeing him have been 
 preserved, when they, who behold the sun, which is 
 to perish, and is the work of his hands, are unable to 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 243 
 
 look directly against its rays." Again, — "If then the 
 Son of God being Lord, and being to judge the quick 
 and dead, suffered to the end that his wound might 
 make us alive; let us believe that the Son of God had 
 no power to suffer, had it not been for us." And 
 again, — "Meanwhile thou hast [the whole doctrine] 
 concerning the majesty of Christ, how all things were 
 made for him and through him; to whom be honor, 
 power, and glory, now and for ever." There is evi- 
 dence from his writings, that he was a Hebrew Chris- 
 tian. He did not labor to prove the divinity of Christ, 
 as he probably would have done, had those to whom 
 he wrote, disbelieved it; but he made his assertions, 
 as if his sentiments of Christ were generally received 
 by Jewish converts, and would not be disputed. (See 
 Horseley's eighth Letter to Priestley.^ 
 
 Tertullian lived in the second and third century. 
 He wrote against Praxeas. He observes on the sub- 
 ject of the Trinity, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet 
 one God." Milner represents him in the following 
 manner. "He speaks of the Lord Jesus, as both God 
 and man. Son of man, and Son of God, and called Jesus 
 Christ. He speaks also of the Holy Spirit, the Com- 
 forter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe 
 in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He observes 
 that this rule of faith had obtained from the beginning 
 of the Gospel, antecedent to any former heretics, 
 much more to Praxeas, who was of yesterday." If 
 this be a fair representation of his ideas, he was clear 
 and decisive in his belief of the Trinity. If he was, 
 in some respects, unsound in the faith, this would not 
 invalidate his testimony respecting the rule of faith, 
 which had obtained from the beginning of the gospel; 
 nor would it prove him to be incorrect respecting the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus was cotemporary with Ire- 
 na3us and Tertullian. Contrasting the authors of 
 idolatry with Christ, he observes, "Whereas Jesus 
 Christ, who from all eternity was the Word of God, 
 
244 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 always had a compassionate tenderness for men, and 
 at last took their nature upon him, to free them from 
 the slavery of demons, to open the eyes of the bhnd, 
 and the ears of the deaf, to guide their paths in the 
 way of righteousness, to deliver them from death and 
 hell, and to bestow on them everlastino: life, and to 
 put them into a capacity of living an heavenly life 
 here upon earth; and lastly, that God made himseif 
 man to teach man to be like unto God. — Believe, 
 therefore, in one God, who is God and man, and 
 receive eternal salvation for a recompense." 
 
 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was distinguished for 
 his natural abilities, for his eloquence, for his fervent 
 })iety, and for his exertions to promote the cause of 
 Christ. He suffered martyrdom in the third century. 
 In his writings, he expresses his sentiments respecting 
 Jesus Christ. In one of his letters, he writes thus, 
 "How shameful must it be for a Christian to be un- 
 willing to suffer, when the Master suffered first; and 
 that we should be unwilling to suffer for our sins, when 
 he who had no sin of his own, suffered for us. The 
 Son of God suffered that he might make us the sons 
 of God." In this quotation, he calls Christ by the 
 scriptural names. Master, and Son of God. If his use 
 of these names do not prove what were his particular 
 sentiments of Christ's nature and character, what he 
 said of his sufferings carries evidence that he believed 
 tliat his death was an expiatory sacrifice. 
 
 Again this Christian father remarks, "What glory! 
 what joy! to be admitted to see God, to be honored, 
 to partake of the joy of eternal light and salvation 
 with Christ the Lord your God." Again he gives 
 the same divine name to Christ. "We ought not by 
 a long delay and neglect, to suffer the temples of God 
 to remain in captivity, but to labor with all our might 
 and quickly to shew our obsequiousness to Christ our 
 Judere, our Lord and our God.'''' 
 
 Cyprian, a little before his execution, bemg inter- 
 rogated and threatened by the proconsul, rephed. 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST- 245 
 
 "My safety and virtue is Christ the Lord, whom I 
 desire to serve for ever." In these quotations he 
 viewed Christ as a sacrifice for sin; he called him our 
 Lord and our God; and he expressed a desire to 
 serve him for ever. If he beheved Christ's divinity, 
 he was consistent in making these expressions. 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, expressed his ideas 
 on the doctrine of the Trinity with clearness and de- 
 cision. "The Father, (says he) cannot be separated 
 from the Son, as he is the Father; for that name at 
 the same time establishes the relation. Neither can 
 the Son be separated from the Father, for the word 
 Father implies the union; and the Spirit is in their 
 hands, because it cannot exist without him, who sends 
 it to him who bears it. Thus we understand the in- 
 divisible Unity of the Trinity; and we comprehend the 
 Trinity in the Unity without any diminution." 
 
 It is not foreign to our purpose to introduce here 
 Paul of Samosata, who was bishop of Antioch. He 
 taught that Christ "was by nature a common man as 
 we are." In consequence of this sentiment, and of 
 the irregularities of his life, a large council was called 
 at Antioch. He "was induced to recant, and gave 
 such appearances of sincerity, that Firmilian and the 
 council believed him;" and he was suffered to retain 
 his bishopric. His dissimulation did not remain long 
 concealed. After a few years another council, con- 
 sisting of seventy bishops, was convened. "The am- 
 biguous Paul" at this time disclosed his sentiments 
 respecting Christ. "All the bishops agreed to his 
 deposition and exclusion from the Christian church." 
 This decision was made in the year 269; and it proves 
 that a disbelief of the divinity of Christ was not the 
 prevailing opinion of that time; and that it was dis- 
 countenanced by the Christian church. 
 
 Felix was the successor of Dionysius of Rome. He 
 wrote a letter to Maximus of Alexandria, 'in which 
 he sjieaks thus, probably on account of Paul's heresy.' 
 "We believe that our Savior Jesus Christ was born of 
 
246 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
 
 the virgin Mary; we believe that he himself is the 
 eternal God, and the Word, and not a man whom God 
 hath taken into himself, so as that man should be 
 distinct from him: for the Son of God being perfect, 
 God was also made perfect man, being incarnate of 
 the virgin." 
 
 Origin flourished in the third century. He was 
 acknowledged to be a man of ability, learning, piety 
 and indefatigable in his labors. Trinitarians and Uni- 
 tarians, both have claimed him. Sometimes lie 
 expressed his ideas concerning the Father, Son, and 
 Spirit in language, which entitled him to the ranks of 
 Trinitarians. At other times his language naturally 
 imported that he was a Unitarian. It is not necessary 
 to contend about his sentiments. On whichever side 
 he may stand, his opinion will not affect the question. 
 If he believed a plurality in the divine nature he will 
 add only one to the long list of fathers, who for three 
 centuries believed the same. If he held only to an 
 allegorical Trinity, as some contend that he did, he 
 was one of those, who appeared to adhere more closely 
 to his system of philosophy than to express declara- 
 tions of scripture. In whichever scale he falls, his 
 weio"ht will be less than if he had been generally cor- 
 rect in his views of the other parts of Christianity. 
 Speaking of Origen, Mosheim says, "I would not be- 
 lieve this witness upon his oath, vending as he mani- 
 festly does, such flimsy lies." 
 
 This is a brief view of the opinions of the most 
 distinguished fathers of the three first centuries con- 
 cerning the doctrine of the Trinity, especially con- 
 cernino- the nature and character of Jesus Christ. It 
 appears by their language that they believed he was 
 divine; and that they and the church considered those 
 heretical, who denied his divinity. This appears to 
 be the testimony of the friends of Christianity. Let 
 us attend to the testimony of some of its early ene- 
 mies, so that by the mouth of both witnesses the 
 subject may be well established. 
 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 24T 
 
 Pliny, It is well known, was a bitter enemy of the 
 Christians. In his letter to Trajan, early in the sec- 
 ond century, he writes thus: "And this was the 
 account, which they gave me of the nature of the 
 religion they once had professed, whether it deserves 
 the name of crime or error, that they were accustomed 
 on a certain day to meet before day light, and to repeat 
 among themselves an hymn to Christ, as to a God, and 
 to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of 
 not committing any wickedness," «fec. This account 
 of the practice of Christians was given to Pliny by 
 some apostate Christians. This account clearly shews 
 that the Christians of that time tendered divine honors 
 to Jesus Christ. Their credibility is not invalidated 
 by their being apostates. They had been with the 
 Christians. They knew their practice; and it appears 
 they would have no temptation to make a false state- 
 ment on this point. 
 
 Lucian, another enemy of Christianity, belongs to 
 the second century. He was remarkable for his sar- 
 casm. In his account of Peregrinus he speaks thus 
 of Christians: "However, these people adore that 
 great Person, who had been crucified in Palestine, as 
 being the first who taught men that religion. — Since 
 they separated from us, they persevere in rejecting 
 the gods of the Grecians, and ivoi'shipping that deceiv- 
 er, who was crucified." This is another evidence that 
 Christians in the second century gave divine honors to 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Celsus wrote near the close of the second century. 
 Infidelity never, perhaps, appeared with greater ma- 
 lignity than in this man. A few quotations from him 
 will shew what was then understood by Christians 
 that Christ pretended to be, and what they understood 
 that he really was. "Christ was privately educated, 
 and served for hire in Egypt; got acquainted with 
 miraculous arts there, returned, and for those miracles, 
 declared himself God. Why should you, when an in- 
 fant, be carried into Egypt, lest you should be mur- 
 
248 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, &C. 
 
 dered? God should not fear being put to death. You 
 say that God was sent to sinners, &c. He had no 
 reason to fear any mortal now, after he died, and as 
 you say he was a God." These quotations prove 
 that Christians in the latter part of the second cen- 
 tury believed that Christ made himself God; and that 
 they also believed that he was God. 
 
 The testimony of Porphyry is similar to that of 
 Celsus. He wrote in the third century. "Men won- 
 der now, (said he) that distempers have seized the 
 city so many years, iEsculapius and the other gods no 
 longer dwelling among them; for since Jesus was hon- 
 ored, no one has received any public benefit from the 
 gods." Porphyry tells the following story: "A person 
 asked Apollo how to make his wife relinquish Chris- 
 tianity? It is easier perhaps, replied the oracle, to 
 write on water, or to fly into the air, than to reclaim 
 her. Leave her in her folly to hymn in a faint mourn- 
 ful voice the dead God, who publicly suffered death 
 from judges of singular wisdom." 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," 
 Isaiah 53:6. It is important to know the design and 
 elFects of the sulTerings of Jesus Christ. Though the 
 Scriptures appear to be full and explicit on this sub- 
 ject, there is no inconsiderable difference of opinion 
 respecting it. The doctrine of the atonement is of 
 the fir^t importance, whether it be viewed in relation 
 to the moral condition of man, or in relation to the 
 nafure and character of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 T'to Creator made mankind moral agents, and he 
 gave them a law for the regulation of their conduct. 
 This law required perfect obedience; and it threat- 
 ened punishment for every transgression. Whatever 
 may be the difference, in respect to the number of 
 God's commands in different ages of the world, they 
 are of one nature; they require obedience, and they 
 threaten punishment for every offence. If, in one 
 age of the world, the penalty of the law was ever- 
 lasting puriishment, it was the same in every age. 
 
 We look over this world, and we find that it is a 
 province of divine government; and that it is a rebel- 
 lious province. They have violated the law of their 
 divine Sovereign; forfeited the reward of righteous- 
 ness; and incurred the penal consequences of trans- 
 gression. If the law have its natural course, the 
 threatened punishment will be inflicted upon every 
 transgressor; and the whole race of man will suffer 
 the vengeance of God for ever. If the divine law b« 
 32 
 
250 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 just and good, its honor would be supported in this 
 way by its own provisions. But we learn from the 
 general dealings of God with this world, and from his 
 revealed word, that mercy is an attribute of his nature; 
 that he is benevolent to sinful man; that he delighteth 
 not in the death of sinners. A question naturally rises 
 here; how can God exercise both justice and mercy 
 in relation to the same subjects of his government? 
 If they be entirely obedient, justice gives them the 
 rewards of righteousness. If they transgress, justice 
 consigns them to the threatened penalty. In either 
 case there is no mercy. The holy and the rebellious 
 angels are both under the influence of the justice of 
 God. 
 
 When the Creator saw human nature, the work- 
 manship of his hand, despoiled of its moral excellence, 
 he was disposed to shew mercy, to bestow favor. 
 But how this could be done consistently with the 
 claims of justice, and with the validity of the divine 
 law, could not, probably, be discovered by the greatest 
 efforts of created mtelligence. If pardon were con- 
 ferred upon every transgressor, without any consider- 
 ation, the law would have no force; it would impose 
 no restraint; it would be merely advisory, but not 
 authoritative. Subjects would yield to every impulse 
 of their base passions, having no ground to fear any 
 pernicious consequences. If part were pardoned 
 without any consideration, it would proportionately 
 diminish the force of the divine law. Every one 
 would hope that he might belong to the favored 
 number, and much restraint from transgression would 
 be taken off. In either case sin would not appear 
 very heinous; nor would it appear to be very offensive 
 to God. The divine government would not appear 
 with great majesty in the sight of men. Sin would 
 abound much more than it does at present; and this 
 would not be calculated to prepare subjects for the 
 holy services and enjoyments of the heavenly state. 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 2S1 
 
 If God should forgive sinners on the ground of their 
 suffering a certain term of punishment, it would be on 
 the principle of justice or mercy. If it were on the 
 principle of justice, it would follow that as sin deserved 
 but a limited punishment, it was a finite evil. This 
 view of it would comparatively diminish its guilt, and 
 it would diminish the dignity of the divine character 
 and government, against which it was committed. If 
 God should abate his threatened punishment, either 
 in degree, or in duration, on the ground of mercy, he 
 would manifest, comparatively, less abhorrence of sin; 
 he would diminish the dignity of his character and 
 the efficacy of his law and authority. If sin be an 
 infinite evil and deserves a proportionate [)unishment, 
 a point in duration will never arrive, in which the 
 transgressor can claim exemption from further suffer- 
 
 By some it is maintained that repentance is the 
 ground, on which pardon is bestowed upon the guilty. 
 It is admitted, that under the present economy of 
 divine government, sin is forgiven on the condition of 
 the repentance of the transgressor. But repentance 
 is not the procuring cause of his forgiveness. The 
 divine law requires perfect obedience; and it declares 
 that "cursed is every one, who continueth not in all 
 things, which are written in the book of the law to 
 do them." It makes no abatement of its requisitions; 
 and it makes no provision for exemption from its 
 penalty on any condition whatever. If a transgressor 
 repents, his act of penitence comes not within its 
 scope. Sorrow for sin makes no satisfaction to the 
 violated law. It makes no remuneration to the one 
 offended, or injured. Were transgressors pardoned 
 solely on the ground of their repentance, the requisi- 
 tions of the law vvould be diminished; its authority 
 and efficacy would be weakened, and proportionate 
 encouragement vvould be given to transgression. But 
 it has been maintained that it might be reasonably 
 expected that God would forgive on the ground of 
 
252 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 
 
 repentance; and that this has been a prevailing senti- 
 ment of the nations of the earth. But this is not fact. 
 This conclusion would not be made from anj analogy 
 whatever. The civil law does not grant pardon to a 
 culprit in consequence of his repentance. It requires 
 that the penalty be inflicted; so that no one should be 
 encouraged to transgress. If a man be injured by his 
 fellow creature in his person, property or character, 
 will he be satisfied merely with the repentance of the 
 offender? Will he not require an equivalent for the 
 damages, which he has sustained? A restitution of 
 property unjustly taken, and eye for eye, tooth for 
 tooth, and blood for blood, were part of the divine 
 law, which was established on principles of strict 
 justice. Remuneration for injuries, when it is practi- 
 cable has always been considered a prerequisite for 
 acceptance of repentance. As mankind could make 
 no recompense to the divine Sovereign for the offences 
 they had offered him, they could not infer that their 
 repentance would secure them the forgiveness of their 
 God. It is a well known fact, that heathen nations 
 generally, if not universally, have adopted the expe- 
 dient of sacrifices to appease their offended deities; 
 which they would not have done, had they believed 
 that repentance only would have rendered them 
 propitious. The more dear to them were the victims, 
 which they offered, the more pleasing, they imagined, 
 would be their sacrifices to their incensed deities. 
 From this arose the practice of offering human victims. 
 Some offered the fruit of their bodies for the sins of 
 their souls. Whether the practice of sacrifice was 
 an invention of the human mind in the darkness of 
 paganism, or whether it was handed down by tradition 
 from the first ages, it is certain, that mankind gener- 
 ally have embraced the sentiment, that something 
 beside repentance was necessary to make satisfaction 
 for sin. 
 
 Nothing occurs under the Providence of God, which 
 warrants a belief that repentance will be followed by 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 253 
 
 forgiveness. But we witness many things, which 
 would naturally lead us to a different conclusion. "For 
 when men ruin their fortunes by extravagance, or 
 theii- health by excess in sensual indulgences, it is well 
 known that repentance alone doth not remove these 
 evil consequences of their follies and excesses. Where- 
 fore, if in the present life, repentance is never found 
 of itself to remove the temporal evil consequences, 
 which God hath connected with vice; also, if men 
 themselves being judges, repentance ought not to 
 prevent the punishment of crimes injurious to society, 
 what reason hath any person, from the constitution 
 of things, to expect that repentance of Itself will pre- 
 vent those penal consequences, which God may have 
 thought fit to annex to vice in the life to come. Mu< h 
 more, what reason hath any one, from the present 
 constitution of things, to expect that repentance and 
 reformation will put the sinner into the condition, he 
 would have been in, if he had always preserved his 
 innocence."* 
 
 It appears evident that a transgressor cannot do 
 any thing, which will make satisfaction to the divine 
 law, but suffering its penalty. If he repent and re- 
 form, and Irom the present time render a perfect 
 obedience to the divine precepts, he does nothing to 
 cancel the demands, which stand against him for past 
 transgression. Present obedience is but present duty. 
 It cannot have a retrospective influence. If one, for 
 any given time, could do more than his duty for that 
 time, he might acquire a surplus of righteousness, 
 which would counterbalance transgressions, and sup- 
 ply past deficiencies. But this method is alike con- 
 trarient to reason and to revelation. It requires no 
 arguments to prove that if a transgressor cannot save 
 himself from the penal consequences of sin, he cannot 
 save others. Should a created being, of any grade 
 whatever on the scale of creation undertake in his 
 behalf, what would be the consequence? However 
 
 • Macknight. 
 
254 ON THE ATONEMENT 0F .CHRIST. 
 
 great his capacity, or his benevolence might be, his 
 own obhgations to his Creator, should be proportion- 
 ate to his degrees of ability. It would be required 
 of him, on his own account, according to what he had. 
 Suppose he should volunteer his services in behalf of 
 this sinful world; that he should sutfer in their stead. 
 If he were under obligation to his Creator to make 
 this sacrifice, he would perform only his own duty; he 
 would acquire no surplus of merit, which he could 
 transfer to the necessitous. If he were not under 
 obligation to make this sacrifice, there is no evidence 
 that he would have a right to do it; and if he had, 
 there is no evidence that the divine Sovereign would 
 accept it in behalf of his rebellious subjects. There 
 is no evidence that it would be equivalent, in the sight 
 of the law, to the penalty, which it had threatened. 
 
 If God design to shew mercy by forbearing to 
 inflict the threatened penalty on transgressors, it ap- 
 pears to be necessary that something should be done 
 or suffered, which would as fully support the divine 
 character, and render the divine law as efficacious, as 
 if it had its natural course, and subjected every offender 
 to its curse. Were any thing less than this substi- 
 tuted, God's abhorrence of sin would appear to be 
 diminished; transgression would be encouraged; and 
 the law, of course, would cease to produce its full and 
 designed effect. How then can rebellious subjects be 
 forgiven, and divine authority be supported? We are 
 wholly indebted to divine revelation for an answer to 
 this question. We are taught by the sacred scrip- 
 tures that there is in the divine Nature a plurality, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that they are manifested 
 in the work of redemption; that in respect to office 
 the Father holds authority, and the Son and Holy 
 Spirit are subordinate; that this method is adopted by 
 consent, and without infringement upon the divine pre- 
 rogatives of either. In the covenant of redemption 
 it was stipulated that the Son should have the hea- 
 then for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 255 
 
 the earth for his possession; that he should see of the 
 travail of his soul and be satisfied; and that he should 
 be King in Zion. The Son, in view of what he had 
 to do, and of what he was to receive, said, "Lo, I 
 come, to do thy will, O God." Ever since the apos- 
 tasy, the Son has been the medium of intercourse 
 between the Father and the human race; and between 
 the human race and the Father. He has ever been 
 the medium, through which every blessing has been 
 conferred upon this fallen world. When the fulness 
 of the time (the time marked out by prophecy) 
 was come, the Son of God laid aside, concealed, or 
 emptied himself of that glory, which he had with the 
 Father, was born of a woman; was made'flesh, and 
 took upon him the form a servant. He was rich^ as 
 Creator and Proprietor of the world; he was rick in 
 respect to his divine glory in heaven; but for the sake 
 of a sinful world he became poor; he assumed a con- 
 dition of poverty, not having where to lay his head; 
 he subjected himself to a state of humiliation. From 
 this scriptural representation we see what the Son of 
 God did on the part of Divinity for the support of the 
 divine law, while pardon was offered to sinners on 
 merciful conditions. In this state of abasement the 
 divine Son was exposed to the greatest indignity; and 
 he actually received the grossest insults, and the most 
 contemptuous treatment during his public ministry on 
 earth. In the exercise of divine benevolence he came 
 into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. 
 He came to his own^ the people, who had been the 
 objects of his special care, support, and ' direction. 
 He addressed them in the most affectionate language. 
 He offered them the greatest of blessings, salvation, 
 on condition of faith in his name. He appealed to 
 his works, his divine works, to prove his benevolent 
 designs, that he was the Son of God; and that he was 
 able to bestow what he had offered. But they returned 
 him ingratitude and abuse. They not only refused 
 the offers of his mercy; but they were inveterate 
 
256 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 
 
 against him. In his works of love they accused him 
 of confederacy with Beelzebub. When it was pro- 
 posed to them whether they would give preference 
 to him, or to a vile malefactor, they with one consent 
 gave their voice in favor of the latter. All this 
 ignominy and abasement were endured by the 
 divine Son. 
 
 In union with him was the Son of man, whose 
 nativity was miraculous; whose life was holy, harmless, 
 undefiled; who received the Spirit without measure, 
 and was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with 
 power. So intimate was the union of the Son of God 
 with the man, Christ Jesus, that the sufferings of the 
 latter upon the cross were a sacrifice of vastly more 
 importance than the sufferings of any other man. The 
 spotless purity of his nature, the perfection of his 
 character, the extraordinary unction of the Holy 
 Spirit, which he received, and his union with the Son 
 of God, rendered him peculiarly dear to the Father. 
 Here we have at one vjew the constituent parts of the 
 atonement, viz. the humiliation of the Son of God, and 
 the sufferings of the Son of man. These parts ought 
 to be viewedT so far distinctly, that their different 
 values may appear; and they ought to be viewed so 
 far unitedly, as they are the acts, or sufferings of one 
 and the same Mediator. If the Son of God humbled 
 himself by union with the Son of man, the Son of man 
 was exalted by the same union: and there arose a 
 reciprocal influence from this mysterious connexion. 
 We must cautiously avoid any hypothesis, or language, 
 which seems to blend or confound the two natures of 
 Jesus Chrir.t; which seems to attribute a suffering of 
 painful sensations to his divinity, or a communication 
 of divine properties to his humanity. Wlien it is 
 represented that the Word was made flesh, that the 
 second Jldam was the Lord from heaven, that he, 
 who expired upon the cross was the Lord of glory, 
 that the Son of man would ascend up where he was 
 before, we are not to understand that divinity was 
 
ON THE, ^ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 257 
 
 converted into humanity, or that humanity was con- 
 verted into divinity; or that either nature sustained 
 the least deo^ree of chanj^e. But this manner of 
 expression conveys the idea of the intimate connexion 
 of his two natures; and during his incarnate state, the 
 mention of one involves the other, and by implication, 
 the same things may be predicated of each. The 
 Scriptures use the same mode of expression, in relation 
 to the material and immaterial part of man. They 
 predicate of his soul what belongs to his body, and 
 they predicate of his body what belongs to his soul. 
 (See Ez. 18:20. Matt. 16:17.) 
 
 Whatever degree of dignity and capacity was 
 added to the Son of man, by the peculiar union of thcj 
 Son of God, he was still human and limited in all his 
 powers. The siiTferings, which he endured on the 
 cross, were human sufferings; and, by their very nature, 
 were limited in degree. But if we add to this, the 
 abasement of the divine Son, which is unspeakably 
 more important, there will appear to be no deficiency 
 in the extent or efficacy of the atonement. 
 
 If these are the constituent parts, or the matter of 
 the atonement, there is no ground for the objection, 
 that it was made wholly by the man Christ Jesus, and 
 that it is limited in its nature and in its value. Let it 
 be kept in view that the object of the atonement is to 
 support divine authority, and express divine abhorrence 
 of sin as fully as if the law had its natural course, and 
 mankind suffered its penal consequences. When it is 
 brought into the estimate that the Son of God was 
 divine; that he was infinitely dear to the Father; that 
 in obedience to his will he volutarily sustained the 
 deepest degree of humiliation; and that the Son of 
 man, who was in the nearest and most endearing con- 
 nexion with himself, suffered death of the most igno- 
 minious and painful kind, it appears that the law was 
 magnified and made honorable, while forgiveness of sin 
 was ofTered to transgressors on merciful conditions. It 
 appears that this substitution has expressed as great 
 33 
 
258 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 regard for the law, and as great disapprobation of sin, 
 as if the whole race of man had remained under its 
 curse, without anj provision for their deliverance. 
 
 Whj might not the Deity pardon transgressors 
 without a sacrifice, as well as pardon them on the 
 ground of a sacrifice made principally by himself? It 
 is not our province to assign reasons for all the dealings 
 of the Most High; nor for the peculiar method, which 
 he has adopted in the scheme of redemption. But it 
 must be considered that, in the economy of grace, the 
 Father holds authority; and the Son is subordinate, 
 and subjected to his control; and that this is the 
 ground of the covenant, which makes provision for 
 the salvation of man. Of course, the Son might do 
 that in behalf of the human race, which iflight be 
 acceptable to the Father, while he made them offers 
 of mercy. If there "Were simple unity in the divine 
 Nature, it appears that this method, the method of 
 sacrifice, would be impracticable. 
 
 Should God grant pardon, in a single instance, with- 
 out an atonement, he might, on the same principle, 
 forgive others to any extent; and mankind would take 
 encouragement to violate the divine law with hope of 
 impunity. But this consequence does not follow from 
 the atonement, as it is brought to our view in the 
 Gospel. Though there is a propitiation made suffi- 
 cient for the sins of the whole world, yet no one will 
 receive pardon except on the condition of repentance 
 and reformation. The wicked can find no encourage- 
 ment on this ground, to continue in sin; for while they 
 retain their habits of iniquity, they are as fully under 
 the penal threatenings of the law as if no sacrifice had 
 been made; and they have no interest in pardoning 
 mercy, nor can they have, while they persevere in 
 transgression. There is as much necessity of holiness 
 of heart and life, under the provisions of the Gospel, 
 as if righteousness and justification were by the law. 
 The design and work of Jesus were not only to save 
 people from the penalty due to their sins, but to save 
 
O^ THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 259 
 
 them from the practice and guilt of them. For this 
 purpose he has authority, by the covenant of redemp- 
 tion, to send the Holy Spirit into the world to conviiice 
 of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; to chan^^^e 
 the disposition of the human heart; to sanctify tlie 
 affections and to keep the subjects of his effectual 
 operations through faith unto salvation. This appears 
 to be necessary, in order to prepare them to receive 
 the remission of their sins. For if they were pardoned 
 in a slate of impenitence, and rebellion against divine 
 authority, it would frustrate alike the design of the 
 law and of the atonement. 
 
 Inseparably connected with the sacrifice of Christ, 
 is his obedience. In his abasement and sufferings, he 
 was submissive to the will of the Father. He yielded 
 a perfect obedience to the divine law; and proved 
 that it was holy, just and good. He gave as full and 
 clear evidence in favor of the divine commands, as 
 mankind would have done by a perfect observance of 
 them. Had the Lord Jesus Christ made only an 
 expiation for sin, he would only have saved them from 
 suffering; he would not have procured for them the 
 reward of righteousness. But he did not leave the 
 work of salvation unfinished. He is "the Lord, our 
 Righteousness. He is the end of the law for right- 
 eousness." He has suffered the penal part, and he 
 has obeyed the preceptive part of the law for the 
 human race. He has fulfilled the law; and he main- 
 tains its dignity and efficacy, while he offers pardon 
 and reward to those, who believe on his name. On 
 this plan the faith of men is accounted to them for 
 righteousness; and God is just, while he justifies them. 
 Had any created being, of whatever grade, proposed 
 to substitute his obedience for the obedience of the 
 human race, so that his righteousness might be 
 accounted to them, could he have done it? Could he 
 have performed more than his own duty, so that he 
 could have had a surplus of righteousness, which 
 might be set to their account; aod for which thej 
 
260 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 might receive the reward of everlasting blessedness? 
 Were revj^ard granted on this ground, would not the 
 law greatly suffer; and would not people set a small 
 value upon a righteousness and its reward, which 
 might be obtained at so low a rate? 
 
 If we examine the ancient sin offering, and view it 
 in connexion with the sufferings and death of Christ, 
 we shall obtain light on the subject. The type and 
 the antitype unite their influence to lead us into the 
 knowledge of a truth the most interesting to a fallen 
 world. "The Hebrews had properly but three sorts 
 of sacrifices; the burnt offering, which was wholly 
 consumed, only the priest had the benefit of the skin, 
 Lev. 7:8. The sacrifice for sin, or expiation for him, 
 who had fallen into any offence against the law, Lev. 
 4. The peace offering, which was offered voluntarily, 
 in praise to God, or to ask favors. Sic. Lev. 7:3 1,34." 
 
 The trespass offering was an expiatory sacrifice. 
 The law concerning this was explicit. ''If a soul sin 
 and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto 
 his neighbor, in that which was delivered him to keep; 
 — or have found that which was lost, and lieth con- 
 cerning it, and sweareth falsely, — he shall even restore 
 it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more 
 thereto; and he shall bring his trespass offering unto 
 the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock.— 
 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before 
 the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of 
 all he hath done in trespassing therein." (See Leviti- 
 cus 6:) For a sin of a different kind the transgres- 
 sor was required to "bring his trespass offering unto 
 the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him 
 with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord 
 for the sin, which he hath done; and the sin which he 
 hath done shall be forgiven him," Lev. 19:21,22. 
 
 When Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the 
 priest's office, Moses brought a bullock for a sin offer- 
 ing; and they laid their hands upon the head of the 
 bullock, and he slew it for a sin offering. (See Lev. 8:) 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 261 
 
 After the death of Aaron's sons, it was an established 
 ordinance for him and his successors to offer a sin offer- 
 ing once a year for himself and for the sins ot the 
 people. He sacrificed a bullock to make atonement 
 for his own sins. For the people he took two goats; 
 one he sacrifi -ed; and over the other, with his hands 
 on its head, he confessed their iniquities, putting them 
 upon the head of the goat; and then he sent it, bear- 
 ing their sins, into the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:) 
 This was the law for making atonement for the sins 
 of the priest, and for the sins of the people. 
 
 Had we no further information on this subject than 
 what we derive from the law of sacrifices, we could 
 discover no wisdom in their institution; no efficacy in 
 the blood of beasts; no connexion between the sacri- 
 fice of. animals and the forgiveness of sin. But the 
 apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, gives us 
 the information on this subject, Vv'hich we need. He 
 S[)eaks of the legal sacrifices; contrasts them with the 
 sacrifice of Christ; and shews the vast superiority of 
 the latter. "The law having a shadow of good things 
 to come, and not the very image of the things, can 
 never with those sacrifices, which they offered year 
 by year continually, make the comers thereunto per- 
 fect. For then would they not have ceased to be 
 offered; because that the worshippers once purged, 
 should have had no more conscience of sins. But in 
 those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of 
 sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood 
 of bulls and of goats should take away sius. But 
 Christ being come an high Priest of good things to 
 come, by a greater and more perfect labernacle, not 
 made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 
 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his 
 own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, 
 having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if 
 the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
 heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri- 
 fying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of 
 
262 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, oflfered him-' 
 self without spot to God, purge your conscience from 
 dead works to serve the living God? — Nor yet that 
 he should offer himself often, as the high priest enter- 
 eth into the holy place every year with blood of oth- 
 ers. For then must he often have suffered since the 
 foundation of the world, but now once in the end of 
 the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the 
 sacrifice of himself." (See Heb. 9: and 10:) 
 
 From a contrast of the Jewish sin offerings with the 
 sacrifice of the high priest under the gospel dispen- 
 sation, we perceive that the former were but a 
 shadow of good things to come; that they were a 
 representation of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; 
 and that they derived all their meaning, and all their 
 efficacy from this connexion. If the legal sin offerings 
 were appointed to be efficacious in procuring remission 
 of sin, much more would the sacrifice of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, in which all others terminated, lay a 
 foundation for the pardon of sinners. Without this 
 allusion, the Hebrew ritual appears as unmeaning and 
 unavailing as the- superstitious rites of the heathen. 
 
 If the Jews, as a nation, had waxed gross, and 
 through their carnal ordinances did not discern spir- 
 itual things, there is no reasonable doubt that the 
 Jewish saints viewed the trespass offering as an expi- 
 atory sacrifice, looking forward to the sacrifice of the 
 Lamb of God, and drawing all its import and all its 
 value from that source. The ancient prophecies shed 
 some glimmering rays upon this one, great sacrifice. 
 The saints by faith caught the light; and like Abra- 
 ham, they saw the day of Christ, and were glad. If, 
 at the time the Messiah was upon earth, the principal 
 part of the Jewish nation had no idea of a suffering 
 Savior, there is no doubt there were some of that 
 nation, who had correct views of the prophecies re- 
 lating to his incarnation and death; and had faith in 
 the divine promises. Caiphas, the high priest, though 
 an enemy of Jesus, appeared to have correct views of 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 263 
 
 the design of his sacrifice. "It is expedient for us," 
 said he, "That one man should die for the people, and 
 that the whole nation perish not. — He prophesied 
 that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for 
 that nation only, but that also he should gather 
 together in one, the children of God, that were scat- 
 tered abroad." 
 
 The scriptures very fully and clearly represent the 
 sufferings of Christ to be a sacrifice for sin. "He 
 was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
 for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was 
 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. — The 
 Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. — For the 
 transgression of my people was he stricken. — He bare 
 the sin of many. (See Isaiah 53:) This is my blood 
 of the new testament, which is shed for many for the 
 remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28.) For even the Son of 
 man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, 
 and to give his life a ranson for many. (Mark 10:45.) 
 Being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
 demption, that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set 
 forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. 
 (Rom. 3:24,25.) Who was delivered for our offences, 
 and was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4:25.) 
 For when we were yet without strength, in due time 
 Christ died for the ungodly. — But God commendeth 
 his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, 
 Christ died for us. Much more then, being now jus- 
 tified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath 
 through him. For if when we were enemies, we were 
 reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much 
 more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 
 (Rom. 5:6,8,9,10.) For even Christ our passover is 
 sacrificed for us. — For I delivered unto you first of all 
 that which I also received, how that Christ died for 
 our sins according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 5:7; and 
 15:3.) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
 knew no sin; that we might be made the righteous- 
 ness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21.) In whom we have 
 redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of 
 
264 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 sins. (Col. 1:14.) Who gave himself a ransom for all. 
 (1 Tim. 2:6.) Christ was once offered to bear the 
 sins of many. (Heb. 9:28.) Forasmuch as ye know 
 that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
 as silver and gold; — but with the precious blood of 
 Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 
 (1 Peter, 1:18,19.) He is the propitiation for our sins; 
 and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
 world. — And sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 our sins. (1 John 2:2; and 4:10.) They sung a new 
 song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
 to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and 
 hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." (Rev. 5:9.) 
 These texts and many more of similar import, clearly 
 shew that Christ was offered as a sacrifice for sin; and 
 that in consequence of his propitiatory offering, trans- 
 gressors may receive forgiveness. If these passages 
 do not convey this idea, it appears to be impossible to 
 find language, which will convey it. 
 
 From this view of the subject, it appears that Jesus 
 Christ has made an atonement for sin, and that this is 
 the ground, on which forgiveness is offered to trans- 
 gressors, on certain merciful conditions. There is a 
 manifest distinction between the meritorious, or pro- 
 curing cause of pardon, and the terms, on which it 
 may be received. Because the law is magnified and 
 made honorable by the sufferings and obedience of 
 Christ, it does not follow that the law is made void; 
 and that it has no further claims upon mankind. Be- 
 cause there is a propitiation made for the sms of the 
 whole world, it does not follow that all have a claim 
 to exemption from punishment; or that all will be 
 forgiven. It must be remembered that faith and 
 repentance, on the part of the transgressor, are exer- 
 cises of mind and heart, which are indispensable in 
 order to receive the mercy of pardon. The atone- 
 ment, on the part of Christ, and faith and repentance, 
 on the part of the transgressor, are set forth in the 
 Scriptures to be absolutely necessary to salvation. 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 265 
 
 When one only is mentioned in connexion with for- 
 giveness, the other is not excluded, but implied, or 
 understood. 
 
 The atonement originated in divine mercy. God 
 was angrj with the wicked, as sinners. But as the 
 workmanship of his hand, as intelligent creatures, 
 capable of serving, honoring, and enjoying him for ever, 
 he loved them. "Herein is love, not that we loved 
 God, but that he loved us. We love him because he 
 first loved us." The Father was not moved, by the 
 sacrifice of his Son, to shew mercy. But in the exer- 
 cise of his mercy, he adopted this as an expedient, by 
 which he could consistently offer pardon to his rebel- 
 lious subjects. The Father and Son were of one 
 mind on this subject. The Father was willing to give 
 up his Son to be a sacrifice for sin; and the Son was 
 equally willing to become a sacrifice, so that salvation 
 BQjght be offered to sinners. 
 
 If we cannot discover any natural connexion between 
 the suffering and obedience of one, and the forgiveness 
 and reward of another, our want of discernment forms 
 no argument against the reality, or wisdom of this 
 plan. Many things occur in the natural and moral 
 world, for which we cannot account; and whose con- 
 nexion we cannot discover. In civil government, 
 rulers often suffer in consequence of the vices of their 
 subjects; and subjects often receive great blessings in 
 consequence of the wise administration of their rulers. 
 In families, the prudent conduct of parents proves to 
 be a great blessing to their children; and the vicious 
 practices of children bring great sufferings upon their 
 parents. A similar connexion runs through the vari- 
 ous grades of society. In many instances, great natu- 
 ral evils, which were intended as such by their authors, 
 have resulted in the most beneficial effects. If this 
 method is found in the constitution of nature, under 
 the administration of the divine Sovereign, why should 
 not the same principles be admitted when they are 
 found in the scheme of redemption? 
 34 
 
266 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 
 
 The greatness of the atonement, as it has been 
 exhibited, is no evidence that it was not appointed 
 and adopted by the divine Sovereign, as an expedient 
 for the salvation of this sinful world. If it appear to 
 any to be disproportionate to the effects, which are 
 designed to be produced by it, it arises from ignorance 
 of the worth of the soul, and of its bearing upon the 
 moral government of God. The human soul, though 
 of limited powers, possesses an extensive capacity. 
 It is capable of continual progression in knowledge and 
 enjoyment. There is no doubt that there will be a 
 point in eternity, when it will be equal in its faculties 
 to the most exalted angel, who now ministers before 
 God's throne; and that it will be then in a state of 
 progressive improvement. 
 
 If it were an object unworthy of the Son of God, 
 to humble himself, to provide salvation for such an 
 individual, then bring to view the first human pair 
 with the whole line of their posterity, diverging into 
 thousands of branches, extending to thousands of gen- 
 erations, and spreading over the breadth of the whole 
 earth. View this extensive province, not merely once 
 replenished with inhabitants, but peopled thousands 
 of times, and removed in succession to another world, 
 to receive their everlasting destination. View this 
 multitude, which no man can number, and say, is not 
 their salvation an object of immense magnitude? Is it 
 not an object worthy of God to accomplish? If it 
 were not inconsistent with the dignity of the divine 
 JBeing, to form and support such a species of beings 
 as mankind, it cannot be inconsistent with his dignity 
 to make provision for their reformation, for their for- 
 giveness, and for their future blessedness. Besides, 
 the atonement of Christ in connexion with the economy 
 of redemption, is made known to the angelic hostj 
 and probably it is disclosed to other systenjs of intelli- 
 gences amidst the immensity of creation; and it may 
 serve as a link in the chain of divine government to 
 connect and support its various parts. 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 267 
 
 When we take into consideration the constituent 
 parts of the atonement, its effect upon the moral con- 
 dition of man, and upon divine government, it appears 
 that no created being was adequate to this work. 
 
 It is presumable that the first offerings and sacri- 
 fices were instituted by divine authority. In a history 
 so concise as that of Moses, there can be only a 
 sketch of the most prominent events. But many 
 truths may be discovered by induction. Cain and 
 Abel brought their respective offerings unto the Lord. 
 It is not improbable that sacrifices were made before 
 this time. But these were recorded because they 
 were accompanied with peculiar and important cir- 
 cumstances. What could have induced these broth- 
 ers, if they were not required, to make these offer- 
 ings to the Lord? If they presented them as gifts to 
 the great Proprietor of all, to avert his displeasure, or 
 render him propitious, analogy fails to give it support. 
 They then held their property in common; and, of 
 course, they did not know by experience what effect 
 gifts would produce upon their fellow beings; and 
 consequently they would find it difficult to infer what 
 effects they would produce in relation to the Creator. 
 The circumstance, that Abel was accepted in his 
 offering, is an evidence that this rite was of divine 
 institution. It can hardly be supposed that fallen 
 creatures were left to invent for themselves a method 
 of worship, or of sacrifice; and it is equally impro- 
 bable that they should invent a method, which would 
 be pleasing to the Lord. "By faith Abel offered 
 unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." He 
 had faith in the divine promise: "the Seed of the 
 Woman shall bruise the serpent's head." Through his 
 sacrifice of beasts he looked forward to the sacrifice 
 of the promised Seed. As Abel discerned this con- 
 nexion between the sacrifice and the divine promise, 
 there is no reasonable doubt that this sacrifice was 
 instituted by divine authority. Further, the use of 
 flesh was not given to man till after the flood. It is 
 
268 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 not probable, therefore, that Abel would hare dared 
 to take away the life of animals, even for sacrifice, if 
 he had not been commanded by God. The sacrifice 
 of animals was a sin offering; and when Abel made 
 this offiering to the Lord, he was conscious of his guilt; 
 he had confidence in the divine promise, and faith in 
 that blood, which cleanseth from all sin. If the law 
 respecting sacrifices was not given in a formal manner 
 till a long period after the apostasy, it, by no means 
 follows that they were not of divine institution during 
 that interval. The decalogue was not communicated 
 in a formal manner till the time of Moses. But there 
 is no reasonable doubt that every one of the ten com- 
 mands had been made known before; and were as 
 binding as they were afterward. 
 
 It is not probable that reason invented the expedient 
 of sacrifice for sin. Some have traced it to this origin, 
 and others have contended that the doctrine is very 
 unreasonable. There appears to be no moral con- 
 nexion between the sin of one and the suffering of 
 another; nor between the suffering of one and the 
 forgiveness of another. If this be true, how have sac- 
 rifices generally obtained in every age through the 
 world, where revelation has not been enjoyed.'' There 
 is no reasonable doubt that sacrifices have been per- 
 petuated by tradition. The nations, which descended 
 from Noah, were acquainted with the sacrifices which 
 God had instituted. When the revelations of the 
 divine will were deposited among one nation, the Jews, 
 other nations still retained a knowledge of sacrifices; 
 and this knowledge was handed down from one gen- 
 eration to another. In addition to this, many heathen 
 nations were acquainted with the Jews, and with their 
 religion. From them they might keep in remem- 
 brance the institution of sacrifices, but with great cor- 
 ruptions. It appears much more reasonable that 
 heathen sacrifices grew out of Jewish, or patriarchal, 
 than that these were engraffed by the divine hand 
 upon their's. 
 
ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 269 
 
 The prevalence of sacrifices among heathen nations 
 generally, if not universally, affords evidence that they 
 are conscious of guilt; and feel the necessity of an ex- 
 piation tor sin. If they believed that repentance and 
 reformation would secure their forgiveness and restore 
 them to the favor of their offended God, they would 
 not seek pardon by sacrifice. But as they have ever 
 sought it in this way, it follows that unassisted reason 
 never taught them that they could obtain pardon 
 without this expedient. 
 
 It appears by the laws which were communicated 
 to Moses concerning sacrifices, that the trespass offer- 
 ing was of an expiatory nature. When people had 
 transgressed the commandment of the Lord, they 
 were commanded to bring an animal for a trespass 
 offering; to lay their hand upon its head and slay it. 
 The priest took of the blood with his finger and put 
 it upon the horns of the altar; and poured out the 
 blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. The priest 
 made an atonement for their sin; and it was forgiven 
 him. See Lev. 4: 5: 6: 
 
 The ceremony respecting the scape goat is a strik- 
 ing representation of the transference of sin. The 
 transgressions of the people were confessed over the 
 goat; put upon his head; and he bore them away 
 into the wilderness. By this method atonement was 
 made for the sins of the people. These sacrifices, 
 viewed by themselves, appear inefficacious and un- 
 meaning. "In those sacrifices there is a remembrance 
 again made of sms every year. For it is not possible 
 that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
 sins," Heb. 10:3,4. But when these sacrifices are 
 viewed m connexion with their antitype, they appear 
 significant and important. The apostle Paul con- 
 trasts the sacrifices under the law with the sacrifice of 
 Christ; and shews most clearly that the latter, both in 
 respect to victim and priest, infinitely exceeded the 
 former. From the contrast it appears that the Jew- 
 ish sacrifices were types of Christ's sacrifice; and that 
 
270 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 from connexion with it, they derived all their import- 
 ance. If those symbols, in connexion with the thing 
 prefigured, were ordained to make a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for sin, it is an unavoidable conclusion that 
 the reality itself is adequate to this purpose. 
 
 "He is the propitiation for our sins," &c. 1 John 2: 
 2. "The word ^iKcmixog is no where found in the New 
 Testament, but in this passage, and in chap. 4:10. But 
 it occurs often in the LXX translation of the Old 
 Testament, where it signifies a sacrifice of atonement. 
 Thus Lev. 6:6,7. Numb. 5:8. K^iog iKctay^a is a ram for 
 a sin offering. And Ezek. 44:27, Tsi^oaCps^siv iKu.ffy.ov is, 
 to offer a sin offering. In considering the death of 
 Christ as a sacrifice for sin, John, like the other apos- 
 tles, followed his Master, who in the institution of his 
 supper, directed his disciples to consider it, as designed 
 to bring to their remembrance his blood, shed for the 
 many, for the remissions of sins. (Macknight.) 
 
 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation," 
 Rom. 3:25. Whether /Acjcvi?'ov alludes to the cover 
 of the ark, or whether it expresses the propitiatory 
 sacrifice of Christ, its import is the same, or nearly 
 the same, because it was on the cover of the ark, or 
 mercy seat, the atonements were accepted, and par- 
 dons were dispensed. Christ, as a propitiatory sacri- 
 fice, was represented by the mercy seat. He, "by his 
 atonement, covered our sins, and bore the curse for 
 us; standing between God and the curse of the law for 
 our sakes, that God might look on the law through 
 Christ, as fulfilled by him on our behalf." 
 
ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Who being in the form of God, — was made in the 
 likeness of men, Phil. 2:6,7. Not only the divinity, but 
 the humanitif of Christ has been denied. So mysteri- 
 ous is the union of human and divine nature, that at 
 an early period of Christianity, even in the apostle's 
 time, seme attributed to the Savior only one nature. 
 One sect believed him to be only human; another 
 believed him to be only divine. The same unscrip- 
 tural sentiments, with some modifications, have been 
 continued till the present day. If there be none in 
 the present age, who denies that the Son of God was 
 united with any degrees of humanity, there are those, 
 who deny that the body of Christ was animated by 
 a human soul. As it is designed to exhibit a general 
 view of the nature and character of the Savior, it is 
 necessary to consider his humanity. 
 
 Christ is repeatedly called in the sacred Scriptures 
 man, and the Son of man. When Peter denied his 
 Lord, he called him a man, saying, "I know not the 
 man.^'' When the centurion witnessed the crucifixion 
 of Jesus, he exclaimed, "Truly this man was the Son 
 of God." When Pilate expressed his opinion respect- 
 ing the allegations brought against Christ, he said, "I 
 find no fault in this man." The Jews called Christ a 
 man. They accused him of blasphemy, saying, "be- 
 cause thou being a man, makest thyself God." In 
 these and other instances, Christ is called a man by 
 persons, wlio were not under the influence of divine 
 
272 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 inspiration. They spoke of him according to appear- 
 ance. He appeared to thera to be a man. But we 
 are not confined to human appearance for evidence of 
 Christ's humanit3\ The apostle Paul, who was under 
 the inspiration of God's Spirit, called Jesus Christ a 
 man. Preaching to the Athenians concerning the res- 
 urrection, he said, "Because he hath appointed a day 
 in the which he will judge the world in righteousness 
 by that man, whom he hath ordained." In his epistle 
 to the Romans, he contrasts Christ with Adam. He 
 speaks of the extensive and deleterious effects of 
 Adam's sin; and in view of this, he declares the exten- 
 sive and beneficial effects of the obedience of Christ. 
 His language is, "As by one man''s disobedience many 
 were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall 
 many be made righteous." The phraseology of this 
 passage authorizes a belief that one, in the latter part 
 of the text, means one man, which is Jesus Christ. 
 "For, since by man came death, by man, (i. e. Christ,) 
 came also the resurrection of the dead." "The first 
 man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the 
 Lord from heaven. There is one God, and one Medi- 
 ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
 Christ repeatedly called himself the Son of man. 
 Interrogating his disciples concerning peoples' opinion 
 of himself, he said, "Whom do people say that 1 the 
 Son of man am?" This appellation is frequently given 
 by the Evangelists to Christ. 
 
 The two angels who were sent to Sodom to destroy 
 the place, and to save Lot and his family, had the 
 appearance of* men. On account of this appearance 
 they were called men. But it is presumable that 
 they did not actually assume flesh and blood. They 
 probably assumed this appearance because they could, 
 in this manner, more intelligibly communicate infor- 
 mation, and avoid the appearance of miraculous inter- 
 position. Christ, before his incarnation, appeared at 
 times in the likeness of a man. When he wrestled 
 with Jacob, he appeared as a man, and he was called 
 
UN THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 273 
 
 a man. The scriptures give this account of the trans- 
 action. "Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a 
 man with him until the breaking of the day. And 
 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have 
 seen God face to face." 
 
 Because angels appeared, at times, in human like- 
 ness, and were called men; because Christ, in the 
 early ages of the world, appeared in human likeness, 
 and was called a man, though neither he nor they 
 were encompassed by humanity, it does not follow, 
 that Christ, when he abode upon earth, was not in- 
 vested with human nature; that he only had the 
 appearance of a man, without the reality. He was 
 the seed oiihe woman. He descended from the house 
 of David. If his conception was different from the 
 ordmary course of nature, this circumstance does not 
 affect his humanity. Adam was formed in a manner 
 different from any of his posterity. But he was not the 
 less human on account of the peculiar mode of his origi- 
 nation. Christ was born of Mary. He, undoubtedly, 
 was nourished as other children. He increased in 
 stature. He ate and drank. After long abstinence 
 from food, "he was an hungred." It cannot be sup- 
 posed that this was merely appearance; that there was 
 no reality. It seems to be an impeachment of the 
 human understanding to attempt to prove that Christ 
 had a human body. But it is a greater impeachment 
 to deny it. 
 
 Some, who admit that Christ had a human body, 
 deny that he had a human soul. As this denial mate- 
 rially affects the character of Christ, it is necessary to 
 investigate this point. When Christ is called in the 
 sacred Scriptures, man and Son of man, there is no 
 intimation given that these words are not to be under- 
 stood according to their usual and natural import. By 
 the word man, is understood a particularly organized 
 body, animated by rational powers. A human body, 
 which has been deprived of its spirit, cannot with 
 propriety be called a man. Nor is it proper to applj 
 35 
 
274 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 this term to a disembodied human spirit. It requires 
 both of these substances, matter and spirit, to consti- 
 tute a man. If the body of Christ was animated and 
 actuated only by the Son of God, there would be no 
 propriety in calling him a man; because it was desti- 
 tute of an essential, and of the most important part of 
 human nature. If the body of Christ was not ani- 
 mated by a human soul, it is not true that the Son of 
 God was united with humanity. A piece of matter, 
 organized like a human body, but destitute of a soul, 
 is no more capable of human sensations, than a piece 
 of matter differently organized. Consequently it 
 could not be considered possessing the essentials of 
 human nature. 
 
 The apostle Paul, speaking of Christ, asserts that he 
 "was made in the likeness of men." The original word 
 {^o[Loioo{^aTi) translated likeness, signifies more than like- 
 ness of appearance. It signifies a real likeness, a like- 
 ness of nature. Christ was not made in the real 
 likeness of men, if he resembled them only in the or- 
 ganization of his body. This would be comparatively 
 a small resemblance. The apostle Paul, representing 
 Christ undertaking the redemption of man, asserts, that 
 "zn all things it behoved him to be made like unto his 
 brethren." If he had not a human soul, he was not 
 made like his brethren in all things. In the most 
 important points he was not made like them. The 
 reason the apostle assigned why it behoved Christ to 
 be made like his brethren was, "that he might be a 
 merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining 
 to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the peo- 
 ple. For in that he himself hath suffered, being 
 tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." 
 The consequence of Christ's being made like his breth- 
 ren was, he had human feelings. Christ in his divine 
 nature knew what were the feelings, the passions, the 
 infirmities and temptations of humanity. But in his 
 divine nature he never felt them. In consequence of 
 Ihe divine Son's union with human nature he became 
 
ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 275 
 
 a merciful^ as well as a faithful high Priest. He was 
 tried by temptation. When he had fasted a long time, 
 he felt the sensation of hunger. He had a desire for 
 food like any man. In this situation he was tempted, 
 when Satan proposed to him to supply himself with 
 bread in a miraculous manner. He undoubtedly had 
 a desire for the conveniences of life; but higher mo- 
 tives counteracted this desire. He was therefore 
 subject to temptation, when all the kingdoms of the 
 world were offered to him. Jn view of the sufferings, 
 which awaited him, he desired, if it were possible, 
 that they might pass from him. He was, therefore, 
 tempted to shrink from the tortures of the cross. 
 Christ speaking to his disciples concerning their faith- 
 fulness to him, said, "Ye are they, which have con- 
 tinued with me in my temptations." The apostle to 
 the Hebrews says, "We have not an high Priest which 
 cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; 
 but was In all points tempted like as we are, yet with- 
 out sin." It is impossible that Christ should be subject 
 to temptations as we are; that he should be touched 
 with the feeling of our infirmities^ if he had not a liuman 
 soul. Separate the mind from the body, and it is hard 
 to conceive how the body can have perceptions and 
 sensations. Can the eye see and perceive; can the ear 
 hear and understand, independently of the intellectual 
 faculties? When intelligence is withdrawn, the body has 
 no perception nor sensation. If there be a distinction 
 between the sensitive and intellectual powers of man, 
 there cannot be a proper man without such intellec- 
 tual powers. If a humanly organized sensitive body 
 may be supposed, it can have only animal sensations; 
 it cannot have human feelings and passions, excepting 
 on principles of modern philosophy, which makes the 
 human soul a necessary result of a particular organ- 
 ization of matter.* 
 
 Such a being may have the appearance of a man; 
 but it is not true that in all things he is made like unto 
 
 * See Pi-iestley oa Matter and Spirit. 
 
276 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 a man. On the present supposition, the Son of God 
 might as well (for aught we know to the contrary) 
 have united with a body of any other shape, as with 
 one of human shape. In this union, his feelings and 
 sensations would have been only of divine and ani- 
 mal nature; but not of human nature. Consequently 
 his incarnation would not have brought him into a 
 nearer relationship with the human race. It would 
 not have subjected him to human temptations; nor 
 would it have capacitated him to sympathize with the 
 infirmities of humanity, or to succor those, who were 
 tempted. One great object of Christ's incarnation 
 was, that he might have a personal knowledge of hu- 
 man nature; that he might be personally acquainted 
 with the infirmities, the temptations and hardships, 
 which are common to the human race. The infirmi- 
 ties of humanity are no less attached to the mind than 
 to the body. If the body of Christ were not ani- 
 mated by a human soul, he could not be tempted as 
 we are; he could not be conscious of our infirmities; he 
 could not feel, as we do, the hardships of human life; 
 his incarnation would not capacitate him to sympa- 
 thize with us in our afflictions, nor to succor us when 
 we are tempted. 
 
 The account, which the sacred scriptures give of 
 Christ, is a decisive proof that he possessed a human 
 son). It is recorded that he increased in wisdom. If 
 his body was animated only by a divine Spirit, it was 
 not possible that he could increase in wisdom. Divinity 
 is unchangeable. The Son of God is called Wisdom. 
 This divine attribute is not capable of increase nor 
 diminution. His increase of wisdom, therefore, must 
 be of human wisdom. 
 
 One object of Christ's incarnation was, to manifest 
 that the divine law was holy and just and good; that 
 it required no more than human nature was capable 
 of performing. If the body of Christ was actuated 
 only by divine intelligence, his obedience of the divine 
 law would give no evidence that human nature was 
 
ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 277 
 
 capable of the same obedience. It would be an exam- 
 ple which might not be wholly calculated for our imi- 
 tation. At least it would not carry evidence with 
 itself that we are capable of obedience. To give 
 evidence that the law was righteous, and to set an 
 example for the human race, it was necessary that he 
 should obey in a nature like our's; i. e. a nature com- 
 posed of body and soul. 
 
 How far the Son of God sustained the Son of man; 
 or whether he afforded him any extraordinary sup- 
 port, it is difficult to determine. It is evident that 
 Christ, in his human nature, received extraordinary 
 communications of the Holy Spirit. When he was 
 baptized the Holy Ghost descended upon him. It is 
 not to be supposed that the Holy Ghost communi- 
 cated the divine Son to the man Christ Jesus. It is 
 not the office of the Spirit to send the Son. The 
 divine nature of Christ did not need the communica- 
 tions of the Holy Spirit. It was complete in itself; 
 and was competent to the duties of its office. The 
 cffijsions of the Holy Spirit were shed upon the human 
 nature of Christ to capacitate him for the work of 
 redemption. As he had more to perform, more to 
 endure, than human nature ever performed or endured, 
 more copious effijsions of the Spirit were made to 
 him. The Spirit was not communicated to him by 
 measure. The Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to 
 be tempted of the devil. Without doubt he granted 
 him his sustaining influence. When Christ taught in 
 the synagogue, he read a prophetic passage, which 
 related to the Messiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is 
 upon me." The apostle Peter bore testimony "how 
 God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost 
 and with power." The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, 
 speaking of the Son, says, "God, even thy God hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- 
 lows." This was the anointing of the Holy Spirit at 
 his consecration; and he was anointed in a more extra- 
 ordinary degree than any of his fellows, the prophets, 
 
278 GN THE HUMANITY OB^ GHRIST. 
 
 priests, or kings. The man Christ Jesus received not 
 only the aids of the Holy Spirit, but he received the 
 ministration of angels. After he was tempted by 
 Satan, "angels came and ministered unto him." When 
 he was in agony on the mount of Ohves, and prayed 
 to the Father, that, if he were willing, the cup might 
 pass from him, "there appeared an angel unto him 
 from heaven strengthening him." 
 
 The influence of the Holy Spirit and the ministra- 
 tion of angels are afforded to man. This completes 
 the parallel between the man Christ Jesus and the 
 human race. He personally knows the assistances 
 they receive, and the temptations and hardships which 
 they endure; and he is perfectly qualified to make 
 a just distinction between human infirmities, and the 
 evil propensities of human nature. 
 
 The sacred Scriptures attribute human passions to 
 Jesus Christ. He appears to have had human views 
 and human feelings, and to be actuated like a holy 
 man. At a time he rejoiced in spirit. At other times 
 he suffered the pains of grief. The prophet describ- 
 ing the low condition of Christ, says, "He is despised 
 and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with f^rief. Surely he hath borne our griefs and car- 
 ried our sorrows." His life corresponded with this 
 prophetic description. At the grave of Lazarus he 
 wept. He shed teTirs over impenitent Jerusalem. 
 In view of approaching death and of its attending cir- 
 cumstances, he was in agon3^ He said, "Now is my 
 soul troubled. My soid is exceedingly sorrowful even 
 unto death." He prayed that, if it were possible, he 
 might be delivered from the hour of dissolution, which 
 just awaited him. He appeared to have the same 
 struggle between a sense of duty and the infirmity of 
 human nature, which it would be expected any holy 
 man would have. \V^hen he was on the cross and 
 suffering its tortures; when the Father withdrew the 
 light of his countenance, and it was the hour of the 
 power of darkness, he exclaimed, My God, my God, 
 
ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 279 
 
 why hast thou forsaken me? This is not the language 
 of divinity. This is the language of suffering humanity. 
 At times Jesus Christ manifested anger. When 
 the Pharisees watched him whether he would heal 
 on the Sabbath-day, "he looked round about on them 
 with anger.'''' When Jesus went up to Jerusalem and 
 saw that the temple was made a place of traffic, he 
 manifested a zeal for the honor of his Father's house. 
 He expressed indignation when he used the scourge, 
 poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the 
 tables. 
 
 The Savior manifested a love, which had every 
 appearance of human love. When the rich young 
 man addressed hmi in terms of respect; appeared 
 polished in his manners and regular in his life, Jesus 
 beholding him loved him. He appears to have had a 
 peculiar alTection for the family of Mary. John was 
 the disciple, whom Jesus loved. 
 
 When Christ is said to be angry, to be grieved; to 
 rejoice; to exercise love; to suffer pain, there is no 
 appearance that these affections are to be understood 
 figuratively. When he manifested these affections to 
 the senses, he manifested them really, not figuratively. 
 If a human soul was not united with the body of Jesus, 
 it is impossible that he should have had these affec- 
 tions, if his body was animated only by the divine 
 Son, it is impossible that he should be tempted as we 
 are, for God is not tempted with evil; and it is absurd 
 to suppose that a mere body is subject to temptation. 
 There is a manifest propriety that the Mediator 
 between God and man should possess divine and 
 human nature. By this union he would feel an interest 
 in the rights of both parties. While he vindicated 
 the rights of God's throne, he would have compassion 
 on the infirmities of humanity. Had he been only 
 divine, the sinful race of man might, perhaps, have 
 accused him of partiality to the cause of his Father, 
 while he neglected to plead their cause. Had he 
 been only human, he might have neglected divine 
 
280 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 rights; and have exercised an undue partiaHty for his 
 brethren. But by possessing both natures, he will 
 exhibit evidence that he pays just regard to both 
 parties; and of course, every mouth will finally be 
 stopped before God. 
 
 The human mind cannot comprehend the union 
 which subsists between the Son of man and the Son 
 of God. Neither can it comprehend the union be- 
 tween soul and body. It does not understand how 
 matter affects spirit, and how spirit affects matter. It 
 does not understand how the divine Spirit sustains and 
 moves the inanimate world; nor does it understand 
 how he supports and gives operation to the human 
 soul and body. These are acknowledged truths. 
 They are not denied, because they cannot be com- 
 prehended. If the divine Mind pervades all things; 
 and moves all things, it is not incredible that he should 
 have a peculiar residence and efficiency in the man 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is written, "The Word was made fleshy The 
 apostle Peter, speaking of the patriarch David said, 
 "God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit 
 of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up 
 Christ to sit on his throne." The apostle Paul saith, 
 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was 
 made of the seed of David according to the flesh^ 
 "When he cometh into the w^orld he saith, sacrifice 
 and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou 
 prepared me." Because the terra flesh is applied to 
 Christ; because a body was prepared for him; it does 
 not follow that his flesh was not animated by a human 
 soul. It is well known that in the sacred Scriptures, 
 as well as in other writings, that a figure is used, 
 which puts a part for the whole. The word flesh is 
 often used in the Bible to signify not only the human 
 body, but the whole person. "God looked upon the 
 earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had 
 corrupted his way upon the earth." It cannot be 
 supposed that human bodies are here spoken of to the 
 
ON THE HU3IANITY OP CHRIST. 281 
 
 exclusion of human souls. It is not supposed that the 
 bodies only corrupted his ways and the souls kept 
 themselves pure. The Psalmist, desiring to see the 
 power and glory of" God, saith, ""My Jlesh longeth for 
 thee." It is not rational to suppose that the word 
 flesh in this passage signifies his material, to the exclu- 
 sion of his spiritual part. There are many other 
 passages in the sacred Scriptures, too numerous to be 
 quoted, in which the word tlesh signifies the whole 
 person; and in those passages it is the most natural 
 signification of the word. Consequently, it may signify 
 a complete human person when it is applied to Christ. 
 The Word was made Jiesh, i. e. he was made in the 
 likeness of men. 
 
 There is such a union between the Son of God and 
 the Son of man, that some of the qualities of each are, 
 in the Scriptures, applied to the other. "The second 
 man is the Lord from heaven." In this passage, a 
 divine name is given to the Son of man. Thou wilt 
 not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
 Holy One to see corruption. The divine title. Holy 
 One, was applied to the body of Christ. 
 
 So nearly united were the humanity and divinity of 
 Christ, that he sometimes spoke of one nature, some- 
 times of the other. If there be so intimate a union 
 between Christ and believers, that they are called 
 members of his body, it is not incredible that the Son 
 of God should have a peculiarly intimate union with 
 the Son of man. 
 
 36 
 
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF 
 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 After examining generally the evidences of the sacred 
 scriptures in favor of the existence of God, the divine 
 unity and the divine plurality; and after examining 
 particularly their evidences in favor of the divinity of 
 the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is 
 suitable to bring these evidences into one view that 
 we may feel their united force. Every source of 
 evidence affords a rich supply of arguments in proof 
 of the subject. But when all the sources are opened, 
 and their united strength is made to bear upon oppos- 
 ing systems, it is hoped they will carry conviction, 
 where a single argument, or a single source of evidence 
 would fail. 
 
 The existence of God, is written as with a sunbeam 
 on all the works of nature. "The invisible things of 
 him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
 being understood by the things that are made, even 
 his eternal power and Godhead." The unity of God 
 is argued from the correspondence between the dif- 
 ferent parts of the world; from the uniformity of 
 divine government; from the coincidence of the dif- 
 ferent parts of the sacred scriptures; and from the 
 sameness of Spirit, which runs through the whole 
 system. The unity of Israel's God was expressly 
 taught bv divine authority in contradistinction to the 
 multiplicity of the gods of the heathen. Plurality in 
 
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES, &;C. 28S 
 
 the divine nature is deducible from the divine name of 
 plural number; from the specification of distinctions in 
 the divine nature; and from different and significant 
 names applied to the Deity. 
 
 Revelation has not left us with only these general 
 ideas of God. While it exhibits the unity of the di- 
 vine essence, it exhibits certain distinctions, which 
 constitute a ground of intercourse and of reciprocal 
 compact. 
 
 The Father occupies the first place in the work of 
 redemption. He possesses no priority of existence, 
 nor superiority of nature, compared with the Son and 
 Spirit. But according to the methodical arrangement 
 of infinite Wisdom, there is order of offices in the dis- 
 pensation of grace. By reciprocal consent the Father 
 holds the first office; the first in respect to order and 
 number. The authority which the Father had to 
 send the Son was by mutual consent. The universal 
 authority which the Son had in heaven and in earth, 
 after his resurrection, was also by mutual consent. 
 The terms, Father and God, are often used in the 
 scriptures as synonymous. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity is not incidentally ex- 
 pressed or alluded to in the scriptures. It is not con- 
 fined to some solitary passage or page, as if it were 
 interpolated, or casually dropped from the penman of 
 the sacred oracles. It is a prominent doctrine. 
 Divine plurality appears in the first sentence of divine 
 inspiration. It was gradually unfolded in ancient times. 
 After the advent of Christ it was revealed with greater 
 clearness and distinctness. In short, it is a doctrine 
 interwoven through the whole system of revelation. 
 
 The divinity of Christ is inferred from a multiphcity 
 of evidences, each of which appears to be conclusive. 
 Divine names are given to him. The most exalted 
 names of God, names, significant of his existence are 
 applied to him. Some divine names, it is true, are 
 given to creatures. But all divine names are not given to 
 any creature. But the highest divine names are given 
 
284 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 to Christ. When they are applied to creatures, they 
 are applied with such restrictions and qualifications, 
 and with such evident relation to creatures, that they 
 are not calculated to lead people into the belief that 
 they are divine. When they are applied to Christ, 
 they are applied without limitation. No intimation is 
 given that these names are not literally applied. If 
 Christ had not been divine, there is no doubt that some 
 qualification or restriction would have been added to 
 his titles to prevent people, naturally prone to idola- 
 try, from giving him divine worship. As no such 
 restriction is annexed to the divine titles of Christ, 
 the scriptures are sadly calculated to mislead, if he be 
 not divine. It seems that the frequent application of 
 divine names, even the highest divine names to Jesus 
 Christ, would prevent all objection to his divinity. If 
 there were but one source of evidence to prove his 
 Deity, if but one characteristic feature of divinity were 
 attributed to him, there might be, perhaps, some 
 ground to doubt his divinity. Such explanation might 
 be given by denlers of his divinity, which would seem 
 to take from him his divine claims. 
 
 But the divinity of Christ does not rest on one 
 source of evidence. He has more than one divine 
 feature. What is a name, a high name, unless it be 
 appropriately given.'* What is a divine name, unless it 
 designate divine nature? The same scriptures, which 
 give divine titles to Christ, also ascribe to him divine 
 attributes. Duration, knowledge, wisdom, presence, 
 and power, are attributed to Christ in no less degree 
 than to the Father. Sometimes a single divine attri- 
 bute is hyperbolically given to a creature, not to 
 designate divine nature, but to express some extraor- 
 dinary quality. But this bears no proportion to the 
 literal application of the whole assemblage of divine 
 qualities to Jesus Christ. If divine attributes had been 
 given to Christ only in a figurative sense, it would 
 have been necessary that some notice should be given 
 of the figurative allusion. But as no such notice was 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 285 
 
 given; as no limitations of number or degree were 
 made to those divine attributes, which were ascribed 
 to Christ, it is a natural inference that his nature is 
 divine. If any should not admit that divine titles ap- 
 plied to Christ proved him to be divirie, it seems that 
 the addition.d evidence of divine attributes applied to 
 him, would decide the question. 
 
 In addition to these evidences, the same works are 
 attributed to Christ, which are attributed to God. 
 He is the Author of creation. He was in concert 
 with the Father and Spirit, w hen it was said, "Let us 
 make man." He performed miracles by his own 
 power and authority. He will raise the dead and 
 judge the world. Greater works are not attributed 
 to the Father than those, which aie attributed to the 
 Son. If the divinity of the Father is argued from his 
 works, it is equally conclusive, to infer Christ's divinity 
 from his works. If Christ wa? merely an instrument 
 in the hand of the Father in tiie work of creation, 
 and in the perforjiance of miracles; and wrought only 
 by the communication of his power, it would not be 
 proper to attribute these works to Christ, excepting 
 under certain restrictions. But as no such restrictions 
 are applied to him, it is a fair conclusion that he 
 wrought bv his own power. It is impossible that 
 almighty power should be transferred from God the 
 Father to a creature; and it is also impossible that 
 the operation of almighty power should be the act of 
 a creature. If Christ be properly the Author of the 
 works of creation and of miracles, he of course pos- 
 sesses divine power. If he be not properly the Author 
 of the world and of miracles, the Scriptures are cal- 
 culated to mislead, and they have misled the human 
 mind. 
 
 The sacred Scriptures represent the knowledge and 
 wisdom of the Son in as high degree as they represent 
 the knowledge and wisdom of the Father. By way 
 of eminence, tlie Son is called wisdom. By his works 
 and dispensations he has proved that this name is 
 
286 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 significant and appropriate. When he was upon 
 earth, he had an intuitive view of transactions where 
 his bodily eye could not penetrate. He knew what 
 was in man. When his enemies meditated evil against 
 him, he knew their thoughts. "No one knoweth the 
 Father but the Son." This declaration implies that 
 the Son had a knowledge of the Father. It requires 
 an unlimited capacity to have knowledge of an infinite 
 subject. 
 
 There is evidence from Scripture that the presence 
 of the Son is as extensive as the works of creation. 
 He represented himself to be at the same time in 
 heaven and on earth. To his disciples, who were 
 going into different parts of the world he said, "Lo, I 
 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 His office as Intercessor implies that he is present with 
 all his suppliants and hears their petitions. 
 
 The divine goodness of the Son is inferred from his 
 works before his incarnation; from his dispensations on 
 earth; from his official acts, which he will perform at 
 the last day; and from his system of religion, whose 
 tendency is of the most salutary nature. If the works, 
 the dispensations and the religion of God prove his 
 divine goodness, the same, being the works of the Son, 
 prove with equal decision his divine goodness. If it 
 was an act of goodness in the Father to send his Son 
 into the world to redeem mankind, it was no less 
 goodness in the Son to come into the world for this 
 purpose. 
 
 The sacred Scriptures attribute no less authority 
 to Christ than to the Father. He has authority over 
 his ambassadors. He has authority over his church. 
 He has authority to forgive sins. He has authority 
 to judge the world and dispense retribution. He has 
 all authority in heaven and in earth; all authority, 
 which is essential to the office of Redeemer. 
 
 The Son is entitled to no less honor than the Father. 
 This is inferred from the worship he has received. 
 Immediately after he came into the world, wise men 
 
OP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 287 
 
 went and worshipped him. The divine command 
 was, "Let all the angels of God worship him." His 
 disciples and others worshipped him; and he forbade 
 them not. His own language was "that all men should 
 honor the Son even as they honor the Father." If 
 he had not been entitled to divine worship, he would 
 not have required it; nor would he have countenanced 
 it when it was offered him. 
 
 These evidences unite their force to prove the 
 divinity of Christ. There are as great evidences in 
 favor of the divinity of the Son, as there are in favor 
 of the divinity of the Father. If these evidences do 
 not prove the divinity of the former, neither do they 
 prove the divinity of the latter. If we ask for more 
 evidence, than the Scriptures afford, to prove the 
 divinity of Christ, we must, to be consistent, ask for 
 more evidence of the existence of God; and of the 
 infinitude of his attributes. If the testimony of Scrip- 
 ture on this subject can be explained away, or be 
 made to signify any thing or nothing, the testimony of 
 Scripture on other subjects can be explained away, or 
 be perverted with equal ease. If the cloud of evi- 
 dences, which the Bible offers to prove the divinity 
 of the Son, does not prove it, it is impossible to name 
 evidence or evidences, which will prove it. 
 
 Each evidence, which has been adduced in favor 
 of Christ's divmity, appears to be conclusive. But 
 they appear with increased strength, when they are 
 viewed together. Like the pillars of an edifice stand- 
 ing individually on their own bases, they stand more 
 firm by their connexion. 
 
 The sacred Scriptures were designed to enhghten, 
 not to confound the human understanding. They were 
 designed to exhibit the divine nature and character; 
 and the nature and condition of man. If the Scrip- 
 tures take the characteristic traits of divinity and 
 apply them, in all their extent, to humanity, they con- 
 found the Creator with the creature. They darken 
 the human mind. They lead mankind directlv into 
 
288 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 idolatry. When the magicians copied with great 
 precision the mir-icles, whicii God wrought by tlje hand 
 of Moses, God saw tit to give a visible superiorit)- to his 
 own works, lest people should give that honor to the 
 magicians, which was due only to hitnsell". If Christ 
 be a mere creature, and God applied so many divine 
 properties to him, and did not manifest a decided 
 superiority of himself, it might well be expected that 
 people would esteem and honor him even as they 
 esteemed and honored the Father. As the Scriptures 
 attribute as great excellence of nature and as great 
 dignity of character to the Son as to the Father, it is 
 a just inference, that he is divine and is entitled to 
 equal love and veneration. Those passages of Scrip- 
 ture, which represent Christ to be inferior to the 
 Father, cannot be reconciled with tliose, which rep- 
 resent him to be equal with God, without admitting 
 that he has two natures of unequal excellence; and 
 that the former class of texts are applied to his infe- 
 rior, and the latter class to his superior nature. If it 
 be admitted that Christ has two natures, it is natural 
 to expect that the Scriptures would sometimes speak 
 of one nature; sometimes of the other; and that some- 
 times they would speak of him in both natures. As 
 there are two classes of texts applied to Christ, one 
 of which imports an inferior and the other a superior 
 nature, there is the highest evidence that he possesses 
 two natures. As these two classes designate human 
 and divine nature, it follows that Jesus Christ is both 
 human and divine. 
 
 If we contrast Jesus Christ with the most illustrious 
 personages, that ever appeared on earth, personages, 
 who by divine couimunications performed miracles 
 and exhibited the most distinguished traits of character, 
 we shall find an infinite superiority on the side of 
 Christ; and we shall find an argument in favor of his 
 divinity. "One reflection, which I beg you to make 
 in finishing this part of my discourse, is that, if only 
 one extraordinary and divine trait were to be found 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 289 
 
 here in the course of a long life, we might be inclined 
 to beheve that it sometimes pleaseth the Lord, to 
 allow his glory and his power to shine forth in his 
 servants. Thus, Enoch was carried up, Moses ap- 
 peared transfigured on the holy mountain, Elijah was 
 raised up to heaven in a fiery chariot, John the Bap- 
 tist was foretold. But, besides that these were indi- 
 vidual circumstances, and that the language of those 
 miraculous men and of their disciples, with respect to 
 the divinity and to themselves, left no room for super- 
 stition and mistake: here, it is an assemblage of 
 wonders, which all, or even taken separately, would 
 have been sufficient to deceive the credulity of men: 
 here, all the different traits, dispersed among all these 
 extraordinary men, who had been considered almost 
 as gods upon the earth, are collected together in Jesus 
 Christ, but in a manner a thousand times more glori- 
 ous and more divine. He prophesies, but more loftily, 
 and with more striking characters, than John the 
 Baptist: he appears transfigured in the holy mount, 
 but surrounded with more glory than Moses: he 
 ascends to heaven, but with more marks of power 
 and majesty than Elijah: he penetrates into the 
 future, but with more accuracy and clearness than all 
 the prophets: he is produced, not only from a barren 
 womb like Samuel, but likewise by a pure and innocent 
 virgin: what shall I say? And not only he does not 
 undeceive men by certain and precise expressions upon 
 his origin as purely human; but his sole language with 
 respect to his equality to the Most High; but the sole 
 doctrine of his disciples, who tell us that he was in 
 the bosom of God from all eternity, and that all hath 
 been made through him, who call him their Lord and 
 their God, who inform us that he is all in all things, 
 would justify the error of those who worship him, 
 had even his life been, in other respects, an ordinary 
 one, and similar to that of other men."* 
 
 * Massillon. 
 
 37 
 
290 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES- 
 
 The only way, by which we know one class of beings 
 from another, is by their respective peculiarities. 
 Angels are distinguished from men by their disem- 
 bodied state; by their superiority of capacity; and by 
 their dilierence of employment. The divine Spirit is 
 distinguished from angels and men by the peculiarities 
 of his nature and the peculiarities of his works. If 
 they, like him, be spirits, he possesses qualities infi- 
 nitely superior to theirs; and he perforuis works 
 infinitely beyond the limits of their capacities. If we 
 find a character described in the sacred Scriptures, 
 which does not rank with angels or men, but possesses 
 all the peculiarities of divinity, it is agreeable to the 
 rules of classification to call him divine. The Scrip- 
 tures attribute all divine properties to Jesus Christ; 
 and they must be perverted or rejected, if the conclu- 
 sion that he is divine be denied. 
 
 Besides the Father and the Son, the sacred Scrip- 
 tures exhibit another character, to which they attri- 
 bute divine peculiarities. To the Holy Spirit they 
 ascribe divine attributes; divine works; divine hon- 
 ors; they give him a distinct character, and they rep- 
 resent him acting in a distinct office; and bearing a 
 certain relationship to the Father and Son. If the 
 Holy Spirit be no more than the operation of the 
 Father, it is hard to conceive why the Scriptures 
 should give it significant and appropriate names; give 
 it divine qualities, works and honors; and declare it to 
 be more criminal to sin against it, than to sin against 
 the Father or the Son. If the Holy Spirit be not 
 divine; if he be not, in a certain sense, distinct from, 
 as well as united to the Father and the Son, the 
 Scriptures cannot be understood according to the most 
 natural import of words. 
 
 Should we, in reading the history of any particular 
 country, find three distinct characters, who had been 
 employed in laying the foundation of a nation; and at 
 a critical juncture, had, by their united exertions saved 
 it from ruin^ should we find human qualities attrib- 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 291 
 
 uted to them; and discover them to be authors of 
 achievements, pecuhar to men, we should naturally 
 conclude, without labored arguments, that these were 
 the authors of the same work; that they were three; 
 and that these three were human. In the history of 
 creation, and in the history of redemption, three dis- 
 tinct characters are brought to view. Each is repre- 
 sented with divine peculiarities; and exercising divine 
 prerogatives. By analogy of reasoning it is a fair con- 
 clusion that these are three; and that they are of 
 divine nature. If analogy ceases here, and does not 
 prove that these three are one, we feel no need of 
 analogy. The Scriptures are decisive on this point. 
 They expressly declare that there is but one only 
 living and true God. The iirst command of Jehovah 
 is, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If 
 the sacred Scriptures present to our view three dis- 
 tinct characters with divine peculiarities, and at the 
 same time expressly assert that there is but one God, 
 what shall be done with this seeming contrariety? 
 Shall we reject the doctrine of the Trinity because 
 we cannot clearly reconcile it with the divine unity? 
 Why may we not as well reject the doctrine of the 
 divine unity because we cannot reconcile it with the 
 doctrine of the Trinity? Why may we not, on the 
 same principle, reject both doctrines because we can- 
 not reconcile them? 
 
 Our inability to comprehend a subject is not a con- 
 clusive evidence against its truth. Our inability to 
 reconcile two propositions does not prove that they 
 are not reconcilable; nor does it prove that both, or 
 either of them, are untrue. If we had a perfect 
 knowledge of the divine nature, we might say what 
 could be, or what could not be predicated of it. But 
 we are not competent to make a decision of this kind. 
 Propositions, which in terms are contradictory, carry 
 on the face of them their own falsity. Propositions, 
 which are not contradictory and are not self-evident 
 must be proved to be true or false by extraneous evi- 
 
292 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 dence. The doctrine of the Trinity is not self-evident. 
 It never has been intuitively perceived; nor has it been 
 discovered merely by the power of reason. It is a 
 doctrine of revelation. If it be substantiated from this 
 source it stands. If it be not substantiated from this 
 source, it falls. Revelation represents the Father to be 
 divine; the Son to be divine; the Holy Spirit to be 
 divine; and it represents only one God. These rep- 
 resentations are not, in terms, a contradiction. We 
 may, upon divine authority, safely believe both the 
 plurality and the unity of God. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 The union of divine and human nature is a doctrine., 
 which appears to be taught in the Scriptures. - It is 
 a doctrine, which, it is presumed, was never invented 
 b^ reason; and, it is presumed, will never fall entirely 
 within the compass of a finite understanding. But the 
 unsearchable nature of the doctrine affords not a 
 shadow of proof against its truth. If such a union be 
 contradictory, or absurd, it is presumed that it is not 
 revealed in the Scriptures. It cannot be, that the 
 Author of human reason requires a belief of that, 
 which contradicts the conclusions of that power of the 
 mind. It is the province of reason to decide what is 
 revealed; but it is not the province of reason to fathom 
 all revealed truth. Reason teaches, that a system of 
 religion, which embraces the infinite Spirit and an 
 eternal state of existence, is not within the bounds of 
 finite comprehension. 
 
 It appears to be not unreasonable, nor unphilosoph- 
 ical to suppose that divinity was united with humanity. 
 In every human action, there is a co-operation of 
 divine power. Without the supporting influence of 
 the Deity, creatures can neither think nor move. 
 This concurrence of divine and human operation is as 
 far beyond our comprehension as the union of the 
 Son of God with the Son of man. Man is composed 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 293 
 
 of matter and spirit. Rational, sensitive, and corpo- 
 real powers unite in one person. It appears to be no 
 more contradictory, that diviiie power should be united 
 with these, than that they should be united with each 
 other. 
 
 There was a more special connexion between divine 
 operation and those holy men of old, who spoke and 
 wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There 
 is another and different operation of divine power 
 upon men, in causing them to be born again. The 
 Holy Spirit dwells in those, who have been subjects of 
 this divine influence. "Know ye not that ye are the 
 temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
 you?" 1 Cor. 3:16. In these cases, there is a certain 
 connexion of divinity with humanity; and in each case 
 divine operation is different. If it be not unphilosoph- 
 ical to admit this connexion of divinity and human 
 nature, it appears to be not unphilosophical to admit 
 that connexion, which the Scriptures represent to 
 subsist between the Son of man and the Son of God. 
 It is no more difficult to conceive this connexion than 
 it is to conceive the immeasurable gift of the Spirit, or 
 divine fulness dwelhng in the man, Christ Jesus. If 
 the former hypothesis be unphilosophical, so is the 
 latter. 
 
 It is objected by some that it is not agreeable to 
 sound philosophy to suppose that divine and human 
 nature should so unite that they constitute but one 
 person. We shall not contend for the phrase, one 
 person, nor for the propriety of it, when applied to 
 Jesus Christ. Viewed in his human and divine nature, 
 he is different from all other beings; and it is obvious 
 that many of those terms and phrases, which are ap- 
 propriate to them, cannot be applied with the same 
 propriety to him. One class of texts proves his 
 humanity; another as evidently proves his divinity; 
 and from both classes is inferred the union of both 
 natures. 
 
294 SUM3IARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 1. To this it is objected that "it divides the one 
 Supreme Being, or essence. 
 
 2. It ascribes to one part of the indivisible and 
 immutable essence, a property, or properties, which 
 the others do not possess. 
 
 .3. It ascribes two natures to the person of Christ, 
 each of which separately considered, possesses all the 
 properties necessary to constitute personality. 
 
 4. It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human 
 nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else 
 supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, 
 suffering, and death." (See Purve's Humble Attempt, 
 &c p. 87.) 
 
 These consequences, it is apprehended, do not 
 follow from the admission of the doctrine under con- 
 sideration. Spirit is not, like matter, divisible. When 
 we speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we do not 
 mean three distinct and separate beings. If any infer 
 from the doctrine, this distinction in the divine nature, 
 the inference is their own, not ours. We do not 
 attempt to explain the mode, in which the Father, 
 Son and Holy Spirit subsist. But we maintain, that 
 we find it in the Scriptures, as we apprehend, that 
 the Father is divine; that the Son is divine; that the 
 Holy Spirit is divine; and that there is but one God. 
 
 It is admitted that the subject is mysterious; but it 
 no more implies a division of divine nature, than the 
 omnipresence of God. Those, who believe his exist- 
 ence, believe this is an attribute of his nature. They 
 believe that he is in this world, and exercises his 
 power, wisdom, and goodness. They believe that he 
 is at the same time in heaven, exercising his power, 
 wisdom, and goodness. But they do not believe there 
 are two Gods; nor do they believe that divine nature 
 is divided; nor do we infer this from their belief. We 
 believe that the Father was in heaven exercising 
 divine attributes, while the Son was upon earth exer- 
 cising divine attributes. If a division of divine nature 
 can be justly inferred from our belief, with equal 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 295 
 
 justice can it be inferred from theirs. Let us, for a 
 moment, apply their argument to the omnipresence of 
 God. The divine Being is present in this world either 
 wholly, or in part. If he be wholly in this world, 
 then he is not in heaven. If he be partly in this world 
 and partly in heaven, then the divine Spirit is divisible 
 and is composed of parts. Again, these parts are 
 either finite, or infinite. If they be finite, it follows 
 that two finite parts make one infinite whole. If they 
 be infinite, it follows that there are two infinities in 
 the divine nature. These inferences as naturally 
 follow from their belief, as from ours. As they have 
 drawn these conclusions themselves, it belongs to 
 them, not to us, to dispose of them. 
 
 The second inference of the objector is founded on 
 the first, as far as it relates to the divisibility of the 
 divine nature; and we would apply the same observa- 
 tions. But we do not apply properties to the Father, 
 which are not applied to the Son, nor do we applv 
 properties to the Son, which are not applied to the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit. By properties we under- 
 stand qualities of a nature. The same qualities are 
 attributed by the inspired writers to the Son, which 
 are attributed to the Father. Still there is something 
 peculiar to each. What this something is, which is 
 the ground of their distinction is not revealed. But 
 it appears that as the Son doeth nothing without the 
 Father, so the Father doeth nothing without the 
 Son; and that they, with the Holy Spirit, are united 
 in their operation in every work. 
 
 We shall not attempt to explain the union of the 
 Son of God with the Son of man. We cannot explain 
 the union of body and soul. It is not surprising then 
 that we cannot explain the union of divine and human 
 nature. This union appears to be taught in the Scrip- 
 tures; and it appears no more like absurdity and con- 
 tradiction than the union of divine fulness with the 
 man Christ Jesus. Are we charged with dividing the 
 divine Essence, because we maintain that the Son of 
 God was united with the Son of man? The charge 
 
296 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 
 
 lies with equal weight against those, who maintain 
 that divine fulness, or the immeasurable gift of the 
 Spirit dwell in Christ. The fulness of the Godhead, 
 or divinity embraces all the divine perfections. If all 
 divine perfections dwelt in Christ when he was upon 
 earth, we retort the question upon the objector, 
 where is the fulness of perfection of the Father? If 
 the Father, in the plenitude of his perfections, dwelt 
 in the man Christ Jesus on earth, how could be be, at 
 the same time, in heaven without a division of his 
 essence? If all the fulness of the Godhead was 
 united with the human nature of Jesus, it follows, 
 according to the argument of the objector, that 
 the person of divinity is united to the person of 
 humanity; and of course, "the Lord Jesus Christ con- 
 sists of two persons, or else two persons are one per- 
 son, or united in one." 
 
 To obviate this conclusion, recourse has been had 
 to the apostle's prayer for the Ephesians, in which he 
 requests that they "might be filled with all the fulness 
 of God;" Eph. 3:19. From this it is inferred that the 
 fulness of the Godhead, which dwelt in Christ, does 
 not differ in its nature from that divine fulness, which 
 is communicated to saints; that it means no more than 
 that divine blessings or influences were abundantly 
 bestowed upon him. But these passages do not appear 
 to be parallel. John testifies that "of his (i. e. Christ's) 
 fulness, have all we received." From this it appears 
 that it was the same thing to receive the fulness of 
 Christ, and the fulness of God. But what saint, 
 prophet, or apostle had a divine fulness, which they 
 could impart to others? The primitive Christians 
 occasionally received those extraordinary influences of 
 the Spirit, which were called the fulness of Christ or 
 God. But it is not said, and it does not appear that 
 this fulness was permanent in them. There is evi- 
 dence to the contrary. The fulness of God, of which 
 they were partakers, was, therefore, occasional and 
 temporary. But in Christ all the fulness of the God- 
 
v 
 
 aP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 297 
 
 liead (divinity) dwelleth, nuroinei. The preposition 
 connected with this verb adds force to its meaning. 
 It therefore signifies, not to occupy occasionally, but 
 to dwell permanently. This divine fulness not only 
 dwelt permanently in Christ, but it dwelt in him 
 bodily; i. e. truly and substantially. We find that 
 holy men have resembled, in a degree, almost all the 
 features of Christ's character. But in every trait of 
 his character there is ?\ visible superiority, which dis- 
 tinguishes divinity from humanity. Another conse- 
 quence, which has been drawn from the doctrine of 
 the union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ 
 is, "It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human 
 nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else 
 supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, 
 suffering and death." This consequence does not 
 appear to follow from the doctrine. It is not admitted 
 that the sufferings of the humanity of Christ wholly 
 constituted the atonement. It is maintained that the 
 divine Son, if he did not suffer pain, suffered ignominy. 
 He suffered a state of humiliation. He suffered the 
 condition of a servant, the reproach of the cross. 
 It is maintained that this suffering gave value, gave 
 efficacy to the sacrifice, which was offered upon the 
 cross. The Son of God could suffer this without sus- 
 taining any change in his nature. The perfections of 
 divinity were not diminished by union with humanity. 
 The Son of God was no less entitled to divine honors, 
 when he was reviled upon the cross, than when he 
 was seated on the right hand of the Father. We do 
 not hold that merely the human nature of Christ 
 mediates between God and man. We maintain that 
 in both natures he acts in the office of Mediator. 
 This does not involve the inconsistency of mediating 
 between himself and the human race; because he 
 mediates between the Father and them, and the 
 Father is not the Son. 
 
 To the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity 
 it is objected, "He would not say, himself could not 
 38 
 
298 SUMMARY VIEW OP THE EVIDENCES 
 
 do, or did not know the things which all this while 
 himself could do and did know very well; as to be 
 sure, if he was the supreme God, he could and did. 
 For this were to make him say what is most false, 
 and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner." (See 
 Emlyn.^ This position is not correct.' Christ could, 
 tvith truth and agreeably to the coEsfmon usage of lan- 
 guage, deny that of ore nature, ,^ich belongs to the 
 other. He could, as Son of m^ii, truly say, he knew 
 not the day of the dissolution of the world, while, as 
 Son of God, he knew the time. The Scriptures rep- 
 resent man as mortal. Job calls him '■'•mortal man.^^ 
 The same volume of inspiration represents man to be 
 immortal Christ hath brought life and immortality 
 to light by the Gospel. Must the Scriptures be 
 charged with deceit, equivocation and falsehood, 
 because, at one time, they call man mortal; and at 
 other times represent him to be immortal; because, 
 at those particular times, they do not express any 
 limitation? This accusation lies with as much force 
 against the word of God in its representation of man, 
 as against Jesus Christ in speaking of himself, some- 
 times in one nature, sometimes in the other. It is a 
 usual manner of speaking among people to say, 1 am 
 mortal; and at other times to say, 1 am immortal; and 
 at the time to express no limitation. They are under- 
 stood. They are not charged with falsehood, be- 
 cause it is known and admitted that they are composed 
 of a material and mortal nature; and also of an im- 
 material and immortal nature. If we admit that 
 human and divine nature were united in Jesus Christ, 
 we perceive that he might, without equivocation, 
 sometimes speak of himself as human, and at other 
 times as divine; that the apostle might, at one time, call 
 him '■Hhe man Christ Jesns;^^ and, at another time, call 
 him "//ic Lord from heaven.''^ If Christ and his apos- 
 tles had always spoken of him as a man, the conclusion 
 would be fair, that he was only a man. U they had 
 always spoken of him as God, it would be a fair con- 
 
OP THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST 299 
 
 elusion that he was only divine. But as they some- 
 times speak of him possessing human qualities, and at 
 other times possessing divine perfections, the conclu- 
 sion is equally fair that he is both human and divine. 
 The Jews understood Christ to make himself equal 
 with God and to make himself God; and they charged 
 him with blasphemy. If he had been merely a man, 
 it is presumed he would have repelled the charge in 
 direct terms. But instead of this, he took them on 
 their own ground, and refuted them on their own 
 principles. He neither denied nor acknowledged his 
 divinity; but shewed his accusers that upon their own 
 principles he was justly exempt from the charge of 
 blasphemy. This was all he needed to do, and this 
 he did do. There were times, in which Christ ex- 
 pressed his meaning in ambiguous language. When 
 people were speaking of the temple, he said, "destroy 
 this temple, and in three days I will rear it up." 
 They understood him to speak of the temple of the 
 Jews. He often spoke in parables, which the multi- 
 tude did not understand. Jesus said, "verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never 
 see death.'''' The Jews understood him to speak of 
 natural death; and he did not correct their mistake. 
 But who dares accuse him with deception, prevarication, 
 and falsehood'^ 
 
ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY OF THE 
 HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 The same sacred Scriptures, which disclose the unify 
 of God, disclose also certain distinctions, or a plurality 
 m the divine nature. Immediately after it is related 
 that God created the heaven and the earth, it is re- 
 lated that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
 the waters." This difference of phraseology used to 
 express divine operations, affords evidence that there 
 IS m the divine nature ground for certain distinctions. 
 If the Spirit of God were in no respect different from 
 God, it is hard to conceive why the inspired historian 
 should make so sudden change of the divine name; 
 that he should first use a noun of plural number and 
 then a noun singular, which was embraced in that 
 plurality. When such distinctions are made in the 
 inspired writings they are worthy of notice and inves- 
 tigation. The Spirit, under various names, is a prom- 
 inent character in the Bible. From his works, his 
 names, his attributes, and his connexion with the 
 Father and the Son, may be inferred his nature and 
 character. 
 
 The works of the Spirit are an evidence of his par- 
 ticular agency, and of his divinity. When the heaven 
 and earth were created, "the earth was without form, 
 and void; and darkness was upon the face of the 
 deep." At this time, when matter was in a chaotic 
 state, and there was no vitality in the shapeless mass, 
 "The Spirit of God moved upon" (or hovered over 
 
ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY, &C. 301 
 
 ilSri^D) "the face of the waters." At this early- 
 stage of creation, the water was not collected into 
 separate bodies, but covered the whole earth. In 
 the original, the word, which is translated Spirit, also 
 signifies wind. Some have, therefore, supposed that 
 only the wind of God passed over the face of the 
 waters. But there are objections to this construction. 
 There is no evidence that the subtil fluid, the atmos- 
 phere, was then created. If it were created as soon 
 as the grosser matter of the earth, it can hardly be 
 supposed that it was put in motion so as to become 
 wind before the light and heat of the sun existed. It 
 is more natural to suppose that the Spirit of God 
 organized the matter, which was created, and infused 
 into it prolific qualities. If it is the peculiar province 
 of the Spirit to give spiritual life and restore order, it 
 is easy to suppose that part of his work was to give 
 natural life and establish order. If God, without 
 manifested distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit, cre- 
 ated all things, it is not absurd to attribute to each, 
 when these distinctions were disclosed, the whole 
 work, or any of its parts. 
 
 ^'By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his 
 hand hath formed the crooked serpent;" i. e. a con- 
 stellation of this name. It cannot reasonably be sup- 
 posed that this text imports that by wind he hath 
 decorated the sky with stars and planets; neither can 
 it be supposed that in connexion with this it would be 
 added that his hand had formed a constellation of a 
 certain name. But let it be admitted, as it is in our 
 translation of the Bible, that the Spirit of God adorned 
 the heavens with stars, and that God's hand formed 
 the constellation, the crooked serpent, then it follows 
 that the same work, which is attributed to God, is 
 also attributed to his Spirit. 
 
 Elihu reasoning with Job said, "The Spirit of God 
 hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath 
 given me life." In this passage he connects the ope- 
 ration of the Spirit with the operation of the Almighty; 
 
302 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 to one he attributes his life, to the other he attributes 
 his formation. After man was formed of the dust of 
 the ground, "the Lord God breathed into his nostrils 
 the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In 
 this text the word God, in the original is of plural num- 
 ber. Of course, it embraces all that is included in the 
 divine plurality; and if the Spirit of God is any thing, 
 which belongs to God, it embraces him; and conse- 
 quently the life of the first man may be attributed to 
 him. The Psalmist in his meditation on the majesty 
 of God, the dependence of creatures, and their disso- 
 lution, observes, "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they 
 are created" (or renewed.) In these passages, crea- 
 tive power is attributed to the Spirit. 
 
 The sending of teachers to instruct mankind is ap- 
 plied to God; to Christ; and it is also applied to the 
 Holy Ghost. God, by his prophet Jeremiah, said, "I 
 have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets." 
 "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, 
 saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the 
 sick; cleanse the lepers; raise the dead; cast out 
 devils; freely ye have received; freely give." The 
 Holy Ghost does the same work. The prophet Isaiah 
 says, "The Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me." 
 "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and 
 Saul for the work whereunto / have called them. So 
 they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed 
 into Sileucia. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves 
 and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost 
 hath made you overseers." 
 
 God, Christ and the Holy Spirit communicate 
 knowledge to teachers and people. "They shall be 
 all taught of God. God shall reveal even this unto 
 you." The apostle Paul speaking of the Gospel says, 
 "Neither was I taught it but by the revelation of 
 Jesus Christ." The Lord Jesus taught him what to 
 do when he arrested him on his way to Damascus. 
 The Holy Spirit also reveals or teaches. "It was 
 revealed unto him, (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost that 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 303 
 
 he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's 
 Christ." "The Comforter — he shall teach you all 
 things; and bring all things to your remembranqc, 
 whatsoever I have said unto you." God spake by 
 those, whom he sent. "God — spake in time past unto 
 the Fathers by the prophets. The Holy Spirit spake 
 by the apostles. Christ cautioned his disciples not to 
 premeditate what they should say when they should 
 be brought before councils; and he adds, whatsoever 
 shall be given you in that hour that speak ye; for it 
 is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." 
 
 God, Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in believers. 
 *'Knovv ye not that ye are the temple of God. — If 
 any man defile the temple of God, him shall God 
 destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple 
 ye are. Ye are the temple of the living God, as God 
 hath said, I will dwell in them. Know ye not your 
 ownselves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye 
 be reprobates? That Christ may dwell in your hearts 
 by faith." The same is said of the Holy Spirit. 
 "Even the Spirit of truth — dwelleth with you and 
 shall be in you. He that raised up Christ from the 
 dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
 Spirit that dwelleth in you. Know ye not that your 
 body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in 
 you? Know ye not that the Spirit of God dwelleth 
 in you.'*" 
 
 Sanctification is attributed to the Father, to the 
 Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Jude addressed his 
 epistle "to them that are sanctified by God the 
 Father." Of Christ it is said, "both he that sancti- 
 fieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for 
 which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 
 The Holy Spirit is the Author of sanctification. "God 
 hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation 
 through sanctification of the Spirit." 
 
 The second birth is attributed indiscriminately to 
 God and to the Holy Spirit. "Which were born, not 
 of blood, — but of God. Whosoever is born of God 
 
304 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINlTr^ 
 
 doth not commit sin. Whatsoever is born of God 
 overcometh the world." The same work is attributed 
 to the Spirit. ''Except a man be born of water and 
 of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
 That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Not by 
 ■ works of righteousness which we have done, but 
 according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of 
 reireneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 God leadeth his people. "I am the Lord thy God, 
 which leadeth thee by the way thou shouldest go." 
 Christ leadeth them. "He calleth his own sheep by 
 name and leadeth them." The Holy Spirit does the 
 office of leader. "As many as are led by the Spirit 
 of God, they are the sons of God. If ye be led by 
 the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Not only God 
 and Christ are called life; but the Holy Spirit is 
 called by this name. "The Spirit is ///e." He is the 
 Author of spiritual life. 
 
 The dead are raised by the Father, by the Son 
 and by the Spirit. "The Father raiseth up the 
 dead and qulckeneth theoi." "We should not trust 
 in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the dead." 
 Christ is the resurrection and the life. "The Son 
 qulckeneth whom he will." "Destroy this temple 
 and in three days I will raise it up." The resurrec- 
 tion of Christ's body is attributed to the Holy Spirit. 
 "Christ — being put to death in the flesh but quickened 
 by the Spirit^ 
 
 The Holy Spirit strives with sinners. When the 
 antediluvian world had become exceedingly corrupt, 
 God declared that his Spirit should not always strive 
 with man. The commands, "Quench not the Spirit; 
 grieve not the Spirit of God," imply that people are 
 the subjects of the operation of the Spirit. The 
 declaration of Stephen in answer to his accusation^ 
 "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers 
 did, so do ye," supposes that the Holy Spirit exercises 
 influence upon the human mind. He convinces of sin. 
 He changes the heart. He sanctifies human nature. 
 
OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 305 
 
 Where he has begun a good work he will carry It on 
 until the day of Jesus Christ. The Spirit also helpeth 
 our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray 
 for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh inter- 
 cession ibr us. 
 
 The texts, which have just been quoted attribute 
 certain works to the Spirit. It is evident that the 
 name Spirit or Holy Spirit does not signify Father nor 
 Son; for it is used both in connexion with them and it 
 is used separately. Why should he be represented 
 as the Author of different works, if there were not 
 some ground of distinction in the divine Nature, by 
 which he could act, in a certain sense, distinctly from 
 the Father and the Son? Some divine works arc per- 
 formed by the divine Being in plurality. Other works 
 are performed in a particular manner by the Father, 
 or by the Son, or by the Holy Spirit. In the economy 
 of redemption each has his peculiar office and work. 
 They act so far distinctly that each performs works, 
 peculiar to his office. They act so far unitedly that 
 some of the same works are attributed to each. 
 From the divine works there appears to be as much 
 distinction between the Spirit and the Son, or the 
 Spirit and the Father, as there is between the Son 
 and the Father; and the Spirit appears to have a 
 particular office and work no less than either. 
 
 The texts, which have been quoted, not only rep- 
 resent the Holy Spirit acting in a distinct office, but 
 they represent him acting in union with the Father 
 and the Son. The same works, which are attributed 
 to them are also attributed to him. The act of crea- 
 tion, of sending teachers, of instructing them, of speak- 
 ing by them, of dwelling in believers and leading them; 
 of changing the heart and sanctifying it, and of raising 
 the dead arc attributed to him, and to the Father and 
 the Son. If he were not divine he would not be 
 united with them in these divine works. If he were 
 not, in some respect, distinct, they would not be attrib- 
 uted to him. Although there is a distinction in the 
 39 
 
306 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 divine nature; yet there is such a unity that man J 
 things, which are predicated of one are predicated of 
 the others. 
 
 It belongs pecuh'arly to the office of the Spirit in 
 the work of salvation to strive with sinners; to con- 
 vince them of sin; to change their hearts; to carry on 
 the work of sanctrfication; to give light and comfort ta 
 believers. He strove with the old world to reclaim 
 them. He strove with sinners in the apostles' daySy 
 and he has striven with them in every age. It is hcy 
 Vi^ho changeth the disposition of the heart; guides the 
 mind into all truth, and administers consolation. In the 
 apostolic age, he was the Author of miraculous gifts. 
 At a time when the apostles were together, "There 
 came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty 
 wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 
 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like 
 as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they 
 were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to 
 speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them 
 utterance." The multitude, which was composed of 
 many nations, heard them speak in their own language.^ 
 
 These works of the Spirit require divine attributes. 
 To pass over those works, which he performed in com- 
 mon with the Father and the Son, those acts, which 
 are peculiar to his distinct office must be attributed 
 to divine power. If it required divine power to cre- 
 ate, it required equal power to repair the defaced 
 works of creation. If it required divine power to 
 form man, it requires the same power to renew his 
 fallen nature. It requires as great etfort to change, as to 
 form a nature. The Spirit, without doing violence to 
 the human will, and without infringing upon moral 
 freedom, changes the disposition of the heart. Power 
 less than divine cannot change nature or its laws. 
 
 In order to strive with man; to change his heart, 
 and to lead him in the ways of truth and holiness, it 
 is necessary to have a perfect knowledge of the human 
 mind. If the Holy Spirit did not know the disposi- 
 tion of all hearts, he might not know on which to 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 307 
 
 feestow his influei)ce, and what degrees of energy to 
 put forth, to elTectuate a change of different hearts. 
 He needs to know what is in man, in order to remove 
 the evil and set him right. It is not doubted that holy 
 and fallen angels have access to the human mind and 
 have influence upon it. But the sacred scriptures do 
 not attribute a power of changing the heart to either. 
 
 The apostle Paul, speaking of those great prepara- 
 tions, which are made in the other world for those, 
 who love God, adds, "God hath revealed them to us 
 by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
 the deep things of God." The deep things of God 
 relate to the salvation of man. These things the 
 angels desire to look into; but by reason of their finite 
 powers, it appears, they are unable. But the Spirit 
 searcheth these things, and is perfectly acquainted 
 with them. He as fully knows the things of God, as 
 the Spirit of a man knows the things of a man. 
 
 The revelation of the divine will by the Spirit, is 
 an argument in favor of his divine knowledge. "God 
 hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." He did 
 not reveal them to his Spirit; for the Spirit of God 
 knoivcth the things of God. These things the Spirit 
 communicated to the prophets and apostles. "Holy 
 men of God spake as they were moved by the HoJv 
 Ghost." 
 
 Wisdom is also attributed to the Spirit. When it 
 was prophesied that a Branch should grow out of the 
 root of Jesse, it was also prophesied, "the Spirit of the 
 Lord shall rest upon him; the Spirit of wisdom and 
 understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the 
 Spirit of knowledge." 
 
 The communications made by the Spirit to ra,en, 
 afford evidence of his particular agency and divinity. 
 "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
 To one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to 
 another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. 
 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the 
 gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the 
 
5 
 308 O.N THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another 
 discerning ot" spirits; to another diverse kinds of 
 tongues. But all these worketh that one and the self 
 same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
 xvilV There is no intimation given that the Spirit 
 derived his power and authority from a superior Being 
 to bestojv these miraculous gifts on the apostles. 
 When the prophets and apostles wrought miracles, 
 they attributed the works ultimately to God. But the 
 Spiirt distributed these gifts as he would. This con- 
 veys the idea of his independence. If miraculous 
 operations are an evidence of the existence of God, 
 they are, when attributed absolutely to the Holy 
 Spirit, an equal evidence of his divinity. 
 
 The sacred scriptures afford evidence that the 
 Spirit is omnipresent. Various texts convey the idea 
 that the Influence of the Spirit is shed abroad in man- 
 kind generally. "My Spirit shall not always strive 
 with man. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as 
 your fathers did, so do ye." The influence of the 
 Spirit upon believers is repeatedly asserted in the 
 word of God. It was a petition of the Psalmist, 
 "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." "The Spirit 
 itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
 children of God." If operation in the material and in- 
 telligent world forms an argument in favor of God's 
 omnipresence, operation of the same extent in the 
 moral world, forms an equal argument in favor of the 
 omnipresence of the Spirit, and consequently of liis 
 divinity. The question of the Psalmist, "Whither 
 shall I go from thy Spirit?" implies that it was impos- 
 sible to flee from his presence. 
 
 Goodness is attributed to the Spirit. The Psalmist 
 saith, "Thy Spirit is good." Goodness is attributed 
 to the Father and the Son. If it be a divine attri- 
 bute in them, there is no cause to say, it is not a divine 
 attribute when applied to him. 
 
 The Spirit is eternal. The apostle Paul to the 
 Hebrews, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, says. 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 309 
 
 "who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- 
 out spot to God." 
 
 The names given to the Spirit are an evidence of 
 his divinity. He is, by way of eminence, caDed the 
 Holy Spirit. This title is equivalent to that given to 
 God, the Holy One. It is with peculiar propriety 
 that he is called the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Holiness. 
 He is not only holy himself, but he is the Author of 
 holiness in the human heart. He is called the Spirit 
 of truth. He revealed truth to the prophets and 
 apostles; led them into all truth, and enabled them to 
 communicate it to the world. When he, the Spirit of 
 truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and 
 will shew you things to come. 
 
 He is called the Holy Spirit of promise. The 
 Spirit was promised through the medium of John the 
 Baptist. Christ, just before his ascension into heaven, 
 observed to his disciples, "I send the promise of the 
 Father unto you." So frequently had the Spirit been 
 promised, that it was with propriety he was called 
 "the Promise," or the Spirit of promise. He is also 
 called the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, and the 
 eternal Spirit. Christ styles him the Comforter, 
 Christ said to his disciples, "the Comforter, which 
 is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send 
 in my name, he shall teach you all things. If I go not 
 away the Comforter will not come unto you." He 
 gives comfort to sinners by changing their hearts and 
 giving them an enjoyment, which they never before 
 experienced. He gives comfort to believers by in- 
 creasing light in their minds; and by leading them 
 forward toward heaven. He witnesscth with their 
 spirits that they are born of God. 
 
 The fruit of the Spirit is love; love to God and man. 
 It is joy; joy arising from holy affections and fiom 
 divine service. It is pence: peace ol" mind and peace 
 in society. It is long-suffering; it is a patient beai'- 
 ing of injuries. It is gentleness; softness of manners. 
 
310 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DlVINWr 
 
 It is goodness; a kind disposition carried into opera- 
 tion. It is faith; confidence in divine promises, and 
 fidelity in trusts and engagements. It is meekness; 
 calmness under provocations. It is temperance; a 
 moderate use of the bounties of providence. These 
 virtues are the fruit of the Spirit. Such holy fruit 
 indicates that the Spirit is holy and divine. 
 
 The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit to do 
 the v?orks of his office. John the Baptist, speaking 
 of Christ said, "He shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire." Agreeably to this declaration, 
 Christ after his ascension sent down the Holy Spirit 
 upon his apostles; and cloven tongues like as of fire 
 sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the 
 Holy Ghost. "How much more shall your heavenly 
 Yather give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." 
 "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
 you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
 proceedeth from the Father." Christ saith, "/ ivill 
 send him unto you." "The Holy Ghost, whom God 
 hath given to them that obey him. Because ye are 
 sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
 your hearts, crying. Abba, Father." Because the 
 Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, it is proba- 
 ble he is called sometimes the Spirit of the Father, 
 and sometimes the Spirit of Christ. 
 
 If the Spirit is sent by the Father and by Christ, 
 it is only an official subjection; it ioaplies no inferiority 
 of nature. The covenant of redemption was made 
 between the Blather and the Son, and the Spirit, and 
 they are employed in the salvation of this fallen world. 
 So intimate is the union between them that one can do 
 nothing without the other; and what is attributed to 
 one is generally attributed to either; and yet they are 
 so distinct that particular names, offices and works 
 are given to each. 
 
 Divine honors are given to the Holy Spirit. The 
 ordinance of baptism is administered in the name of 
 fhe Father, and of the Sod, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 311 
 
 By this ordinance persons are consecrated to thesaeredi 
 Three. If it be an ascription of honor to the Father 
 to consecrate one's self or his oflspring to his service, 
 it is an equal honor to the Son to make such consecra- 
 tion to him; and it is the same honor to the Holy 
 Spirit to make the same consecration to him. By 
 making a dedication to the Father, Son and Spirit, it 
 conveys an idea of distinction in the divine nature. 
 When people are baptized in, or into the name ("not 
 names") of the Father, Son and Spirit, it implies that 
 one name, the name God, is common to them all. It 
 is hard to conceive why these three are unitedly 
 named in the ordinance of baptism, if there be not a 
 union of nature subsisting between them, and the 
 same honor is not conferred on each. The blessing, 
 "which the apostle Paul pronounced upon the Corin- 
 thian church, gives the same honor to the Spirit as to 
 the Father, and Son. "The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
 Holy Spirit be with you all." Here again the Three 
 are united, and the same honor is given to each. 
 
 It is a great sin to oppose or speak against the 
 Holy Spirit. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the 
 Jews under the blessings of Heaven, says, "They re- 
 belled and vexed his Holy Spirit; therefore he was 
 turned to be their enemy; and he fought against 
 them." Particular commands are given in the sacred 
 scriptures not to sin against the Spirit. "Grieve not 
 the Holy Spirit of God. Quench not the Spirit." If 
 there were not something in the divine nature pecu- 
 liar to him, it is hard to conceive why he should be 
 singled out by name; and his rights be secured by a 
 barrier of divine commands. The martyr Stephen 
 addressed his unbelieving audience as great sinners, 
 because they always resisted the Holy Ghost. So 
 great is the guilt of the sin against the Holy Spirit, 
 that the apostle Paul expressly declares that it is im- 
 possible for those, who were made partakers of the 
 Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew them again 
 
312 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 to repentance. There is a sin unto death. Supplica- 
 tion is not to be made to God for its remission. This 
 is thought by many to be a sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The apostle Peter charged Ananias and Sapphira 
 with tempting the Spirit of the Lord; with lying to 
 the Holy Ghost. He added, "thou hast not lied unto 
 men, but unto God." It is noticable that, in these 
 passages, lying to the Holy Ghost is lying to God. So 
 great was their sin that their lives were miraculously 
 taken from them. 
 
 Christ, in answer to the Pharisees who accused him 
 of casting out devils by Beelzebub, said, "All manner 
 of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but 
 the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be 
 forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word 
 against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but 
 whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, 
 it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
 neither in that which is to come." This declaration 
 of the Savior proves the great criminality of sin against 
 the Holy Spirit. Whether it is more criminal in its 
 nature to speak against the Holy Spirit, than it is to 
 speak against the Father or the Son, it is not the pro- 
 vince of human reason to decide. It is sufficient that 
 Christ has said, this sin is unpardonable. The decision 
 of divine authority upon this subject proves that it is, 
 at least, as criminal to sin against him, as it is to sin 
 against the Father or Son. This is a forcible evidence 
 in proof of the Spirit's distinction, of his divinity, and 
 of his claim to divine service. 
 
 When the sacred scriptures represent the Holy 
 Spirit, possessing certain attributes, and acting in a 
 certain office; when they give him divine names, attri- 
 bute to him divine properties, and divine works; 
 ascribe to him divine honors, and represent sin against 
 him to be the only one which is unpardonable, there 
 appears to be as much proof of his distinction and 
 divinity, as there is of the distinction and divinity of 
 the Father or Son. 
 
OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 313 
 
 1. It is proper to notice some objeclions, which 
 are brought against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 It is thought by some that the Hoiy Spirit is the ful- 
 ness of the Godhead; or the productive, efficient 
 emanations of divine fuhicss; that the Holy Spirit 
 bears the same relation to God as the rays of the sun 
 bear to the sun. 
 
 This comparison appears to be defective. The rays 
 of the sun are not the fulness of the sun. They are 
 not a source from which light and heat proceed. It 
 is not philosophical to say, light proceeds from light; 
 and heat proceeds from heat. The rays of the sun 
 depend on the sun. If the sun were extinguished, his 
 rays would cease. Subordination, but not dependence, 
 is attributed, in the scriptures, to the Spirit. They 
 attribute to him sovereignty, when they represent him 
 distributing miraculous gifts severally as he will. If 
 the Holy Spirit be but an emanation of the Deity, it 
 appears highly improper that a proper name should 
 be given him; that divine attributes should be attrib- 
 uted to him; and that he should be represented in an 
 official capacity. If he be sometimes represented 
 passively, or as the operation or effect of the Deity, 
 it is when he acts in his office in subordination to the 
 Father and the Son, or when his operations are 
 spoken of. 
 
 2. The distinction and divinity of the Holy Spirit 
 is denied, because he is called the Spirit o/* God; as 
 divine power is called the power of God; as a human 
 spirit is called the spirit of a man. Hence it is infer- 
 red that the Spirit of God bears the same relationship 
 to God as his attributes bear to him; or as the spirit 
 of a man bears to a man. It is true the Holy Spirit 
 is represented as something belonging to God. So 
 the Father and the Son are represented as something 
 belonging to God, or the divine nature. But this does 
 not deprive them of divinity. The Holy Spirit is 
 sometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and some- 
 times he is called the Spirit of Christ. If the Holy 
 40 
 
314 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 Spirit bears the same relation to the Father and Son 
 as the spirit of a man bears to a man, and the Father 
 and Son be two entirely distinct beings, it follows that 
 there are two Holy Spirits. It is probable the Holy 
 Spirit is called the Spirit of God or of the Father, 
 because he is sent by him and acts in subordination to 
 him. The spirit of man does not mean the man, so 
 the Holy Spirit of God does not mean the divine 
 nature without its distinctions; but it means one of the 
 divine plurality. 
 
 3. ''The breath of the Lord is used as synony- 
 mous with the Spirit of the Lord. The hand of the 
 Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are used as synony- 
 mous. I'he finger of God and the Spirit of God are 
 synonymous." From this statement it is inferred that 
 it is not proper or respectful to speak of one self-ex- 
 istent person as the breath, the hand, the finger of 
 another co-equal person. 
 
 In reply to this objection, it is worthy of notice that 
 the origuial word, which is translated spirit, also sig- 
 nifies breath, or wind. As wind is a powerful, subtle, 
 invisible agent, there is a propriety in giving the same 
 name to the Spirit, whose operations are powerful, 
 subtle and invisible. It is a striking trait in the 
 Hebrew language that one word is used to signify 
 different things, when there is a striking analogy or 
 resemblance between those thinsfs. Because the 
 Spirit is called by a name, which signifies breath or 
 wind, it does not follow that he is this substance. 
 When God is called a Rock, it does not mean that he 
 is a rock, but that there is a striking resemblance be- 
 tween them. It is no more disrespectful to the Spirit 
 to call him by a name signifying breath or wind, than 
 it is to call God a fire, and Christ a fountain. It is not 
 disrespectful to apply pertinently figurative language 
 to the divine nature. 
 
 Because people work with their hands or fingers, 
 God is said to work in the same manner. As the 
 Spirit is in his hand to send him where he please! h, 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 315 
 
 it is proper to s;iy by a figure of speech, when he 
 worketh by his Spirit, that he worketh with his hand. 
 This mode of speech is adapted to our capacities. 
 We have not an adequate idea of the operations of 
 pure Spirit. 
 
 4. As the sending or giving the Spiiit is repre- 
 sented by pouring out, shedding forth, sprinkhng, wash- 
 ing or baptizing; and the descent of the Spirit is com- 
 pared to the descent of rain and dew, it is thought to 
 be improper to apply this metaphorical language to 
 the Spirit, if he be one of the Trinity. 
 
 The propriety of this figurative language, when 
 applied to the Spirit, arises from the nature, the ope- 
 rations, and the eifects of the Spirit. Pouring out, 
 sprinkling, washing, &c. are literally applied to water. 
 They are figuratively applied to the operations of the 
 Spirit, because the Spirit is, in his nature, like water, 
 pure. In his effects he is, like water, purifying. Like 
 water he invigorates and fructifies. Like the rain 
 and dew he is gentle in his operation. When there 
 is such a striking similarity between the Spirit and 
 water, it is proper to take those phrases, which are 
 literally applied to water and apply them figuratively 
 to the Spirit. Such pertinent figurative allusions do 
 not militate against the divinity of the Spirit. If the 
 Holy Spirit be but an emanation of divine fulness, it 
 would be as uncouth to apply the phrase, pour out, 
 to such an emanation as to apply it to ihe operations 
 of the Holy Spirit. The difficulty arises from con- 
 founding figurative, with plain language. 
 
 5. God's giving his Spirit without measure to Christ 
 is thought to militate against the divine nature of the 
 Spirit. The man Christ Jesus received extraordinary 
 communications of the Spirit. He received greater 
 aid from him than the prophets or apostles received. 
 Because he received such copious effusions of the 
 Spirit, it is said the Spirit was given to him not by 
 measure; i. e. abundantly. It argues no more against 
 the divinity of the Spirit that he was given to Christ 
 
316 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 without measure, than that he was given to the 
 prophets and apostles by measure. By measure and 
 without measure denote the different degrees of the 
 gilts or aid of" the Spirit. 
 
 6. Because the original word in the New Testa- 
 ment, translated Spirit, and the articles and pronouns, 
 agreeing with it or referring to it, are of neuter gender, 
 it is inferred that the Spirit is not of divine nature. 
 
 The Hebrew word for Spirit is of masculine termin- 
 ation. But not to insist on this, the Greek word for 
 Spirit in this text, "God is a Spirit;" is of neuter gen- 
 der. But the use of this gender in this passage does 
 not prove that God is a mere thing, and not a divine 
 Being. The Greek word for the spirit of man, for 
 holy and for fallen spirits is of neuter gender. But 
 this carries no evidence that the spirit of man is not 
 human, or that the spirit of angels is not angelic. The 
 Greek words for babe, and for children, whether they 
 be youth or the children of God, are of neuter gender. 
 But this use of this gender does not prove that they 
 do not belong to the human family, or that they are 
 not of human nature. The Holy Spirit is called the 
 Comforter. The original word, translated Comforter, 
 and the articles and pronouns agreeing with it, or 
 referring to it, are of masculine gender. When Christ 
 calls him another Coiiiforter, he ranks him equal with 
 himself; and at the same time points out his distinction 
 and divinity. 
 
 The Greek language was formed long before the 
 Gospels and Epistles were committed to writing. 
 The Greek word for spirit was of neuter gender. 
 The Inspired writers were not commissioned to make 
 innovations in language. They took the word as it 
 was, and applied it. to the Holy Spirit. It is probable 
 that they did not suspect it would mislead the human 
 mind In succeeding ages, any more than when it was 
 applied to man or angel. 
 
 7. Much Is said in the scriptures of the mutual 
 love between the Father and the Son, and the dispo- 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 3l7 
 
 sition of each to honor the other. It is suggested that 
 such reciprocal love between the Spirit and the 
 Father, and between the Spirit and the Son, is not 
 mentioned in the scriptures. This forms another ob- 
 jection to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The reason, for which the love between the Father 
 and Son is so irequently and fully expressed in the 
 Bible, probably is the near relationship, which sub- 
 sists between them; the covenant, which was formed 
 and ratified by them and the suiFerings and humiliation 
 of the Son to support the authority of God. If the 
 love between the Spirit, and the Father, and Son, be 
 not so fully expressed in the Bible, the love is natu- 
 rally inferred from the language of scripture. The 
 Spirit harmonizes with them in the covenant of re- 
 demption. He co-operates with them in the work of 
 salvation. In his office he is subordinate to them and 
 submissive to their commands. This harmony and 
 concurrence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
 suppose that reciprocal affection subsists between 
 them. At the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit 
 descended, rested upon him and performed that act 
 of consecration, which the application of water repre- 
 sented. His continuance with Christ indicated the 
 union and affection, which subsisted between them. 
 
 8. Much is said in the scriptures of the love of 
 the Father towards mankind, and also of the love of 
 the Son. It is suggested that there is nothing said of 
 the love of the Holy Spirit toward the human race. 
 On this ground it is objected that the Holy Spirit is 
 not of divine nature. 
 
 Much is said in the sacred scriptures which implies 
 the love of the Holy Spirit toward mankind. His 
 works express his love. He strives with sinners for 
 the benevolent purpose of convincing them of their 
 sin and of their danger. He does not relinquish this 
 gracious work till he has been long and obstinately 
 resisted. He changes the human heart. He carries 
 on the work of sanctification till the day of the Lord 
 
318 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 Jesus. He qualifies his subjects foi- the reception of 
 the benefits ol" Christ's righteousness. To quahfy 
 people to receive the benefits of Ciirist's sacrifice is a 
 work no less benevolent and gracious than the oiFering 
 of the sacrifice itself. 
 
 The Holy SjMrit expi'esses an earnest desire that 
 sinners should reform and be saved. "The Holy 
 Ghost saith, to day if ye will hear his voice, harden 
 not your hearts." God by his apostle commanded 
 saying, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." This 
 command implies that the Holy Spirit is grieved on 
 account of the hardness of the human heart. The 
 scriptures attribute to the divine Being, human shape, 
 human organs, and human passions. This mode ot 
 expression is adopted not to convey the idea that God 
 possesses these human properties, but to represent 
 his actions as if he were influenced by human sensa- 
 tions. When the Holy Spirit is brought to view 
 grieving for the sinful, unhappy state of man, he ap- 
 pears in the exercise of the tenderest love, and desir- 
 ous to promote the salvation of man. He is called 
 the Comforter. He administers consolation to con- 
 verted sinners. He gives them peace and quietude 
 of mind and hope of future blessedness. In this view 
 of the Holy Spirit he a[)pear*s not only in the exercise 
 of love to the human race, but he appears in a distinct 
 and official capacity. 
 
 9. We are requii-ed to love the Father and the 
 Son; but as we ar^e not commanded expressly and 
 distinctly to love the Spirit, it is inferred that he Is 
 not of divine nature. 
 
 Where is it expressly commanded in the Bible to 
 love the Father distinctly; or to love the Son distinctly.'^ 
 The divine command is, thou shalt love the Loi'd thy 
 God with all thy heart. The command has no respect 
 to any distinction in the divine nature; but it applies 
 to all that belongs to it. When we are commanded 
 to love God, we are required to love all, which is 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 319 
 
 embraced in the term God; and this general name 
 usually embraces the Father, Son, and Spirit. 
 
 10. It is objected to the Spirit's divinity, that there 
 is no express command to render worship to him. 
 
 When the Spirit is united with the Father and Son 
 in the ordinance oi' baptism, tiie same honor is given 
 to him as to them. When it is considered that 
 speaking against the Holy Spirit is the greatest of 
 sins, that it is unpardonable, it is astonishing that any 
 should view him standing in a disrespectful situation; 
 that any should view him not entitled to divine honors, 
 nor claiming the prerogatives of divinity. When God 
 is worshipped, the Spirit, if he belong to God, is also 
 worshipped. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is represented by many passages 
 of scripture to possess divine properties and to per- 
 form divine works Sometimes he is represented in 
 a passive form. It is then he acts in subordination to 
 ihe Father and the Son. It is not a fair construction 
 of the scriptures to turn plain declarations from their 
 most natural meaning into a figurative signification for 
 the purpose of strengthening a particular class of 
 texts, or for the purpose of suj)porting a favorite 
 theory. 
 
 In the work of salvation there appear to be three 
 offices, three kinds of works, and three characters. 
 One proposes, another complies. One pays the ran- 
 som, another accepts; and the third prepares subjects 
 to receive its benefits. All this is done with perfect 
 harmony; and each is entitled to equal love and vene- 
 ratidn. 
 
 It has been asserted by some that no name, attri- 
 bute, nor work is attributed exclusively to the Holy 
 Spirit. (See Purvcs^ pp. [}. 15.) From this it is infer- 
 red that the Holy Spirit is God the Father, or that it 
 is his energy, influence, or operation. It does not ap- 
 pear to be certain that this position is true. He is 
 called the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of truth. The Father 
 is called holy. God is called a Spirit; and he is called 
 
320 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 the true God. But he Is not called in scripture the 
 Holy Spirit; nor the Spirit of truth. Holj Spirit ap- 
 pears tp be as proper and as discriminating a name as 
 the name Jesus Christ. Some things are predicated of 1 
 the Holj Spirit, which are not predicated of the 
 Father. "The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily 
 shape, like a dove upon him," (i. e. Christ) Luke 3:22. 
 It appears to be no more incredible that the Holy 
 Spirit should assume a certain similitude, than that 
 the Son of God should do the same before his incarna- 
 tion. It is believed that the Father never has mani- 
 fested himself by any likeness. "No man hath seen 
 God at any time," John 1:18. Christ, speaking of 
 the Father, says, "Ye have neither heard his voice 
 at any time, nor seen his shape,''"' John 5:37. The 
 Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ. "God hath 
 sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts," Gal. 
 4:6. The Holy Spirit is called. the Spirit of Christ, 
 either because he rested upon him in his human ne.- 
 ture, or because he was sent by him into the world. 
 But the Father is not called the Spirit of Christ. It 
 is through the Spirit, Jews and Gentiles have access 
 to the Father. "We both have an access bij one 
 Spirit unto the Father," Ephes. 2:18. It was not by 
 the Father they had access to the Father. Nor is 
 it probable that it was by the energy of the Father, 
 they had access to him. 
 
 The conception of Mary is attributed to the Holy 
 Spirit. "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 
 That, which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," 
 Matt. 1:18,20. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
 thee, therefore also, that holy thing, that shall be born 
 of thee, shall be called the Son of God," Luke 1:35. 
 In the two first of these passages, Mary's concep- 
 tion of the body of Jesus is attributed to the Holy 
 Ghost. In the'latter passage, in which the manner of 
 her conception is described, the Holy Ghost and the 
 power of the Highest are both brought to view. 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 321 
 
 If the power of the Highest is any thing different 
 from the Holy Ghost, it imphes the joint operation of 
 the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is believed that 
 no divine work is performed, exclusively by the Father, 
 or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. But the influence in 
 the conception of Mary was so peculiarly the Holy 
 Spirit's, that the work is attributed to him. 
 
 Jesus Christ has authority to send the Holy Spirit 
 into the world. "But when the Comforter is come, 
 whom I will send unto you from the Father, evfen the 
 Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
 shall testify of me," John 15:26. "If I go not away, 
 the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart 
 I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he 
 Avill reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
 and of judgment. Whatsoever he shall hear, that 
 shall he speak, and he will shew you things to come. 
 He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine; and 
 shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father 
 hath are mine; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, 
 and shall shew it unto you," John 16:7,8,13,14,15. 
 Whoever, or whatever the Comforter, the Spirit of 
 truth is, he or it, is evidently subordinate to Jesus 
 Christ. What he hears he speaks. He is sent into 
 the world. He receives of Christ. These passages 
 as decisively express his subordination to the Son, as 
 any passages in the scriptures express the Son's sub- 
 ordination to the Father. It will not be maintained 
 that the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, is God the 
 Father. Suppose then that it is his energy, influence, 
 or operation. Christ has authority over it. He sends 
 it into the world. Whatever this influence shews 
 unto the world, it receives of Christ. It is an extra- 
 ordinary economy indeed if the Son is subordinate to 
 the Father, and at the same time has authority over 
 his energy, influence, or operation. To say the least, 
 it is as mysterious as the doctrine of the distinction 
 and divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 In the passages, which have been quoted, and in 
 many others, the Holy Spirit appears to possess all 
 41 
 
322 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 the qualities of divinity. But we are told that the 
 influences of the Father are personified, and are called 
 the Holy Spirit. It appears evident that we are some- 
 times to understand the name Holy Spirit, to import 
 only his influences or communications. The figure, 
 personification, is often used in the sacred scriptures. 
 But it is hardly credible, that Christ in his discourse 
 with his disciples respecting the great and important 
 communication, which he would make to them after 
 he had left the world, should adopt such figurative 
 language. In the simple narration of events, which 
 were to take place, vve should not naturally expect a 
 train of personifications connected with plain language. 
 We should hardly expect that the' form of baptism 
 would be made up of words partly of natural and 
 partly of figurative meaning. To baptize persons in 
 the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the influ- 
 ences of the Father, appears to be a striking incon- 
 gruity. There appears to be just as much ground 
 for asserting that the two first names in the form of 
 baptism are figurative, as that the last is so. 
 
 If all the names, attributes, and works, which are 
 attributed to the Holy Spirit, are also attributed to 
 the Father, it does not appear to follow that he is the 
 Father, or his influences. It is believed there is such 
 a union of nature, and such a concurrence of opera- 
 tion between the Father and the Holy Spirit, that 
 what is attributed to one may be attributed to the 
 other. Besides, he appears to be subordinate to the 
 Father and the Son. If, in the performance of the 
 works peculiar to his office, he is commissioned or 
 sent by them, it is agreeable to the common use of 
 language, and to the general apprehensions of people 
 to attribute the same work to either. For example; the 
 chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador to a 
 foreign court. The latter negotiates and adjusts some 
 important matters. The former approves what he 
 has done. The negotiation is attributed indiscrimin- 
 ately to each. 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 323 
 
 Some passages in the sacred scriptures, which con- 
 tain tlie name of the Spirit, appear to be difficult to 
 be explained, unless we admit that he is, in some sense, 
 distinct from the Father. "Through him, (i. e. 
 Christ) we both have an access by one Spirit unto the 
 Father,'" Ephes. 2:18. It will not be maintained that 
 Spirit, in this text, signifies the Father. Nor does it 
 appear evident that this one Spirit signifies the influ- 
 ences of the Father. It appears to be a very unnat- 
 ural construction to say, we both have an access to the 
 Father, by the one influence of the Father. It ap- 
 pears to be unnatural to suppose that the Father is 
 inaccessible excepting by his own influences. The 
 communication of his influences would imply that he 
 was accessible. Admit the distinct operations of the 
 Spirit, and the construction appears to be natural and 
 easy. Through Christ we both have access by the 
 influences of the Spirit unto the Father. 
 ' "The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with 
 groanings, which cannot be uttered. And he that 
 searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of 
 the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the 
 saints according to the will of God," Rom. 8:26,27. 
 In these passages the Holy Spirit is represented inter- 
 ceding, groaning and having a mind; and he intercedes 
 according to the will of God. This appears to im- 
 ply distinct operation. It would be a bold figure to 
 represent the influences of the Father, having a mind 
 and making intercession to him according to his will. 
 It would be a very unnatural construction to say that 
 the Father, who searcheth the hearts, knoweth the 
 mind of his own operations; and knoweth them on this 
 ground, because their intercessions are agreeable to 
 his will. We believe that the apostle did not thus 
 darken his meaning by an unnatural use of words. 
 
 In view of the divinity of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, it is inquired, "Must not three divine 
 Bein<rs be three Gods? — Does reason teach or admit 
 the existence of three Gods, equal, and mnnite in 
 
324 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 
 
 divine attributes? — Does reason teach or admit the 
 existence of three beings, equal and infinite in divine 
 attributes? — Is it not ditiicult to conceive of, and con- 
 template three divine persons otherwise than so many 
 separate and distinct beings? — Must not this one God 
 then possess three sets of all divine attributes? — If ail 
 fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the 
 Father, must not this fulness have been a derived 
 fulness? — The fact however is, that the fulness^ which 
 dwells in Christ is the fulness of the Father.'''' (See 
 Serious Inquirer, pp. 6,7,30,43,49.) 
 
 It is not denied that some Trinitarian writers have 
 given too much occasion for these inquiries. It is not 
 denied that difficulty attends the contemplation of the 
 divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whether 
 we contemplate the divine nature existing in plurality, 
 or in unity, there is difficulty. It is not surprising that 
 an infinite subject should be difficult for finite minds. 
 It is unfortunate that the subject should be made to 
 appear more difficult by ill chosen words and phrases. 
 In treating of the divine Nature, it is not necessary 
 to represent it consisting of three distinct beings, agents, 
 or persons. Nor is it necessary to represent the Fa- 
 ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as distinct persons, 
 agents, or beings. It is not necessary to attempt to 
 explain the mode of divine subsistence. It is sufficient 
 to shew from scripture that the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit are divine. When it is inquired, how 
 can these things be? we do not attempt to answer the 
 question. But if we find evidence from scripture that 
 these things are so, it is sufficient to make them 
 articles of belief? 
 
 When it is said that the Father is God, the Son is 
 God, the Holy Spirit is God, it is not to be understood 
 that each is God, or possesses all divine attributes 
 distinctly and separately from the other two. If this 
 were the case, there would be three Gods. But it is 
 to be understood that there is such a ground of dis- 
 tinction between them, that some works are peculiarly 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 325 
 
 attributed to the Father, some to the Son, and others 
 to the Holy Spirit; and at the same time there is such 
 a ground of union between them, that some works 
 are attributed indiscriminately to each. It is rephed, 
 this distinction and this union in divine nature is unin- 
 telligible. Be it so. Let us bring under review a 
 subject, with which we are better acquainted; and 
 about which there is less dispute. Let us take human 
 nature. Let us take man. He exists in duality. He 
 consists of matter and spirit; or of body and soul. 
 Some actions are attributed to one and some to the 
 other; and some are attributed to both without dis- 
 crimination. A man walks. The act is attributed 
 specially to his body. But there is a concurrent ac- 
 tion of his spirit, or mind. A man reflects, or calcu- 
 lates. The act is attributed specially to his mind. 
 But there is no doubt that his mental exercises are 
 affected, more or less, by his material part. We 
 speak of a wise man, and of a strong man. In the 
 one case we speak peculiarly of his corporeal nature; 
 in the other, of his spiritual nature; and in both cases 
 we include, by the word man, both natures. Could 
 the body, in its individual capacity, speak, it might 
 truly say, of myself I can do nothing. It is the mind, 
 which dwelleth in me, that doeth the works. Does 
 it follow from this that the body was not human, or 
 did not belong to the man.'* Does it follow that the 
 matter and spirit, which compose human nature, make 
 two men? Is it difficult to conceive of, and contem- 
 plate on these two natures, body and soul, otherwise 
 than so many distinct beings or men? Must this one man 
 possess two sets of all human qualities? We allow that 
 the distinction between, and the union of, soul and 
 body are unintelligible. But upon evidence it is ad- 
 mitted as matter of fact. We affirm and deny the 
 same thing of human nature. We say, man is mortal; 
 and we say, man is immortal; we say he is material, 
 and we say, he is spiritual; and we are believed. 
 At one time Christ said, "The Father is greater 
 
326 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DlTINIllY 
 
 than I." At another time he claimed a relationship to 
 him, by which he was understood to make himself 
 God, or equal with God; and the apostle Paul states 
 that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God." 
 
 It is not supposed that divine Nature can be ade- 
 quately explained, or illustrated by arguments drawn 
 from human nature. But the foregoing observations 
 are made to shew that if man exists in duality^ there 
 appears to be no impossibility that God should exist 
 in Trinity; that if this duality in human nature does 
 not involve two sets of all human properties, a Trinity 
 in divine nature does not necessarily involve "three 
 sets of all divine attributes;" that if the body and 
 soul of man do not constitute him two distinct and 
 separate beings, there appears to be no necessity of 
 resolving the divine Nature, designated by the names 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into three distinct and 
 separate beings. From the mode of existence of hu- 
 man nature we do not infer what is the mode of divine 
 existence. But when we admit the peculiar manner 
 of human existence with all its difficulties, there ap- 
 pears to be no necessity of denying a peculiar manner 
 of divine existence, when similar, and perhaps to our 
 apprehension, not greater difficulties attend it. 
 
 It does not appear to be necessary to contend 
 whether the two natures of Jesus Christ constitute 
 one person, or not. The dispute is merely about names. 
 When the name person is applied to Christ in both 
 natures, it signifies something different from what It 
 ^-signifies when applied to any other being. Of course, 
 objections may be raised against this complex person- 
 ality, (as it is called) which would not lie either against 
 his divinity or humanity. If it be proved by scrip- 
 ture that two natures are united in Jesus Christ, it is 
 unnecessary to contend for the word person. 
 
 In examining the subject of divine Nature it is found 
 that difficulty is not peculiar to the Trinitarian hypo- 
 thesis. Those, who vindicate the simple unity of Ood, 
 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 327 
 
 believe his omnipresence. They believe he is pres- 
 ent in different parts of the world and in heaven at 
 the same time. They believe he exercises his attri- 
 butes in different parts of creation at one and the same 
 time; and that he is conscious of all his operations. 
 He exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness on 
 earth. At the same time he exercises divine power, 
 wisdom and goodness in heaven. At the same time he 
 is conscious of his operations in both places. We ask 
 in our turn, must there not be as many conscious- 
 nesses, "as many sets of all divine attributes," as many 
 distinct beings, or agents, as there are places, in which 
 God is, and acts. God is here; and God is there. If 
 he be wholly here, how can he be there? If he be 
 partly here, and partly there, a part is less than the 
 whole; and of course, must not something less than 
 God be here; and something less than God be there; 
 and must not the supposition imply a division of the 
 divine naturcf^ Let it be shewn how these difficulties 
 may be removed, and it will help Trinitarians to re- 
 move the difficulties, which are alleged against their 
 system. 
 
 "It pleased the Father that in him should all ful- 
 ness dwell," Col. 1:19. "In him dwelleth all the ful- 
 ness of the Godhead bodily," Col. 2:9. "But if all 
 fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the 
 Father," it is inquired, "must not this fulness have been 
 a derived fulnessV Does it not seem to imply that for all 
 the attributes or excellences, which Christ possessed, 
 he was dependent on his Father? — The fact however 
 is, that the fulness, which dwells in Christ, is the ful- 
 ness of the Father. But what is this fulness, aside 
 from those "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" im- 
 parted to Christ by the Father for the benefit of the 
 church.'* — That the wisdom and power of the Father 
 resided in him. (See Serious Inquirer^ pp. 30,43.) 
 
 If the fulness of the Father, i. e. his wisdom, knowl- 
 edge and power, was derived from him and dwelt in 
 Christ, and he "possessed" them, ii seems that, when 
 
328 ON THE DiyiNTTY OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 Christ possessed this fulness, the Father did not jpoS" 
 sess it, unless two distinct beings could possess the same 
 numerical properties. As this is impossible, it ap- 
 pears that, if Christ possessed the fulness^ of the 
 Father, the Father suffered a privation of his fulness; 
 and that he retained nothing but his name. But if 
 this be not the consequence, we inquire, would not 
 the fulness of the Father, added to the man Christ 
 Jesus, be greater than the Father himself.^ Is it possi- 
 ble that divine attributes can be transferred.-^ Is it pos- 
 sible that a finite being can be the recipient and pos- 
 sessor of infinite qualities? If the fulness of the Father 
 dwelt in Christ, in no other sense than it dwells in 
 heaven, or on earth, or in christians, might not di- 
 vine works be attributed, with as much propriety to 
 them, as to him? And how could Christ express that 
 reciprocal union, which subsisted between him and the 
 Father, "/ am in the Father, and the Father in me." 
 If the Father retained all his attributes after he had 
 imparted \m fulness to Christ, would there not be an 
 increase of divinity? Would there not be two sets of 
 divine attributes? But where will our inquiries lead 
 us? The fact is, it is easier to raise difficulties, than to 
 remove them. We need to be cautious, lest we con- 
 demn that in others, which we approve in ourselves. 
 
THE CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY 
 WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED 
 SCRIPTURES. 
 
 The different parts of Christianity perfectly corres- 
 pond with each other. Its doctrines compose one 
 great chain, whose hnks are intimately connected. If 
 one doctrine be weakened, the whole system is affect- 
 ed. If one doctrine be expunged, the connexion is 
 dissolved. It is not the province of human imperfec- 
 tion to define the utmost extent of error, which will 
 not make the Christian religion another gospel. But 
 it is evident that every error in religion is of evil ten- 
 dency; and an incorrect opinion of one doctrine natu- 
 rally leads to an incorrect opinion of others. Our 
 holy religion is a well connected and proportioned 
 system. Errors also have their connexion and pro- 
 portion; and it is not seldom they are marshalled into 
 a systematic form. If an incorrect sentiment of one 
 doctrine of the Gospel be formed, this sentiment will 
 not coalesce with other doctrines, till they are modi- 
 fied, perverted, diluted and despoiled of their true 
 meaning. It is unnatural for truth to unite with error; 
 and for error to unite with truth. There is no fellow- 
 ship; there is no bond of union between them. As 
 far as error is incorporated with divine truth, so far 
 t he truth suffers; and the Christian system is marred. 
 Some errors are more pernicious than others. While 
 42 
 
330 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 some strike at the foundation and subvert the whole 
 fabric of Christianity, others only tarnish it. 
 
 The divine plurality appears to be not only a prom- 
 inent, but an important doctrine of the scriptures. 
 Every manifestation of the divine Nature appears 
 interesting; but none is more so, than that, which is 
 made in the work of redemption. Here, if any 
 where, the Trinity is disclosed; and a belief or a 
 denial of this doctrine is intimately connected with a 
 belief, or denial of most of the doctrines of the gospel. 
 The doctrine of the Trinity appears to give an excel- 
 lence and importance to other doctrines of Christianity, 
 which, by a denial of it, are wholly lost. 
 
 In the covenant of redemption there are contracting 
 parties. The Father promises to give the Son the 
 heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for his possession; that he shall see of 
 the travail of his soul and be satisfied; that he shall 
 have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to 
 the ends of the earth. This was promised him in 
 view, and as a consequence of, his taking upon him 
 the form of a servant, of humbling himself even to the 
 ignominy and tortures of the cross. In view of this 
 part of the covenant transaction, and of what he had 
 to perform, the Son replied, "Lo, I come, (in the 
 volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 
 O God." In the prosecution of the work of redemp- 
 tion the Holy Spirit appears engaged in renewing 
 human nature; in enlightening and comforting believ- 
 ers, and sealing them to the day of redemption. His 
 office and work afford evidence that he was concerned 
 in the covenant of redemption. 
 
 If there be a plurality In the divine Nature; if the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constitute this 
 plurality, they are competent to form and execute 
 covenant engagements respecting the salvation of the 
 human race. Each is adequate to his own peculiar 
 work. The excellence and dignity of the high con- 
 tracting parties give the greatest degree of importance 
 
DOCTRINES OP THE SACREJD SCRIPTURES. 331 
 
 to the transaction. The ability of each to fulfil his 
 stipulated part, and the unity of design subsisting 
 between them, afford ground of perfect confidence 
 that the covenant engagements will be performed. 
 The same Being, who, in plurality, said, "let us make 
 man," was equally able to say, let us redeem man. 
 
 But if there be no ground of distinction in the 
 divine Nature; if the Son of God be merely a created 
 being; if the Holy Spirit be only the operations of 
 the Father, the covenant of redemption appears to 
 lose its peculiar excellencies. The parties concerned 
 are entirely disproportionate. There is no comparison 
 between the Creator and a creature. It appears to 
 be a manifest incongruity, that God should enter into 
 compact with a created being respecting any matter, 
 in which the latter was not personally concerned. To 
 treat with him by an interchange of correspondent 
 obligations seems to ir^ply an exaltation of the creature 
 to an equality with himself; or an abasement of him- 
 self to a level with the creature. In forming the 
 covenant of redemption, did infinite Wisdom need the 
 assistance of any created intelligence? In carrying it 
 into operation did the Almighty need the dependent 
 power of any created being? It is not doubted that 
 the Supreme Being employs ministering servants as 
 agents in the administration of his government. But 
 which of his agents stipulates with the divine Sove- 
 reign, and produces claims upon him correspondent to 
 his own obligations? The claims of the Son upon the 
 Father to fulfil his part of the contract are not less 
 valid and important than the claims of the Father 
 upon the Son. What makes this case different from 
 all other cases is this, what the Son did in redemption 
 he did not for himself, but for others. He has, there- 
 fore, not only a claim upon the Father arising from 
 promise, but he has a meritorious claim upon him to 
 fulfil his part of the covenant. What created being 
 can, after he has discharged his own personal obliga- 
 tions, produce a surplus of righteousness, which may 
 
332 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 he accounted for the benefit of others; and then pro- 
 duce a claim upon heaven for remuneration for extra 
 services? Were this the case, were this the ground 
 of salvation, then a created being would be the end of 
 the law for righteousness to every one that believeth 
 He would be made unto us w^isdom, sanctificalion and 
 redemption. 
 
 The disparity between the Creator and a creature 
 seems to preclude the possibility of their being con- 
 tracting parties respecting the redemption of man. 
 The disparity is infinitely greater than that existing 
 between the highest sovereign on earth and his lowest 
 subject. If the Son of God be merely a created being, 
 lie does not possess one quality in his nature, which 
 renders him competent to contract with the Father, 
 or to fulfil covenant engagements respecting the sal- 
 vation of man. His wisdom would not be sufficient to 
 devise concerning those things, which the angels 
 desire to look into. His own power would not be 
 competent to the performance of his part of the com- 
 pact. Every thing pertaining to him and to his work 
 would be limited; and he would be entirely incompe- 
 tent to be a party in the covenant. 
 
 If the Holy Spirit be not a party in the covenant; 
 if he be only divine operation or influence, there 
 appears to be an incongruity and deficiency in the 
 scheme of redemption. It is the office of the Father 
 to send the Son to fulfil his part of the covenant; to 
 answer his requests; to accept what he does; and ffive 
 him, as a recompense, what he had promised. It is 
 part of the office of the Son to send the Holy Spirit 
 to convince and convert sinners; to comfort believers 
 and seal them to the day of redemption. If the Son 
 be sent by the Father, if he be subordinate to him in 
 his official work, it is incredible that he should have 
 authority over the Father to control his operations 
 and send them when and where he pleases. This 
 would reverse the order of offices; and produce con- 
 fusion in the economy of redemption. But if the Son 
 
Doctrines of the sacred scriptures. 333 
 
 and Holy Spirit be divine, as well as the Father, thev 
 are on equality; and they are suitable parties to enter 
 into reciprocal compact. They are adequate to the 
 perlbrmance of their respective parts. The cove- 
 nant of redemption is an instrument, formed and con- 
 firmed in all its articles by Divinity; and carries 
 evidence with itself that it will be fulfilled. 
 
 Let the doctrine of the Trinity be next viewed in 
 relation to the atonement. If the Son of God be 
 divine, it was infinite condescension for him to take 
 upon him the form of a servant. He subjected him- 
 self to the lowest degree of humiliation, when he 
 veiled his divine glories with humanity in its lowest 
 condition; when lie sutfered the scoffs and reproaches 
 of his enemies; when he endured all the ignominy, 
 which could be cast upon a crucified malefactor. The 
 whole term of his abode on earth was a continued 
 series of deep humiliation. The union of divinity 
 with humanity gave the latter an extraordinary dig- 
 nity and excellence. So intimate was the connexion 
 of divinity and humanity that the second man is called 
 the Lord from heaven; and the blood of the Son of 
 man is called the blood of God. By the union of the 
 Son of God with the Son of man, the sufferings of the 
 humanity of Christ acquired an unspeakable impor- 
 tance; and in conjunction with the abasement of the 
 divine Son, they constituted a sacrifice, which was a 
 propitiation for the sins of the world. Look at the 
 cross and behold divinity and innocent humanity 
 engaged in making an expiation for sin; the one 
 enduring a concealment of his glories, and all the 
 ignominy, which his enemies could cast upon him; 
 and the other suffering the tortures of the ci'oss. In 
 this view the atonement appears to be of infinite 
 importance. 
 
 By the worth of the sacrifice, which was made, 
 the guilt of sin may be accurately estimated. There 
 was no suffering needlessly expended. If the victim, 
 which was olfcred upon the cross was of infinite 
 
334 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 dignity and excellence, it follows that sin, which 
 required such a sacrifice, was of infinite guilt. 
 
 Admit the divinity of Christ and the consequent 
 value of the atonement; and God's law appears per- 
 fectly honorable. If the sacrifice be commensurate 
 with the guilt of sin, the divine law suffers no diminu- 
 tion of its requirements, or of its validity. It exhibits 
 proof that it requires perfect satisfaction for every 
 violation, or that, which will equally preserve its 
 authority and efficacy. It exhibits proof that not one 
 jot or tittle of its requirerrents is abated; and that 
 while mercy is exercised, justice is satisfied. If the 
 sacrifice for sin be made by the Son of God in con- 
 junction with the Son of man, the divine law appears 
 to be as fully honored and magnified, and God ex- 
 presses as great abhorrence of sin, as if the threatened 
 penalty were inflicted upon transgressors. 
 
 But if the Son of God be merely a created being, 
 there appears to be less condescension on the part of 
 divinity. There appears to be less value in the 
 atonement. Sin appears with less malignity; and the 
 divine law appears with great abatement of its require- 
 ments. If Jesus Christ was merely human, it was no 
 condescension in Deity that he came into the world, 
 labored and suffered as he did; and it was no greater 
 condescension and humiliation in himself than many 
 others have endured. Thousands have appeared in 
 the form of servants; and have innocently suffered the 
 tortures and ignominy of execution as malefactors. If 
 the Son of God was the highest of all created intelli- 
 gences, his coming into the world in the form of a 
 servant, and suffering the disgrace and tortures of the 
 cross would be no humiliation on the part of Deity; 
 and his own humiliation appears infinitely less than if 
 he were divine. 
 
 If the Son of God be only a created being, whether 
 human, or human and superangelic, he does not 
 appear to be capable of making a propitiation for the 
 sins of the world. It is hard to conceive that any 
 
» DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 335 
 
 creature, however exalted, can perform more than 
 his own duty; or that he should l>ave a surplus of 
 righteousness to appropriate for the benefit of others. 
 If one should volunteer his services for the assistance 
 of another, he would be either under obligation, or 
 not under obligation'to do it. If he were under oblir 
 gation to tender the kind offices, he would do onlj 
 what was his own duty. If he were not under obliga- 
 tion to offer his kindness, he would not do his own 
 duty while he communicated assistance to others. Of 
 course, there would be an interval, in which he was 
 free from discharging his own personal obligations; 
 and could perform duty in behalf of others. But not 
 to insist on the inconsistency of such a method; the 
 assistance, which one created being can bestow upon 
 another, is limited in its very nature. Suppose one 
 man dies for another, I'he sufferings of the former 
 are only equivalent to the life of the latter. Suppose 
 one should offer his life for the preservation of the 
 lives of several of his equal fellow beings, the offering 
 would be unequal to the object to be accomplished. 
 If he should offer liis life to save one soul from ever- 
 lasting death, the sacrifice would be entirely inade- 
 quate for the purpose. Should he offer his life for 
 the salvation of the whole human race from endless 
 destruction, what numbers could give the dispropor- 
 tion between the sacrifice and the object to be ob- 
 tained! A sacrifice made by any created being bears 
 no comparison m its value with the sacrifice made by 
 Divinity in conjunction with humanitv. 
 
 If the atonement be of limited value and efficacy, 
 sin appears to be of finite guilt. There is a just pro- 
 portion, an exact correspondence between the virtue 
 of the sacrifice and the malignity of sin, which is 
 expiated by it. As much as any system reduces the 
 excellence of the victim and the consequent value of 
 his sacrifice, just so much it reduces the g«iilt and ill 
 desert of sin. If a finite being can make atonement 
 for sin, it follows that sin is but a finite evil. 
 
336 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 The honor and force of the divine law is in propor- 
 tion to the guili of transgression. A transgression of 
 civil law, viewed only in relation to this law, is a finite 
 evil. It is committed by a finite being against a lim- 
 ited authority; and the transgressor can make satis- 
 faction or expiation for his crimes. He can satisfy the 
 demands of the law which he has violated. The 
 limitations of the gu.lt of his offences denote the limit- 
 ations of tlie law he had transgressed, and of the 
 authority, which he had offended. 
 
 If transorression of the divine law contain but finite 
 
 o 
 
 guilt, the law violated, and the Lawgiver must, of course, 
 have those limitations, which appear to be inconsist- 
 ent with the perfect authority of Jehovah. As much 
 as the evil of sin is diminished, so much the law of 
 God is shorn of its divine excellence, and becomes like 
 another law. If sin be but a finite evil, the divine 
 law cannot justly inflict, or threaten an infinite pun- 
 ishment. A victim of limited capacity could make an 
 atonement; and if^ atonement were not made, a trans- 
 gressor might make expiation for his own sins; and 
 then claim exemption from further punishment. 
 Deny the divinity of Christ, and the covenant of 
 redemption appears less important; the atonement ap- 
 pears to lose much, if not all, of its virtue; sin appears 
 to be divested of much of its criminality; the divine law 
 appears to be weakened; and the whole method of 
 salvation appears to suffer a great diminution of its 
 divine excellences. 
 
 The doctrine of Christ's divinity proves that the 
 love of God for the human race was very great. This 
 is argued from the greatness of the Father's love for 
 the Son. The Father testified of him in the most 
 affectionate manner: "This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased." "The Father loveth the 
 Son; and hath given all things into his hand." But not- 
 withstanding the intimate union subsisting between the 
 Father and the Son, so that the latter is said to be in 
 the bosom of the former; notwithstanding the great- 
 ness of the Father's love for his only begotten and 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 337 
 
 dearly beloved Son, yet he sent hirn into the world 
 that he might redeem it. He spared not his own Son, 
 but delivered him up for us all. The greatness of 
 God's love for the world is inferred from his sending 
 his Son into the world to make a propitiation for sin. 
 If his Son were divine; if he were in union with him 
 in all his counsels, and in all his operations, then it 
 was a great thing, a great expression of love for the 
 human race, to send this partner of his throne into 
 the world in the form of a servant; to expose him to 
 the greatest indignity, and subject him to the deepest 
 humiliation. Such sacrifice on the part of Deity 
 expresses, in the strongest manner, his love for fallen 
 humanity. The scriptures represent the love of God 
 toward the human race to be very great. "God 
 commendeth his love toward us," Rom. 5:8. "Behold 
 what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon 
 us, that we should be called the sons of God," 1 John 
 3:1. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
 he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 our sins," 1 John 4: 10. "Greater love hath no man 
 than this, that a man lay down his life for his Jriends" 
 John 15:13. "For when we were yet without strength, 
 in due time, Christ died for the ungodly,''^ Rom. 5:6. 
 If the Son of God was merely human, divine love 
 for the human race does not appear extraordinarily 
 great in offering him in sacrifice for their salvation. 
 Any sovereign, who had a sense of the interest of his 
 kingdom, would, if occasion required, sacrifice one of 
 his subjects, if his death would procure the preserva- 
 tion and highest interest of the rest. By this act he 
 would manifest no more love for his kingdom than 
 the value he set upon the subject he offered in their 
 behalf. But if, instead of giving up one of his com- 
 mon subjects for the preservation of the rest, he 
 should make an offering of his only son, the sole heir 
 of all his substance and authority, his love for his 
 kingdom would appear incomparably greater. In like 
 manner, if the Son, whom God sent into the world 
 43 
 
338 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 and offered in sacrifice upon the cross, were only 
 human, his love for the world would not be manifested 
 in a very high degree. It would appear only in exact 
 proportion to the value he set upon the victim. If 
 the Son, who was sent into the world were a super- 
 angelic being, God's love for mankind in sending him 
 into the world to make a sacrifice for sin, would ap- 
 pear greater, than if he were merely human. But 
 upon this hypothesis his manifested love for the world 
 Avould not answer to that high description, which is 
 given of it in the sacred scriptures. It would appear 
 unspeakably less, than it would appear by admitting 
 that the Son, who made a sacrifice for sin, was not 
 only the "second man," but "the Ijord from heaven;" 
 that he was not only in the "form of a servant," but 
 that he was "the Lord of glory." Admit the divinity 
 of Christ, and the love of God manifested toward the 
 human race appears worthy of him; it appears adapted 
 to their necessities; and correspondent to the language 
 of scripture, which exhibits it. 
 
 The doctrine of Christ's divinity appears to be the 
 foundation of justification by faith in his name. If 
 he be divine, he is mighty to save. "He is able to 
 save them to the uttermost that come unto God by 
 him. Neither is there salvation in any other; for 
 there is none other name under heaven given among 
 men whereby we must be saved. For other founda- 
 tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
 Christ. I know whom I have believed, and am per- 
 suaded that he is able to keep that which I have 
 committed unto him against that day." The absolute 
 sufficiency of Jesus Christ to save, appears to be ex- 
 pressed by these passages of scripture. If he possess 
 this absolute sufficiency, he is able to make an expia- 
 tion for sin. He is able to be the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every one that believeth. If he pos- 
 sess this ability, people may with safety have faith in 
 his name. They may with consistency not only be- 
 lieve the doctrines, which he taught; but they may 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 339 
 
 repose entire confidence in his merits, and in the ful- 
 filment of his promises. Faith in the Lord Jesus is 
 one of the most prominent conditions of justification 
 and salvation. "Being justified hy faith, we have 
 peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Whom 
 God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Jailh 
 in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis- 
 sion of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
 God. Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
 but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
 ing life. By him all that believe are justified from 
 all things, from which ye could not be justified by the 
 law of Moses. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and thou shalt be saved. Ye believe in God, believe 
 also in me." By this last text of scripture it appears 
 that Christ designed to convey an idea that there was 
 the same ground for believing in him, that there was 
 for believing in God. 
 
 If Christ be divine, it is suitable that we should 
 make him the Object of our faith, it is safe to make 
 him the Object of our confidence and trust, it is his 
 just due that we should view and honor him as the 
 Author of salvation. There is no caution given, in the 
 scriptures, lest we should love the Lord Jesus too 
 much; repose too much confidence in his merits; or 
 ascribe too much honor to his name. He testified 
 that he had all authority in heaven and in earth; and 
 he proved that it was his prerogative to forgive sins. 
 Such a Being is a proper object of faith. Such a being 
 is competent to make a sacrifice for sin, and to justify 
 rebellious subjects on his own conditions. 
 
 If Jesus Christ be merely a finite being, deputized 
 and commissioned of God to be a priest; to make an 
 offering for sin, to be a Mediator and Savior, he must 
 receive his qualifications from him, who appointed him 
 to these high and important oflices. If this be true, 
 why does faith terminate in this dependent agent? Why 
 
340 CONNEXION OP DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 is not intimation given that he is but an instrument, by 
 which God operates; that faith and confidence must 
 not be reposed absolutely in hiui; but must extend ulti- 
 mately to God? Why is not the divine prerogative 
 guarded vi'ith greater circumspection; and why is not 
 a barrier raised with such visible discrimination, that 
 it would naturally prevent people from giving God's 
 glory to another. Christ said, "ye believe in God, 
 believe also in me." This language naturally conveys 
 an idea, that belief in Christ was no less important 
 than belief in God. When Clirist was at meat in a 
 Pharisee's house, a certain woman, who was a sinner, 
 came and stood behind him weeping, washed his feet 
 with tears, kissed them, anointed and wiped them with 
 the hairs of her head. Jesus said unto her, "Thy 
 sins are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in 
 peace." In view of her conduct toward Christ there 
 can be no doubt that her faith was in him; and it ap- 
 pears equally evident that it was on the ground of this 
 faith he forgave and saved her. Jesus said unto 
 Thomas, "because thou hast seen me thou hast be- 
 lieved, blessed are they, that have not seen, and yet have 
 believed^ John the Baptist taught the necessity and 
 importance of faith in Christ. "He that believeth 
 on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth 
 not the Son shall not see life." Christ expressed the 
 same sentiment when he said, "He that believeth on 
 me hath everlasting life." The apostles attached the 
 same importance to faith in the Son of God. When 
 the keeper of the prison inquired of Paul and Silas 
 what he must do to be saved, their reply was, "Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." 
 The apostles taught, that justification was by faith in 
 the Son of God. When the scriptures attach such 
 an importance to faith in Christ, it seems unreasona- 
 ble to believe that he is only a created being. God 
 has sent prophets, apostles, and other holy men into 
 the world, who have died martyrs for the cause of 
 rehgion. He hath sent angels also to minister to 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SAGRED SCRIPTURES, 341 
 
 tiiose, who are heirs of salvation. Of what avail 
 would it be to trust in tiiem? Or what connexion would 
 there be between faith in them and salvation? Tho 
 same undoubtedly, that there would be between iaith 
 in Christ and salvation, if he were not superior to one 
 of them. If the Son be but a finite being, the ground 
 of faith in his name appears to be greatly weakened; 
 confidence in his merits appears to be presumption; 
 and justification by faith in his name seems to cast the 
 divine Sovereign into the back ground in the scheme 
 of redemption. But admit the divinity of Christ and 
 his union with the Father, and christian faith begins 
 and terminates in Deity; confidence in the Savior is 
 well founded; and justification, founded on faith in the 
 merits of Christ, is consistent with the validitv of the 
 divine law. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity is intimately connected 
 with the doctrine of saints' perseverance. If the 
 contracting parties in the work of redemption be 
 divine, each is able to perform, and will faithfully 
 perform his stipulated part. The Son agreed to come 
 into the world to do the will of his Father. It was 
 the Father's will to lay upon him the iniquity of us 
 all. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put 
 him to grief." In view of this suffering, he said in 
 prayer to the Father, "not as I will, but as thou wilt." 
 At another time he said, "I came down from heaven, 
 not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent 
 me." He did and suffered according to contract, 
 which was the will of the Father. As a recomj^ense 
 lor what he did and suffered, he was to see his seed. 
 He was to sec of the travail of his soul and be satis- 
 fied. He was to receive the heathen for his inherit- 
 ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his 
 possession. Christ declared that the Father had given 
 him some of the human race, "I have manifested thy 
 name unto the men, which thou gavest me out of the 
 world; thine thov were, and thou iravcst them mo. I 
 
342 CONNEXION OP DIVINE PLURALITY AVITH OTHER 
 
 pray not for the world, but for them, which thou hast 
 given me. 
 
 Those, who are ^iven to Christ are his, not by gift 
 only; but they will be his by faith in him, and by union 
 with him. "All that the Father giveth me, shall come 
 to me." When they are renewed by the Holy Spirit, 
 who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and 
 are brought mto his kingdou), they are truly his peo- 
 ple; and he has then received his stipulated recom- 
 pense. These constitute his kingdom; he has author- 
 ity to rule over them, and he is their King. If he be 
 divine, he is competent to this degree of sovereignty. 
 He is able to keep his subjects under his dominion. 
 The same Spirit which he sent to bring them into 
 subjection to his authority, he is able to send for the 
 purpose of guiding and supporting them in the ways 
 of truth and obedience. If the Holy Spirit be divine, 
 he is able to perform this part of the work. He is 
 able to carry on the work of sanctification in the heart, 
 till it is perfected. He is not only able, but he will 
 do it. "He, which hath begun a good work in you, 
 Avill perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." With 
 his gracious operations believers are sealed unto the 
 day of redemption. 
 
 Christ has expressed his ability to keep his sub- 
 jects from apostasy. He saith, "I give unto them 
 eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall 
 any man pluck them cut of ray hand," John 10:28. 
 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in 
 thy -name; those, that thou gavest me 1 have kept, and 
 none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, (i. e. 
 but the son of perdition, not being given to me, is lost) 
 that the scripture might be fulfilled," John 17:12. 
 "Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none," 
 John 18:9. "He is ahlc to save them to the uttermost 
 that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to 
 make intercession for them," Heb. 7:25. Now unto him 
 that is able to keep you from falling, and to present 
 you faultless before the presence of his glory with 
 
DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 343 
 
 exceeding joy?" Jude 24. These texts 'appear to 
 prove that Jesus Christ is able^ and that he actually 
 does save believers from final apostasy. It is admit- 
 ted that Christ performs this work by sending the 
 Holy Spirit, and by intercession with the Father. But 
 what created being has authority to send the Holy 
 Spirit into the hearts of believers to comfort and to 
 stabiish them? What created being has invariable 
 prevalence with God in behalf of transgressors? 
 
 If Jesus Christ save his people from their sins, 
 there appears to be evidence (hat he is divine. Those, 
 who are renewed, are reneived by divine power. 
 They are born of the Spirit; they are born of God. 
 They are created in (or through) Christ Jesus unto 
 good works. Jt requires no less power to preserve 
 spiritual life in the soul, than it did at first to originate 
 it. There is nothing in renewed humanity, which se- 
 cures it from declension, li' the parents of the human 
 race apostatized from God, and lost their primitive 
 dignity and purity, there is nothing in human nature, 
 partially sanctified, which will secure it from final 
 apostasy. As the Lord Jesus keeps his people so that 
 none of them will be lost, there seems to be clear 
 evidence that his power is divine. 
 
 The Son of God possesses all authority over his 
 mediatorial kingdom. He is King of saints. But 
 what is this extent of authority, if his power be not 
 commensurate with it? If his power be finite, his king- 
 dom appears to be less secure, than if his power were 
 infinite. It appears that his subjects could not have 
 perfect confidence in him. If they look to him for 
 that divine influence, which is necessary to keep them 
 from declension, what assurance can a finite being 
 give, that he can command the operations of God's 
 Spirit to guide and support them? Should he attempt 
 to sustain them by his own power, the work would be 
 disproportionate to his ability. Other power might 
 be as great as his, and counteract all his operations. 
 Or it might be greater than his, and subvert his whole 
 
344 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 kingdom. But could not power be imparted to him 
 from the infinite Being, which would enable him to 
 secure all the subjects of his kingdom? It is admitted 
 that power was communicated to the man Christ Jesus 
 in the same manner as it was communicated to prophets 
 and apostles; but in a higher degree. If, by the reception 
 of this power, he was able to support spiritual life in 
 believers, then prophets and apostles might do the 
 same in proportion to the strength given them. But 
 the scriptures aiford no evidence that believers are, 
 in any degree, kept from apostasy, by prophets, or 
 apostles. Were it possible that a finite being should 
 be qualified, by power imparted to him, to stablish his 
 subjects unto the end, and to bring his kingdom to 
 consummation, it seems improper to call him a king. 
 It seems to be a perversion of language to call one a 
 king or savior, who depends on a higher being for all 
 his power arid authority. An idea of absolute depend- 
 ence does not correspond with our ideas of perfect 
 sovereignty. If Moses could, with strict propriety, 
 be called the savior of the Israelites from Egyptian 
 bondage; if he could be called, in the true sense of the 
 word, the author of the miracles, which God wrought 
 by his hand, then might a created being, if compe- 
 tently endued with power from on high, be called the 
 Savior of the world; or the Author of salvation. But 
 it is evident that such is not the natural use of the 
 words, author and savior. If Christ be not divine, it 
 follows that the head of the church is not essentially 
 different from one of the members of his body; that 
 the head-stone of the corner is not essentially differ- 
 ent from any stone of the building; that the Redeemer 
 and redeemed are almost upon an equality. It seems 
 that believers could not repose absolute confidence in 
 his merits and efficiency. It seems that his subjects 
 might be plucked out of his hand, and be finally lost. 
 It seems that he could not assure the subjects of his 
 kingdom below, that they would be subjects of his 
 kingdom above. Limit the power of the Savior, and 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 345 
 
 the perseverance of saints appears to be uncertain; 
 and there appears to be a possibility that he may lose 
 a part, or all of his recompense. The divinity of 
 Jesus Christ appears to be intimately connected with 
 the final judgment of the human race. The scrip- 
 tures abundantly assert that he will officiate as Judge 
 on that important occasion; and administer reward 
 and punishment according to characters. "The Father 
 judgeth no man, but bath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son. We shall all stand before the judgment seat 
 of Christ. Who shall judge the quick and the dead 
 at his appearing and his kingdom. When the Son of 
 man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels 
 with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his 
 glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, 
 and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
 shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he 
 shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on 
 the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his 
 right hand. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
 the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 
 the world. Then shall he say also unto them on the 
 left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And 
 these shall go aAvay into everlasting punishment; but 
 the righteous into life eternal." 
 
 If Christ be divine, as well as human, he is worthy 
 of the judgment seat; and he is competent to perform 
 the duties of his office. If his knowledge be not cir- 
 cumscribed, he knows all the windings of the human 
 heart. He knows all the thoughts, all the desires, all 
 the words, all the actions of every individual of the 
 human race, from Adam down to his latest offspring. 
 If his wisdom be unlimited, he is able to compare 
 every exercise of the human heart, and every action 
 of human life with divine requirements, and discern 
 their coincidence, or disagreement. He is able to 
 weigh the guilt of every offence, and apportion pun- 
 ishment according to its desert. He is able also to 
 44 
 
346 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 assign reward agreeably to the divine promises. If 
 no power be greater than his, he can carry his deci- 
 sions into execution. He can banish the wicked from 
 the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
 power; and consign them to everlasting punishment; 
 and he can receive the righteous to life eternal. If 
 the Judge of the earth be divine as well as human, 
 the scenes of the last day appear with the most awful 
 solemnity. The human race, waked from their long 
 slee() of death, and those who are alive on the earth 
 are summoned to attend. He who created and re- 
 deemed the world appears on the judgment seat. 
 With one look he distinguishes characters. With one 
 word he separates them to the right and left. There 
 is no deception. There is no error of judgment. The 
 sentence is pronounced. There is no appeal. The 
 work is done. The business of this all eventful day is 
 closed for eternity. The object, the transactions, the 
 issues of this daj^ are worthy of a divine Judge. 
 
 If Christ be merely a created being, the judgment 
 seat appears with less majesty; and the whole scene 
 appears with less grandeur. It is presumed that no 
 finite being can, by the efforts of his own mind, discern 
 the whole character of every individual of the human 
 race. It seems incredible that such an amazing extent 
 of knowledge should be infused, at once, into any 
 finite capacity. It appears incredible that any created 
 being should be vested with authority to judge and 
 pronounce sentence, in a case infinitely momentous, in 
 his own name, and with all the majesty of divinity. 
 If the judge be an unconscious organ, through which 
 the Deity speaks and acts; or if he be prompted in 
 every word and action by the divine Being, he appears 
 with only borrowed excellence, borrowed authority, 
 and with only a semblance of the majesty of a Judge. 
 It is admitted that the divine Sovereign has a perfect 
 right to administer his laws and to award retribution 
 as he pleases. But at the same time it is expected 
 that his method of government and of final decision 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 347 
 
 will be worthy of himself, and will manifest the per- 
 fections of his nature. Should the judiciary depart- 
 ment of a civil government be naturally unqualified to 
 perform the functions of their office; but were taught 
 and dictated in every step of their proceedings by 
 the chief magistrate of the state or nation, would not 
 the bench labor under a burden of indignity, unbecom- 
 ing the judgment seat.-^ If we may reason from small 
 things to great, it must be inferred, that, if Jesus 
 Christ be not competent in his own nature to perform 
 the duties of Judge of the world, he appears with 
 infinitely less dignity; and the whole scene and all the 
 transactions of the judgment day appear with much 
 less grandeur, than if the Judge were divine, and of 
 himself performed the duties of his office. If it be 
 admitted that the Judge of the world unites in him- 
 self human and divine nature, he is not only touched 
 with a feeling of human infirmities; but he has also a 
 consciousness of divine claims. While he feels a lively 
 interest in the restoration and happiness of humanity, 
 he feels a holy jealousy for the rights of the divine 
 throne. 
 
 The doctrine of Christ's divinity is intimately con- 
 nected with the doctrine of future retribution. If 
 Jesus Christ be both human and divine, he is able to 
 make an expiation for sin; to satisfy the demands of 
 the divine law; to work out a complete righteousness 
 for the justification of the disobedient through faith in 
 his name. Though sin be of infinite guilt, yet the 
 victim offisred upon the cross was sufficient to make 
 an adequate expiation. Having magnified and honored 
 the divine law, he was able to treat with rebellious 
 subjects. He was able to propose his own conditions 
 for their reconciliation and pardon. He was able to 
 confer the promised reward upon those who should 
 comply with the terms proposed; and he was equally 
 able to inflict the punishment, which stood against 
 impenitent transgressors. 
 
348 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 If Christ be but a finite being, and still made a 
 propitiation for sin, it follows that sin is of limited 
 guilt; otherwise he could not have made a complete 
 expiation. Admit the finitude of the Savior, and he 
 appears inadequate to make provision for the ever- 
 lasting blessedness of the human race. What can a 
 finite being offer, which is equivalent to that eternal 
 weight of glory, which is promised to the righteous. 
 Should he plead all the finite qualities of his sacrifice, 
 it would appear entirely disproportionate to a salvation 
 from an infinite, an endless punishment. If the reward 
 conferred on believers were only commensui'ate with 
 his limited righteousness, the time would come, when 
 they had received all that was purchased for them. 
 It is natural to inquire, what will be their condition 
 afterward? 
 
 If the sacrifice, offered upon the cross, was made 
 by merely a created being, and the value of it was, of 
 course, limited; if sin be but a finite evil, those, who 
 die in their sins and receive the sentence of condem- 
 nation, are not in a desperate condition. As a limited 
 ransom has once made satisfaction for iniquity, it may 
 do the same again. As sin contains but finite guilt, 
 finite punishment will make expiation for it. Of course, 
 a point in duration will arrive, when transgressors, 
 who died in impenitence, will have suffered all the 
 punishment incurred by their offences during their 
 probationary state. They will then have a claim to 
 Idc liberated from their sufferings. As they had satis- 
 fied the demands of the law, they would be no longer 
 under its curse. As they had not complied with the 
 conditions of the Gospel, they could not receive its 
 promises. It is hard to conceive what would be their 
 situation. Admit the divinity of Christ and the right- 
 eous have assurance that they shall, in another state 
 of existence, enjoy everlasting blessedness; and the 
 finally impenitent have the same evidence that they 
 shall suffer an equal duration of punishment. Deny 
 the divinity of Christ, and there appears to be no 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 349 
 
 proof that the glory and blessedness of the righteous 
 will be immortal; and there appears to be equal want 
 of proof that the punishment of the wicked will be 
 endless. By this hypothesis the encouragement and 
 hope of the righteous are greatly abated; and the 
 fears of the wicked are almost destroyed. Reward 
 and punishment lose almost all their effect. 
 
 A correct belief of the Son is intimately connected 
 with a correct belief of the Father; and a denial, or 
 dishonor of the former implies a denial or dishonor of 
 the latter. The relative names, Father and Son, 
 express an affinity subsisting between them. If these 
 names, which represent the distinctions of the divine 
 Nature, are used figuratively, there is, undoubtedly, 
 ground in the subject for this figurative language. 
 When the names, father and son are used to expiess 
 the relationship, subsisting between a parent and his 
 male offspring, the first ideas, conveyed by these rela- 
 tive names, are their affinity and the sameness of their 
 nature. If these names are correctly applied to the 
 divine nature, they naturally convey the same ideas. 
 If a parent be human, it follows, of course, that his 
 son is human. If figurative language be drawn from 
 this relationship, and applied to the divine Nature, it 
 is expected that it will express some striking analogy 
 between the relationship of the Father and the Son, 
 and the relationship of a human parent and his child. 
 If the Son be divine, this name expresses the analogy 
 in the clearest manner; it expresses their intimate 
 connexion, and the sameness of their nature. If the 
 Son be not divine, the analogy is greatly weakened, 
 and their relative names are much less expressive. 
 
 It is admitted that God is called the Father of the 
 human family. In a more special sense he is called 
 the Father of believers; and they are called his sons. 
 It appears that Christ claimed a relationship with the 
 Father much nearer than this. The Jews understood 
 him to call God his Father in a peculiar sense, in a 
 sense, which implied that he himself was divioe. 
 
350 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 After Christ had healed an impotent man on the Sab- 
 bath, the Jews accused hira of profanation of holy 
 time. He replied, "My Father worketh hitherto 
 and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more 
 to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sab- 
 bath, but said also that God was his Father, (^urt^a 
 iliQv) making himself equal with God. /J/ov is expres- 
 sive and definite in its meaning; it signifies, peculiaris 
 sui generis, suus. Hed. Lex.; (peculiar, of its own 
 kind, his own.) Sohleusner, under his first definition 
 of the word gives the following significations; proprius, 
 suus, et de omni, quod quis jure suum vocare potest, 
 €t ullo aliquo modo ad alequem pertinet. (Special, 
 proper; his own, in respect to every thing, which one 
 can justly call his own, and belongs, in any way, to 
 him.) 
 
 At another time, when Christ called God his Father, 
 the Jews accused him of blasphemy, because he being 
 a man made himself God. It appears evident that 
 the Jews believed that the Son of God was divine, and 
 that he was the promised Messiah. But they believ- 
 ed that Jesus was not that personage; that he was 
 merely a man, and that he made pretensions to divinity. 
 In this view of the subject they imagined that he 
 blasphemed by claiming a relationship with God, 
 which implied equality. They believed, that by 
 calling himself the Son of God, he blasphemed; and 
 that, according to their law he ought to die as a blas- 
 phemer. If the Jews formed wrong ideas of the 
 language of Christ, when he called God his Father, it 
 seems not a little extraordinary that he did not correct 
 their mistake; and shew them plainly that his rela- 
 tionship to God was to be understood in a reduced 
 sense; that it was no more than the relationship of a 
 creature to his Creator. 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to maintain that the Jews 
 knowingly perverted the language of Christ; and 
 made him say what he did not design to say. For 
 ■the same word, which they connected with Father, to 
 
DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRfPTURES. 351 
 
 express the near connexion of the Son with him and 
 their sameness of nature, the apostle Paul connects 
 with Son, to shew the special relationship of the b'ather 
 to him, Rom. 8:32. The same meaning, which the 
 unbelievinfij Jews attached to the word (/5;ov) the 
 apostle undoubtedly attached to it. If their applica- 
 tion of it were preposterous, the apostle's application 
 of it will stand with all its force. 
 
 If the connexion of the Father and Son imply the 
 divinity of the latter, it follows that a denial of the 
 Son implies a denial of the Father, as such; and the 
 dishonor, which is cast upon the Son is cast also upon 
 the Father. The scriptures represent the connexion 
 of the Father and Son, to be so intimate that what is 
 predicated of one is predicated of the other. "The 
 Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the 
 Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these 
 also doeth the Sou likewise. For as the Father 
 raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, eveii so the 
 Son quickeneth whom he will. As the Father know- 
 eth me, even so know I the Father. If I do not the 
 works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, 
 though ye believe not m£, believe the works; that ye 
 may know and believe that the Fatlier is in me and I 
 in him. The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
 the works." I'hese texts afford evidence that there 
 is such a union of the Father and Son, that there is a 
 joint operation in all their works. Neither of them 
 doeth any thing o/' himself; i. e. separately and dis- 
 tinctly; but what one doth the other doth also. 
 
 If there be this intimate connexion of the Father 
 and Son, it is evident that what honors one, honors 
 the other; that the Father may be glorified in the 
 Son; and that whosoever had seen the Son had also 
 seen the Father. This sentiment is clearly expressed 
 in scripture. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same 
 hath not the Father. He is antichrist that denieth 
 the Father and the Son. It appears that St. John 
 considered a denial of the Son a denial of the Father. 
 
352 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 This is evidently true in view of their relationship. 
 If there be no Son, there is no Father; and if there 
 be no Father, there is no Son. If relationship be 
 denied on one side, it is, of course, denied on the other. 
 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same doth not ac- 
 knowledge the Father. He does not acknowledge 
 his relationship. He does not acknowledge the testi- 
 mony, which the Father bore concerning him at his 
 baptism, at his transfiguration, and by raising him from 
 the dead. 
 
 It will be better understood what St. John meant 
 by a denial of the Son, if the occasion and object of 
 writing his epistle be considered. At that time, there 
 were some, who denied the divinity, and others, who 
 denied the humanity, of Christ. One great object of 
 this epistle was to correct these errors. In this epistle 
 he calls Jesus Christ "that eternal Life, which was 
 with the Father, and was manifested unto us." He 
 calls him the Son of God. He set it down as a test 
 of true and inspired teachers that they confessed Jesus 
 Christ was come in the flesh; and a denial of this 
 truth, he considered a characteristic mark of anti- 
 christ. It is evident that by a denial of the Son, the 
 apostle meant a rejection of his divinity or humanity; 
 either of which would be a refusal to acknowledge 
 hiui to be the Christ of God. When St. John speaks 
 of the denial of the Son in connexion with a denial of 
 the Father, he undoubtedly means, by Son, the divin- 
 ity, not the humanity of Christ. On this ground it is 
 manifest that he, who denieth the Son, doth not 
 believe in the Father. The apostle James appears 
 to have the same opinion of the connexion of the 
 Father and the Son, when he speaks of false teachers, 
 who denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 If the Son be not divine, a denial of his divinity is 
 not a denial of the Father. If the Son be merely 
 human, the connexion between his humanity and the 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACKED SCRIPTURES. 353 
 
 Father is not so near that a denial of the former ini- 
 phes a denial of the latter. 
 
 So intimate is the connexion ot" the Father and the 
 Son, that denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor 
 of one imply denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and 
 honor of the other, "He is antichrist, that denieth 
 the Father and the Son." Jesus said to the Jews, 
 "Ye neither know me, nor my Father; if ye had 
 known me, ye should have known my Father also." 
 When Philip asked Christ to shew him the Father, 
 he replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and 
 yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hatli 
 seen me, hath seen the Father. He that hateth me hatetk 
 my Father also. — Now have they both seen and hated 
 both me and my Father. He that honoreth not the 
 Son, honoreth not the Father, which hath sent him." 
 
 If Christ be not divine, a denial of him is not a 
 denial of the Father. People might deny him divine 
 perfections, divine authority, and divine works, and at 
 the same time acknowledge the divine authority of 
 the Father. If the Son be not divine, people might 
 see and know him, and, at the same time, they might 
 neither see nor know the Father. They might hate 
 him for his pretensions to divinity, and at the same 
 time, not hate Divinity itself They might honor 
 him excessively, and, by that mean, they might dis- 
 honor the Father. But if the Son be divine, conse- 
 quences follow agreeably to the Scriptures. He is 
 not alone, but the Father is with him. What belongs 
 to one belongs also to the other. Christ said, "All 
 things that the Father hath are mine. All mine are 
 thine, and thine are mine." Such is their union of 
 nature and of operations, that what honors or dishonors 
 the Son, honors or dishonors the Father. 
 
 It may be argued with some degree of plausibility, 
 that if God send a messenger into the world to treat 
 Avith the human race, though he be a created being, 
 they ought to receive him in his delegated capacity, 
 that they ought to honor him; and that an acknowl- 
 45 
 
354 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 
 
 edgement of hlra and respect shewn him would be an 
 acknowledgment ot" the sovereignty of heaven, and 
 would reflect honor on the Divine Majesty. If the 
 sovereign of a nation send a minister to negotiate with 
 a foreign power, if that power receive him as a legit- 
 imate ambassador, this act is not only an acknowledg- 
 ment oi his authority, but it is an acknowledgment of 
 the authority of his sovereign, and an expression of 
 respect toward him. AH this is undoubtedly true. 
 But whom does he send to perform this important 
 business? He sends one of his own species; a man 
 like himself; equal in nature and capacity with his 
 own. He is entitled by his nature and qualifications 
 to as much honor as his sovereign; and being commis- 
 sioned, he has the same authority to transact the 
 business contemplated, as he, who sent him. It is 
 expected that he will be honored, and the respect 
 shewn him will extend to his sovereign. But suppose 
 the sovereign sends a minister, who has not one natural 
 qualification for the duties of his office, but is instructed, 
 and dictated, and prompted in every word, and in 
 every step of his proceedings, would he not be disre- 
 spected; and would not the disrespect be extended to 
 him that sent hiai? The application is easy. If God 
 has sent a messenger into the world to treat with the 
 human race, who is not naturally qualified for the 
 duties of his office, but is a mere instrument, or organ, 
 through which the divine Being acts, it might be 
 expected that people would respect him less than if 
 he possessed natural qualifications for the duties of 
 his office. It might be expected that they would 
 deny him in his official capacity; and if they honored 
 him even as they honored the Father, it would be by 
 dishonoring both. But suppose the Son to be divine, 
 and he is worthy of honor; and the glory, which is 
 given him is given to the Father also. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity appears to be the main 
 pillar of Christianity; the key stone of the arch, which 
 supports the whole fabric; the basis of man's salvation. 
 If this doctrine be expunged from the Bible, there 
 
DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 355 
 
 nppears to be a chasm through the whole system. 
 The most prominent doctrines of the gospel appear 
 to stand or fall with it. If the divine plurality be 
 denied, one mystery, it is true, is removed from the 
 sacred scriptures; but in its place there appear to be 
 left absurdity and contradiction. The Christian 
 religion, without this doctrine, without this vinculum 
 of other scripture doctrines, appears like a scheme of 
 human invention, designed to reconcile contrarieties, 
 and to elTectuaie impossibilities. This, more than any 
 other doctrine, distinguishes our holy religion from 
 human systems; and gives it an impression of its 
 divine Author, which philosophy could never invent, 
 nor ever efface. The light of nature never disclosed 
 a method, by which sin could be forgiven, and trans- 
 gressors be reconciled to God. 
 
 If the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been exhib- 
 ited, be a scriptural doctrine, those, who deny it arc 
 in great error. They deny the divine excellences of 
 the Son of God. They deny the virtue of his atoning 
 sacrifice. They deny Jiis absolute ability to save. 
 They deny him divine honor. Do they not, of course, 
 deny the Lord, who bought them? They disbelieve 
 the distinction of the Holy Spirit. They disbelieve 
 his office and his peculiar work. If they do not speak 
 a word against him, they withhold from him that 
 distinct respect, which is his just due. But we need 
 to use the greatest caution in this view of the subject. 
 There is danger of drawing wrong inferences from 
 others' premises; and if our conclusions from their 
 positions are legitimate, they may, notwithstanding, 
 heartily disown them. 
 
 If there be simple unity in the divine Nature, and 
 divine plurality be not a scriptural doctrine, those, 
 who embrace it are in great error. They place that 
 confidence in a creature, which they ought to place 
 only in the Creator. They make a creature equal 
 with God; they make him God, they make him the 
 "true God." They honor a creature "even as they 
 honor the Father." 
 
356 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY, &:C. 
 
 It is important to form correct sentiments of the 
 Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we can- 
 not form adequate conceptions of the ground of dis- 
 tinction in the divine Nature, nor of the ground of 
 unity in the divine plurahtj, it is important that we 
 should have such a behef in each, that we may apply 
 to each respectively for the blessings, which it is 
 their peculiar office to communicate. 
 
 There is an intimate connexion between belief and 
 practice. It is not maintained that every one, who 
 has a correct creed, possesses a good heart and exhib- 
 its a Christian character. The devils believe. But 
 a belief of the truth has a natural tendency toward 
 virtue and piety; and it would produce these effects, 
 if there were no counteracting principle in human 
 nature. The gift of revelation implies the necessity 
 of believing it; and of believing it agreeably to its 
 divine import. When Christianity is corrupted, it 
 loses proportionably its good effect. When the 
 Churches, which the apostle Paul planted, became 
 disorderly and immoral, we find they had departed 
 from sound doctrine. It is of no use to attempt to 
 estimate the quantum of religion among different 
 religious denominations; and compare their respective 
 values. This is not the province of human reason. 
 Were the attempt made, it is presumed that every 
 one would find, or would seem to find most among 
 those of his own name. But without boasting on the 
 one hand, or unjustly criminating on the other, it may 
 be safely said, that in proportion as people depart 
 from the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, 
 they decline in vital religion and in Christian character. 
 If there must be contest for preeminence among 
 Christians of different names, let it be a holy emula- 
 tion to excel in promoting the interest of the Re- 
 deemer's kingdom, and in manifesting the spirit of the 
 gospel. Let it be admitted that he knows most oJ'God, 
 who walks nearest to him. 
 
 THE END. 
 
•*tt»r»;J 
 
 
 ..*■«»■ . d> 
 
•"*■