% sit ^ "^iSl^: ^ • .* so - ■> /^--X ** .-safe* / fc * ^ : jH^» : ^°<* ***liK ; * ^ -.11 ^ ^ & *+ • * ^ EXPOSITORY LECTURES ON THE PRINCIPAL PASSAGES OF THE SCRIPTURES WHICH RELATE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. Br GEORGE W. BURNAP, PASTOR OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF BALTIMORE. BOSTON : JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY. 1845. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by James Munroe and Company, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. BOSTON: PRINTED BY THURSTON, TORRY, AND CO., 31 Devonshire Street. PREFACE. The object of the publication of the following lectures, is to give to individuals and families the means of explain- ing those passages of the Scriptures, which are most often quoted, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Such a book I believe to be wanted. There is no passage in the Bible, which expresses, or directly teaches this doctrine. This is explicitly acknowledged by the Catholic Church, the most numerous, and perhaps the most learned branch of the Church Universal. The most intelligent Catholics put it, with several other doctrines of their Church, on the ground of tradition. The Protestants, who have de- rived this tradition from the Catholics, and whose princi- ples forbid them to receive any thing upon the authority of tradition, have attempted to sustain it from the Scrip- tures. They do not say that there is any passage which expressly asserts it, but that there are many, from which it is legitimately inferred. It is the purpose of these lectures, to take up these passages, one by one, and show that this inference is not legitimate, that no such doctrine is taught in them, even by implication, that their true import has been mistaken. IV PREFACE. It is always objected to Unitarians, that they sustain their doctrines on the ground of reason alone. This cer- tainly amounts to the admission, that their doctrines are more consistent with reason than those to which they are opposed. This, to say the least, is a presumption in their favor. It is the object of these lectures to show that they have both reason and Scripture on their side. By the admission of all, the current language of the Bible teaches the strictest unity of God. Taking out a few passages, there is nothing else taught. So much is the Trinity a matter of inference, even from them, that it is said, and I believe justly, that there is not one of them, which has not been given up, as proving nothing to the point, by some one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine. Those texts admit, then, in the judgments of Trinitarians themselves, of another exposition, perfectly consistent with the Unitarian faith. It is the object of these lectures to show that this exposition is the true one, not by putting any forced construction upon language, but by taking into view all those considerations which go to show what the writer meant. As it happens, almost all those passages, which are quoted to prove the Trinity, have something in them which destroys the argument which is attempted to be drawn from them. The Unitarian perceives that it is not satisfactory, especially against the testimony of the great body of the Scriptures, but he is unable definitely to point out and develope the objection. He knows better what PREFACE. the text does not mean, than what it does. His general convictions are not shaken. The most that can ba said is, that his ignorance of sacred criticism makes certain texts perplexing, which, if he understood the whole sub- ject, would be perfectly plain. It is the purpose of these lectures to remove this perplexity, to point out those circumstances, in the texts alleged, which show not only that they do not teach the Trinity, but do teach some- thing else, perfectly consistent with the divine Unity. The reader will find in this book some repetition, ob- noxious perhaps to literary criticism. The same texts are repeated in different connexions. This could not have been avoided, without sacrificing fulness and strength of argument to literary symmetry. The same texts are found to have an important bearing on different points of the general argument. The concluding lecture was originally one of the course, but it introduces a subject somewhat foreign to the main purpose of the book, — the primitive organization of the church. It is printed in the course, on account of the illustration it contains of the meaning of the forms of baptism, and its relation to a subject at this moment deeply interesting to the public mind. BaltimorEj Oct. 1844. ERRATA. Page 18, line 12, for any thing- read every thing 1 . 19, M 2, for classes read clauses. 22, " 12, for possess read possesses. 63, " 30, for persons read person. 66, " 8, for just as Wisdom is &c. read just as Word is &c. 110, " 27, for that is God, read that is, God. 126, " 3, for churches read church. 168, " 8, for communion read commission. 172, " 9, for the doctrine of the second Person read the doctrine of the incarnation of the second Person. " " 25, for truths read truth. 176, " 5, for or read and. 233, " 20, for spirit-revealing- truth read spirit revealing truth. 258, " 25, for abased for read absolved from. 261, " 14, for and rams read of rams. 266, " 15, for man read cross. 292, " 15, for Mosaic ceremony read Mosaic economy. 295, " 25, for then read there. 305, " 15, for that the Christ read that Christ. " "26, for as well to the &c. read as well as to the &c. 309, " 1, for denned read deified. CONTENTS LECTURE I. INTRODUCTORY. Page. Necessity of doctrinal discussion 2 Religion a subject to be understood 6 The Scriptures explicit upon the Unity of God .... 9 Trinitarian worship impossible 12 Form of benediction 13 Form of baptism 17 LECTURE II. TRINITY AND UNITY. Statement of the question 24 Texts relating to the subject almost all Unitarian ... 23 The exclamation of Thomas 31 Exposition of Romans, ninth chapter 32 The indwelling of the Father in Christ 33 Worship of Christ 41 LECTURE III. FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. Dr. Doddridge's exposition 45 Objections to it 5A Christ being before John the Baptist explained ... 56 John's Gospel illustrated by his Epistles 60 The Word a personification 64 God's attributes personified in the Old Testament . . . .66 Vlll CONTENTS. LECTURE IV. PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Jews have always been Unitarians 70 The doctrine of Moses on this subject 73 Epithets, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, &c. ... 75 Immanuel 80 The " messenger " spoken of by Malachi . . - ■ . . . 86 The " shepherd " spoken of by Zechariah . . . . . 92 LECTURE V. FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. Trinitarian exposition . .95 Insuperable difficulties of it 98 True exposition ] 00 Corroborated by the remainder of the Epistle . . . . 109 God speaking on Sinai and Sion . 113 Divine appearances in the Old Testament . . . . 115 LECTURE VI. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Not generally understood 119 General View of it . 120 The first sentence overthrows the Trinity 130 So do the Messages of the Church 132 In what sense Christ is worshipped 136 The Angel sent by God and Jesus 139 LECTURE VII. INCARNATION. The Doctrine of the Trinity depends upon it 145 Examined by Facts 147 Indwelling of the Godhead 148 Christ in the form of God 151 In what sense Christ became poor .154 God manifested in the flesh 155 In what sense Christ came down from Heaven . . . .161 CONTENTS. IX LECTURE VIII. GOD AND CHRIST. Their relations to each other 174 The Mediatorship of Christ 176 The Father the one and only God .180 One God and one Lord 181 The forms of benediction 184 Christ the sent of God 188 Christ at the right hand of God . . . . . .194 LECTURE IX. THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. The two natures a supposition 193 Proofs that Christ was a man 201 Difficulties of the two natures ....... 204 Jesus the Son of God 206 What is meant by Christ's coming down from Heaven . . . 208 Jesus the Judge of the World 213 All things given to Christ 218 LECTURE X. THE HOLT SPIRIT. Its personality and Deity antecedently improbable . . . 226 Its personification by Christ ....... 330 His own interpretation of his language ...... 333 The Holy Spirit the essence of God . . . . . . 341 The relations of Jesus to the Holy Spirit 343 Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost 343 LECTURE XI. THE ATONEMENT. In what Unitarians and Trinitarians agree 253 Atonement has nothing to do with Christ's nature . . . 255 The nature of sacrifices 263 The resemblance of Christ's death to a sacrifice . . . 267 No atonement without repentance 269 To reform men was the purpose of Christ's death . . . 270 X CONTENTS. LECTURE XII. SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. The nature of saving faith in Christ 272 It is to believe in Christ's mission, not his Deity . . . 276 What it is to believe in Jesus the Son of God .... 230 What is proved by Christ's resurrection ..... 282 What it is to believe in Christ as Mediator 286 LECTURE XIII. ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. The greatness of Christ 289 The Mosaic Theocracy 292 Origin of the Messianic language 294 In what sense Jesus adopted it 298 Misinterpreted by the converts from Paganism .... 303 Gradual formation of the doctrine of the Trinity . . . 306 LECTURE XIV. BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. In what consisted the unity of the Church 311 The meaning of the forms of Baptism 316 Different officers in different churches 319 The Christian Church copied the Synagogue .... 322 Groundless pretensions of Episcopacy 326 Origin of the Papacy 330 W r hat unity of the Church is possible .... 332 EXPOSITORY LECTURES. EXPOSITORY LECTURES. LECTURE I. INTRODUCTORY. 1 PETER, III. 15. BE READY ALWAYS TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO EVERY ONE THAT ASKETH YOU A REASON OF THE HOPE THAT IS IN YOU, WITH MEEKNESS AND FEAR. It is now nine years since I gave a course of doc- trinal lectures in this church. It is my present purpose to give another of a similar kind, though on a some- what different plan. I do it from no love of contro- versy, nor because I am fond of bringing forward our peculiar views of Christian doctrine. If circumstances were different, I should forbear to do so. If our pecu- liar views were generally known and understood, — if they were fairly represented even, there would not be the same necessity. But as it is, they are both mis- conceived and misrepresented. There is scarcely a pulpit in the land, where the sentiments we cherish are not denounced and condemned, and that to people who have no means of knowing them, except these 1 & INTRODUCTORY. unfair and denunciatory statements. While this is the case, I hold it to be our duty, from time to time, pub- licly to state and defend our doctrines, to discuss can- didly, fairly, and fully the questions, which have been raised between us and other denominations of Chris- tians. We can conceive of no rational objection to this. We should imagine that all fair-minded men, who have often heard us censured, would gladly em- brace the opportunity of hearing our defence, that by knowing the arguments on both sides, they might have the means of making up their own judgments. Any unwillingness to do this, must arise either from a dis- trust of what they have already embraced as truth, or from the claim of infallibility. If a man feels a fear lest his opinions may be shaken, what is this but a confes- sion that he already suspects that they are unsound ? He is already a doubtef. Does he feel confident of his infallibility ? Who can claim infallibility in this imperfect state ? Who has so much light on any sub- ject, that he can receive no more ? " Prove all things," says the Apostle. " Hold fast that which is good." Periodical discussion of the great questions of relig- ion is needed by the rising generation. No one who has not carefully noted the quick succession of the periods of human life, has any idea of the rapidity with which an entire new race comes forward upon the stage. The whole generation now under nine years of age, were of course unborn when I delivered the last course of doctrinal lectures in this church. Those under that age, were too young to take any interest in INTRODUCTORY. the subject. As I do not make a practice of intro- ducing controverted subjects into the ordinary teachings of the sanctuary, all under eighteen years of age are at this moment destitute of any systematic instruction in the principles of their faith. Where shall they go to have them explained ? All books, all literature, is per- vaded by opposite sentiments and opinions. All preaching is diametrically opposed to it. All conver- sation, except in some limited circles, takes for granted that their principles are erroneous, dangerous, fatal. There is then no other way than for the religious teacher to indoctrinate the young as they come for- ward into life, to explain to them the Scriptures, and show them, that the doctrines in which they have been educated, are not the dogmas of authority, but the true meaning of the sacred word of God.^ Such a course, I believe, contributes greatly to the comfort and happiness of those who are taught, of all ages. Nothing is more painful than ignorance and doubt. A mind that is continually fluctuating in un- certainties, can never be satisfied, can never be at peace. It is just so in any worldly pursuit. The merchant, who goes into business without any regular training, immediately falls into the greatest and most painful perplexities. Emergencies undoubtedly occur, in which he does not know how to act. He is misera- ble and perplexed, and perhaps decides wrong at last. There are certain great and general principles which pervade the whole profession, and if he is ignorant of these, he cannot be otherwise than unhappy and un- successful. Just so with the mechanic. He must INTRODUCTORY. know the principles of his profession, or his whole enterprise will end in defeat. And is the great calling of the Christian life, less important than any earthly pursuit ? Here is the Bible, which contains between its two covers the whole science and the whole practice of religion, the highest object and end of man. And can any man be indifferent whether he understands it or not ? Can any man choose to wander on in doubt and uncertainty, when he has the means at hand of satisfy- ing himself ? I invite all then, but especially the young, to follow me in my proposed investigations, if from no higher motive, as an intellectual discipline. It is a great gain to learn to think and to reason conclu- sively. It is a great achievement of the human mind, to gain a clear understanding of one single subject. It lays the foundation for satisfactory investigation into every other. And what nobler subject can be pre- sented to the mind, than theology, that science in which centres, and from w 7 hich radiates, every other, — the investigation of the Great First Cause ? What are all sciences when compared with a knowledge of that Infinite Intellect, from which emanated all sciences ? The mind of man has been the subject of philosophical and most interesting inquiry from time immemorial. But what is it in comparison with the Eternal Mind ! The mechanism of the universe has attracted the curi- osity of thinking men in every age. But how much more exalted the knowledge of the Infinite Architect ! History attracts the attention of all men. But how much more worthy of study the Providence of Him who is more ancient than all history, and of whose dealings INTRODUCTORY. O with men, history itself is but a scanty and imperfect record ! Moral philosophy has ever been considered a refined and an ennobling pursuit. But the very facul- ties in man, which make him a subject of moral study, can come from no other source, than the same attri- butes as they exist in God, in whose image man was made. Society, life, is an entertaining study. We love to hear the causes of individual happiness or misery, success or defeat. Yet at the very moment we are gaining the deepest insight into human affairs, we are only tracing the footsteps of a present Deity. The study of religion then, merely as a study, is the most interesting that ever engaged the mind of man. I invite, therefore, all inquisitive minds to follow me in the succeeding discussion. They will certainly gain some knowledge of a subject which will ever engage the attention of man, while the world stands ; will be a subject of conversation, wherever men think, and reason, and hold communion one with another. But I fancy, I hear some one object that religion is a mysterious subject, which cannot be understood, and, moreover, was never intended to be understood. It is therefore to be taken upon authority, without exam- ination. Let us examine this objection more closely. Religion, the objector acknowledges, has been made the subject of a revelation. But if it cannot be un- derstood, now it is revealed, then one of two things follows, either that God undertook to do a thing, which cannot be done, or that he did it in such a way as not to answer his purpose. What is an unintelligible rev- elation, but a thing made known and not made known 1* D INTRODUCTORY. at the same time ? You wish to reveal a secret to a friend, and you write to him in a language that he does not understand. Is that any revelation ? Will your friend know anything more about your secret than he did before ? So if your secret is of such a nature, that it cannot be communicated, do you not trifle with your friend, if you make the attempt, if you puzzle and confound him by reference to things, which he knows nothing about, and by language which he cannot com- prehend ? Every thing that God has revealed, must be intelligible and consistent. Every sentence in the Bible, therefore, has a meaning, and a meaning which is intelligible and consistent. The excuse then that religion is unintelligible has no force, and ought to keep no one back from a diligent study of the Bible. Our Saviour said in his last prayer with his disciples : u And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." In another place, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Now can these two representations be true, and yet the knowledge of God and of Christ be such an unintelligible mystery ? Babes can know God and Christ, or those of the weakest understanding, and yet it is an unintelligible mystery ! To my mind it seems much more probable, that mankind have put mysteries into the Bible, and then complained that the Bible is so mysterious, that it cannot be understood. Another perhaps may say, that he does not feel in- terest enough in the subject to prompt him to investi- gate it carefully ; that he deems it all-sufficient to have INTRODUCTORY. a general idea of the doctrines of the Bible ; but to become acquainted with the peculiarities of contending sects, is a matter curious rather than useful. What a confession is this to make concerning the most impor- tant and interesting of all subjects ! No man can be serious in making such an objection. And why are you not interested ? Where have been your mind and thoughts, while you have listended to the thousands of sermons you have heard ? What has occupied the hun- dreds of sabbaths, whose leisure you have enjoyed ? For what purpose have you enjoyed those sabbaths and listened to those discourses, if it was not to become acquainted with all things pertaining to religion ? Books are multiplied with such facility, that they can be pro- cured by all. Why then have you not studied them ? I am willing to allow that the manner in which these things have been presented, has not promoted activity of mind, or thorough understanding. Nothing is more irksome and discouraging, I confess, than to listen to a discourse, which does not contain clear ideas. Noth- ing is calculated to produce greater vexation and disap- pointment, than to hear a subject pursued to a certain point, and then the discussion broken off, under the plea, that it is a mystery, and cannot be understood. And where is mystery to begin, and where is it to end? There is no ignorance and no negligence, which this plea may not be made to cover up. The inquirer may stop anywhere he pleases, and say that the rest is a mystery. J^ay, more, there is no doctrine that may not be introduced into Christianity under cover of mystery. It might be said that Jesus Christ, in the 8 INTRODUCTORY. last supper, gave his disciples his own flesh and blood to eat and drink. In vain might it be urged against this assertion, that there was his own flesh and blood undiminished and unimpaired, and therefore it was im- possible in the nature of things, that the bread and wine could be his body and blood, and bread and wine at the same time. It might be answered, that it is so stated in the Bible, and how it could be so, is a mys- tery. If this plea is allowed, then there is no doctrine, which, by taking the literal sense of the Bible, cannot be introduced into religion. It might be asserted that Christ was literally a vine, a door, and a fountain, and that he was a shepherd, and kept sheep. Besides all this, the representation of religion as mysterious, produces the worst effects upon the intel- lectual character of those who are taught. It produces indolence, inattention, and despair of ever arriving at any clear conception of the subject. The mind, after listening awhile to such discussions, after grasping in vain for clear and consistent ideas, at length becomes fatigued and disgusted, and turns its meditation on some other subject, more plain and familiar, but foreign to the day and to the occasion ; just as a man will turn from a dark street, where he stumbles every step, into one that is clear and well lighted. But it is said, perhaps, that the Trinity and its kin- dred doctrines, are not practical subjects of discourse. It is a matter of mere speculation. A man may be as good a man, and as good a Christian, who believes in a tripersonal God, as if he believed in a God in one person. I answer, that it is not for me to say, what INTRODUCTORY. VJ truths are, and what are not, important ; or how im- portant any particular truth may be. That can be known only to God, who discerns the relation of all truth. It is enough for me to know that anything is true. I must embrace it on my allegiance to God. I must maintain it. It is a noble instinct of my nature to do so. It is an instinct equally noble and generous, for me to desire to impart the truth which I possess to others. But, if I may judge by the Scriptures, the unity of God is not only a truth, but an important truth. Jesus Christ has told us, that " the first of all the command- ments is, Hear, O Israel ! Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." Moses represents God as saying, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It becomes us, I think, carefully to inquire into the meaning of the word u rae" in this commandment. u Me " is a per- sonal pronoun, in the singular number. Does it mean three persons in this case, and if so, why is it used instead of " us " ? If it mean one of three persons, which of the three persons does it mean ? In the former case, is the declaration u Jehovah is one," to be taken strictly of one mind, one intelligence, such as we are conscious of possessing in ourselves, or does it mean some other sort of unity, which is consistent with a tripersonal nature ? It seems to me most impor- tant to settle this point, as both Christ and Moses make it the foundation stone of religious faith. But not only is the Unity of God important, as the theoretic basis of religious truth, but in its practical bearings. Our Saviour has taught us to pray, saying, 10 INTRODUCTORY. u Give us this day our daily bread," thereby intimating that we must pray daily. If we adopt the hypothesis of a tripersonal God, then a difficulty will be presented every day of our lives, how we are to pray. There are not only great intellectual perplexities presented in admitting into the mind the conception of a Being who is three and yet one, but the difficulties are but begun. As soon as you admit three Persons, each equally God, an important duty follows. Three persons are not only to be believed in, but worshipped, and wor- shipped equally, the one as much as the other. If you address them all as one God, without distinction of person, then all idea of a Trinity is lost, and becomes a dead letter. It is retained in the creed, and neglected in the prayer. The word, God, conveys to most minds the idea, not only of one Being, but one Person, as is proved by the singular personal pronouns, thee and thou, which always accompany it. Can any con- scientious man satisfy his own mind in the practical neglect of so important a truth, and believe in three Persons, and pray only to one ? The fact is, that to frame a prayer consistent with his creed, the Trinitarian must invent a new language, the words of which must have the power of expressing unity and plurality at the same time. Now, unfortu- nately, there is only one word in our language by which this can be done, and that word is Trinity ; a word, not of Scriptural origin, nor invented for many ages after the Scriptures were written. And then there are no other words in the language to correspond to this. All other words must address either one or many. And INTRODUCTORY. 1 1 the difficulty is not verbal merely, but intellectual. You cannot in thought worship a Being who is three and yet one. While you think of the Unity, you must lose sight of the Trinity ; and when you think of the Trinity, you must lose sight of the Unity. The fact is, that a majority of Trinitarians do not attempt to pray according to their creed. Their prayers are essentially Unitarian. They address only one of the three persons, and that is the first, and make the term Father synonymous and coextensive with the word God. If they did pray according to their creed, the Lord's prayer itself would have to be altered. If that hypothesis be true, it is at present exceedingly deficient. They ought to take their pens and strike out of it, u Our Father who art in heaven," and insert, u Most holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three per- sons in one God," and then there w 7 ould be a difficulty whether to place the verb following in the singular or plural number, to agree with " Trinity," or u three Persons." Besides, worship is founded on certain relations of the person worshipping to the person worshipped. We worship God because He is our Creator. He is the Former of our bodies, and the Father of our spirits. Is creation a joint work of the three Persons ? Then we have three Creators, and we ought to worship three Creators. Is it the work of one of the Persons ? Then we ought to worship that one as our Creator. But if so, then the worship and glory of the other two must be, to the same extent, diminished and impaired. Does the Trinitarian worshipper regard himself as being 12 INTRODUCTORY. looked upon by three omniscient Persons ? Does he carry this conception in his mind when he worships ? If not, he is a Trinitarian in words, but not a Trinita- rian in fact. If he conceives of one of the Persons as appropriating to himself any one of the functions of Deity, then the Divine honors of the others are just so far impaired. If a man really cherishes this belief, must not these practical difficulties be a great trouble to his conscience, and make him very anxious in the exact distribution of the homage due to the Divine Being, among the three persons of which he is composed ? And if he finds it impossible to make these distinctions, let him confess, what is the fact, that he is a Unitarian in reality, though a Trinitarian in words ; that his usual con- ception of God is of one Person, one Mind, one Spirit, "the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen or can see, to whom be glory everlasting ; Amen and Amen." But not only is a tripersonal God embarrassing as an object of prayer, but equally embarrassing when made an object of thought. The consequence of this hy- pothesis is, that the idea of God, under the Trinitarian conception, is the most vague and shifting idea that can be presented to the human mind. It may be answered, that the idea of God itself is obscure. It is, but simply because it transcends human thought by its vastness, not because it is made so by intrinsic incon- sistencies and contradictions. Our knowledge of the human mind is imperfect ; but we are not troubled with any difficulties as to its unity. We have the clearest INTRODUCTORY. 13 conception of its possessing one consciousness and one will. The very faculties which enable us to conceive of God at all, lead us to conceive of Him as possess- ing one consciousness and one will, as being, therefore, one Designer and one Agent. We cannot, even in thought, distribute this consciousness and this will among three Personalities, all existing at the same time. It is equally impossible for us to conceive of a Person without these inherent elements of personality, con- sciousness and will. There is no way then, in which we can conceive of God, under the Trinitarian view of him, without identifying him with one of the three Per- sons, and we cannot think of Him as being and doing what God ought to be and do, without tacitly consid- ering the other two Persons as quiescent, and, in fact, sinking them into nonentities. But in consequence of these vague ideas of the Divine Unity, passages of the Scriptures are alleged as proving the tripersonality of God, which not only have no such meaning, but, when carefully examined, are found to be altogether subversive of it. No text of the New Testament has been more frequently cited, perhaps, in proof of the Trinity, than the last verse of Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a ben- ediction. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the participation of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here, it is said, are*the three Persons of the Trinity, brought together, made equal, and more than this, made the objects of worship. But all appearance of intimating such a doctrine, is in- stantly dissipated by a consideration, which seems to 2 14 INTRODUCTORY. have been strangely overlooked. The second Person of this Trinity is God, the whole Deity, without any distinction of persons. " The love of God." God, the whole Deity, cannot be a Person of the Trinity. Had the expression been " the love of the Father," then there would have been something like a reason for considering this text as an argument for the Trinity. The Trinity here expressed, is not a Trinity in God, for God is here one of the three Persons. It is true, there are here three subjects of discourse, God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Only one of these is God, by the very terms of the expres- sion, u the love of God." So far then from support- ing the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage contains a strong argument against it. Divinity is by implication denied to Christ, for he is spoken of in connexion with God, but as distinct from him. u The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God." There is no intimation that these two persons are one being, or that they are both God, or constitute one God. One is God, in the most unlimited sense, comprehending the three persons, if the word God ever can be sup- posed to do so. The other is the Lord Jesus Christ, connected with God by the particle and, proving, if anything can prove, that the Lord Jesus Christ is out of the Deity, and not in it. In t\i9 last clause, the word " fellowship " serves to mystify this passage. In common language, this word is nearly synonymous with the word " companionship," and would seem to intimate that the Apostle wished the early Christians the companionship of the Holy INTRODUCTORY. 15 Spirit. But the English word, which comes nearest to it, is ''participation." We have fellowship with a person, but participation in a thing. It is only by a figure of speech, that we can participate in a person. We participate in a thing without a figure. The mean- ing, therefore, evidently is, " May you be partakers of the Holy Spirit." The phrase " the Holy Spirit," so far from indica- ting a person, is in the original in the neuter gender, sig- nifying that it is not a person, but a thing. There are doubts then, suggested by the very language, not only whether the Holy Spirit be a Person of the Trinity, but whether it be a person at all. Those doubts are much strengthened, when we compare such parallel passages as these: u Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." The same wri- ter expresses the same meaning in another place ; u I send the promise of my Father upon you, — ye shall be endued with power from on high." To be baptized with a person, hardly makes sense. Besides, what is called " the Holy Ghost," in one passage, is evidently called u power from on high " in the other. Power from on high is evidently not a person. There is another passage, of a similar import, near the beginning of the Gospel according to Luke. 6C The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Here is evidently a Hebraism, the repetition of the same meaning in two different forms of words. u The power of the High- est " is only another phrase for " the Spirit of God," or " the Holy Ghost." There is another passage of 16 INTRODUCTORY. a like construction in the Acts ; " How God anoint- ed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power." The Holy Ghost is here evidently synonymous with miraculous power. If there were any doubt upon that subject, it would be removed by com- paring these words of Peter with another passage from the same speaker, when the same thing is the subject of discourse. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and signs, and wonders, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves do know. " What in the one case is called the u Holy Ghost " and " power," is in the other called u miracles, and won- ders, and signs." How far this is the representation of a person, I leave every one to judge for him- self. Whether the personality of the Spirit is sustained by the general language of the Scriptures, may be learned from such texts as these. "I will pour out of my Spirit." " Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed fort h this, which ye now see and hear." u They of the circumcision were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured out the Holy Ghost." These quotations, from different parts of the New Testament, will aid us in determining whether the y participation of the Holy Ghost," which the Apostle wishes that Christians may enjoy, is companionship with a person, or the participation in a thing. And if this latter view of things be correct, the Trinity spoken of in the Apostolic benediction, is not a Trinity of INTRODUCTORY. 17 persons even ; one of the three subjects of discourse is a thing, and not a person. Such an analysis of this proof- text is sufficient to show us how exceeding vague men's ideas of the Divine Unity have become, under the influence of the Trinitarian system, and how prone men have become to offer and accept as demonstration, that which, when examined, turns out to be no argument at all. Another striking instance of the tendency of the hu- man mind, under the influence of theological systems, to draw broad conclusions from narrow premises, is the fact that so much has been made of the form of bap- tism in the Trinitarian controversy, " Baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This form will be more particularly analyzed in the last lecture of the course. Here I notice it merely to point out the fallacy of the argument that is usually raised upon it. It is affirmed that each of these is a person, and each must be God, because Christians were baptized into the name of each. But let the advocate of the Trinity turn to the eighth chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and he will find that his argument proves too much, and will make Moses to be God, or a person of the Godhead. The same Apos- tle elsewhere says : 4C For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." This undoubtedly means Christian baptism. But does it prove that Christ was God, or a Person in God ? Let us examine. The same writer says of the Israelites, that they " were all baptized unto (literally into) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." If the baptism of Chris- 2* 18 INTRODUCTORY. tians into Christ, proves him to be God, then the bap- tism of the Israelites into Moses, proves him to be God. And if it does not in the case of Moses, neither does it in the case of Christ. I go further, and say, that people might be baptized into things, as well as persons, and so the form of baptism will not even prove the Holy Ghost to be a person. Paul says, u Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." John the Baptist says, 4C I indeed baptize you with water unto (literally into) repentance." If anything into which men were baptized, were a per- son, then death and repentance are persons. And if men were baptized into things, as well as persons, then the occurrence of the phrase u Holy Ghost," in the form of baptism, does not prove it to have been a person. The argument, therefore, which is derived from the form of baptism, to prove both the Deity of Christ, and the personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost, falls to the ground. I have here adverted to the form of baptism, chiefly for the purpose of noticing the most unwarrantable inferences which have been drawn from it. Three articles of a creed, as I shall hereafter show, are transformed into three Persons of a Trinity. This inference has been expressed in a set form of devotion, and thousands and tens of thousands are made to pray every Sunday to three objects of worship, in a form totally unauthorized by the Scriptures ; " O God the Father, have mercy upon us ; O God the Son, have mercy upon us ; O God the Holy Ghost, have mercy INTRODUCTORY. 19 upon us." Perhaps not one in a hundred is aware, that the second and third classes of this form, are altogether un- scriptural. There is nothing like them to be found, either in the Old or New Testament. They are nothing but uncertain inferences, exalted into positive dogmas, and incorporated into the most solemn worship. There is no such phrase in the Bible, as u God the Son," or M God the Holy Ghost." The nearest approach there is to "God the Son" is " the Son of God." Now there is not only a difference between " God the Son" and " the Son of God," but an infinite difference. il God the Son " must be God, but the Son of God cannot be God. Neither can " the Son of God" be a Person of the Trinity. God, when the word stands by itself, even according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, stands for the whole Trinity. The Son of God then, must be the Son of the whole Trinity. The Son of the whole Trinity cannot be a Person in the Trinity. Besides, no derived being can be God, and the word " Son," so far as it expresses any thing, expresses the idea, that the person, to whom it is applied, is a derived being, and of course cannot possess underived, independent and eternal existence. The very phrase then, " God the Son," is not only unscrip- tural, but a self-contradiction in its very structure. And yet Christians are heard to repeat this phraseology Sunday after Sunday, without reflecting either upon its origin or its import. The true meaning of the epithet, " Son of God," when applied to Jesus, may be learned from many parts of the New Testament. It was merely an equivalent 20 INTRODUCTORY. expression to " Messiah," or u Christ." This is shown conclusively by comparing two parallel passages in John's first Epistle. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God j God dwelleth in him, and he in God." According to these two texts, to believe that Jesus is " the Christ," is the same thing as to confess that he is u the Son of God." To be baptized into the name of u the Son," does not mean then, being baptized into a profession of belief in Jesus as a Person of the Trinity, or as u God the Son," but simply into a profession of belief in him as u the Christ," or u Messiah." The plan of the course of lectures in which I shall endeavour to engage your attention this winter, is purely expository and practical. I wish to engage you all in the study of the Bible. I wish to lead each one to investigate for himself, that his opinions may be no longer founded on the authority of any man, but on personal examination ; that, in the language of the Apostle, " we may be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine." And the only way to study the Bible, is to bring together all the texts which relate to any subject, and compare them with each other. Unless we do this, we are liable to deduce from detached passages the most erroneous conclusions. The meaning of one text must be allowed to modify the meaning of another ; the great majority are to be taken as the rule, a small minority as the exception. That which is plain, must INTRODUCTORY. 21 be suffered to throw light on that which is obscure, that which is literal, permitted to interpret that which is figurative. If the opposite course is adopted, if a small minority is taken as the rule, and the great majority made the exception, if what is dark is to give a meaning to what is plain, and make that dark too, if the figurative is to be made to interpret the literal, then the Scriptures will become a mass of contradictions, a collection of riddles, and their authority can be sustained only under cover of the plea of mystery. I intend to go through the whole Bible, and explain all the principal texts which relate to the unity or plu- rality of the Divine Nature. I shall compare the texts which are thought to prove the Unity, with those which are considered to prove the Trinity, as to number and conclusiveness. I shall then take up the principal pas- sages, one by one, which are quoted to prove the Trinity. I shall examine critically the seventh and ninth chapters of Isaiah, the first chapter of John, the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the book of Revelation. The remaining lectures will be of a more miscellaneous character. In the pursuit of this investigation, it will be my sincere desire and endeavour to avoid giving pain to any one who may entertain different opinions from myself, or who shall be conducted to different conclusions from the same premises. Every man's sincere opinions are entitled to respect, and shall always receive respect at my hands. I merely ask all to review the grounds of their own opinions. If they are well founded, all I 22 INTRODUCTORY. can say will not shake them. If they are merely traditionary, it will give them the opportunity of verify- ing, by their own examination, what they have hitherto taken on trust. At any rate, it will increase their knowledge of the Bible, the great storehouse of divine truth. It will enable them better to understand a sub- ject deeply interesting to all. And I am not without my hopes of great practical good resulting from doctrinal discussion, for if I know my own heart, I had rather make one practical Chris- tian, than fifty skilful polemics. The wisest of us possess only an approximation to the truth. What we believe, we have embraced upon the best information we have possessed. We ought then, rather to be helped on to something better in future, than blamed for what we have believed in time past. And it is our duty always to keep our minds open to new accessions of truth, to discard, as far as possible, all prejudice, and never to be ashamed of being wiser to-day than we were yesterday. Ever be ready to listen to what any honest man has to say for his honest opinion, for no human mind has ever seen the whole of truth. It follows of course, that it exists in fragments among the various sects into which the church has been divided. Although you may not be convinced by what seems irresistible demonstration to another, you may be led to see that he has strong reasons for his faith, strong enough at least to rescue him from the imputation of want of integrity and want of sense. I know of no way in which the narrow sectarianism, which deforms and distracts the Christian Church, can INTRODUCTORY. 23 fcd broken up, except by a freer intercourse and com- munion among all who bear the Christian name. Let them listen candidly to each other, and if not brought to think alike, they will be brought to perceive that the points in which they differ, are of less importance than they imagined, while they kept aloof from each other. And above all, let them beware of the iniquity of con- demning unheard, any class of Christians, who take the Bible for their guide. LECTURE II. TRINITY AND UNITY. JOHN, XVII. 3. AND THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAST SENT. It will be the object of this lecture, to state the argument between the advocates of the Trinitarian and Unitarian faith. What are their doctrines, and by what arguments are they sustained ? What objections lie against them each, and how are those objections explained away ? The two parties agree in their definition of what God is. In the words of the West- minster Catechism, " God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." In the answer to the next question of the same Catechism, they both agree. Question. " Are there more gods than one ? " An- swer. " There is but One only, the living and the true God." In the answer to the next question, they are diametrically opposed. " How many persons are there in the Godhead ? " The Trinitarian answers, There are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, TRINITY AND UNITY. 25 the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This the Unitarian categorically denies. He affirms, that the Father is the only living and true God, that the Son is not God, and that the Holy Ghost is not a person. Here then the case is made up, and the question stated, and the evidence is to be produced on both sides, and all who hear or read, are the jury to decide which side is proved by the evidence. But before we proceed to the discussion, it is neces- sary that we should settle the meaning of the terms we are to use. What do we mean, when we say that God is One ? We mean, I conceive, the same thing that is meant, when the Scriptures say, " that God is a Spirit." All we can know of God, is through the analogy of the human spirit. We cannot imagine a single attribute in God, which we do not find in our- selves in some degree. We have the authority of the Scriptures for saying, that God created man in his own image. We find no Trinity of persons in man ; and if there is in God, then man is not created in the image of God. The attributes of a human spirit are, one undivided consciousness, carrying on one process of mental operations, and one will ; one thinking prin- ciple, and one agent. This is the only possible idea that we can form of God. What is the meaning of the word person ? It has two principal meanings. One is, a rational, intelligent agent. The other is, a character in which an agent acts. Under different char- acters the agent may continue identically the same. These are the only intelligible meanings of the word person. If we use the word in the first sense, the 3 26 TRINITY AND UNITY. proposition, " There are three Persons in the God- head," becomes contradictory. It will be this, There are three Persons in one Person. If we use it in the second, the phraseology is wrong. It ought not to be, There are three Persons in the Godhead, but God acts in three Persons, or three characters, which would not be inconsistent with his essential unity. The way then, in which this fallacy is covered over, is by a slight shifting of terms in the two propositions. God is changed in the second proposition into Godhead. Godhead can, in reality, mean nothing more nor less than God. But if the word God had been retained, the very proposition would have carried its own refuta- tion along with it, for it would have stood thus, There are three Persons in God. But the advocates of the Trinity declare, that they do not use the word Person in either of these senses. But in what sense they do use it, they do not define. If this be the case, then we are contending about a proposition, the meaning of which its very advocates themselves do not pretend to understand. It is impos- sible to refute a proposition which has no definite meaning. You may take it in all known meanings, and refute them all, and still they may say, that they do not take it in any of them, and refusing to define their meaning, still assert that the proposition is true. There are but two sources of evidence upon this subject, the works of God, and his word, the light of Nature and the light of Revelation. Does nature, the works of God, furnish any evidence that God sub- sists in three Persons ? Not one particle. There is TRINITY AND UNITY. 27 no more evidence that he subsists in three Persons, than in four, or forty. The whole universe bear marks of being the work of one designing mind, one first cause, one intellect, one will, one energy, in short, one Person, in the only sense in which the word person has any meaning when applied to the subject. Not the slightest traces can we find of the agency of more than one Person in the universe. From nature then, the proposition, " There are three Persons in the God- head," derives not the least particle of support. So far then as one source of evidence is concerned, it falls to the ground, and the opposite proposition is estab- lished, that God subsists in one Person, instead of three. We go then to the Scriptures, the second source of evidence, with a strong presumption in favor of the doctrine of the personal unity of God, and against that of there being three Persons in God, or God subsisting in three persons, arising from the fact, that the doctrine that God is one Person is intelligible, reasonable, and consistent, and is confirmed by the appearances of nature ; whereas a God in three Persons is unintelligible, unreasonable, inconsistent, and comes so near a con- tradiction, that many minds can see no difference be- tween them. When we come to the Bible, the state of the question is this. It is not pretended that it is any where expressly asserted that God subsists in three persons. On the other hand, it is expressly asserted that God is one ; not only that there is but one God, but that God is one. The way then, that the doctrine 28 TRINITY AND UNITY. of the Trinity is proved from the Scriptures is this. It is asserted, that three Persons are there spoken of, who possess divine attributes. The natural inference from this would be, that there are three Gods, or that God acts in three characters ; but another inference is drawn from it, different from either, that each of these Persons is God, the one God, and yet are different from each other. Now it is true, that God subsists either in one person, or in three persons. If the Scriptures assert both sides of this proposition, then the Scriptures contradict themselves, and it is impossi- ble to ascertain the truth from them. If the Scriptures are true, the advocates of one doctrine or the other misinterpret them. Here then are the texts on both sides, those which seem to teach a Trinity, and those which seem to teach the Unity. If the Trinity is true, then all those texts which seem to teach the Unity must be capable of being explained, so as to agree with it, for they are so many objections to it. If the Unity is true, then all those texts which seem to teach the Trinity, must be capable of an explanation consistent with the Unity. Then the question would be, supposing them both to be equally possible and probable in themselves, whether it is easier to explain those passages, which seem to teach a Trinity in consistence with those which teach the Unity, or to explain those which teach the Unity in consistence with those which teach the Trinity. And this seems to me to be a fair statement of the question. All the arguments in favor of one, are diffi- culties in the way of the other. It is a balance of opposite arguments and opposite difficulties. Every TRINITY AND UNITY. 29 text in the Old and New Testaments, in which God is spoken of without any distinction of Persons, or as one Person, is an argument for the Unitarian faith, and presents a difficulty to the Trinitarian, which must be explained away. A reason must be given, why God in that particular case, did not speak, or was not spoken of as three Persons, but did speak, or was spoken of, as one Person. In short, those passages of Scripture must be reasoned away. Of the thirteen hundred places in the New Testament alone, in which the word God appears, there is not one, which necessarily implies three Persons. In the Old Testament there are above two thousand places, in which the word God appears, without any intimation of a distinction of Persons. There are seventeen places in the New Testament, in which the Father is called the one, or the only God. Now all these, more than two thousand passages, the Trinitarian must explain, that is, show by reasoning, how each individual case is consistent with the suppo- sition of a Trinity of Persons in God. The Unitarian is accused of explaining away Scripture ; but what are the few texts which he has to explain, when compared with two thousand ? I would begin then by saying, the very terms in which the Trinity is expressed, contain a refutation of the doctrine, u There are three Persons in the God- head, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The terms Father and Son, contradict the very hypoth- esis. So far as these terms express the relation between the two Persons, they assert that one is derived from the other. An eternal Son is a contradiction in terms, 3* 30 TRINITY AND UNITY. and the very definition given of God is, that he is eternal and unchangeable. The Son then, so far as the word Son expresses his attributes, cannot by any possibility be God. No derived or dependent being can be God. The question immediately occurs, Of whom is he the Son ? The Scriptural answer is, " The Son of God." The Son of God cannot be God, because he must be another, and be derived, and because the attributes, which are necessary to Deity cannot be communicated, eternity and self-subsistence. It is true, theologians have invented a hypothesis to cover up this difficulty, and said that the Son is derived by an eternal generation. But this is only substituting one difficulty for another. Eternal generation is just as much a contradiction, as eternal Son. Then as to the third Person, the Holy Ghost, the very phrase shows that it is not only not a Person of the Godhead, but not a person at all. Ghost is an obsolete word, meaning the same thing as spirit. Now the Holy Spirit is not a proper name ; it is the name of a thing. As such, it is in the neuter gender in English, and so it was in Greek, A thing is generally the property of some person. We ask, whose the Holy Spirit is ? And the Scriptural answer is, that it is the Spirit of God. And if it is the Spirit of God, it can no more be a person, separate from God, than the spirit of a man can be a person, separate from the man himself. And this agrees pre- cisely with the representation of Scripture. " For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man that is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God." TRINITY AND UNITY. 31 Of what elements is the Trinity made up, according to the very terms in which it is expressed, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? The first Person is God, the second the Son of God, and the third the Spirit of God. And what sort of a Trinity is this, made up of the Deity, a person derived from the Deity, and the spiritual essence of the Deity ? I here might close the discussion with a simple analysis of the terms of the proposition, laid down to be proved. But it will be proper, in order more fully to develope the subject, to go into it more at large, and explain those texts of Scripture, which are thought to justify such a concep- tion of God. I commence therefore the argumentative part of my discourse by saying, that not only is the doctrine of the Trinity not proved by those texts, which are alleged in its support, but is always invalidated by something in the text itself, or in immediate connexion with it. We will begin with the exclamation of Thomas to Jesus after his resurrection : " My Lord and my God." This is often alleged as an irresistible argu- ment in favor of the Trinity. But a glance is sufficient to show, that it has no bearing upon the subject. There is nothing said in it concerning a Trinity, or three Persons in the Godhead. If we suppose Thomas, in this case, to use the word God in its highest sense, it would only prove Thomas to have believed the person, who stood before him, to be the Jehovah of the Jews, but without the least intimation that Jehovah had in himself three persons or distinctions, but rather 32 TRINITY AND UNITY. the contrary, for he says, " My Lord and my God," both nouns in the singular number, and applicable to only one person instead of three. But to my mind, it seems more probable, that he did not regard the person who stood before him as the Supreme Jehovah, but used the word God in a lower sense, in the same sense in which it is used in the Old Testament, as a term of the highest reverence to per- sons of exalted character or station, to kings and magistrates, to Moses and to David. And the reasons which lead me to think so, are the very circumstances of the case. Thomas doubted — what? that Jesus had risen from the dead. And what was the proof which he demanded ? cc Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not be- lieve." Jesus gave him the evidence which he de- manded ; he felt his hands and his side. What he said then, w T as an exclamation of satisfaction on the point which he had disbelieved, — that he had risen. Was touching his wounds any evidence that he was the infinite Jehovah ? The infinite Jehovah risen from the dead ! Impossible. In three verses farther on, John, the historian of this interview, writes, " And these were written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ," or the Messiah, not Jehovah, but u the Son of God." There is another passage of nearly the same nature in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, ninth chapter, which I shall now consider. As given in our common ver- sion, it stands thus : u Whose are the fathers, and of TRINITY AND UNITY. 33 whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." This has been cited mil- lions of times as irrefragable proof of the Trinity. But let us examine it, and if I mistake not, we shall find it not only no argument for a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, but an insuperable objection to it. There is not a word in it intimating a Trinity, or any distinc- tion of the Godhead into three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a part of the scheme of Trini- tarianism, that this distinction existed in the Divine Nature, before the existence of the human nature of Christ. It is likewise a part of the same system, that only one of the three Persons, the Son, became incar- nate in the human nature of Christ. But this passage, if it proved any incarnation, would prove the incarna- tion of the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. " God over all," must mean the whole Deity, for neither of the Persons can be God over all, for he must be God over the other two, under the category of " all." This passage then, so far from being a proof of the Trinity, is utterly subversive of it, and proves, if it proves anything, that there is no such distinction in the Godhead, that God is one, one Person as well as one Being. But it is unnecessary to go into any such explanation, as the present sense depends altogether on the present punctuation, and the punctuation, as we have it, depended on the opinion of our translators, who were Trinitarians. In the most ancient copies of the Bible, there is no punctuation. There are no spaces between the words. The letters are what we call capital letters, and are written along after one another 34 TRINITY AND UNITY. as we write the alphabet, without division into words. Of course, punctuation is arbitrary. If therefore we put a period after Christ, the whole passage will read thus. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con- cerning the flesh, Christ came. He who is God over all, be blessed forever." I am aware that it has been said, that there are grammatical difficulties in the way of the rendering which I have given. But I am convinced, after the most mature examination, that there are greater difficul- ties in the construction which was given by king James's translators, in our common version. This I hope to be able to show to the satisfaction even of those who are unacquainted with the original. A simple sentence usually affirms or denies some- thing of a person or a thing. The person or thing spoken of, is in the language of logic, called the sub- ject. What is affirmed of the subject, is called the predicate. As for instance, " God is great." God, in this case, is the subject, and great the predicate. A sentence may have two predicates. In that case, it becomes a compound sentence. But the rules of grammar compel us to connect them by a particle, such as and, or, &c. God is great and good. If we leave out the connecting particle, w T e consolidate the two predicates into one. In other words, we cannot have two predicates without a connecting par- ticle. I go on to apply these principles to the case under consideration. u Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God, TRINITY AND UNITY. 35 blessed forever. Amen." If we make u who " relate to Christ, then we make God the predicate of the sen- tence, which commences after the word flesh, and then we have three predicates without any connecting word, namely, first, that Christ is over all, secondly, that he is God, and thirdly, that he is blessed forever. Now the rules of grammar do not permit us to arrange words in this way. Paul himself, with all his haste, did not jumble words together in this manner, mixing up ascriptions with simple affirmations. The difficulty is removed by making a full point at the word flesh, u of whom is Christ according to the flesh," and con- sidering the remainder as a perfect sentence. u God " then becomes the subject of this latter sentence, and " blessed " the predicate; and this pointing, to my mind, makes better grammar as well as theology, than the common reading, and it stands thus ; " Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh. He, who is God over all, be blessed for- ever." Some scholars have been embarrassed by commenc- ing a new sentence with the Greek phrase, 6 im>, he who, as a compound, instead of a relative pronoun. I can only say, that there is abundant authority for it in the New Testament. The second clause of the thirty- first verse of the third chapter of John's Gospel, begins in the same way. " He that is, ? w, of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth." The forty-seventh verse of the eighth chapter begins in the same way. " He that is, 6 m 9 of God, speaketh the words of God." A similar construction is found in the forty- 36 TRINITY AND UNITY. sixth verse of the sixth chapter. " Not that any one hath seen the Father, except it be he, who is, 6 av, with God ; he hath seen the Father." For these reasons, abstracted from all theological considerations, I should prefer the reading given above on the ground of grammatical construction alone. I know it has been objected likewise to the render- ing I have given above, that the change of subject is too sudden. The doxology, if directed to God, is too unpremeditated, and breaks the continuity of thought. But there is a passage in the same writer, in his first Epistle to Timothy, where the transition is quite as sudden and abrupt, and the doxology to God quite as unconnected with what had gone before. u This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them, which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." This, to my mind, bears a strong resemblance to the other, and is in the middle of an earnest discourse. Another passage, upon which great stress is laid, is found in the twentieth verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of John. In our common version it reads thus : " And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, TRINITY AND UNITY. 37 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." It is affirmed, that in this passage Christ is called the true God, by making the last clause of the sentence to refer to Jesus instead of God. But, as it happens, the passage, as it now stands, does not make sense. " We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ," is not sense. It would be making God and his Son Jesus Christ, one and iden- tical, the same person and the same being, which de- stroys the Trinity, as well as makes no sense ; for it is necessary to the Trinity to make the Father and the Son to be two persons, distinct, as persons, from each other. Besides, it makes the latter part of the sentence contradict the former. The former part of the sentence is : " The Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true ; " that is, that we may know God, — parallel to that passage in which Christ avers that he came that " men might know the Father as the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he had sent ; " and the consequence is, that we are in him that is true, that is, we believe in him that is true, or in the true God, and devote ourselves to him. As is said by Peter, in one of his Epistles, " Who by him do believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory." But the latter part of the sentence confounds the instrument, by which we are in God, with that God in whom we are, by his instrumentality. The whole inconsistency is removed by giving the passage its true translation. If you will look into your Bibles, you will find the particle " even " printed in italics, which means that it 4 38 TRINITY AND UNITY. is not in the original, but is supplied by the translators, to make out what they thought the sense. The Greek preposition, gy, rendered, in our version, in, has a great variety of significations. Among others, it often means through, indicating the instrument by which anything is done. For instance, "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils," literally, sv, in. " Such can come out only through prayer and fasting," literally, e v , in ; and a host of other examples might be given. Translating the second "«>," by through, as the indi- cation of the instrument, and leaving out the word even, which was arbitrarily put in, we have the meaning clear and consistent : u We are in him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ," that is, through his instrumen- tality ; which is precisely the fact, and corresponds with the former part of the sentence, as will appear when we put it all together : " We know that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life," referring, not to Jesus Christ, but to "him that is true," that is, God, in whom we are through Jesus Christ. There is another passage, of nearly the same nature, which has often been adduced to prove the Trinity, which, when examined, is found to look precisely in the opposite direction. It is found in Christ's conver- sation with Thomas, probably at the last supper. " Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life ; no man cometh unto the Father except by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my TRINITY AND UNITY. 39 Father also ; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.*' At first sight of this passage, the Trinita- rian would exclaim, perhaps, What more explicit asser- tion of our doctrine could we ask than this ? What words could Christ have chosen more decisive than these ? But, on a nearer examination, it is found not only not to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but to be inconsistent w 7 ith it. Taking the words in their literal import, they would assert that he was the Father himself, in his whole personality, and that he himself had no person- ality beside. Now is this consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which strenuously maintains that Jesus had a human nature, a human body, and a human soul ? Allowing that he had a human body and a human soul, then, if he who saw him saw the Father, it would follow that the Father became incarnate, which Trinita- rianism positively denies. The Son became incarnate, but not the Father. The Father, the first Person of the Trinity, sent the Son, who is the second Person. But here the Father came himself. This text, then, if taken literally, would prove too much, too much for the very doctrine which it is brought to substantiate. But, as he proceeds, he explains himself, and shows that it is not of a literal seeing God that he speaks, nor is it of a personal union with him. u 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; 40 TRINITY AND UNITY. the Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." If these words proved the incarnation of one of the Persons of the Trinity, it would prove that of the Father. The way then, in which God appears in Christ, according to this language, is, that God wrought his miracles, and gave him his doctrines. Those who saw his miracles and heard his doctrines, gained a clearer knowledge of God. There is no intermediate agency of any such person as is called the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. For he, possessing infinite attributes, would naturally have exerted them in per- forming the miracles of Jesus. If there were such a person in Christ, he was entirely quiescent, and is passed over in the profoundest silence. Neither can he be supposed to be included in the person repre- sented by the pronoun " me," in the sentence, u The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," for one Person of the Trinity, cannot be supposed to dwell in, and do the works of another. There is nothing left then, in this representation, but the Father and the human nature of Christ. That this indwelling does not constitute a personal identity, appears in the very lan- guage : " The Father that dwelleth in me." He who affirms that God dwells in him, denies, of course, that he is God. So that this passage, which is so often appealed to as proving the Trinity, when examined and analyzed, is found to be utterly inconsistent with it, and to teach, in fact, the simplest form of Unitari- anism. The connection between God and Christ, which is here pointed out, is the very one that Uni- tarians acknowledge. Through Christ, we believe, TRINITY AND UNITY. 41 God was manifested to the world in a more full and glorious manner than he is in any other way. But the idea, that he who fills immensity and inhabits eternity, became incarnate in a finite human being, seems to them to be in itself a most astonishing imagination, equally repugnant to the essential attributes of Jehovah, as to the express language of the Scriptures. And then, were there any such things as persons in God, the objections to incarnation would lie in equal force against either, and against all. But it is said, that the Apostles and early Christians worshipped Christ. If he was not God, then they were idolators. It is said, that Stephen worshipped him in his last moments. Our Bible tells us: u And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." I would first remark upon this passage, that the word God is not in the original, but was supplied by our Trinitarian translators, as you will perceive, on exam- ining your Bibles, that the word is printed in italics. It was honestly done, doubtless, for they thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught in other parts of the Scriptures, and therefore saw no harm in putting it in here. It is only necessary to go back a few verses, and read what Stephen saw in vision at that moment, to remove all apprehension that he worshipped Christ as God. u And he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, 4* 42 TRINITY AND UNITY. and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said : Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Now for one, I am unable to imagine that Stephen could have wor- shipped, as God, a person whom he so carefully dis- tinguishes from God, and whom he saw standing on the right hand of God. That he should have addressed him, and said what he did to him, is perfectly rational : u Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ; " for he saw him in a state of power and glory, and able therefore to wel- come his departing soul to heaven. Jesus himself had said : "In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and pre- pare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." But whatever power and glory he had, arose from the fact, not that he possessed them himself intrinsically, but that he stood on the right hand of God. He is recorded to have uttered the expression, u Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," before he knelt down. After this we read, "And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." There is nothing in these words to determine whether they were addressed to God or to Christ, as the term Lord is an appellation in the Scriptures applied to God, to Christ, and to inferior beings. Most probably it was addressed to God, and is similar to the prayer of Christ upon the cross : u Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." Or even if it were addressed to Christ, it TRINITY AND UNITY. 43 would be far from proving that Stephen worshipped him as God ; for he, with the Apostles, considered Jesus to have received power from God, after his ascension, sufficient to establish his religion, and punish his enemies. This instance of alleged worship to Christ, brings up a class of texts, which are said to show that the early Christians made a practice of worshipping Christ. As strong a case of it as there is, occurs in a vision of Ananias, at Damascus, at the time of Paul's conversion. "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name." It is maintained, that this means, u who are worshippers of thee." This would be an argument of some strength, if the expression, " to call on the name" of any one, were restricted to the meaning of worship. But this is not the case. It has likewise the meaning of pro- fessing a religion, of taking a name, &c. To see what is the force of this species of phraseology, I shall bring up several instances in which it occurs. James says, in his speech at the council at Jerusalem : " Simeon hath declared how God, at the first, did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name," to receive and profess the true religion. A few verses onward he says : " That the residue of men might seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called;" that is, who shall call them- selves, and be called my people ; who shall profess 44 TRINITY AND UNITY. my religion. This last is a quotation from the Old Testament. There is in it another passage of similar import. "One shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." This, of course, refers to converts to the Jewish faith. They will take upon themselves the name of Jehovah, that is, profess the worship of the true God ; and take the name of Jacob, that is, call themselves Israelites. And this throws no little light on the forms of baptism in the New Testament. The Christians, on being con- verted from Paganism, took upon themselves the name of God, and of Christ, and called themselves Chris- tians. There is a passage in Paul's second Epistle to Tim- othy, which bears a strong resemblance to the one we are considering. " Let every one that nameth the name of Christy depart from iniquity ;" not every one who worshippeth Christ, but any one who professes to be a Christian. Another from the Epistle of James sustains the same view. " Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called ? " that is, the name of Christians. Still further, to learn what Ananias means, when he says, " And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name," let us con- sider, that worshipping Christ, is not the point in ques- tion, but it is professing Christianity. It was not their worshipping Christ, that made them obnoxious to Paul and the Jewish Sanhedrim, but their acknowledge TRINITY AND UNITY. 45 ing him as the Messiah. What the phrase really means, is further indicated by a slight change which the same writer makes in it, when he uses it a little afterward : " But all who heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them that called on this name in Jerusalem ?" Men do not worship names, they are called by them. Is it not evident, that the sense w 7 ould have been much better expressed by this form of words : u Is not this he, that destroyed them which are called by this name in Jerusalem ?" meaning those who profess this faith. I have thus, in this lecture, stated to you the antece- dent improbability of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the presumption there is in favor of the divine Unity. I have brought forward some of the strongest passages which are alleged to prove the Deity of Christ, and of course the Trinity ; and by analyzing them, attempted to show you, that they do not establish the doctrine, and have, in some cases, a bearing directly the oppo- site way. I have examined the proofs that the early Christians were in the habit of worshipping Christ, and found them unsatisfactory. In my judgment, there is nothing, in all the arguments we have examined, to shake the doctrine, that God is One in every sense, one Essence, one Spirit, one Intelligence, one Person, u the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." But let every one weigh the evidence for himself. LECTURE III. FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. JOHN, I. 1. IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. The method which I shall adopt, in explaining to you the passage of Scripture selected for this evening, will be this. As it is thought to be one of the main arguments for the Trinity, I shall first give it the Trinitarian expo- sition, and then state my reasons for not acquiescing in it. Then I shall give what I conceive to be the true meaning, and my reasons for adopting it. The main difference between the Unitarian and Trinitarian exposition of this passage is, that the Trinitarian con- siders the Word to be a person, the Unitarian a per- sonification, that is, the representation of a thing, as if it possessed personal attributes. In order to be entirely fair, I shall give the paraphrase of Dr. Doddridge, a Trinitarian commentator on the New Testament. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the beginning, be- fore the foundation of the world, or the first production of any created being, a glorious Person existed, who FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 47 (on account of the perfections of his nature, and his being in time the medium of divine manifestations to us), may be properly called the Word of God. And the Word was originally with God, the Father of all : so that to him the words of Solomon might justly be ap- plied : u He was by him, as one brought up with him, and was daily his delight." Nay, by a generation which none can declare, and a union which none can fully conceive, the Word was himself God ; that is, possessed of a nature truly and properly divine. " The same was in the beginning with God." I re- peat it again, that the condescension of his incarnation may be the more attentively considered, this divine Word was in the beginning with God, and by virtue of his most intimate union with him, was possessed of in- finite glory and felicity. " All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." And when it pleased God to begin the work of creation, all things in the compass of nature were made by him, even by this almighty Word, and without him was not anything made, not so much as one single being, whether among the noblest or the meanest of God's various works. "In him was life, and the life was the light of men." That fulness of power, wisdom, and benig- nity, which was in him, was the fountain of life to the whole creation : and it is in particular our concern to remember, that the life which was in him was the light of men, as all the light of reason and revelation was the effect of his energy on the mind. " And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness 48 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. comprehendeth it not." And the light long shone in the heathen world, and under the dispensation of Moses ; and it still shineth in darkness, even on the minds of the most ignorant and prejudiced part of man- kind ; and yet the darkness was so gross that it op- posed its passage, and such was the prevailing degen- eracy of their hearts, that they did not apprehend it, or regard its dictates, in such a manner as to secure the blessings to which it would have led them. " There was a man sent from God. whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." As this was the case for many ages, the Divine Wisdom was pleased to interpose in these latter days, by a clearer and fuller discovery ; and for this purpose, a man, whose name was John, afterwards called the Baptist, was sent as a messenger from God ; of whose miraculous conception and important ministry, a more particular account is also here given. But here, it may be sufficient to observe in general, that though he was himself, in an inferior sense, u a burning and a shining light," yet he came only under the char- acter of a servant, and for a witness, that he might testify concerning Christ, the true light, that all, who heard his discourses, might, by his means, be engaged to believe and follow that divine illumination. " He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." And accord- ingly, he most readily confessed, that he himself was not that light, but only came to bear witness concern- FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 49 ing it. The true light, of which he spake, was Christ, even that Sun of righteousness, and source of truth, which coming into the world, enlighteneth every man, dispersing his beams, as it were, from one end of the heavens to the other, to the Gentile, which was in midnight darkness, as well as to the Jew 7 s, who enjoyed but a kind of twilight. u He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own, and his own received him not." He was in the world in a human form ; and though the world was made by him, yet the world knew and acknowledged him not. Yea, he came to his own territories, even to the Jewish nation, which was under such obligations to him, and to whom he had been so expressly prom- ised as their great Messiah ; yet his own people did not receive him as they ought ; but, on the contrary, treated him in the most contemptuous and ungrateful manner. " But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that be- lieve on his name : which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Nevertheless, the detriment was theirs, and it was unspeakably great to them ; for to as many as re- ceived him, and by a firm and lively faith believed on his name, even to all of them, without any exception of even the poorest or the vilest, he granted the glorious privilege of becoming sons of God ; that is, he adopted them into God's family, so that they became entitled to the present immunities, and the future eternal inheritance 5 50 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. of his children. And they, who thus believed on him, were possessed of these privileges, not in consequence of their being born of blood, of their being descended from the loins of the holy patriarchs, or sharing in cir- cumcision and the blood of sacrifices ; nor could they ascribe it merely to the will of the flesh, or to their own superior wisdom and goodness, as if by the power of cor- rupted nature alone they had made themselves to differ ; nor to the will of man, nor to the wisest advice and most powerful exhortations which their fellow creatures might address to them ; but must humbly acknowledge that they were born of God, and indebted to the effica- cious influences of his regenerating grace for all their privileges and all their hopes. u And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." And, in order to raise us sinful creatures to such illustrious dignity and happiness, the divine and eternal Word, that glorious Person whom we mentioned above, by a most amazing condescension was made flesh, that is, united himself to our inferior and miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities ; and he not only made us a transient visit for an hour or a day, but for a con- siderable time pitched his tabernacle among us on earth ; and we, w r ho are now recording those things, contemplated his glory with so strict an attention, that, from our own personal knowledge, we can bear our testi- mony to it, that it was in every respect such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father : for it shone forth, not merely in that radiant appearance which in- FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 51 vested him on the mount of transfiguration, and in the splendor of his miracles, but in all his temper, minis- tration, and conduct, through the whole series of his life, in which he appeared full of grace and truth ; that is, as he was in himself most benevolent and upright, so he made the amplest discoveries of pardon to sin- ners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do, and exhibited the most important and substantial blessings, whereas that was, at best, but a shadow of good things to come." Such is the paraphrase of Dr. Doddridge, one of the most learned and fair of Trinitarian commenta- tors. I will now state my objections to this construction of this celebrated passage. In the first place, " The Word " is not the name of a person, but of a thing. As a person, it would be the introduction of something entirely new. The question occurs, If it be a thing, whose word is it, by which all things were created ? and the legitimate Scriptural answer is, God's word. There is no such person as the Word made known to us in any other part of the Bible. In the second place, if you make it a person, you introduce the greatest con- fusion into the very first sentence. You cannot even conceive of an intelligible meaning to it. You can- not even conceive of a Person who was with God, and was God at the same time. According to the Trinita- rian construction, the Word was the second Person of the Trinity. In that case you must make God stand for the first Person of the Trinity, or for the whole Deity, without distinction of Persons. In the one case, 52 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. it will be saying, that the second Person was with the first Person, and was the first Person ; or in the other, it will be saying, the second Person was with the whole Deity, and was the whole Deity. Now neither of these meanings of the term Word, makes intelligible sense. We are driven then by the very language, to make Word a personification of the divine attributes, instead of a real person. In the third place, if we make the Word the second Person of a Trinity, we make the first Person almost entirely uninteresting to us, indeed to have little or nothing to do with us. The second Person made the Universe, and all things in it. He made us, for by him was every thing made that was made. The Per- son, who made the universe, sustains and governs it. And when you have said this, you have made the first Person entirely quiescent. He has no relation to us. He is not an object of prayer, for he is not our Creator, nor Disposer, nor can he interpose for our benefit, ex- cept as an intercessor with the second Person, who is, in fact, the Maker and the Ruler of all things. Now this is contradictory, not only to all sound theism, but to Trinitarianism itself. According to that system, the second Person is sent by the first, to be a Medi- ator between himself and mankind. My fourth objection is, that according to the Trinita- rian theory, the Word, the second Person in the Trinity, after the incarnation, became so united to the human nature of Christ, as to form one Person, and in this form, the world is reproached for not recognizing him as its Creator. u He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 53 Now, considering the Word as a person, this reproach is without point. There was nothing about Christ, personally, to lead the world even to suspect that he was its Creator, or that he had more than a human nature, aided by the wisdom and the power of God. " He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and had not where to lay his head." He suffered pain, was crucified, commended his spirit into the hands of God, and died. There was nothing in all this to convince mankind that he was the Creator of the world, but every thing to convince them that he was not. He never made any such pretension. The Creator and Governor of the world might have wrought miracles by his own power, if he had chosen to do so ; and if it had been any part of his purpose to convince the world that he was its Creator, Christ would have let the world know, that he wrought miracles by his own power. But he says, " Of mine own self I can do nothing." u The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." At the grave of Lazarus, he does not pretend to raise him by his own power, but says, " Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by, I said it, that they may believe " — what ? that I am the Creator of the world ? no, but u that thou hast sent me." This was the ground upon which Christ claimed the attention and obedience of the world, that God had sent him ; not that he was the Creator of the world, but that he had been sent and commissioned by the Creator of the world. " This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true 5* 54 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. God, and Jesus Christ ivhom thou hast sent." The only true God can be none other than the Creator. If Christ is the Creator, then he is the only true God to us. Any other God is nothing to us, for he can have nothing to do with us. It could not have been a matter of reproach to the world, that they did not re- cognize Christ as their Creator, as there was nothing in him to make them think so, and he himself never made any such pretension. But if w T e interpret the term M Word" to mean an attribute, or several attributes of God, personified, then the passage will make sense, and carry some point in its reproach. If w 7 e make it mean the divine Power, Wisdom and Goodness, which in fact constitute the very essence of God, then the pas- sage would justly reproach the world for not recognizing in Christ the same divine power and wisdom which made the world. My fifth objection to the Trinitarian apprehension of this passage, is found in the fourteenth verse. " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Now if we sup- pose the Word to have been God, personally, in any sense, the most irreconcilable inconsistences will fol- low. " God became a man," which contradicts the very definition of God, that he is unchangeable, and cannot become any thing. u And we beheld his glory," not original and underived, as the glory of God must be, but subordinate and derived, "the glory," literally, " as of an only begotten son with his father, full of grace and truth." Now the very idea of God's becom- FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 55 ing a man, is totally shocking. Scarcely less so is it, that the Creator of the world should be united, in one person, with a human body and a human soul, and in that con- dition receive glory from a higher being still. Such difficulties are to my mind, I confess, totally insuperable. They seem utterly irreconcilable with any clear concep- tion of the nature of either God or man. I can conceive of divine attributes being with God, and constituting God, and being displayed in creation and revelation, and being especially manifested in Jesus Christ, so as to clothe him with glory, and make him to appear to be the peculiar favorite of heaven ; but I cannot conceive of a Divine Person to do all this. My sixth objection is taken from the fourteenth verse, taken in connection with the seventeenth. In the seventeenth verse, one special part of his glory seems to be, that, as the " only begotten," he was u full of grace and truth." In the seventeenth verse, this pre- eminence is said not to reside in his person, but in his revelation: " For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." There is no difference of nature intimated here between Moses and Christ, nor any difference in the relation which they sustained to man. The law was given by Moses, by God of course through Moses, and grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, from God of course through Christ. This contrast, to my mind, explains the strong language of this whole chapter. In the creation, and in the Mosaic revelation, God was revealed and made known ; but so much more perfect is the knowledge we obtain of him through Christ, that he may almost be said to be the tabernacle in which he dwelt. 56 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. My seventh objection, is the reason which John the Baptist gives for Christ's superiority to himself. u This was he of whom I spake : He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me." And so was Moses, and David, and so were the angels, before John the Baptist ; but priority in time proved no supe- riority. He should have said, if it were true, u be- cause he is the Almighty, and I am a man." But the true meaning of this passage is totally overlooked by all parties. It is a figure of speech, drawn from the way in which servants used to walk in relation to their masters. They went behind. And it all amounts to this, and nothing more. " There is one coming behind me, who ought to go before me, for he is my su- perior." And he means precisely the same thing that he did when he said, u the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. "* John the historian goes on to give the reason and the measure of his superiority to John the Baptist. u For * It was the office of a servant to go behind his master, to carry his shoes when he went to feasts, to substitute them for his sandals when he arrived, and to stoop down and put them on and off. The figure turns on the two adverbs before and behind, and on the fact that Jesus appeared after John, though his superior. " One is coming after me as my servant, who ought to go before me as my master. Indeed, I am not worthy to be his servant, ' to bear his shoes,' according to one Evangelist; or 'to unloose them,' " according to another. As authority for rendering ruoonog uov, my superior, we have the same use of it in a sentence of Paul. " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, wv tiqcotoq eiul, of whom I am first," not in point of time, but chief in point of eminence. Indeed, we have the same sense reported by Matthew, in which for nqwrog uov, is substituted ig/vQonQog uov, mightier than I. " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me, literally behind me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear." FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 57 of his fulness have we all received, and grace for grace." It is through Christ that we receive the greater fulness of divine revelation, in proportion as he received a more full and perfect revelation from God than Moses. Such a reason would hardly be given by one who knew his real superiority to be derived from his nature, and not from his endoivments. Such a reason for Christ's superiority to Moses, as the greater perfection of his revelation, coming immediately after this discourse about the Word, is certainly out of place, if that superiority were in fact owing to the incarnation of a Person of the Trinity in him ; for it was not the true reason. It all goes to show, that the incarnation of the Word is a figure of speech, precisely similar to that which w r e make use of when we say, of a wise man, that he is an incarnation of wisdom, or wisdom has taken up her abode in him. And it all amounts to this, that revelation, imperfectly imparted before, seemed to become incarnate in Christ. The word of God came to the ancient prophets from time to time, but it seems to have dwelt in Jesus fully and permanently, like a person. In him became incarnate the very spirit of revelation. It seems to me to be a highly figurative and poetic mode of representing what is elsewhere simply and plainly expressed. " He, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God, for God giveth him the spirit not by measure." What is called in the one case the indwelling of the Word, is in the other called the fulness of the Spirit. My eighth reason, for thinking that the Word was not a person of the Trinity, or a person at all, is found in 58 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. the eighteenth verse. " No one hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." At first sight of this passage, the Trinitarian would say, perhaps, that he had found a strong confirmation of his hypothesis. The Son in the bosom of the Father, is equivalent to the Word being with God. But if he examines it more closely, he will find that it amounts to a contra- diction of his theory. The Father, here spoken of, is not the Father which his theory requires. The Father which his theory requires, is the Frst Person of a Trinity. The Father here spoken of, is the whole Deity, without distinction of Persons, and is used as synonymous with God in the former part of the sen- tence : cc No one hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father," that is, in the bosom of God, " he hath declared him." To be in the bosom of another, is an Orientalism, signifying not to participate in his nature, but his counsels. It is derived from the mode in the East of sitting at table, or rather of reclining on couches at the table, in such a manner that the head of the person who reclined on the right hand, came near the bosom of him who reclined on the left, and thus they were in most intimate inter- course. Thus John, at the last supper, reclined on the bosom of Jesus ; that is, was next him at table. As an admirable illustration of this whole subject, I refer you to John's account of the last supper. Jesus had said, " that one of his disciples should betray him." " Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of the disciples whom Jesus loved." Not that it was FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 59 any thing wonderful for him to recline on his master's breast, for they all did the same at the table to each other, but it merely means to say, that John sat next to Jesus at table, so that he could communicate with him privately if he chose. u Simon Peter beckoned to him," literally nodded to him, " to ask who this might be, of whom he spake. He leaning over the breast of Jesus, said to him, Lord, who is it ? Jesus answered, It is he, to whom I shall give a morsel, when I have dipped it." To be in the bosom of any one, is not to partake of his nature, but of his counsels, to have a most intimate knowledge of his mind and will, not by identity of being or of consciousness, but by freedom of communication. All this is perfectly consistent with the impersonality of the Word, but inconsistent with its personality. The Word, considered as a Person of the Trinity, cannot derive knowledge from God, cannot, in Oriental phrase, be in the bosom of the Father. And here has been a great source of error in the interpreta- tion of the Bible. Coming to it with the Trinitarian hypothesis, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, people have taken it for granted, that Father, when applied to God, means the first Person of a Trinity, instead of the whole Deity, without distinction of Per- sons. But a little examination would convince them, that there is no such meaning in the Bible. Such, then, area few among many objections to con- sidering the term Word, in the beginning of John, to mean a person. To me they are sufficient to make me reject such an hypothesis ; but I leave each one to judge for himself. How then is it to be interpreted ? 60 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. I shall go on to paraphrase it in the manner of Dr. Doddridge. Justice cannot be done to it in a transla- tion, as by the arrangement of the genders, in Greek, to correspond to the terminations of words instead of the nature of things, Word, in that language, is mascu- line, though the name of a thing, and has masculine pronouns, adjectives and articles, to agree with it. I would first premise, that whatever there is peculiar in this introduction to John's Gospel, cannot be vital to salvation, because the Gospel of John was written long after the rest, and they were not collected in one volume for many ages afterwards, so that thousands of men were made Christians, and lived and died such, without knowing one word of the first fourteen verses of John's Gospel. I would premise, moreover, that in the view that I shall give of this passage, I shall make John the inter- preter of his own writings. I shall go to the introduc- tion to his first Epistle, for an explanation of the introduction to his Gospel. The same thing which he there speaks of in the masculine gender, he introdu- ces, in his Epistle, in the neuter, and in the feminine. " That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life ; for the Life was mani- fested, and we have seen it," literally her, " and bear witness and show unto you that eternal life, which," literally she, " was with the Father and was manifested to us." Now it is evident from this, that what is called the "Word" in the Gospel, is called in the FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 61 Epistle the " Word of life." Then it is called " the Life," which in Greek is feminine. But still she was with God, under the same phraseology that the Word was, and was manifested to men. Now it seems im- possible, to my mind, to believe that John meant to say, that " eternal Life" was a person with God, and in God ; yet it is just as strongly asserted, as that the Word was. The u word of life," and " eternal life," which was with the Father, and was manifested to the disciples, we have no difficulty in interpreting to mean the doctrines and commission of Christ, which he received from God, and which w T ere the means of con- ferring eternal life on those who received them. Why then should we have any hesitation in taking the term Word in the same signification, which dwelt in Christ, or, to use a more familiar phrase, became incarnate in him ? I take then the whole passage to mean this. The word which God spake by Christ, the revelation which he made of himself, through him, is nothing new, but is a part of a series of revelations running back to the very beginning of all things. The same Almighty Power, and Perfect Wisdom, which were displayed in the miracles and doctrines of Christ, were first mani- fested in the works of the physical creation : u By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." The next manifestation was in the creation of the soul of man, to which he imparted, in a fainter degree than that in which they exist in himself, some of his own attributes : " The inspiration of the Almighty hath given him un- derstanding." u In him, or rather it, was life, and that 6 62 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. life was the light of men. But the light shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." The revelation which God made of himself in the material world, and in the soul of man, was not under- stood, and the world fell into idolatry. The next revelation that God made of himself, was to the Jewish nation, by which he took a particular people and made them his own, brought them into an especial relation to himself. After a long interval, he visited his own people by another revelation, but they did not recognize him in it. He sent John the Baptist, to announce the coming of his last and greatest revelation to man ; and at length in Christ himself, that Light, which had ever been shining, burst out with greater brilliancy ; that Life, which had ever been the source of intellectual energy to men, received a more perfect development ; that Word, which had been sounding in the ears of mortals since the beginning of time, from the works of God, from the heavens above and from the earth beneath, received a more full and articulate annunciation. Such I believe to be the meaning of the introduction to John's Gospel. I think it satisfies the language, at the same time that it is more consistent and probable in itself. It is more simple, and agrees better with the acknowledged facts of the case. If you interpret the Word to mean a person, then you involve yourself in the most inextricable difficulties and perplexities. If you identify him with the Son, the second Person of a Trinity, and make him, according to the common phraseology, the Divine nature of Christ, you find it to correspond neither with the one nor the other. FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 63 You not only create plurality in the Divine Being, but you introduce a Person into the Divine Being not possessed of the essential attributes of Deity. The Son is not omniscient. He knows not when the day of judgment is to be. The Son is not self-existent, but a derived, dependent being. ct As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to have life in himself." He was dependent, not on the Father, which would be inadmissible, but on u the only true God," for the glory he had before the foundation of the world. After the termination of his mediatorial office, the Son is to be subjected, not to the Father, but to God, that God may be all in all. Such attri- butes must the Word possess, if you identify it with what is called the Son in the Trinity. Quite as difficult do you find it, when you attempt to identify such a person as the Word in Christ. Ac- cording to the strange phraseology of Trinitarianism, the Word, which was a Divine Person in God, be- comes a Divine nature in Christ. How he should be represented as losing his personality in becoming in- carnate, is not readily comprehended, unless from fore- sight of the difficulties which would be involved in supposing that Christ was made up of two persons, as well as two natures. But the instinctive good sense of mankind has avoided the inconceivable idea that Christ was composed of two persons, one finite and the other infinite, by substituting the more indefinite word nature. But nature, in this connection, if it mean any more than office, function, capacity, must mean persons, and if so, what were the elements of the complex person, Christ ? 64 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. An infinite Spirit, which filled immensity and eternity, and a finite spirit, which began to exist in Bethlehem, in the days of Augustus Caesar, — a consciousness which embraced all things that can be known in the Universe, and another consciousness which embraced that narrow circle of ideas only, which is taken in by the human faculties ; a will which could sway the Uni- verse, and one which could only act through a human body. Is it possible than any person can believe in the amalgamation of such contradictory elements into one Person ? The human, of course, must be lost in the Divine, like a drop of water in the ocean. But what adds to the wonder, this amalgamation is not permanent. The real person of Christ, in which he speaks and teaches, has the power of sliding out of one into the other, whenever he chooses, and of sometimes speaking as God, and sometimes as man, without giving any notice that he makes the change ; so that his hearers and readers were, and are, according to this hypothe- sis, obliged to pick out of his discourses, at their own discretion, those things w r hich he said as God, and those things which he said as man, and what he said as both God and man, — of course, are always in the dark as to what they are taking on divine, and what on hu- man authority. I adopt the interpretation of the impersonality of the Word, because it corresponds best with the general representations of the Scriptures. Jesus was born, and increased in wisdom, which could hardly happen to a being of whose person an omniscient God made a part. He commenced teaching, not because any FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 65 Divine Power made a constitutional element of him, but because he was visited by the Spirit of God. u He was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness," which contradicts the idea of the Word's being a person. It is said of him, " that God giveth the spirit unto him not by measure." He says of himself, " I, by the spirit of God, cast out devils." If there were such a person in Christ as the Word, he was certainly quiescent during his whole ministry ; and if the Holy Ghost is a person, he is the person who was in Christ and wrought his miracles. And if the Holy Ghost is not a person, and by the Spirit is meant the power of God, then God, without distinction of Persons, wrought his miracles, which is perfectly consistent with the Scrip- tures, but destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. This is precisely in accordance with the representation of Peter. u Ye men of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by miracles, and signs, and w T onders, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves do know." On another occasion, u How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him." From all these passages, and many others that I might cite, it seems evident, that what is in the introduction of John called the Word, means nothing more than the Divine aid and power, that full measure of wisdom and control over nature, which is, in other places, called u the fulness of the Spirit," and which fitted Jesus for his great office of Mediator between God and men. 6* 66 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. This personification of the attributes of God, and representation of them as God himself, was not intro- duced by John in his Gospel. It was familiar to the Jews before. It is found in the Old Testament, and in the Apocrypha. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, Wisdom is personified, just as the Word is in the Gos- pel of John. But by the structure of the Hebrew language, Wisdom is feminine, just as Wisdom is mas- culine in Greek. She is represented as a female, going up and down the earth, endeavoring to persuade men to be wise. u Doth not Wisdom cry, and under- standing put forth her voice ? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way, in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entering in of the city, at the coming in of the doors. Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is unto the sons of men. O ye simple, understand wisdom ; and ye fools, be ye of an under- standing heart." That no real person is intended, appears from the whole structure of the chapter ; from the word under- standing, which is introduced as synonymous, and espe- cially from these verses : u Receive my instruction, and not silver ; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies ; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it." She then goes on to identify herself with wisdom as it exists in the minds of men, and there seems to be a strong parallelism between the mode of speech here used, and one clause of the introduction of John. " In him was life, and the life was the light of men." What is Wisdom in the one case, is Word in the other. FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 67 " By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth." Afterwards she identifies herself with wisdom in the mind of God. As she had represented herself as having a personal form, as the monitor of mankind and the counsellor of princes, so she gives herself a per- sonal existence with God, from all eternity, because God is the primeval fountain of all wisdom. In the same manner, John represents the Word as " being with God, and being God." Wisdom proceeds, u The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, be- fore his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I w T as brought forth ; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth ; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there." The reader here will observe, that Wisdom is not represented as being the agent in the creation of the world, but only as being present. In the introduc- tion to the Gospel of John, the divine attributes, per- sonified under the term Word, are represented as the actual Agent in bringing all things into existence, or are identified with God himself, because, in the Old Testa- ment, God is represented as having spoken all things into being. u By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Wisdom proceeds : " When he established 68 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. the clouds above ; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep ; when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment ; when he appointed the foundations of the earth ; then was I by him, as one brought up with him ; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him ; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth ; and my delights were with the sons of men." That all this is a mere person- ification, appears not only from the whole strain of the passage, but from what follows. u Now, therefore, hearken unto me, O ye children ; for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction^ and be toise, and refuse it no/." In the book of Ecclesiasticus, a part of the Apocry- pha, composed several ages before Christ, but after the closing of the Old Testament, we have a similar per- sonification of Wisdom. M Wisdom shall praise her- self, and shall glory in the midst of her people. In the congregation of the Most High shall she open her mouth, and triumph before his power. / came out of the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth as a cloud. I dwelt in high places, and my throne is the cloudy pillar. I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the bottom of the deep. In the waves of the sea, and in all the earth, and in every people and nation, I got a possession." This, the reader will perceive, bears a close analogy to the phraseology of John, in which he calls the Word u the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." What succeeds, bears an equally strong analogy to that part of John's introduction, in which he says, that divine FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 69 illumination, though pervading the minds of the whole human race, was peculiarly imparted to the Jews. u He came to his own, and his own received him not." Wisdom goes on to say : " Lo, the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and he that made me, caused my tabernacle to rest, and said ; Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine inheritance in Israel." There is likewise in the Wisdom of Solomon, a per- sonification of the Word of God, represented as sent from heaven, a gigantic destroyer of the Egyptians, on the night when all their first-born were destroyed. " Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction. And brought thine unfeigned commandment, as a sharp sword, and stand- ing up, filled all things with death, and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth." From these quotations the reader will perceive that the personification of the attributes of God, in the Gospel of John, was nothing new, but was already known to the Jews in their own sacred and theologi- cal writings. LECTURE IV. PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. ISAIAH, IX. 6. FOR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN, UNTO US A SON IS GIVEN, AND THE GOV- ERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER ; AND HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE. There are few passages in the Bible, which have been so often quoted to prove the doctrine of the Trin- ity as this. It is proper then, that, in treating of that subject, we should give this text a particular consider- ation. Before entering into the discussion, however, it will be proper to premise, that we go into the Old Testa- ment, for arguments in favor of the Trinity, with the strongest presumption against the probability of finding any there, from the fact that no such doctrine was ever discovered in it by the Jews themselves. During the fifteen hundred years of their national existence, no idea of a Trinity ever entered the mind of any pious descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and no scholar of Moses ever thought of giving any other than the most strict and literal construction to the first of all PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 71 the commandments : u Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your God, Jehovah is One." This was long before the hostility sprung up, which has existed between the Jews and Christians, on account of the fact that the Chris- tians have received as the Messiah, him whom the Jew 7 s rejected and crucified. If there w r ere such a doctrine, it must certainly have been revealed in the language of the Old Testament. This language was the vernacular tongue of the Jews. If it was revealed, and was an important doctrine, then it was important that they should understand it. But they did not understand it. The descendants of those Jews, who have inherited those Scriptures, and who derive their religion solely from them, are as strenuous as were their forefathers on the fundamental article of their faith. And is it a supposable case, that those who live in a remote age, and speak another language, should discover a funda- mental doctrine in the Hebrew Scriptures, which the Hebrews themselves, who spoke the language, did not discover ; a doctrine, too, which apparently contradicts the first principles of their religion contained in their Scriptures ? If the doctrine of the Trinity were true and impor- tant, we could scarce conceive of any way in which Moses could have discharged his office as the lawgiver of the Jews, in a manner more calculated to mislead them. At the very commencement of his mission, he repre- sents the Deity to have appeared to him under the si- militude of a burning bush, and to have given the name by which he wished to make himself known to the Jews, as "I AM," a name which in itself expresses 72 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. the simplest mode of personal existence, and into which it is impossible for any idea of plurality to creep. I know of no language which he could have used, which would have conveyed the idea more definitely, not only of an essential, but a personal unity. It is true, that the attempt has been made, to deduce a different con- clusion from one passage in Genesis, where God is said to have deliberated about making man, and about the treatment of him after he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. " Let us make man in our image, and after our like- ness." But it is only necessary to observe, that Moses represents the person who makes the speech, in the sin- gular number ; " And God said ; " showing plainly that there is no inconsistency meant to be conveyed, w T ith the personal unity of God, but that it is a mere idiom of speech, not peculiar indeed to the Hebrew, but common to all languages. There is not a monarch in Europe, who might not be proved to be plural, on the same principles, for they all say, " We." Editors of newspapers even, adopt the same form of speech, and we all, in our most common intercourse, address each other in the plural number ; and if idioms were always to be taken in proof of facts, it might be proved that we believed each other to be made up of many per- sons, when we say to each other : " You are good, or, you are wise, &c." The Germans carry this matter further, and address each other as not only in the plural number, but in the third person. u They are good, they are wise," meaning the very person whom they address. Is there anything like plurality intimated in the following most solemn and impressive language ? PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 73 " And God spake to Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah. And / appeared unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." Then, as to the Deity of the Messiah being a doctrine of Moses, let us read the following prophecy, which foretells him, if anything in his writings does predict him. " 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." Now, certainly no Jew could ever have deduced from this, that the Messiah should participate in the Divine Nature, since God w^as to raise him up from his brethren like unto Moses. Besides all these express declarations, how often is the personal unity of God asserted, by implication, in the Old Testament, and of course his personal plural- ity denied ! In how many hundreds and hundreds of instances is Jehovah introduced as saying " I," M my," u me." These are all personal pronouns, and appli- cable to only one person. How many addresses are there in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms, to God in the singular number, with the pronouns u thee " and " thou " ? Every one of these is an argument for the personal Unity of God, and goes to show, that any other doctrine was not so much as known or thought of. And yet we hear, at the present day, as Scriptural and legitimate, such ascriptions as this : " Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end." In the beginning ! 7 74 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. When did it begin ? There is nothing like this in the Old Testament, so there are near four thousand years taken at once from the beginning, which makes the beginning very late in the history of the world, accord- ing to my estimation. Then there was no glory ascribed to the Holy Ghost for nearly four hundred years after Christ, so that there are four hundred years taken from the beginning of Christianity, before this mode of worship came into practice in the Church. All we can say of the tripersonal nature of God, as an article of faith with the Jewish nation, is, that there is no trace of any such belief in the Old Testa- ment, and that the general representation there is of one Person, and of one only. But the passage we are examining this evening, is con- sidered as a prophecy of the incarnation of the second Person of a Trinity in Jesus of Nazareth. " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the govern- ment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." This is thought to prove, that Jesus of Nazareth had two natures, one human and the other divine. I shall now state my reasons for not acquiescing in such a conclusion. And my first reason is, that there is nothing in the passage which touches the nature of the child at all, or intimates that its nature has anything peculiar in it. It only gives its name. It will be recollected, that this prophecy is nowhere applied to Jesus, nor claimed for him, by any writer in the New Testament. u Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The question instantly occurs, PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 75 Who gave it ? The answer is, God. And for what purpose ? " The government shall be upon his shoul- der." He is to be a king, and rule over his people for their good. "Of the increase of his government there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and establish it, with judgment and justice, from henceforth, even forever." Jehovah born, and seated upon the throne of David ! Impossible. And is the prince, w T ho is to be thus ex- alted, to do all this by his own power ? By no means. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." The only thing, which has any appearance of intima- ting any superiority of nature in this child that is to be born, is, that " he will order and establish his throne forever." But we find that this proves nothing, for the very same language is used by God to David con- cerning Solomon. u And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons, and T will establish his kingdom. He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son ; and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee ; but I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established for ever more." If the words " forever," and " evermore," prove a divine nature in the child spoken of by Isaiah, so they must likewise prove a divine nature in Solomon ; and if they do not in Solomon, neither do they in the son that is to be born, and the child that is given. It may be as 76 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. well to remark, as we pass, the use of the terms " son of God," and "Father," as applied to God in correspondence with it. A pretty strong case might be made out from this passage for the divinity of Sol- omon. " I will be his Father, and he shall be my son, and I will establish his throne forever." Such pas- sages ought to convince us how slow we ought to be in conforming the nature of things to the strong figures of the Bible. My second objection is, that the epithet "mighty God," is so far from proving anything as to the nature of the child to which it is prophetically given, that it is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, to departed spirits, and to brave men. It is perhaps material to say, that the particle "the," prefixed to mighty God, has no coun- tenance in the original. The word el is not the espe- cial name of Jehovah. It is from a root, which signi- fies strength and power, such as is usually possessed by the heroes of the early history of every country. It was therefore applied not only to God, but to heroes and to kings. It is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The prophet is describing the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, and predicting that he would subdue Egypt. Ezekiel upbraids Pharaoh for his pride, and tells him that he shall be given into the hand of the mighty conqueror of the nations. u I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one," lit- erally, mighty God, " of the nations, and he shall deal with him." If mighty god, proved a divine nature in the person to whom it was applied, then Nebuchadnezzar had a divine nature. In the next PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 chapter it is applied by the prophet to the shades of departed kings and heroes, in the deep and dark abodes of the dead. Pharaoh is represented as going down to the place of the dead, a vast world under the earth, corresponding in extent with the space above the earth, and there he is met by the great and powerful who had gone before him. cc The strong among the mighty shall speak to thee out of the midst of hell ; " liter- ally, " the mighty gods shall speak to thee out of the midst of hell." Now it is in vain to speak of mighty gods being in hell, but yet it must be so, if el gebor is made to mean God, in the ninth chapter of Isaiah. Another instance of the use of this word for human beings, when no divinity can possibly be intended, is found in the forty-first chapter of Job. Speaking of the Behemoth, he says : cc When he raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid ; " literally, " the mighty gods are afraid." Now, no one would think of interpreting this to mean persons possessing a divine nature. It merely means the most courageous of mankind, the mightiest heroes, are afraid to encounter Behemoth when he is roused up. Now it is the same term precisely, which is applied to the child who is to be born, and to exercise the kingly function, and it designates one of the qualities which is to fit him for the office, — that he is to be a hero, to lead in difficulty and danger. A third objection is found in the epithet, Everlasting Father. This proves too much for Trinitarianism itself. That theory affirms the incarnation of the second Per- 7* 78 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. son in the Trinity, the Son, but denies the incarna- tion of the Father, and denies the incarnation of the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. But if the child is God, because it is called mighty god, then it is the everlasting Father, because it is called Everlasting Father. If this phrase prove any incar- nation, it is that of the Father. But the incarnation of the Father, according to the Trinitarian hypoth- esis, would overthrow the whole economy of redemp- tion. According to that theory, it was necessary, nay, was a matter of compact, that the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, should come upon earth and assume our nature, that he might, in that nature, sat- isfy the justice of the Father, and make atonement for the sins of the world. But if the everlasting Father came on earth, then there was no one left to whom the atonement could be made, unless it were the Son, and that would be reversing the order of the compact. So far then from sustaining the doctrine of the Trinity, this epithet, and of course the whole passage, contra- dicts it. As an appellation of a sovereign, as this child is rep- resented to be destined to be, it is far more rational to interpret it of him in that capacity, and make him the perpetual father of his people, not of course defi- ning perpetual in the sense of eternal, but, as is the case in most of the instances in which the term ever- lasting occurs, of a duration to continue as long as the subject exists. The everlasting hills, means the hills which shall continue as long as the earth. The servant who had his ears bored, was to be his master's forever, that is, as long as he should live. So, according to PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 Hebrew idiom, the king, who should be a perpetual Father to his people, would reign over them with pa- ternal care as long as he should live ; intimating, how- ever, that his reign would be long, and perhaps that its influences might last much longer. Abstracting then from all theological questions which have been raised upon this passage, it would merely amount to this : The prophet declares that there is then born a child of the royal family, who is to be peculiarly gifted and qualified to resuscitate the fallen fortunes of the Jews, and therefore shall be called admirable, wise, courageous, benignant, peaceful. And this is all ; and it has been thought by some of the most judicious commentators to refer to Hezekiah, who was then, it is computed, about eleven years old. There is no intimation in the New Testament that either Christ, or his Apostles, considered it to refer to him. But all appearance of teaching anything as to the nature of the child will vanish, if we consider the habits of the Jews as to naming their children. This they did, either with reference to their personal qualities, or what they were destined to accomplish, or, more fre- quently, from the circumstances of their birth. So far is the name of God from proving anything as to the nature of the person to whom it is given, that almost all the names in the Old Testament beginning or ending in eZ, are some combination of the name of God ; and all ending in jab,, are combinations of the most sacred name of God, Jehovah. The list of names at the end of most of our large Bibles, will throw great light 80 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. upon this matter. Thus, David's eldest brother was called Eliab, which signifies " God the Father," or " God of my Father." The name of the prophet Elijah, in Hebrew, is " God the Lord." Ishmael, " God that hears." Lemuel, " God with them." Abiel, "God my Father." Now if the giving of these names is allowed to prove anything as to the es- sential nature of the children to whom they are given, there have been nearly as many incarnations in the Jew- ish theology as there have been in that of the Hindoos. But the fact is, that all these names prove nothing as to the nature of the children to whom they were given. It was customary for Hebrew parents to give their child- ren names from the circumstances under which they were born, either of prosperity or adversity, which they considered as coming immediately from God. Hagar, at the command of the angel, called her son Ishmael, or " God that hears," because the Lord had heard her in her affliction. And so it is throughout the Old Tes- tament. The most remarkable instance, perhaps, is recorded in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. About the year seven hundred and thirty-seven before Christ, Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, became confederate, and invaded Judah. Ahaz was then king of Judah, a man of weak character ; and although, in the main, a worshipper of Jehovah, yet sometimes addicted to idolatry. He was much alarmed at the danger that threatened his country ; and Isaiah the prophet was sent to encourage and console him with the assurance, that this attempt upon his capital should PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 be in vain. " Take heed," says he, " and be quiet ; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Epbraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal : Thus saith the Lord God ; It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass." Ahaz is not much en- couraged by this message, and the prophet, to confirm him, requests him to ask some token of God that what he promises shall be done, some outward manifestation of Divine power. But Ahaz refuses to ask a sign. " I will not ask," says he, " neither will I tempt the Lord." The prophet answers: " Hear ye now, O house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary men ; but will ye weary my God also ? Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know," or until he shall know, u to choose the good and refuse the evil. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her kings." Here, then, is a child to be born, as a sign of de- liverance to Ahaz, and to be called Immanuel. And why ? Because he w 7 as to be an incarnation of Jeho- vah ? By no means ; but because God was to defend and deliver his people before he should grow up to know good and evil. The nature of the child was to have 82 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. nothing to do with his name, nor was it on account of anything that the child was to do, that the name Immanuel was to be given to it, but on account of something that was to be done by God, before the child should be old enough to discern good and evil. The whole matter turns upon the time that was to elapse before the country would be fully relieved of her two enemies, and it is limited to the time in which a young woman, then unmarried, should be married, have a son, and that son should grow up to an age in w 7 hich he might distinguish between good and evil. In the very next chapter, we have a similar symbolic name applied to another child, — many theological scholars have thought, the same child. At any rate, the name of the child refers to the same event. " More- over, the Lord said unto me, Take thou a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen, concerning Maher- shalal-hash-baz. And I took me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son. Then said the Lord unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz," speed to the prey, haste to the spoil. " For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." Here then are two symbolic names applied to two children, or perhaps to one child, to symbolize and be a pledge of the same event, that the two kings of Syria and Israel should be so pressed by the king of Assyria, that they should abandon Judea, and leave the Jews in peace. PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 I am not unaware, that a large portion of the Chris- tian Church has considered the naming of the child, Immanuel, a prophecy of Christ, and an assertion, that, superadded to his human, he should have a divine nature ; but as far as I can see, without the least reason. Such a prophecy would not have answered the very purpose for which it was given, as a sign to Ahaz. " How," asks Professor Stuart, of Andover, " how could the birth of Jesus, which happened seven hun- dred and forty-two years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that within three years his country should be freed from its enemies ? Such a child, as it would seem, w T as born at that period, for in the next chapter he is referred to twice, as if then present." But it is asked, How could this transaction be referred to by Matthew, in connection with the birth of Jesus ? " Now all this was done, that it might be ful- filled, w 7 hich was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Now nothing of this kind really took place at the birth of Jesus, and no such name was given him. The name given to him by divine command, was Jesus. God never commanded him to be called Immanuel. All then, that this citation from the Old Testament can mean, is this, that there is a similarity between the two events. Is it asked how the writers of the New Tes- tament could quote the Old in that way, where there was no real prophecy ? We can only answer, that such was the custom at that time. The same accom- modation of the language of the Old Testament to the 84 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. events of the New, occurs in the next chapter of Matthew. Joseph took the child and his mother, and fled to Egypt, and, after a season, returned ; and a reason of this movement is given, u that it might be fulfilled that was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Now, at first sight, you might suppose this to be a prophecy, and a prophecy fulfilled. But if we look for it in the Old Testament, we find it in the eleventh chapter of Hosea. u When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Here, we all perceive, is no prophecy, but only an allusion to a historical fact, in which all the nation of Israel are called God's son. Still the same language is used in both cases, " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying." Either both are prophecies, or the language does not prove either of them prophetical, but only to be quoted by way of coincidence and ac- commodation. The inference which all of you, who have listened attentively to this argument, must have drawn, is, that the evidence in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, to be derived from the seventh and ninth chapters of Isaiah, is exceedingly small in amount ; that small as it is, it will not bear examination for a moment. It follows, that if the Deity of Christ cannot be proved from what he was, and did, and said, in the New Testa- ment, the attempt to establish his Deity is hopeless. How little confidence is to be placed in arguments drawn from names, of which Jehovah makes a part, may be learned from a comparison of the sixth verse of PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 85 the twenty-third chapter of Jeremiah, with the sixteenth verse of the thirty-third chapter. " In his days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety ; and this is the name whereby he shall be called, c Jeho- vah our righteousness. 5 " This is appealed to as a tri- umphant argument for the Deity of Christ, until the reader passes on to the thirty-third chapter, and there he finds the same name applied to Jerusalem ! "In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely ; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, ' The Lord our righteousness. 5 '• What the Jews really thought, as to the unity of God and the Deity of the Messiah, may perhaps be learned as accurately as from any other source, from two visions, which I am now about to recite, one from the sixth chapter of Isaiah, and one from Daniel. " In the year that Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphims : each one had six wings ; with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he covered his face, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts : the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me ! for 1 am un- done, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips ; for mine eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts." Here then is the Deity, as he was conceived of by the Jews, one indivisible being, seated like a king upon a throne 86 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Is there the least hint of anything like a Trinity about him ? Not the least shadow. The other vision is in the seventh chapter of Daniel : CC I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the fine w r ool : his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him : thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. I saw, in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- guages, should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." If there be any prophecy of Christ in the Old Tes- tament, this is it, and I leave any one to say, if there is not a sufficient distinction kept up between the An- cient of days, on whom myriads attended, and the person in human form, who came near before him, and received from the Ancient of days, dominion, and glory, and a kingdom ? Perhaps there will be no more appropriate place, in the course of these lectures, than this, to notice certain other passages of the Old Testament which have been regarded as prophetic of Christ, and have been thought at the same time to assert the doctrine of his Deity. One of the strongest of these is found in the third chap- PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 87 ter of Malachi. u Behold, 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 of the covenant, in whom ye delight ; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ? for he is like a refiner's fire and a fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you in judgment, saith the Lord of Hosts." After the most careful examination of this passage, it is difficult to find any certain evidence that the Mes- siah is referred to at all in it. There are circumstances in it, which make the whole passage agree much better with the old dispensation than with the new, and lead the candid inquirer to refer whatever events are pre- dicted in it, to some reformation in the times of the se- cond temple, before the destruction of the Levitical priesthood, rather than to the new economy. This chapter is nearly connected with the preceding, and they both seem to relate to the degeneracy of the sacerdo- tal order, and the neglect of the appointed offerings by the people. "Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee ? In tythes and pfferings. Ye are cursed with a curse ; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tythes into the storehouse, 88 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a bless- ing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." To carry this forward, and interpret it of the times of the Messiah, and of course to give it a spiritual mean- ing, seems to be wresting Scripture, rather than inter- preting it. The new temple was just built, and the worship of God by sacrifice was just reestablished, and the people had not yet become accustomed to pay the tythes ordained in the Mosaic institute, which were necessary to maintain divine service. The priests, too, had lately returned from captivity, and had brought with them wives, which they, in violation of an express law, had married from among the heathen, as we learn from the preceding chapter. " Judah hath dealt treach- erously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem : for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offer- ing unto the Lord of hosts," meaning of course the priests. It was the duty of the priest, not only to offer sacrifice, but to study the law, and honestly to interpret it to the people. In this duty the priests had failed. " But ye have departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth ; for he is the messenger of PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 89 the Lord of hosts." In the midst of all this complaint of the degeneracy of the priesthood, and the irregular- ities of the temple service, God promises, or rather threatens, to bring about a reformation. " Behold, I will send rny messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me." As the priest is called, just before, the " messenger of God," so, I am inclined to think, mes- senger means the same here ; that God is about to bring about reform, by introducing into the temple a pious, resolute, and energetic priest. " And the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in, behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." The Lord and the messenger of the covenant, not even, as our translators have given it. Such I believe to be the meaning of this passage, so often quoted as prophetic of Christ. There is a passage in the prophecy of Zechariah, in which Jehovah is thought to identify himself with Christ upon the cross, from the fact that he represents himself as having been pierced. I shall show the con- nection in which it stands, and then leave every one to judge of the probability of such an original reference. "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication ; and they shall look on one whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." The first consideration which suggests itself in de- termining whether Jehovah identifies himself with Christ 8* 90 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. upon the cross, is the fact, that Christ was not pierced, in the sense here obviously intended, till the spirit had left the body, and the body of Jesus was no more than any other body forsaken of life and sensation. The spirit, whether human or divine, had left it, and could no longer be concerned in anything that was done to it. To pierce, in the phraseology of ancient warfare, was to penetrate the body by spear or sword. The only way in which Christ was pierced in this sense, was with the spear after he was dead. His spiritual part had no concern in that. Nor could Jehovah have had, supposing him ever to have animated that body. Such an interpretation then, of this passage, is obviously strained and forced. The only way in which Jehovah could be pierced, is in a figurative sense, in the sense of being grieved, just as it is said of men, when their feelings are injured, that they are ivounded. God was pleased in the Old Testament often to represent himself with human sensibilities. u Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said ; It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways." The passage we are considering seems to be a parallel case. God represents himself in this chapter, as visiting the people of Jerusalem with a siege, in punishment of their sins, and for a w T hile par- alyzing their means of defence. But afterwards he turns to be their helper. cc And it shall come to pass, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." This is the verse immediately pre- ceding the passage we are considering. In it we per- ceive the reason why he will turn and defend his people, PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 91 because they will repent. "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jeru- salem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and he shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." To me, it seems to be doing great violence to lan- guage, to mix up a siege of Jerusalem, in the time of the prophets, with the death of Christ, which took place four hundred years after. It has been thought to favor the application of this passage to Christ, that Jehovah speaks of himself in the first person, and then in the third: " They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn for him." But the difficulty is no greater in the one case than in the other. There is no more reason for a change of persons, if he speaks of himself as the Messiah, than if he speaks of him- self absolutely. The obvious meaning is, " They shall mourn for him whom they have pierced." This is not applicable to the Jews concerning Christ. His murderers did not relent. Another passage is found in the fifth chapter of Micah. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou belittle 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 of old, from everlasting." The pertinency of this passage turns upon the meaning of two words, the word translated "goings forth," and the word translated " everlasting." Now both of these are equivocal in their meaning. The word translated 92 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. "goings forth," may mean "descent." The verb from which it originates, is thus translated in the seven- teenth chapter of Genesis : u and kings shall come out of thee," that is, descend from thee. The passage may mean therefore, " whose descent is from an an- cient family," or a family long distinguished. Then the word rendered "everlasting," is very far from meaning eternity. It generally means a long time, but not a time without beginning. It is the same word which is used by Isaiah when speaking of the antiquity of Tyre. u Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days." It is the same word which is found in the last verse of this very book of Micah. " Thou shalt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers, from the days of old." The meaning of the passage we are considering, then, is very likely to be this : u A Ruler shall come from Bethlehem, whose descent is from high antiquity, even from the earliest periods of the world." Strong corroboration of the Deity of Christ is thought to be derived from the seventh verse of the thirteenth chapter of Zechariah. " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." This is said to be an ad- dress of the first Person of the Trinity to the second, as is shown by the significant phraseology, u the man that is my fellow." This includes both the divine and the human natures of Christ, " man " standing PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 93 for the human, and " fellow " of Jehovah for the di- divine. But there are two features in this verse w T hich are inconsistent with this supposition. The first is, that the Person who speaks is the Lord of hosts. Now the Lord of hosts, even according to the Trinitarian hy- pothesis, is not a Person of the Trinity, but the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. Now the whole Deity cannot have for a fellow the second Person of the Trinity. If applicable to Christ then at all, it can be applicable to him only in his human nature, and of course can prove nothing as to his Deity. The nature of the person called u shepherd," is still further defined by the qualifying epithet u my," attached to it, taken in connection with the Person who applies it, " the Lord of hosts." The man^ whom the Lord of hosts calls his shepherd, cannot be the equal of the Lord of hosts. The epithet "fellow," then, must be restrained and defined by the connection in which it stands. That determines it to be applied to a person not Jehovah, but infinitely inferior to Jehovah. In making up our minds who was really meant, we must be decided partly by the context, and partly by the use of the word " shepherd " in the Old Testa- ment. Kings, even heathen kings, were called shep- herds in ancient times, both in the Bible and in classi- cal writers, because their care of their people resembled the shepherd's care of his flock. God is represented, by Isaiah, as saying of Cyrus, " He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure." The rulers of Israel, are called by Ezekiel, " the shepherds of Is- rael." " And the word of the Lord came unto me, 94 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, and say unto them : Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds, Woe be to the shepherds of Is- rael that do feed themselves." The epithet "shepherd," applied to the rulers of Israel, enables us to see the reason why another epithet, u fellow of Jehovah," is applied to the person mentioned in the prophecy. Jehovah, according to the Jewish constitution, w 7 as the Supreme King of the nation of Israel, and its human king was therefore spoken of as the assessor of his throne. cc Jehovah said unto my lord, Sit on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool." Here, then, the king of Israel is represented as sitting on the throne at the side of Jehovah, and in this sense might be called his " fellow." The man then, that was God's shepherd, and the fellow of Jehovah, might be, and probably was, the reigning king of Israel. Such are the passages in the Old Testament which are alleged to prove the Deity of Christ. How far they prove the proposition they are brought to support^ all must judge for themselves. LECTURE V. FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. HEBREWS, I. 1, 2. GOD, WHO AT SUNDRY TIMES AND IN DIVERSE MANNERS, SPAKE IN TIMES PAST UNTO THE FATHERS BY THE PROPHETS, HATH IN THESE LAST DAYS SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON. There is no passage of the Bible, which presents to the common reader so many, and so great difficul- ties, as the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is scarcely a question of magnitude in all theo- logical inquiry, which is not brought in when any attempt is made to explain this portion of the sacred Scriptures. To enter into them all, would require, not a single lecture, but a whole volume. The only point with which we are immediately concerned, is the bear- ing it has upon the doctrine of the Trinity. In that relation we are now to consider it ; referring to other topics only as they are incidental to this. The Trinitarian, coming to this passage with his hypothesis of the two natures, imagines that he finds confirmation of it in every line. What is not applicable to him in his human nature, 96 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. is applicable to him in his divine nature ; and what is not explicable on the ground of either his human or divine nature, is explained of him in his complex nature, but in his mediatorial office. Armed with all these various hypotheses, which may be taken up and laid aside at will, he supposes that there is no part of this passage which may not be explained. " God has spoken to us by his Son " ; that is, in his mediatorial capacity. Christ "is appointed heir of all things." Who could be made heir of all things, but a Divine Person ? " By him God made the worlds." He, who made the worlds, must, of course, have existed before the worlds. This answers to his divine nature. " Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power." What creature could be, and do all this ? " When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." This is applicable to his human nature ; that alone could suffer, that alone could be exalted. u Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." The Son of God, he who partakes of the divine nature, must, of course, be superior to the angels. " 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 ? " Whom among the angels has God ever called his Son ? " And again, when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Who can be wor- FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 97 shipped, but God, without idolatry? " And of the angels, he saith : Who maketh winds his angels, and flames of fire his messengers ; but unto the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." Christ is certainly God, because he is here called God ; and, moreover, his throne is forever and ever. He must likewise be the eternal God, for his throne is forever. u Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This is applicable to him in his human nature, inasmuch as he is exalted above the kings of the earth, and made King of kings, and Lord of lords. Then, "In the beginning, thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, they all of them shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a ves- ture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thy years shall not fail." This proves him to be God, for the creation of the heavens and the earth is the highest act of omnipotence. Then, u Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot- stool." This agrees with his human nature, which, as a human nature, was as weak as any other human nature. Such are the wonders performed by an hypothesis, and such is the explanation in which the Christian world, both learned and ignorant, have acquiesced for many centuries. It will not be a difficult task, I think, to show the utter inconsistency and unsatisfactoriness of this expla- nation. The very first verse explodes it all. "God, 9 98 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. who in times past spake to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son." God here, of course, means the entire Deity, without any distinction of persons, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, as it is the same who revealed himself to Moses and the rest of the prophets, and spake by them, and he has spoken to us by his Son. The " Son," here spoken of, is not a Person of the Trin- ity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the Son of God, the whole Deity, and, of course, is excluded from the Deity by the very terms of the proposition. He sustains the same relations, both to God and to man, as an organ of communication, as the ancient prophets. God spake through them, and spake through him, nor is there any difference intimated, except that he is called Son. They originated nothing, and he originated nothing. They spoke only what God com- manded, and so did he. The Son then cannot be a person of the Trinity. In the second place, the Trinitarian exposition of this passage overthrows itself by the inconsistency and contradiction of its parts. In one verse, the Son is said to have made the heavens and the earth ; in another, to have been the instrument through whom God made the worlds ; and in another part of the same verse, to be appointed heir of all things ; and then in another, as having no power of his own, to defend himself, or punish his enemies, but to be invited by the Almighty to sit at his right hand while he makes his enemies his footstool. He is eternal, and created the world, and yet he is introduced into the world as God's FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 99 first-begotten i and the angels worship him, not because they owe him any allegiance, but because they are commanded to do so by their superior and his. After making the Son, God, the Creator of the world, still there is a God over him ; he is not the supreme God, but the supreme God has anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. The Crea- tor of heaven and earth has fellows, above whom he is exalted by being anointed ! I do not hesitate to say, that with the Trinitarian exposition, this passage of the Bible presents a hetero- geneous mass of ideas blended in utter confusion. No consistent whole can be made out of them, which shall explain all the parts, and make them agree with them- selves and the rest of the sacred Scriptures. Of course, we are driven out of it, and, as we believe that this Epistle has a consistent and rational meaning, we are forced to seek it in some other exposition. But in order to explain this passage satisfactorily, it will be necessary to inquire what was the design and scope of the writer ? This, we find, was to guard the converts to Christianity from relapse into Judaism, by showing them that their expectations of the Messiah had received their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. To fulfil those expectations, he must be shown to be greater than Moses, greater than Aaron and the Levitical priesthood, and greater than the angels. The Jews of the later ages imagined, from certain expressions in the Old Testament, that the Law was given to Moses by the ministry of angels. The writer of this Epistle commences then, by endeavouring to show the supe- 100 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. riority of Jesus, the Messiah, to angels. He begins, therefore, with the most dignified titles and offices which belong to him. He commences by calling him " the Son of God," an appellation given the Messiah long before he appeared, but without implying anything else than a human nature. As the Messiah, he is made heir of all things, not, of course, of the physical uni- verse, but is to rule and sway the world. The world is to be his spiritual kingdom : God, the supreme King, gives it to him, and thus exalts him, as it were, to a participation in his own dominion. This is now literally fulfilling in respect to Christ. u By whom also he made the worlds." The word rendered worlds, gene- rally means periods of .lime, or dispensations of religion. The Jews divided the existence of the world into three periods : the age before the Messiah, the age of the Messiah, and the age after the Messiah. Of course, the time when he came determined them all. The age before prepared for him, his coming put an end to that age, and introduced a new order of things, and the age after was shaped and moulded by what he accomplished when he was upon the earth. So, through Christ, God constituted the ages. I know that it has been maintained, that this passage asserts that Christ was the Creator of the material uni- verse ; and, as a corroboration of this sentiment, its advocates appeal to the first chapter of Colossians, fifteenth and sixteenth verses. u Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature ; for by him were created all things which are in heaven, and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 101 whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principali- ties, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him." But it is only to the superficial observer, that this passage seems to ascribe the creation of the mate- rial universe to Christ. There are two circumstances which forbid such an interpretation. One is, that Christ has created all things in heaven, and upon earth. This, of course, is not saying that he created the heavens, and the earth, but rather that he did not create them. Then what did he create ? The things he created are specifically enumerated ; u whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." Now these are not the material universe. They are certain dignities, offices, and powers, which Christ created as the head of the new dispensation. What this all means, we have explained in the eighteenth verse. " And he is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, the first-begotten from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence." So far, then, from teaching that Christ is the Creator of the material universe, this passage merely asserts that Christ is the image of the invisible God ; inasmuch as God is at the head of the material universe, having created it, so Christ is at the head of the church, having created it. " Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." The word rendered "brightness," means reflection, and the word rendered " express image," is the same which is used to desig- nate an impression upon a coin. The Trinitarian, of course, applies this to the divine nature of Christ, what he was before his incarnation, the second Person of 9* 102 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. the Trinity, the Son. But if he does so, it must be in inconsistency with what goes before, and what comes after. His image, &c, must, of course, refer to God, as in the commencement of the Epistle, and God there means the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. Now the Son, considered as a Person of the Trin- ity, cannot be a reflection and image of the whole Deity, without introducing the utmost confusion, both into language and into ideas, for it makes him an image and reflection of himself. Equally inconsistent is this meaning with another member of the sentence, u having by himself made a purification of our sins," referring of course to the suffering of death. The second Person of the Trinity could not suffer death. But what is still more conclusive on this point, is what follows : " Set down on the right of the Majesty on high." The second Person of the Trinity could not sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. We are driven then to interpret u reflection " and " image of God," to mean Jesus Christ as he appeared among men, clothed with divine power and supernatural knowledge, and the highest moral perfections. Man himself is said to have been made in the image of God. In another place, he is called " the image and glory of God." Paul says, in the eleventh chap- ter of first Corinthians : cc For a man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." Much more then might Christ, when here on earth, have been said to be a reflection of God's glory, and a likeness of his being, when he superadded FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 103 to these natural reasons, his moral perfections and su- pernatural endowments. " Upholding all things by the word of his power." This bears, upon the face of it, the marks of being what it is, a wrong translation. Upholding things by a word, is not good sense, nor does the word thus translated bear that sense. It means, u controlling all things by the word of his pow- er," or by his powerful word. In this sense it is ap- plicable to the miracles of Christ, in which, by his word, he controlled diseases, stilled the storm, and raised the dead. Jill things, of course, has its usual limitation to the things which are the subjects of dis- course. He controlled everything which he attempted to control. If you make it to mean the government of the Universe, you will make the writer say that the Governor of the Universe, having suffered death, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. And who is the Majesty on high ? The Supreme God cer- tainly. It would read then, that the Governor of the Universe, having suffered death, sat down on the right hand of the Supreme God. " Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than they." Can the the second Person of the Trini- ty be made better than the angels ? How can he be made at all, if he is self-existent ? How can he be exalted, if he is immutable ? And how can his ex- altation above the angels consist in his having a bet- ter name given him than they ? Who gave him that name ? Let us read on : " For unto which of the angels said he at any time, ' Thou art my Son, this day 104 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. have I begotten thee?'" God certainly says this. This of course cannot be applicable to the Son, the second Person in the Trinity, for he can have no be- ginning of existence. Let us read on farther : " And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." These are the very words which were said to David concerning Solomon, as the others were spoken of his own exaltation to the throne of Israel. The government of Israel was a theocracy. God was its king. So when David was exalted to the throne, God represents himself as a human monarch adopting David as his son, and associating him in the empire. So God promises David, that he will protect and bless Solomon, when he shall be seated on the throne. u I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." This language the Jews applied to their Messiah, in a still higher sense. He was to reign, not over the Jews alone, but over all nations. No such honor has ever been done to any one of the angels, as to be thus called the Son of God. Jesus, the Messiah, then, is superior to the angels, inasmuch as a higher title has been given him. " And again, when he bringeth the first- begotten into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God wor- ship him." The first-begotten, according to this rep- resentation, is indebted for the worship which the angels give him, to the command of a third person, who is God. He can be then no equal person of the Trinity, entitled to that worship on his own account. The word worship may be thought to indicate a divine nature. But if so, then the creditor, in the parable of FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS, 105 the cruel servant, may be proved to be divine, for the debtor fell down and worshipped him. It often means, to do homage, as to a superior. It does so in this case, for the person is not God, but introduced into the world by God. If the Son, the second Person in the Trin- ity, is theyirsZ-begotten, who are his brethren ? We see then, in this, a mere extension of the theo- cratic idea. God, the supreme King, exalts Jesus to a place next himself, as a monarch exalts his eldest son, and commands the angels, his inferior ministers, to do him homage. * " And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." The idea is not brought out in this verse by the translation at all. What is rendered spirits, is winds, and what is rendered a flame of fire, means lightnings ; and the sense is, u God makes the winds his angels, and light- nings his ministers." That is to say, so far from angels being anything very exalted, winds and lightnings are so called. Nor are they permanent in their exist- ence, for they cease to exist when the occasion on which they are employed is over. " But unto the Son he saith : Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom ; thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; there- fore God, even thy God, hath annointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." It is immaterial to the purpose of our present investigation, to inquire whether the word " God " in this case is used in the nominative or the vocative case, so as to read, u God is thy throne, or thy throne, O God." The sense will 106 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. be ultimately the same. Both will alike disprove the Trinity. It cannot be applied to the second Person of a Trinity. The second person of a Trinity cannot have a God. The second Person of the Trinity can- not be exalted on account of his moral merits, '1 be- cause he had loved righteousness and hated iniquity." Neither can he be " anointed with the oil of gladness, above his fellows." Whoever it is who is called God, he still has a God over him, to whom he is indebted for his exaltation. This use of the word God, then, is so far from help- ing the Trinitarian cause, being a clear case in which the term God is applied to Christ in an inferior sense, not involving divinity, that it takes from the force of those other passages where this word is thought to be applied to him, as for instance the address of Thomas. Thus far, then, the whole passage is conformed to the Messianic ideas of the Jews. God having spoken to the fathers by the prophets, has now spoken to their descendants by the Messiah, called, in the Scrip- tures, his Son. Corresponding to this idea of the Mes- siah being the Son of God, and in a manner his heir, he is promised universal dominion, referring to the se- cond Psalm, in which it is said, u Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession." As a son usually resembles his father, so the Messiah had some special points of resemblance to God, in his moral per- fections, in his unerring wisdom, and manifestation of supernatural control over the elements. Another point of resemblance, in his relation to God, to that of the son of an earthly monarch to his father, is, that after FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 107 dying to cleanse mankind from sin, God exalted him to his right hand. He is therefore superior to the angels, by whom the Jews supposed their forefathers had re- ceived their law. He is exalted above the angels, inasmuch as he is called the Son of God. According to the Jewish interpretation, the second Psalm was appli- cable to the Messiah, as also the promise of God to David concerning Solomon. The very term angels, is less dignified than Son, for angel signifies messenger. There is, indeed, a passage in which the angels are com- manded to do him homage. Then, as to the perma- nency of his duration, he excels the angels. Winds and lightnings are called the angels of God. They are transient in their existence. But God has said to Messiah, u Thy throne, O God, is forever." O God, of course, must here mean, O King, or he could not have fellows, or be called God by Jehovah. The thrones of other kings crumble, but on account of the Mes- siah's peculiar merits, his throne is to be forever. The next verse requires a particular consideration. u And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foun- dations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a vesture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." The Trinitarian system makes this to be an address of the first Person of the Trinity to the sec- ond, and attributes the creation of the physical universe to him in an absolute sense. To this there are many objections. In the first place, it is inconsistent with 108 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. the Trinitarian exposition of the rest of the paragraph. According to that system, the second verse makes him the Creator of the world only in an instrumental sense, u by whom God made the world." Now Christ could not have been the Creator of the world in an absolute and an instrumental sense both. Taken in connection with the rest of the passage, if it is an address of the same person to the same, with the words, u therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee," it would prove that the Creator of the world is not the supreme God, and, of course, that the supreme God has nothing to do with us. Then the next verse: " But unto which of the angels at any time said he, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool." He, who created the universe, could not want power to subdue his enemies. The Creator of the world cannot be made subordinate to any other Deity without confound- ing all theism, not to say the theology of the Bible. To apply it to Christ, entirely perverts its original meaning. It is a quotation from the latter part of the one hundred and second Psalm, which is a prayer to Jehovah of a person in trouble, and probably in sick- ness, apprehending himself to be drawing near his end : " I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days ; thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shah endure ; yea, all of them shall wax old as doth a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Here is no refer- FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 109 ence to the Messiah, as far as I can perceive, of the slightest kind. The only application then that it can have to the subject of the introduction to the Epistle of the Hebrews, is, that the Messiah's throne is to be eternal, because God is, who has exalted him to it ; while the heavens, the very habitation of the angels, where the lightnings, which he makes his angels, play, and the earth, where the winds, which he makes his messengers, blow, shall pass away. Such, then, I conceive to be the meaning of this celebrated passage. I have adopted it after frequent examination and revision, from time to time, for twenty years. On the whole, it seems the most consistent with itself, and the rest of the Scriptures. Whatever it may, or may not teach, one thing is certain, that it is altogether adverse to the common hypothesis of the Trinity, three equal Persons in one God. The Son, whoever he may be, is a derived, dependent, subordi- nate being. He is not the Supreme, but the Supreme is his God. And, whatever dignity or exaltation he has, all is derived from God, not as a Person of a Trinity, but from the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. This view is corroborated by the rest of the Epistle. For instance : u We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he might taste of death for every man." The glory here ascribed to Christ, is not a glory of nature, or of original dignity, but of extensive relation, that of tasting death for every man, that of benefitting mankind by his death. This 10 110 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. certainly is not a glory, which can be predicated of a Person of the Trinity, who is incapable of dying. Is it objected, that he was in a state of humiliation, and that this is indicated by the terms, " Thou hast wade him a little lower than the angels," by becoming incarnate ? It may be answered, that the same word and the same phrase is used of man in general. M What is man, that thou art mindful of him. Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." If made means become incarnate in one case, it must in the other, and all mankind will be proved to have existed in a state of preexistent glory. " Wherefore, in all points, it behooved him to be made like his brethren, that he might be a compassionate and faithful high priest in the things which pertain to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Participation in supreme Deity is certainly a great point, an infinite point of difference. Finally, the way in which the Epistle winds up is sufficient, if there were nothing else, to establish the relations which subsist between God and Christ. u Now may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting cove- nant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ. To him, that is God, be glory forever and ever. Amen." The attempt has been made, by bringing together two passages of this Epistle, to prove that Christ was the medium of communication with Moses and the FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. Ill patriarchs in the Old Testament. It has been main- tained, with great confidence, that he was the angel who appeared to Abraham, and to Moses in the bush, and led the Israelites out of Egypt. One of the pas- sages by which this doctrine is supported from the Epistle to the Hebrews, is from the eleventh chapter. " By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, re- fused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." It is thought, that by " the re- proach of Christ," is meant the reproach of being the leader of the Israelites under Christ. But there are two sufficient objections to this meaning. One of which is, that it does not appear that Moses, when he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, had any idea of becoming the leader of Israel out of the land of bondage. The choice he then made, was to refuse to be reckoned or adopted into the royal family of Egypt, — a great worldly sacrifice, — and be con- sidered as belonging to a nation of oppressed slaves. In so doing he subjected himself to disgrace and re- proach, and shared it with the people of God. That disgrace was similar to that which was suffered by Christ and Christians. He was despised, and so were they. Jews and Gentiles looked upon him and them with contempt, and thought them a degraded class. It is probable, therefore, that the Apostle had in his mind this similarity of condition, and called the reproach of claiming kindred with the Jews, the reproach of Christ, because it was of a like nature. 112 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. The other objection to this meaning, is, that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has, by the use of similar language in another place, shown us how he would be taken in this case. u Wherefore, Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us, therefore, go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." Not his individual reproach, but a reproach like his ; going out of the camp, because we are unclean, as he became, by being crucified as a criminal. The other passage is in the twelfth chapter. "■ For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words, which voice they that heard, entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more ; for they could not endure that which was commanded ; and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart, and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said ; I exceedingly fear and quake. But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general as- sembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh ; for if they escaped not, who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 113 him that speaketh from heaven ; whose voice then shook the earth ; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake, not the earth only, but also heaven." Here it is said that " the voice, which shook the earth," at the beginning of the law. was the voice of Christ, because we are warned against turning away " from him that speaketh from heaven, ivhose voice then shook the earth." Christians could only turn away from a voice which they heard, and that was the voice of Christ. So it is agreed that Christ gave the law. But, if I mistake not, the meaning of this passage has been misapprehended on all sides. The voice w r as the same in both cases, in giving the Law and the Gospel, according to this representation. The expla- nation of the whole paragraph is this. The writer is contrasting the Law and the Gospel, particularly as to their mildness or severity. He makes the circumstances of the giving of the Law symbolical of its character. It was given on Mount Sinai, amidst the most awful displays of God's power. Moses himself was terri- fied. The mountain was enveloped in blackness and darkness and tempest. The Law was given with a voice like the sound of a trumpet, or accompanied with the sound of a trumpet. No one, not even a beast, was permitted to approach or to touch the mountain. As a counterpart to this, he describes the Gospel as given in a similar manner, not on earth, but in heaven. The Jews imagined things in heaven to correspond to those on earth, especially the heavenly Jerusalem, and the heavenly mount Sion, which was in 10* 114 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. Jerusalem. On this heavenly mount Sion, and in this heavenly Jerusalem, he pictures the Gospel as having been given by God, in an audible, though milder voice. The Jews imagined that there were present at the giving of the Law on Sinai, myriads of angels, as well as God, and Moses the mediator of the old covenant. At the giving of the Gospel, or the new covenant, not only is an innumerable company of angels present, but the great assembly of the saints, and of all holy men. God is there, as the Judge or Lawgiver, which were synonymous in the Oriental world, and Jesus the medi- ator of the new covenant. 1 will give, in the words of the inimitable original, the description of the august assembly, at which the writer represents all Christians as being present. "But ye are come unto mount Sion, unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel." This is represented as taking place in heaven, in order to symbolize the superiority of the Gospel to the Law. Of course, God, in giving the Gospel, according to this representation, spoke from heaven, from mount Sion, in the heavenly Jeru- salem. But he spake on earth when he gave the law on Sinai. Hence the propriety of what follows. " See that ye refuse not him that speaketh ; for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 1 15 shall not we escape if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth ; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." The parts of the Old Testament, which are quoted to prove that the divine appearances to Abraham and Moses, were Christ, when examined, will be found, I believe, to give very little countenance to that idea. One of them is found in the eighteenth chapter of Gen- esis. Abraham sees what he supposes to be three men, who afterward turn out to be three angels. By some it has been said, that these three angels were the three Persons of the Trinity, and yet we are told, in the same breath, by the same persons, that God the Father never did assume a personal form. Abraham addresses first one of them alone, we are not told which, " My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant." Then he addresses the three together : H Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree." It is said, that one of these angels, we are not told which, personated God, and spoke as God. But the Bible says no such thing. The words of the Bible are: u And Jehovah said unto Abraham, Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do ? " It is inferred, or taken for granted, that one of the angels said this. But there is as much against this inference as for it, for we read : " And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom : but Abraham stood yet before the Lord." By what spe- cies of logic it is proved, that these three men or three 116 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. angels were three Persons of the Trinity, or that one of them was Christ, I am utterly at a loss to im- agine. Another of these passages is found in the twenty- third chapter of Exodus. It is in the midst of the giving of the Law. " Behold, I 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, provoke him not ; for he will not pardon your transgressions ; for my name is in him. But if thou wilt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries." By this angel, God is thought to mean Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. But I believe, it is only a mind predis- posed by education to see a Trinity everywhere, that can find it here. Nothing can be plainer than the whole phraseology, to show, that by the angel he means no real person, but that it is only a figurative mode of speech for his own presence and power and personality. The angel is nothing in himself, except as an instrument of Jehovah. u My name is in him ; " he acts by my authority, he does what I command. He is the mere organ of my speech. " But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that / speak, then I will be an en- emy to thine enemies." Jehovah is the ultimate agent in all that is done by the angel. This mode of speech was probably induced by the fact, that there was a vis- ible token of the presence of God which accompanied the Israelites through the desert. God himself is some- times called an angel, in the Old Testament, because he FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 117 manifested his presence by an angel, for the instruction and comfort and encouragement of the saints of old. Thus in blessing the two sons of Joseph, Jacob says : " The God, before whom my 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." In the first Epistle of Peter, a passage is found which is thought to give countenance to the idea that Christ was the medium of communication with the prophets of the Old Testament. " Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." But if we adhere strictly to the Trinitarian partition of the divine operations, inspiration is the peculiar and exclusive function of the third Person, the Holy Ghost. " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The u Spirit of Christ," then, cannot mean Christ as the second Per- son of the Trinity. It must mean the spirit of pro- phecy, having certain relations to Christ, either the same that was possessed by him, or that which predicted him. The latter sense suits the connection best, the spirit which predicted Christ. The meaning then of the pas- sage will be this. " Searching what, or what manner of time the spirit which predicted Christ that was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." And this agrees best with the representation in the commencement of the Epistle we have been considering, that God 118 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. spake directly to the prophets, without any interven- tion, and in after ages has spoken through Christ in the same manner. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son." LECTURE VI. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. REVELATION, I. 1. THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM. The Apocalypse is to most persons a sealed book, a book of wonders and marvels, a succession of pic- tures, gorgeous but unmeaning, a drama teaching no- thing, a collection of symbols, the key of which is lost. Most people read it as they look through a kalei- doscope, only to see one image come over the field of vision after another, without any intelligible relation to the one that went before, or the one that comes after. On the whole, it is read with little pleasure and profit by the mass of Christians. Such being the case, it is my purpose to step aside somewhat from the path of the controversialist, and give such a general view of the meaning and purposes of this composition, as to enable my hearers to read it hereafter with a better understanding, not only of its doctrinal, but its prophetical import. It has been considered as a part of the Scriptures which strongly favors the doctrine of the Trinity. I 120 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. shall attempt to show you, in the course of this lecture, that its doctrinal bearings are all the other way. It has been interpreted to foretell almost every remarkable event and conspicuous personage that has appeared in the world, from the time that it was written to the pre- sent hour ; and every interpreter has been equally cer- tain that he was right, from him who supposed the reigning Roman Emperor to have been the main sub- ject of the book, to him who thought its chief purpose was to predict the career of Napoleon Bonaparte. When viewed in its own elements, there seems to be no doubt, that the events which it predicts immedi- ately began to receive their fulfilment. " Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this pro- phecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time is at hand." It was written, too, for the consolation of those who were suffering persecution, It is supposed by many to have been written in the times of Domitian, one of the most bloody and cruel of all the tyrants that reigned over the Roman world. tc I John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ." The church was suffering great persecution, and many were put to death. The Gospel had been preached for more than sixty years, if this book was written in Domitian's time, yet still the Christian community maintained but a doubtful existence. The power of Paganism was not yet broken, and the Jews were everywhere no less hostile to the Christians than the heathen world. Occasionally there was an out- break of popular fury, which was sure to wreak itself THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 121 upon the Christians. In this state of things, there was great danger that their faith and patience would fail, and many of them begin to fear that they had been de- luded ; that Jesus had never risen, and never as- cended to heaven ; that he had no official relations to God and to man ; that he was not exalted to a state of favor with the Ruler of the Universe, and of course could not fulfil his pomise of watching over and defend- ing his church ; that his religion was not to prevail in its present struggle with its foes ; and that those future re- wards which Christ had promised were never to be realized. To meet and remedy this state of feeling, seems to be the purpose of the book of Revelation. To assure the church that they had not followed cunningly devised fables, when they believed in the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ ; that he had in fact risen from the dead, and was exalted by God to a high condition of power and dignity ; knew what was going on upon earth ; was able to appear to his followers, and render them consolation and support ; was instructed by God with a knowledge of the future condition of the church and of the world, — he is permitted to visit the earth, and tell his church, that her troubles shall not always last, but that she shall be victorious over all her foes. Both Judaism and Paganism are to fall before her, and at last, her struggle being over, and her warfare ac- complished, she shall be received into the abodes of bliss, into the new Jerusalem, which is to come down from God out of heaven, where shall be concentrated all that is delightful to the mind, and ravishing to the 11 122 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. senses, and God and the Messiah shall reign over her forever. Such, then, is the outline of the book. I shall now go over some of the scenes of this grand drama of the history of the church. The first act opens upon the Isle of Patmos. There is John in the seclusion of banishment. It is on the Lord's day, the first day of the week, the day on which Christ had risen from the dead, and therefore regarded by the church with a peculiar sacredness. Suddenly he hears behind him a voice like the sound of a trum- pet. He turns to see who it is that speaks, and behold, his Master, on whose bosom he had once leaned, and on whom he had thought so much, but so changed that he did not know him. That head, once bowed upon the cross, is now glorified; those feet, once pierced with nails, now glow like molten brass ; that voice, once faltering in the agonies of death, is now like the sound of many waters ; and that countenance, once pale and convulsed with suffering, is now as the sun shining in his strength. There is hope for the church yet, when its head is thus glorified. But the astonished Apostle fails to recognize the crucified amidst all this splendor, and he falls faint- ing at his feet. But Jesus hastens to relieve him of his fears, and lays his hand upon him, and repeats the very words with which he had calmed his disciples' fears on the lake of Galilee ; " It is I ; be not afraid : I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive forevermore." Such an appearance surely ought to dispel all doubt from the church, if her head is alive from the dead, and in such a condition of glory and power. But not only so, THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 123 he still cares for the churches, he knows their condi- tion. He who could read men's thoughts on earth, and could tell Nathaniel where he had been before he saw him, now that he is exalted to heaven has still more extensive power. He who needed not that any should testify to him of man, for he knew the character of each man, in a state of exaltation knows the character and condition of whole churches. Not only does he know the character and condition of each church, but he is solicitous for its welfare, and sends messages adapted to the condition of each. Each message is closed with an exhortation to persevere, with the prom- ise of some reward from his God : " To him that over- cometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of my God." Everything has reference to a state of trial and persecution, such as the church was then suffering. After these various messages to the churches, the scene changes from earth to heaven. John sees a door opened in heaven, and is invited to ascend thither, to receive the disclosures of futurity, which are about to be made to him. None of course can know futurity but God ; and heaven is his residence ; therefore to know futurity he must ascend to heaven. That, he goes on to say, he is invited to do. He enters heaven through a door. To us this seems strange. But with the Jewish conceptions of heaven, this was perfectly consistent. They conceived of hea- ven as a vast temple, and imagined the temple which Moses was shown on Mount Sinai, and after the simil- itude of which their own tabernacle was to be con- 124 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. structed, was heaven itself. Into this vast temple John is introduced ; and there he sees the throne of God, the Almighty Ruler of the Universe. " And behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." It glittered with glory like the brilliancy of precious stones, and was encircled with a rainbow. Out of it proceeded thunderings and lightnings and voices. To complete the scene, there are burning before the throne seven lamps of fire ; but to correspond with heaven, they must be of no common element, they must be composed of the divine essence itself, and they are the seven Spirits of God. But on a nearer inspection, this visitant of the tem- ple in the heavens discovers that the throne of the Eternal is borne up, not by the common supports of a seat, but by living creatures, instinct with life and in- telligence. Four living creatures support the throne of God, with faces turned every way, each symbolical of some cardinal attribute of the Divine nature. The ox is the emblem of endurance, the lion of omnipotence, the human face of wisdom, and the eagle of swiftness, or omnipresence. To complete the dignity of the court of heaven, the Almighty must have his council, to intimate that nothing is done there without the fullest and maturest deliberation. Then we have the ceremo- nies of the court of heaven. The four living creatures, being nearest the throne, never cease their adorations. cc They cease not, day nor night, crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, and which was, and which is to come. And when those creatures give glory, and honor, and thanks, to him that sat on THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 125 the throne, and who liveth forever and ever, the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and who liveth forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power, for thou hast created all things ; for thy pleasure they are and were created." But still no revelation is made. The secrets of fu- turity are yet locked up in the Divine mind. But soon he sees the way opened in which they are to be re- vealed. He sees in the right hand of him that sits upon the throne, a little book, containing the record of des- tiny, the future fate and fortunes of the church and of the world. But here a difficulty occurs. No one is found wor- thy to take the book and read its awful mysteries, nor even so much as to look upon it. Hereupon there is a pause, and John weeps, but he is soon relieved by the assurance that One is found worthy of the great office, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, Jesus the Mes- siah. He looks and sees before the throne, and within the circle of the council, the crucified, in the form of a lamb, that had been slain. He approaches the throne, and takes the book, and then the whole host of heaven bursts forth in his praise, and tell the reason why he is worthy to receive a revelation from God. " Thou art worthy to receive the book, and to open the seven seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Such, then, is the combination of symbols by which 11* 126 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. the writer would convey the idea, that God has made a revelation by Christ of the things which are to take place in regard to the fate of the churches and the world. But so many things as are involved in the fate of a religion, struggling with the powers that be, cannot be told in few words, nor can they be told in words at all. It is necessary, therefore, that they be communicated by symbols, in which mode of expression, long familiar in the East before such a thing as an alphabet was known, many things might be condensed into a small space. The first enemy which Christianity encoun- tered was Judaism, and the contest was sharp and bloody. Jerusalem was soon stained with the blood of the martyrs ; Stephen and James were slain, even in the cradle of the new faith ; and, wherever the preachers of the Gospel came, the Jews were their earliest and most bitter opposers. The first struggle, therefore, in the Apocalypse, is of Christianity with Judaism. This occupies the book to the end of the seventh chapter. To this the opening of the seals refers. The whole complexion of this part of the work, is that of hope and encouragement. The first omen is that of victory. " And I saw, when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were, the voice of thunder, one of the four creatures, saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat on him had a bow, and a crown was given him, and he went forth conquering and to con- quer," — an emblem of victory. This is enough. Christ and the Church shall be victorious. Judaism THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 127 shall fall before it. But before the destruction of this hostile nation, some are to be saved out of it. Many- were in fact converted. Substituting a certain for an uncertain number, the converts are put down at a hun- dred and forty-four thousand. Not only is their con- dition on earth described, and their redemption in heaven, but among the myriads who surround the throne the martyrs are not forgotten. One of the seven seals is especially set apart to tell their fate. A profession of Christianity and martyrdom, were almost synonymous in the first ages of the church. The streets of Rome w r ere sometimes illuminated by the burning of Christians enveloped in pitch and other combusti- bles. They were liable at any moment to be sum- moned before the magistrates, and examined under torture, whether they were Christians or not ; and if they confessed a belief in Christ, were often immedi- ately ordered to execution. This act, a crying injus- tice, the author of this book makes to be the subject of righteous complaint before God in heaven. The Christians of that age needed all the consolation and strength that could be derived from the knowledge of the fact, that their sufferings were not unregarded in heaven. " And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and the testimony which they had. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth ? And white robes were given unto every one of them, and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little 128 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. season, until their fellow servants also, and their breth- ren, that should be killed as they were, should be accomplished." They afterward appear among the multitude of the blessed, with palms of victory in their hands, and clothed in white robes. u And one of the elders answered and said unto me, What are these, which are arrayed in white robes, and whence came they ? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said unto me : These are they which come out of great tribula- tion, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple : and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat ; For the Lamb, that is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of water, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." Such was to be the glorification of the martyrs, for whose consolation the book was especially written. The first enemy of the church, Judaism, being destroyed, there remained Paganism and the Roman power. From the seventh to the nineteenth chapter, the struggle between Christianity and Idolatry and the civil power, is vari- ously represented, sometimes the latter taking the form of a beast and false prophet, and sometimes of a woman clothed in scarlet. At last, in the nineteenth chapter, Christ is represented to be victorious over all his foes, and he who went forth at the opening of the vision on a THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 129 white horse, conquering and to conquer, returns in triumph. u And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat on him was called Faith- ful and True. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies that were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." Then follows a description of the consummation of all things, when the wicked shall be punished, and the righteous made forever happy ; and the abode of hap- piness is described after the Jewish conceptions, as the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, filled with everything that can minister to eternal de- light. " And 1 saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, and be their Go^l. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things are passed away." Such, then, is the general prophetical and symbolical aspect of the book of Revelation, a most magnificent and astonishing production, which for gorgeousness and sublimity far transcends any other composition in ex- istence. I now turn to its doctrinal bearings. It has 130 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. been considered as a stronghold of the doctrine of the Trinity, insomuch that not a few consider it to be con- clusive upon that subject. It will be the purpose of the remainder of this lecture to show you that pre- cisely the opposite is the fact. God is represented through the whole, as one, undivided, and supreme, alone possessing the essential attributes of Deity. Jesus Christ is represented as exalted to the first dignity in heaven, after the one Jehovah, but still as a being distinct, inferior, and dependent for all his attributes on Jehovah. Then, wherever you look, you see no such person as the Holy Spirit, which certainly ought not to be the case if it be a fact that such a person actually exists in heaven. The nearest approach to personality, is seven spirits before God's throne ; and if these are all persons, there are nine persons in the Deity, in- stead of three. We begin then with the very first sentence, and we say that it overthrows every Trinitarian idea to be de- rived from the whole book. " The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him." Consider for a moment what facts this language involves. Here is Christ exalted to heaven, and has been for at least thirty years, and possessing all the divine attributes that he ever will possess, God, if he ever was, or ever will be, and yet excluded from Deity both by the language and by the fact. To say that God gave Jesus Christ a revelation, denies him to be God, in so many words, and denies him to be God, in the fact of its being needful or possible to make a revelation to him. One test of deity is the possession of omniscience. If you say that Jesus Christ could be told any- THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 131 thing past, present, or to come, you deny that he is God. The test of his being God by identity of being with God, is identity of consciousness. To be the same in any intellectual sense, there must be the same consciousness in both. If there is not this identity of knowledge between Christ and God, then it is in vain that you assert an identity of being, or that you assert that Christ is God in any sense. Then we pass on to the salutation. In that you see the widest distinction maintained between Jehovah and Christ ; and the Spirit, if personal at all, is seven per- sons. 4C Grace unto you and peace, from him who is, and who was, and who is to come," that is, from Jeho- vah, who alone possesses these incommunicable attri- butes of self-existence and eternity, " and from the seven Spirits, which are before his throne," that is, God's throne. They can make no part of God, then, if they are before his throne, unless they are personifica- tions of his attributes. " And from Jesus Christ." Let us consider the attributes by which he is distin- guished, contrasted with those of Jehovah, " the faithful witness, the first-begotten of the dead, and the chief of the kings of the earth." No Person of a Trinity can be the first-begotten of the dead, or the chief of the kings of the earth. We now come to the doxology, which follows imme- diately after. Here the Trinitarian imagines that he makes a strong point. Here is a doxology to Christ. Is not this demonstration that he is God ? If he is not God, how can he have a doxology without idolatry ? Let us then take particular notice of the reasons for 132 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. which ascriptions of praise are given him, and the relations which he is represented as sustaining to God. " To him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto his God and Father." Such is the true reading of the text. Now a Person of the Trinity cannot wash us in his blood ; and although he possibly might have a Father, he cannot have a God. What- ever degree of homage is given to him, is not paid to him as God, nor for anything that God could do. The very terms, then, of this doxology, are not such as be- long to supreme Divinity, but shut him out from par- ticipation in supreme Divinity. It is proper to say, as we pass along, that the second Alpha and Omega, in the eleventh verse, have no au- thority, and are now rejected from the text by all parties. In the seventeenth verse, the phrase " the first and the last," though similar in appearance to Alpha and Omega, cannot, of course, be applied in the same sense, or to the same person, because immediately after he says, "I am he that liveth and was dead, and be- hold, I am alive forevermore." This, of course, can- not apply to Jehovah. The meaning is, u I am the only one, the first and the last, who died and rose again ; " as is confirmed by the rest of the sentence, " and have the keys of hell and death," have gone down through the gates of death, and come up again, and, therefore, can pass and repass at will. The next indication of doctrinal sentiment, is in the messages to the churches. Christ there maintains the same relation to God and to man which he did when on THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 133 earth, as the organ of communication , the instrument of the prophetic spirit. What he says is not from him- self personally, as would be the case were he God, or did he speak as God. But he says : " Whosoever hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches." What Spirit ? The Spirit of inspiration surely, by which God gave the whole revelation to Christ, according to the first verse. u The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." How could there be a more conclusive disclaimer that he was God? The advocate of the Trinity may suppose that he finds strong confirmation of his hypothesis, in the knowl- edge which Christ represents himself to possess of the state of the churches, and of individual character. " That the churches may know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts ; " but he will find that it is only the extension of the same power which he had on earth, of knowing the thoughts and characters of men, which was a prophetic gift. This whole matter is explained in the beginning of the fifth chapter. The source of Christ's knowledge is there symbolically expressed to be given him by God. The whole composition, indeed, is a book of symbols. Everything which is to be represented, im- mediately takes that form which befits the occasion and the thing to be done. At the pause in heaven, when no one is found worthy to take the little book out of the hand of God, and the Messiah comes forward to do it, he becomes a lion. He becomes a lion when he is called upon to act, but he is a lamb when it is his 12 134 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. part to suffer with patience. " And one of the elders said unto me, Weep not. Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and the seven seals thereof. And I saw in the midst, between the throne and the living creatures, and the elders, a Lamb, as it were slain." He is slain, because it was by suffering death that he became the author of salvation to man; — " having seven horns." Horns were the symbols of power in the East, and, strange as it may appear to us, the coins which were struck in honor of Alexander are found to have horns like a beast. So much was power associ- ated with this appendage of the brute creation, that it is introduced into one of the descriptions of God him- self, in the Old Testament, which has always been considered as one of the sublimest passages of that book. " God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. And his bright- ness was as the light, he had horns coming out of his hand, and there was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet. He stood and measured the earth. He beheld and drove asunder the nations. And the ever- lasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow. His ways are everlasting." The Lamb then, though he had been slain, is repre- sented as invested with great power. He has seven horns, the perfect and sacred number, indicating great power. u And seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth." Here, too, is THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 135 another symbolical expression. The "eye is the symbol of intelligence. The Saviour, in the state of exalta- tion, has the power of seeing, or knowing, what is going on upon the earth. This has already been signi- fied, by the fact that he was acquainted with the state of the different churches to which he had sent messages. But those eyes do not see all this by their own natural powers, but by power super naturally communicated. They are u the seven spirits of God." Translated then from symbols to plain words, the sentence reads thus : " Endowed with great dignity, and enabled by the power of God to see whatever is taking place upon the earth." But how 7 ever advanced in power and knowledge he was, all was derived. u He that overcometh and keep- eth my works until the end, I will give him authority over the nations, and he shall feed them with an iron sceptre, and as potters' vessels shall he break them in pieces, as I also received of my Father" However exalted, he is not God. So far from it. he has a God. " He that overcometh I will make a pillar in the tem- ple of my God." " To him that overcometh will I give to sit down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Such quotations as these ought to settle the question, so far as the book of Revelation is con- cerned. But the Trinitarian supposes that he has counter- vailing testimony farther on in the book. Christ, it is said, is made an object of worship. But worship in the Bible is equiovocal. It is paid not only to God, but 136 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. to inferior beings. The question for us to decide is this : Is he worshipped as God, as the Supreme Being ? Let us examine. John represents himself as being carried up to heaven, and as seeing a representation of God as a king, sitting upon a throne, but he is single and undivided. " A throne was set, and One sat on the throne." He is worshipped as one, single, un- divided Being. The celestial inhabitants cry, " Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Here he is worshipped for incom- municable, divine attributes, for self-existence and eter- nity. Then, for what he alone could do, " Thou art worthy to receive glory and honor and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Then Christ is introduced, not as God, for God is still upon the throne, but as a lamb before the throne. He approaches God, and takes the book out of the hand of God. Then the host of heaven break forth in his praise. " Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kin- dred and tongue and people and nation." He certainly is not worshipped as God when he stands before the throne of God, and in the presence of God. He is praised for being worthy to take the book out of the hand of God, not because he possessed divine attri- butes, but because he had redeemed his followers unto God by his blood, which God certainly could not do. Then they are joined together in an act of worship, but not as equal, not as persons of a Trinity, but one as God, and the other as the Lamb. " Blessing, THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 137 and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- teth on the throne, and unto the Lamb. " There is no in- timation that these two were one, or were equal. One was on the throne, which was Jehovah, and the other before the throne, which was the Lamb, or Christ. Then the martyrs, in their hymns of praise, keep up the same broad distinction : " Salvation unto our God, which sit- teth on the throne, and unto the Lamb." There is evi- dently no intention on the part of the writer of exalting the Lamb to an equality with God, or of admitting him into the Deity, for it is said, " God and the Lamb." This distinction is kept up through the whole book. Christ is represented as exalted to the highest dignity in heaven next to God, and as watching over the wel- fare of his church, but everywhere as totally distinct from that unique and eternal Being, who alone pos- sesses the attributes of Jehovah, "who was, and who is, and who is to come, who hath made all things, for whose pleasure they are and were created," who alone held in his hand the book of destiny, who alone knew all the events which were ever to take place, and who gave the revelation to Jesus Christ. So far is he from being put on a level with God in the worship of heaven, that he is in one place put on a level with Moses, as a worshipper of God. An innu- merable company is represented as having been victo- rious over idolatry, and having arrived at heaven, they there celebrate the praise of God in a hymn, which is called u the song of Moses and the Lamb," either be- cause it was sung by the saved, both of Jews and Christians, or because it was the common object of 12* 13S THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Moses and Christ to destroy idolatry. " And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty ; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name ? for thou only art holy : for all nations shall come and worship before thee ; for thy judgments are made manifest." Now, if the Lamb were a Person of the Trinity, would he not rather be placed as a person worshipped, instead of a person worshipping ? Is not his being left out of Deity, and associated with Moses, sufficient evidence that the writer did not consider him as God in any sense? Not only so ; the theocratic ideas of the Old Testa- ment are maintained through the whole book. Christ is represented as reigning, but it is only under God, as the supreme Sovereign, and by his power and appoint- ment. " And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power and hast reigned." In another place : u And I heard a loud voice, saying in heaven. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 139 Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ." All these things certainly look very different from a modern form of worship, which has been stereotyped, as it were, for the use of all ages. u O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God." There are two passages near the close of the book, which, when brought together, are thought to constitute a strong argument for the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ. In the sixth verse of the last chapter, the angel who had just shown John the heavenly Jerusalem, and seems to have been the expositor of the symbolic images which had passed before the vision of the Iiev- elator, says to him, " These sayings are faithful and true, and the Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly ; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." Then in the sixteenth verse, u /, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify these things in the churches." Now it is argued, from the fact that the angel says, that " the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel," and Jesus says, M I, Jesus, have sent mine angel," that Jesus is the Lord God of the holy proph- ets, and as the Lord God of the holy prophets is Je- hovah, Jesus mnst be Jehovah. But in order to settle this, it will be necessary to de- termine whether, throughout the book, Jesus acts in an original and independent, or only in a subordinate and ministerial capacity. Does he give the revelation him- self, or does he merely transmit it from God to men, or, 140 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. what amounts to the same thing, does not God, in pro- motion of his cause, send an angel to make certain dis- closures to John ? Christ speaks, in the Gospel of John, of his sending that which God sends in his name. u And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." He means to say, of course, that he will give it through the Father. The Father, to whom all prayer is to be made, would give it on his account, as he afterwards explains : u In that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father inmy 7iame, He will give ityou." It is not necessary that what is asked in the name of Christ, and given by God, should come through the agency of Christ, in order to be said to be given by him ; but only to be given for his sake, and in promotion of his cause. This mode of representation enables us to un- derstand what is meant by the first sentence of the book of Revelation, and all similar passages in the whole com- position. " The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his (God's) servants the things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it to his servant John." Now it is imma- terial whether the word " he," in this sentence, refers to God or Christ ; it will ultimately amount to the same thing. If God sent the angel directly to John, then the angel was the angel both of God and Jesus, according to the representation we have quoted from the Gospel of John, by which Jesus is said to do that, which God does on his account, or in furtherance of his cause. Or if Christ sent the angel to John, he was THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 141 still the angel of God as well as of Christ, for he deliv- ers a message, which Christ received from God, for the purpose of communicating it to mankind. Besides, the angels, though subjected to Christ, as we read, " principalities and powers being made subject to him," they are no less the angels of God than before. It would seem, that the writer intended to represent that the angel came immediately from God, by a com- parison of the first verse of the first chapter with the sixth verse of the last. u The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John." In the last chapter; "The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass." If the last verse may be permitted to interpret the first, then the person referred to in the first, in the clause, u and he sent and signified it to his servant John," must refer to God. and not to Christ immediately, though an angel, sent by God to reveal anything to the church for the sake of Christ, and in furtherance of his cause, accord- ing to the representations I have quoted from the Gos- pel of John, might be said to be sent by Christ. When these things are taken into consideration, the fact, that in one case it is said, " the Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent his angel," and in another, u I, Jesus, have sent mine angel,'' does not prove them to be identical and the same, or prove that Jesus claimed to be the Lord God of the holy prophets, for the book commences with making them distinct beings 142 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. from each other. One is God, both by name and by what he does ; and the other is not God, both by name and by what he does not do. " The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." Many persons are led into mistake, in the interpreta- tion of the close of this book, by considering, " Behold, I come quickly," in the seventh and twelveth verses, to have been spoken by Jesus ; whereas they are spoken by the angel in the name of God. The angel person- ates God in the seventh verse, and from the tenth to the sixteenth. In the sixth verse the angels speaks : " These saying are faithful and true ; and the Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done," and says, that is, God says through him, u Behold, I come quickly ; blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book." Then the angel speaks again in the name of God, in the tenth verse : " Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be." This is partly a quotation from the tenth verse of the fortieth chapter of Isaiah. u Behold, the Lord God will come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him ; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him." The angel goes on to speak in the name of God : "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." This is all agreeable to the Messianic idea, to which the whole structure of the book is conformed. Christ THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 143 is nowhere represented as coming alone to reign and establish his kingdom. He always comes with God to reign under him. As Judge, he says, u Come, ye blessed of my Father." He cannot come by his own power, nor does he himself know when that period shall be. For Paul says : c; Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his own times. He shall show, w T ho is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords." According to the conception of this book, God himself is to come and dwell among men. " And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." The Messiah is to reign with him, or under him, and share his throne. In the heavenly Jerusalem is to be u the throne of God and the Lamb." The coming of God is to be simultaneous with the coming of Christ. So Paul represents in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians. " Even so, them which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him" This being the case, that, according to the Messianic ideas of the Jews, Christ and God were both to come to reign over the church, to raise the dead, and to judge the world, there is no objection to interpreting the declaration, " Behold, I come quickly," as having been spoken by the angel in the person of God, and all ground is removed for the assertion, that Jesus and God are represented as identical. Such, then, are the doctrinal aspects of the Book of Revelation. So far is it from teaching the Trinity, 144 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. or anything approaching to it. So strictly and abso- lutely does it maintain the unity of God, the inferiority and dependence of Christ, and the impersonality of the Holy Spirit. LECTURE VII. INCARNATION. COLOSSIANS, II. 9. FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. Among the doctrines involved in the Trinity., is that of the Incarnation, as it is called. That doctrine I propose now to consider ; first, what it is, and in the second place, how it is proved. The doctrine is, that God the Son, at the conception of Jesus, became connected in some mysterious way with his human soul, so that a person was formed, the elements of which were, a human soul, the second Person of the Trinity, and a human body. This is called the mystery of the incarnation. I propose to consider first the doctrine, and then those passages of Scripture which are thought to prove it. It is not too much to say, that the whole doctrine of the Trinity depends upon it. And not only so, it depends on the utmost nicety of definition. If it is proved, that the whole Deity became incarnate in Christ, then the doctrine of the Trinity is gone, for then all distinction of persons is lost, and all those 13 146 INCARNATION. relations of the persons to each other, which are ne- cessary to the atonement, will be destroyed. Then, if incarnation is made to mean the simple indwelling of the Deity in Christ, then the Trinity is equally de- stroyed. In that case, it will merely amount to a sensible presence of God in the soul of Christ, a con- scious communion of Christ with God, whereas his presence, though actually pervading all spirits, is usually unconscious and insensible. When we speak of the incarnation of God, various relations of the Deity to time and space are suggested, of the most puzzling character. The unchangeable, (for all the attributes of Deity must be possessed, and equally, by each person of the Trinity,) changes his mode of existence. After having existed from all eternity in a purely spiritual state, he commences an existence in connection with a corporeal frame and a finite soul. He, who fills immensity, and who of course cannot change his place, becomes incarnate in a habitation of clay, the intimate associate, and more, of an infant, subject to an infant's wants and weak- nesses. Sometimes the human soul is asleep, as when Christ and his disciples were in the ship. Then the thought is suggested, how this could be, when the Divine Mind never slumbereth nor sleepeth ? What sort of a union could there be between a slumbering soul and a God who cannot sleep ? The incarnation of God is a thought which does not bear examination. The more we think of it, the more improbable it be- comes. It is not only antecedently improbable, but it does not agree with the actual history of Jesus of INCARNATION. 147 Nazareth. Were there a real incarnation, then the complex person so composed must have possessed intrinsically all Divine attributes ; Jesus Christ, or the person who went by that name, must have been om- nipotent and omniscient ; and if this combination was necessary to his official character, then whenever he spoke or acted in his official character, he ought to have possessed these atrributes. Every instance, then, in which Christ spoke or acted in his official character, as dependent for power or knowledge, he contradicted or disclaimed the doctrine of incarnation. He who affirms that God gave the spirit to Christ not by mea- sure, denies the doctrine of incarnation. He, who was composed of one mind, which was God, and another mind, which was man, could not receive the Spirit without measure, could not receive the Spirit at all ; for that which is infinite can receive no increase, that which is omniscient cannot be inspired, that which is omnipotent can receive no accession of power. On one occasion he says of himself, u that he could pray the Father, and he would send him more than twelve legions of angels." If the Supreme Ruler of the Universe w T ere incarnate in him, what need of any prayer ? He might have commanded them himself, without any prayer. Go with him, then, in his agony in garden. If omnipotence made a part of his person, whence that agony, whence that prayer ? If omnipo- tence was within him, why should he have prayed to omnipotence without him. And then, when he was crucified, how could he utter that prayer, u Father, into thy hand I commend my spirit." Or how could 148 INCARNATION. he utter that exclamation, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " Did the Divine part for- sake and abandon the human in this trying hour ? Was the connection of Christ's human and divine nature of such a kind, that it could be dissolved ? Then the incarnation ceased some time before Christ's death, and the divine and human natures parted company. And if they remained united, how could the human nature complain that it was forsaken of the divine ? But texts of the Scriptures are appealed to, which are alleged to prove, that what seems so improbable or impossible, was actually the fact. I propose in this lecture to consider some of them. The strongest text upon this point, would, at first sight, seem to be that which I quoted at the commence- ment of this lecture. " In him dwelleth all the ful- ness of the Godhead bodily." This seems to be strong language, and if it will not prove an incarnation of God, it would seem to show an indwelling of God in Christ of a similar kind to that of which Christ speaks when he says, " The Father that dwellejh in me, he doeth the works." I had once selected this passage as a text for a discourse, setting forth the intimate connec- tion of God with Christ. But in order to be sure of my ground, I investigated the passage with the best critical helps, and by a comparison of it with parallel passages. But as I advanced, I began to perceive, and the further I went on, the more I became con- vinced, that it had nothing to do with the subject ; till at last, as an honest man, I was forced to give it up, and take some other text to show the connection INCARNATION. 149 between God and Christ. " The fulness of the God- head," I found, meant neither the essence of God, nor his attributes, but the whole body of believers, the Christian church, gathered from all nations and lan- guages and tongues, gathered together in Christ. The inquirer is driven into this result by the comparison of parallel passages, in this same Epistle, and in that to the Ephesians. These two Epistles were written at the same time, and sent by the same messenger. And every person finds himself prone, under those circum- stances, to run into the same thoughts and a similar mode of expression. One leading thought of Paul at this time, and at all times, was the amalgamation of Jews and Gentiles, all mankind indeed, in the Christ- ian church. The Jewish law, instead of bringing man- kind together, had tended rather to separate them, to build up a middle wall of separation between them. Christ had come, according to God's eternal purpose, hitherto concealed, to give a religion for aZZ, which he consummated and sanctioned by dying upon the cross for the benefit of all. u Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispen- sation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ." What he means, is further explained in what follows. " Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the children of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and par- 13* 150 INCARNATION. takers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." " But now in Christ Jesus, ye, who were sometime afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, for he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abol- ished in his flesh," that is, by being crucified for all, and by his blood ratifying the new and universal cov- enant, u having abolished the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." u For this cause, I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in hea- ven and earth is named." In another place ; " And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that jilleth all in all." u The church," " his body," and " the fulness of him that filleth all in all," mean the same thing, — the great body of Christians on earth and in heaven. When the Apostle wrote to the Colossians at the same time, he varied the form of expression. " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tra- dition of men, and not after Christ. For in him dwell- eth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." What is, in the other Epistle, " the fulness of him that filleth all things," is here, " the fulness of God." And both phrases are merely equivalent to this : cc The church, the great multitude of Christians, are vitally united to Christ as their head, are connected with him in a INCARNATION. 151 body." In one place, and by one figure, Paul calls the church " Christ's body," and he is its head. In another, it is " a temple," built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and Christ is the chief corner-stone. In another case, it is " the whole fam- ily in heaven and earth." In the case which we are considering, it is " the whole multitude of the wor- shippers of God, assembled in Christ as a temple." " The fulness of God," then, has nothing to do with God's dwelling in Christ, or manifesting his attributes through him. The church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all things, and the whole fam- ily in heaven and earth, is the same with u all the ful- ness of God." The simple meaning is, then, that the whole Christian church is in vital union with Christ, and depends upon him, are taught by him, and there- fore they want no other teacher. And whatever mean- ing you may choose to put on it, will prove nothing as to the doctrine of incarnation, for Paul wishes of ordinary Christians, that " they may be filled with all the fulness of God." If such language proves that God became incarnate in Christ, it will likewise prove that God became incarnate in his whole church. If it does not prove that God became incarnate in his church, so neither will it prove that he became incarnate in Christ. There is another passage, which has been thought to intimate, if not prove, the incarnation of the Deity, or the first Person of the Trinity in Christ. It is found in the second chapter of Philippians. u Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus : who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 152 INCARNATION. to be equal with God ; but made himself of no repu- tation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likness 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 also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that 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." Since I have been able to read this passage in the orig- inal, one of the greatest marvels to me in theology has been, that this passage has been adduced to prove the in- carnation of Deity. It occurs in a paragraph inculcating humility. u Let the same mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God," &c. This is carried back into eternity, before the incarna- tion, but without the least reason, and against all rea- son. There was no such person in existence as Christ Jesus, before the incarnation, even according to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Jesus was the name of a man, who was born in Judea. Christ Jesus is the name of the same person considered as the Messiah. The name Christ Jesus, therefore, can refer to him only after his birth. To be in the form of God, means to be God, it is said. But it was something which he could put off, for he thought his equality or likeness to God, to be a thing not eagerly to be retained, but made him- self of no reputation, literally, emptied himself. This certainly could not be, if the likeness to God consisted INCARNATION. 153 in essential and inherent attributes. He took the form of a servant, literally, a slave. If being in the form of God, necessarily meant being God, so taking the form of a slave, must mean that he became a slave, which was not a fact. " Being in the likeness of man, and formed in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto death," so far as to die obedient to God, of course, u even the death of the cross." The cross was the lowest punishment, and the most vile and infamous ; only inflicted on slaves, and the meanest and most degraded of mankind. " There- fore God hath highly exalted him." What language is this ? The second Person of the Trinity die on the cross ! The second Person of the Trinity exalted by God in consequence of his obedience ! Here must be some mistake. " And given him a name that is above every name." Can God give God a name ? u that at the name," literally, " in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The homage done to Christ, cannot, of course, be supreme, because it is given by the command and authority of a higher poiver, and obedience to that command will redound to the honor of that higher power, namely, God the Father. If it were given to him as supreme, it would derogate from the glory of God. The explanation, then, of this passage, which inter- prets it to mean an incarnation, is encompassed with many inextricable difficulties, any one of which is totally insurmountable. What then does it mean ? 154 INCARNATION Let the same humble disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who when he was here on earth, though clothed with the power, and endowed with the wisdom of God, did not assume an external dignity and state corresponding to his endowments, but assumed an appearance lowly and humble as a slave. He humbled himself still farther. He not only was subject to all the sufferings of humanity, but consented to die upon the cross, that most ignominious of deaths, in obedience to the will of God. But those sufferings have been the means of his exaltation. They made him the head of the new dispensation, and caused him to be regarded with reverence, not only by the whole Christian church, but by the inhabitants of the invisible world. u God raised him from the dead," as the same Apostle says in another place, " and set him at his own right hand, far above all principality and power, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come." There is another passage nearly parallel to this in the eighth chapter of Second Corinthians : u For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that ye, by his poverty, might be made rich." This, like the other, has been carried back before the birth of Christ, and interpreted to mean that he was rich in a state of preexistent glory ; that he renounced those riches, and came into this poor state of existence, that he might enrich his followers. But the same objection lies against this, as against the other interpretation. We have no authority for INCARNATION. 155 carrying back the phrase, " our Lord Jesus Christ," before the birth of Jesus ; and if so, such an inter- pretation falls immediately to the ground. As Jesus never was rich, in a literal sense, so he could not become poor, in a literal sense. It can refer there- fore only to his choice of a life of poverty and priva- tion, in preference to a life of affluence and splendor. He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes, could not want anything. He who could call up the hidden treasures of the deep to pay his tribute to the temple, must have voluntarily chosen to pass through life with not where to lay his head. The word rendered tc became poor," has not any change of con- dition as its primitive and general meaning, but rather to live in a condition of poverty. The meaning there- fore is, that Jesus Christ chose to live among men in a condition of poverty and destitution, when he had the means of assuming a more affluent condition. That riches, in this case, does not mean absolute wealth, is likewise gathered from what comes after: " That ye by his poverty might he made rich ; " not rich in this world's goods, but in spiritual possessions. There is another text, which would have a bearing on the subject of this lecture, were the reading in our common Bibles the true one. It is in First of Timothy, third chapter, sixteenth verse. " God was manifested in the flesh, justified of the spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up in glory." But as it happens, nothing is more uncertain than the reading of this verse. There are three different ways in which this appears in 156 INCARNATION. ancient manuscripts of the Bible. The best authen- ticated, and that for which there is the greatest amount of evidence, is, " .He, who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit." The next reading, in amount of authority is, " Great is the mystery of god- liness, which was manifested in the flesh." The whole Roman Catholic Church, all over the world, knows no other reading than this, as you may see any day you choose to examine a Catholic Bible. The least au- thority is in favor of our common reading, " God was manifested in the flesh." Griesbach, the best authority upon this subject, in his critical edition of the New Testament, has, u He who was manifested in the flesh." This reading agrees best with the general drift of the passage. It does not make good sense to say that God was justified in the spirit, or that he was seen of angels, any more when in a state of incarnation, than when in a purely spiritual state ; nor does it agree with the attributes of God, to say that he, who cannot change place, was received up in glory. All these things were true of Christ, considered as the sent of God, which is the meaning, if we receive as the true reading, u He who." Many Christians imagine that the incarnation may be proved from one of the first sentences of Christ's prayer with his disciples. " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the gloryl had with thee before the world was." But this prayer, instead of favoring the doctrine of the Trinity, is directly against it. According to the Trinitarian hy- pothesis, the only part of Christ which could have INCARNATION. 157 existed before the world, was his divine nature, and his divine nature was God, or a Person of the Trinity, possessing all divine attributes. An equal person of the Trinity could not have received glory from God before the world was, could not have received glory at all. But what makes it still worse for Trinitarianism, he prays, as the Son, " Glorify thy Son;" he identifies himself with the Son, and as the Son he prays ; u And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The Father, then, to whom he prays, is not a Person of a Trinity, but the whole Deity, the only true God ; and the Son prays for a glory which he had with the only true God before the world was. Here, then, is the Son shut out of Deity by his own words. No Trinitarian, of course, will admit that the Son received glory from the only true God before the world was. We are driven out of the Trinitarian exposition, and but one explanation remains, that no incarnation is meant or implied in the case. The glory, for which Christ prays, is that which was destined for him as the Messiah, before the world was ; that is, the glory of redeeming and saving the world. And this makes it consistent with what comes after, his saying that he imparts this glory to his disciples. "And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them," that is, of saving mankind. By the same figure, we are said to have been cc chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world." If we insist on interpreting figures literally, not only Christ existed before the foundation of the world, but we his followers. If such language 14 158 INCARNATION. does not prove that we existed then, so neither does it prove that Christ existed then. So when Christ says, " Before Abraham was, I am," he does not assert that he existed before Abraham in any other way than in the counsels of God. It was only by a strong figure, that Abraham could have been said to have seen Christ's day, which did not really exist for almost two thousand years after, and it was scarcely a stronger figure for him to say that he was the JMessiah before Abraham. I am aware, that this sentence of Christ's conversation with the Jews, is thought, even by scholars, to assert that Jesus existed before he came into the world. I believe that it has no such meaning, and from the fol- lowing considerations. The main subject of this con- versation of Christ with the Jews, was his claims to the Messiahship. Those he strenuously asserts. " It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father, that sent me, beareth witness of me." They cavil at this argument, and he subjoins, " When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he." His words are literally " that I am." The word u /ie" is added by the translators, as is indicated by its being printed in italics in our Bibles. The form of expression is precisely the same that it is in the sentence, " Before Abraham was, I am." Now if our translators had supplied the word he, in this case likewise, as they ought to have done, the true meaning w r ould have been given, and a false inference have been prevented, by which so many millions have been misled. The second consideration, that puts the INCARNATION. 159 meaning of this passage beyond a doubt, is, that it can be shown, that at that period, the phrase " I am," interred by one claiming to be the Messiah, was an ellipsis, there being understood after it the w r ords, cc the Christ." This can be conclusively proved in the fol- lowing way. Matthew tells us that Jesus said, on a certain occasion, Ct Many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall deceive many." Mark reports him to have said : " Many shall come in my name, saying, I am, and shall deceive many." So it is reported by Luke. That the words " the Christ " are left out in both these cases in the original, you may ascertain by referring to your Bibles, where you will find, in both Mark and Luke, the w T ord " Christ " printed in italics. It appears by this that when Jesus did not use the words, cc the Christ," in connection with u I am," they were understood by his hearers, and would be understood and supplied by the readers of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Much more would they be supplied in the minds of those Jews whom he was then addressing, as he had used the same words in the same sense twice in the same conversation. u When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am." In the twenty- fourth verse of the same eighth chapter of John, he had said, " If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." We cannot suppose, for a moment, that this is a mere affirmation of existence. They could not doubt of his existence, and belief in his sim- ple existence could do them no good. It is the affirm- ation of a certain character, or office, that he meant, 160 INCARNATION. not mere existence. He meant to say, therefore, " If ye believe not that I am the Christ, ye shall die in your sins." Nor would the affirmation of mere existence suit the general object of the conversation, where it occurs in the sentence, " Before Abraham was, I am." The object of the whole conversation is to prove his claim to the Messiahship. To affirm that he existed before Abraham, would have been nothing to the pur- pose. He might have existed ages before Abraham, and still have had no mission to mankind. But to say, cc Before Abraham was, I am the Christ," has a meaning in coincidence with the purpose of the whole conversation. u Not only am I the Christ, but I was so in the eternal purpose of God before Abraham." There is an associated idea of his superiority to Abraham, which does not at once strike the reader of this conversation. The introduction of Abraham into this discussion, was altogether accidental, and it came from the Jews, and not from Jesus. He had said to them, " Verily, Verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death." The Jews thought this the assertion of extravagant claims, and asked him if he pretended to be greater than Abraham, the founder of their nation, and, in their estimation, the greatest man of all time, except the promised Mes- siah. He is dead, said they, and the prophets ; whom would you make yourself? u Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is my Father that honoreth me, of whom ye say that he is your God." I assume only that rank which God has given me in the arrangement of the world, that God, whom INCARNATION. 161 you claim as your national God. He has made me greater than Abraham. " Your father Abraham re- joiced to see my day ; and he saw it and was glad." He looked forward prophetically to my times, and rejoiced in the prospect, as of something greatly su- perior to his own. The Jews began again to cavil, and to take him in a sense which he did not intend. " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- ham ? " Jesus annihilates their cavil with a single word, and at the same time asserts with a stronger em- phasis his claims. cc What I say, has nothing to do with my personal existence, or with seeing Abra- ham. I mean to say, that I am the Messiah, the purposes of whose existence are so vast and import- ant, that they overleap Abraham and his times, and go back in the Divine plan to the very foundation of the world." There is another class of passages which are thought to have a strong bearing on the doctrine of incarnation, in which Christ is said " to have descended from heaven," u to be in heaven," &c. The most explicit, perhaps, is found in the sixth chapter of John : " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before." This is thought most conclusive. For if the Son of man ascended up where he was before, he must have existed in heaven before he descended upon earth and became incarnate. But a little exam- ination, I believe, will convince the candid inquirer that he meant no such thing. Trace the conversation from the commencement, and you will find that he identifies his person with his doctrine, which was from 14* 162 INCARNATION. heaven, and he speaks of himself as taken away from the worldly expectations of the Jews, and leaving noth- ing but his doctrine behind, which he affirms will still be equally powerful, in his personal absence, as his personal presence. The conversation was introduced by the miracle of the feeding of five thousand with a few loaves and fishes. This bore so strong a resemblance to the mira- cle of Moses, of feeding the Israelites in the wilderness with manna, that those who saw and ate were reminded of the prophecy of Moses, and induced to think that Jesus answered the description of that prophet which Moses promised, when he said, 4C I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto me." This prophecy they thought fulfilled in Jesus, who had just fed them miraculously in a desert place. " Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth, that Prophet that should come into the world." This miracle confirmed their earthly notions of the Messiah, and many of them followed him, with no purpose of being benefitted by his teach- ing, but of obtaining a support without labor, and per- haps of sharing the wordly advantages of his kingdom. He reproves their gross ideas, and admonishes them : u Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give you." They attempt to stimulate him to work another similar miracle, by the example of Moses. " Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat." Jesus seizes on the phrase, " bread from INCARNATION. 163 heaven," as a fitting means of turning their attention to his doctrines, as the only reason for which they ought to follow him. " Then said Jesus unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven." That was not heavenly bread, w r hich Moses gave you. u But my Father is now giving you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world : " spiritual life, of course. The world was not to eat him, literally, but only receive his doctrine. This he goes on to explain. u I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall never hunger , and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." Here we see in what sense he is the bread of life. — as a teacher. His doctrine is the bread of life, and he identifies himself with his doctrine ; and as his doctrine came from heaven, as the Jews asserted the manna did which their fathers eat in the desert, to keep up the parallel, he speaks of himself as having come down from heaven. The Jews murmured among themselves at his use of so strong a figure as calling himself the bread of life. " Is not this Jesus," said they, u the son of Joseph, whose father and whose mother we know ? How does he say, I came down from heaven ? " He answers, that their misunderstanding of his language arises from their per- versity, and not from his obscurity. He, however, defines w 7 hat he had said. u He that believeth on me hath life everlasting." Still he does not drop the figure of bread, but resumes it, and adds another idea to it, that it is living bread, has the power of communicating eternal life. " I am the living bread, that came down 164 INCARNATION. from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever." This conception of himself as the bread of life, suggested to him another thought, that he could become the bread of life only by dying. In no other way could he confer spiritual life upon mankind. He therefore goes on to hint the doctrine, so revolting to a Jew, and especially those of so worldly a character as those whom he was then addressing, that he, as their Messiah, must c/ie, instead of reigning over them as their temporal king. ii And the bread that I shall give you, is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." Here the Jews, probably perceiving the drift of his remarks, begin to cavil again ; " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? " Jesus proceeds to teach the revolting doctrine in still stronger terms. u Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," the Messiah, u and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." With your present ideas of the Messiah, you can have no spiritual life. You expect that he will supply your temporal wants, and minister to your worldly ambition. He must die, and disappoint that hope, before you will understand the real purposes of his mission, and receive from him that spiritual benefit which he comes to confer. ;; He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- lasting life." He who receives me as a suffering Mes- siah, and embraces those doctrines which I lay down my life to communicate, shall be forever happy. " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." So necessary is my death to give efficacy to my doc- INCARNATION. 165 trines, that my body and blood may be said to be the nourishment of my followers. u He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." As food that is eaten, enters into the human body, is incorporated with it, and gives it life, so shall my doctrines, with which I am myself identified, and which I shall die to impart and confirm, enter the mind that receives them, and make a part of it, and give it life and strength." " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." My mission and doctrines are from God, the source of all life. He is the source of life to me. My doctrines have power, because they come from him. So, when communicated to others, they shall impart to them spiritual life. " This is the bread which came down from heaven." This is the true heavenly bread, of which I have been dis- coursing. " Not as your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead ; he that eateth of this bread shall live forever." The bread which your fathers ate in the wilderness, sustained a mere animal life, which soon came to a close. My doctrines confer eternal blessedness. The literal import of this conversation was suffi- ciently revolting. The thought of eating human flesh, and drinking human blood, w r as to a Jew most shock- ing, after the horror which their law inculcated of even touching a dead body, and its awful threatenings to those who eat the blood, even of an animal. But its figurative and symbolic meaning was no less so. In these dark say- ings was shadowed forth another truth, that he was to 166 INCARNATION. die, instead of u abiding forever," and reigning over them in splendor and glory, as they expected their Mes- siah to do. They murmured about it, and complained of it. But he, perceiving their dissatisfaction, so far from retracting anything, goes on to add another truth, still more offensive, that he was to be taken away from them altogether. u Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before." He had spoken of his advent, as " coming down from heaven, because he identified himself with his doctrine as the bread of life. He now merely carries out the figure by speaking of his departure, as ascending up as the Son of man, where he was before as the bread of life. The place to which he went, is a point of no importance in this conversation, but only the fact of his being removed from them, as we see by what follows. The point is, that, personally, he was to be entirely taken away from their worldly expecta- tions. But that, he subjoins, is of no consequence. My bodily presence is nothing. My doctrines are all. And they would remain, and be equally powerful, to give spiritual life to the world, in my personal absence, as my personal presence. cc The flesh profiteth nothing ; spirit alone quickeneth. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." My words, being spirit and life, are not confined, like my person, to one place or age, but will live, and reign, and sanctify the world, when I am no longer personally in it. There are two passages in Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, which have done much to produce, or INCARNATION. 167 at least to confirm, the doctrine of incarnation. The first is this. u For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them ; and that Rock was Christ." The second is a few verses further. " Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." From these passages it is argued, that as the Rock which supplied the Israelites in the wilderness was Christ, he must have been pres- ent with them, and if they tempted him, he must have been, not only present, but their leader. If so, he then existed, and afterwards became incarnate. To explain the first of these texts, it will be necessary to consider the purpose of the writer in instituting this comparison between Christians under Christ, and the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness. His purpose is to dissuade the Christians from idolatry, and from partaking of idolatrous feasts. In order to do this, he reminds them of the fate of the Israelites in the desert, who were guilty of the same. To partake of the sacri- fices, is an act of treason to Christ and to God ; just as partaking of idolatrous sacrifices in the wilderness, was an act of treason to Moses and to God. Baptism, and partaking of the Lord's supper, are, under the Christian dispensation, a profession of allegiance to Christ and to God. It is inconsistent with this allegiance, thus professed, to go and partake of a sacrifice offered to an idol, as it is an acknowledgment of his divinity, and of allegiance to him. He therefore runs a parallel between baptism and the supper, and what happened to the Israelites, as to the obligations they created. u Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, 168 INCARNATION. how that our fathers were under the cloud, and under the sea, and were all baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." This great miracle of the passage of the Israelites through the sea, bore a strong resem- blance to Christian baptism, as it in a manner conse- crated the whole nation to Moses as their leader, and God their deliverer, secured their faith in the divine communion and authority of Moses, and bound them to obedience to him alone. "And did all eat of that spiritual food." The word " spiritual," here signifies supernatural, sacred, miraculously given, so that those who partook of it felt that it brought them into a pecu- liar relation to God, and under peculiar obligation to be his alone. That food, therefore, to them, was analogous to the bread of the communion to Christians; that is, a pledge of allegiance to God and to Christ. " And did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them ; and that Rock was Christ." The water they drank was as miraculously given them as their bread. It flowed from a rock ; and as that water answers to the wine of the communion, so that Rock, from which it flowed, answers to Christ, whose blood, which flowed from him in his crucifixion, is symbolically given to Christians in the communion. Now after having been thus bound to God, by what answered to baptism and the Lord's supper, the Is- raelites broke their allegiance, and became idolaters. " Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them ; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." In consequence of their sins, INCARNATION. 169 idolatry among the rest, they perished in the wilderness. u But with many of them God was not pleased ; for they were overthrown in the wilderness." If it was then so criminal in them to be guilty of idolatry, after the baptism of the Red Sea, and the communion of the manna from heaven, and of the water poured by divine power from the rock, it must be no less so for Christians to go and sit in an idol's temple, and partake of the sacrifices, after professing allegiance to Christ by the ordinances of his religion. In the phrase, " the Rock which followed them," there is an allusion to a Rabbinical tradition, that the rock, which Moses smote at Horeb, followed the Israelites the whole forty years' sojourn in the desert. It may be objected to this interpretation, that the Apostle says positively, that the Rock was Christ, not something corresponding to Christ. It can be shown, it may be answered, to be agreeable to the Apostle's mode of speech on other subjects. Thus he says pos- itively, that Hagar, Sarah's maid, is mount Sinai in Arabia. " For it is written, that Abraham had two sons ; the one by a bond maid, and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond maid, was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman, was by prom- ise. Which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants ; The one from the mount Sina, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sina in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusa- lem, which now is, and is in bondage w T ith her chil- dren." It is no more necessary that Christ should be the rock which supplied the Israelites with water in the 15 170 INCARNATION. desert, than that Hagar should literally have been mount Sinai, but only that he corresponded to it. The other passage is: " Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents." This is thought to assert, that the Israel- ites tempted Christ in the desert. If he was tempted, he must have been there to be tempted, and of course existed at that time. This would certainly have been the meaning, if there had been the pronoun, him, after the second tempted, if it had read thus : u Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted him." But as it now stands, we are at liberty to supply Moses or God, in the place of "him," according to the gen- eral drift of the passage. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted Moses, or tempted God, or tempted Moses and God, or God through Moses. We will cite the passage of the Old Testament which is alluded to, and we shall there find, that there is no mention of Christ directly or indirectly. u And 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 J\£oses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness, for there is no bread, neither is there any water, and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people ; and much people of Israel died." There is no evidence here, certainly, that Christ had anything to do with the temptation in the wilderness. But the language of the Old Testament throws a strong INCARNATION. 171 light on the language of the New. It shows, to my mind, that Paul considered Christ to sustain the same relation to Christians, as Moses did to the Israelites, as their leader and head. u And the people spake against God and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt ? " It is no more a proof that Paul regarded Christ as God, that he warns Chris- tians not to tempt him, than it is a proof that Moses is God, because he is associated with God in the lan- guage, " the people spake against God and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up." It does prove, however, what is evident in other parts of the New Testament, that the early Christians, during the age of miracles at least, considered Jesus as their in- visible head, and as having the power to interfere mi- raculously in their affairs, not indeed as God, but as having power from God. The superintendence which the Apostles considered Christ to exercise over his Church, during their age, and the source from which he derived his power to exercise that superintendence, may be learned from the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost. " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore being Ly the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye see and hear." Likewise from their devotions afterwards, when suffering persecution. " They lifted up their voice to God, with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and the sea, and all that in them is." — u And now, Lord, behold their threat- 172 INCARNATION. enings, and grant unto thy servants, that with all bold- ness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal ; and that signs and wonders may be done in the name of thy holy servant Jesus." Such was the origin of Christ's superintending power over the church in the days of the Apostles. It was not orig- inal, but derived and delegated. Such are some of the principal texts by which the doctrine of the second Person of the Trinity is thought to be sustained, and I have now laid before you the reasons why they seem to me unsatis- factory. I have now r , in the seven lectures I have delivered, gone over the most important portions of the Scrip- tures, from which the doctrine of the Trinity is de- rived, and I have given you what I suppose to be the true interpretation of those passages. I set up no claim of infallibility. I speak as to wise men. Judge ye what I say. Such were the scattered hints from which a plurality in the Divine Nature was inferred, elaborated by the ingenuity of centuries into a dogma of faith, and finally forced upon the world by the arm of the civil power. So interwoven has it become with sacred associations, as almost to paralyze the mind which attempts to investigate its truths, and to sustain itself, not so much on the ground of argument, as proscription. My object has been, to show that the Scriptures teach no such doctrine, but that God is one, one in essence and in person, possessing exclusive and incom- INCARNATION. 173 municable attributes ; that Christ is one, is a derived and dependent being, and is our Saviour, because he has been made so by his Father and our Father, by his God and our God. 15* LECTURE VIII. GOD AND CHRIST. I. TIMOTHY, II. 5. FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. I have hitherto been considering those texts of Scripture, which are thought to teach that God sub- sists in three persons. I have given those passages their true meaning, as I suppose, leaving every person to form his own judgment as to the satisfactoriness of my explanations. I shall now take the other side, and bring forward those passages which prove, not the unity of God alone, but shut out of his being every other person whom the Trinitarian may be disposed to in- clude in it. I shall then consider how the force of these passages is evaded, or the explanations which are offered to show that these passages are consistent with the doctrine that there are three persons in the Deity. Every text in the Bible, in which the w T ord God appears, without any intimation of plurality in his being, is an argument for his unity. The word God conveys no idea of plurality. It is connected GOD AND CHRIST. 175 with singular pronouns, "I" and u me ; " is repre- sented as one consciousness, one agent, single and un- divided. Every such text is an argument for the unity of God. Every such text requires of the Trin- itarian an explanation, why, in that particular case, the language of Scripture is just as it would be if there were no such distinction of persons in God. It would have been exceedingly easy to have kept up this distinction throughout the Bible, by substituting the word Trinity for the word God. Then there could have been no mistake. If the thing existed, or the doctrine existed, no reason certainly can be given, why the name should first have come into existence some ages after Christ, and after the Bible was finished. It would have been equally easy for Moses to have writ- ten down, upon the stone at Horeb, u Jehovah your God, Jehovah is a Trinity," as u Jehovah is One." And it seems to me, if it had been an important doc- trine he would have done so. He left a perpetual form of benediction to be used by the priests in bless- ing the people. "Jehovah bless thee and keep thee ; Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee ; Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." Now it would have been just as easy, if there were three persons in God, to have said : " The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, bless thee, and keep thee," &c. All these things must be explained by the Trinitarian, in order to make it probable that the doctrine was true, and yet passed over in such profound silence. But in the New Testament we have better oppor- 176 GOD AND CHRIST. tunities of testing this doctrine. God and Christ are often brought together into the same sentence. In those cases we have an opportunity of judging what relation the writers considered them to bear to each other; whether of equal persons in a Trinity, or whether Deity is represented as belonging to both. Take, for instance, the text with which I commenced this lecture ; " There is one God, and one mediator be- tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Now, for myself, I can scarcely conceive of any language, which the Apostle could have used, which would more explicitly have affirmed the Unity, and denied the Trinity. There is one God, not in opposition to the many gods of the heathen alone, but to the exclusion of the mediator. One argument for the Trinity has been, that a mediator must partake of the nature of both parties, between whom he mediates. But here that argument is cut up by the roots. Here it is asserted, that the man Christ Jesus is fully competent to that office. What is necessary to the office of a mediator ? He must have something to communicate, and proper credentials to authenticate his mediation. Moses was the mediator of the first covenant. The law was the communication with which he was en- trusted. The miracles in Egypt, in the Red sea, and in the desert, were his credentials. And they were effectual to bring about a peculiar relation be- tween the Israelites and God, greatly to their advantage. So the Gospel, the New Covenant, is the communica- tion with which Jesus Christ was entrusted. The mission of John the Baptist, his own miracles, death, GOD AND CHRIST. 177 resurrection, and ascension, were the credentials by which his mission and his covenant were authenticated. And they were effectual to establish a peculiar relation between God and the Christian church. No especial nature is necessary to the performance of this mediator- ship, except such an one as to enable him to deliver the message, make the communication, and exhibit the miraculous testimonials. To this mediatorship, our Apostle declares the man Christ Jesus to have been fully competent. He was to originate nothing. ct My doctrine," said he, cc is not mine, but his that sent me." u I have given them the words, which thou hast given me." " I have greater witness than that of John, for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." Such is the testimony of Christ concerning himself, and it co- incides precisely with the Apostle Paul's. He puts bis mediatorship, not upon the ground of his nature, but on the ground of his commission, on the ground, not of hi«s being God, or having in himself any portion of the divine nature ; but of his having received his doctrines from God, and his having received power from God to work miracles, in proof of the divine origin of his doctrines. But it is said, that one part of his work demanded an infinite agent, the making atonement for the sins of the world. This required the second Per- son of a Trinity. Sin is an infinite evil, and therefore demands an infinite remedy. It is committed against an Infinite Being, and therefore must be atoned for by 178 GOD AND CHRIST. an Infinite Being. But these are all human reasonings about what facts ought to be, according to human judg- ment. It is far safer to go to the Bible, and learn what facts are. It is not for man to say, what sort of atonement God will accept, even were it conceded that he requires a literal satisfaction. Whatever it is, can be effectual only by divine appointment. As it hap- pens, we have only to complete the sentence, a part of which I have taken for my text, to learn the whole truth about this matter. " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." Here, then, is the atoning part of Christ's mediatorship disposed of in few words, and declared to have been effected by the man Christ Jesus. I say nothing here as to what the atonement was, but only remark, that it was effected by the man Christ Jesus. I now pass on to another passage, which touches still nearer the doctrine of the Trinity. It is in the First of Corinthians, eighth chapter, and sixth verse. " But to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." The Trinitarian creed says that God is three Persons, " The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This text of Scripture asserts, that God is one, and that the Father alone is that God. In saying that there is but one God, and that God is the Father, the Apostle denies Deity to all besides. There can be no such God, as God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is Lord. Not only is he different from GOD AND CHRIST. 179 the one God, but is shut out of the Deity by the very terms of the proposition. What is it to be Lord ? It is simply to have authority. That authority may be original or derived. Lordship is a communicable attribute. It does not determine the nature of the person to whom it belongs. We have the authority of Scripture for affirming that this Lordship was conferred on Christ. Peter affirms that " God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." " Wherefore," on account of his voluntary sufferings for the good of man, " God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Lordship, then, when applied to Christ, involves, not the presence of divine attributes, but the absence of them, because it was conferred on him by another. It was conferred by God, and it inheres, not in any divine nature in him, but in Jesus who was crucified. And what is it to be God ? Something very different from being Lord. To be God, is to be self-existent, eternal, unchangea- ble, the cause and source of existence to everything that has a being ; to be the sole sustainer of all things, " the former of our bodies, and Father of our spirits." These attributes and relations cannot be communicated, cannot be shared. No other being can stand in the relation of God to us. Names are nothing, if they do not correspond to facts. Only one being can stand in the relation of God to us. That being, the Apostle assures us, is the Father. ISO GOD AND CHRIST. This diversity of relation is pointed out in this very passage. u To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things." This phrase, u all things," at first sight, has the appearance of meaning the uni- verse, but though such a sense is not absolutely ex- cluded, the words which succeed, seem to restrain the sense to the things which concern Christianity, for the Aposile adds, ct and we in him," or rather into him, or nearer still, unto him ; meaning, not the relation which we naturally sustain to him, but the relation into which we have been brought by Christianity, or Christ, as God's worshippers, acknowledging our alle- giance to him. u And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him ; " that is, as the mediator, through whom we have received all things relating to religion, by whose instrumentality we have received the blessings of the Gospel, and are the wor- shippers of the only living and true God. There are other parts of the writings of Paul, which ascertain the relation between the Lord here men- tioned, and the God here mentioned. Not only is the Person, here called God, the one only God, the God of the universe, but the God of the Lord that is men- tioned in connection with him. In Ephesians, first chapter, it is said, " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom." This then ought to settle the ques- tion, as to the Lord Jesus Christ's being a person of the Trinity ; for a person of a Trinity cannot have a God. If the Father is the only God, and is the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, then there are two reasons GOD AND CHRIST. 181 why Christ cannot be God ; one, that the Father is the only God, and another, that he is the God of Christ. The next passage I shall quote is parallel to the last, and occurs in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, fourth chapter, and fifth verse. " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." What I mean especially to point out in this quotation is, that Christ and God are spoken of in the same sentence as distinct from each other, and each as one, having an individuality of his own ; one as God, and the other as Lord ; and that these relations are not identical, nor the persons who sustain them, neither do they interfere with each other. What are the plain historical facts, to which this language cor- responds ? Jesus represented himself as having been sent by God to set up a new religion in the world. He was endowed with the knowledge and power which were necessary to this purpose. He gathered around him a society, of whom he was, under God, the head. These disciples called him their Master and Lord. He formed a church, and presided over it while here on earth. He died for it, and God raised him from the dead ; and to confirm the church in their faith in him, and their allegiance to him, God continued to him those supernatural powers which he had possessed on earth ; so that during the apostolic age he held com- munication with his apostles, gave them sensible tokens of his presence, and of the power with which he had 16 182 GOD AND CHRIST. been endowed. Miraculous powers were conferred on the disciples, according to his promise. He was seen in a vision by the martyr Stephen. He appeared to Paul, on the way to Damascus, with a striking mani- festation of divine power. He often held communica- tion with him in the course of his ministry. Various supernatural communications were made to the apostles during their lifetime, which assured them that he still cared for his church. They were made either by him in person, or by God, in furtherance of his religion ; so that it was the same thing to them, as if they came immediately from him. This agency of Christ in the world was so firmly fixed in their minds, that they joined him with God in their salutations. Though invisible, he was still the head of the church, and cared for its interests. But you will observe, that though associated with God in the Epistles, he is nowhere spoken of as God, or as a Person of a Trinity, but as a person inferior and distinct. " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints ; grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Note the wide distinction between God and Christ. u From God our Father," not God the Father, which the Trinitarian might possibly interpret to mean the first Person of a Trinity, but God our Father, the ichole Deity, the same Person to whom Christ taught us to pray, saying, "Our Father, who art in heaven;" u from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." This is in the Epistle to the Romans. In the other Epistles, this salutation is repeated, with this variation GOD AND CHRIST. 183 only, that in some it is, " Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord," showing that our Father and the Father are synony- mous; and, therefore, that the Father is not a Person of a Trinity, but the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. Turn then to the doxologies, and see the relation which subsists between God and Christ. Immediately after the salutation in the second Corinthians, he proceeds. u Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all mercies, and the God of all comfort." In the close of the Epistle to the Romans ; u To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, forever. Amen." In his first Epistle to Timothy, Paul writes thus, — and I wish you to note the marked distinction he makes between God and Christ: U I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and Jesus Christ, who witnessed a good confession, in the presence of Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the ap- pearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his own time, He shall show T , who is the blessed and only Poten- tate, the King of kings and Lord of lords ; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto ; whom no man hath seen or can see : to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." Consider how distinct God and Christ are here kept, and what different things are attributed to each. To Christ, Ct having witnessed a good confession in the presence of Pontius Pilate." To God, being " the 184 GOD AND CHRIST. quickener of all things," or the source of all life. Consider what is denied to Christ, and conceded to God. u Until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate." The power of coming is not here ascribed to our Lord Jesus Christ, but he will come by a power derived from God ; literally, u God will show his appearing." Does this look as if our Lord Jesus Christ was a Person of a Trinity, when he cannot return to earth by his own power ? Consider then the titles which are applied to God, in contrast with what is denied to Christ. He is u the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords ; w r ho alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen, or can see : to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." Christ is not even included in the doxology. Turn now to the benediction and doxology, at the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and see the dis- tinction which is there put between God and Christ. Christ is spoken of as the great Shepherd of the sheep, and God as having brought him again from the dead. God is represented as working in Christians that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Christ as an instru- ment. " Now may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shep- herd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ. To him," that is, to God, M be glory forever and ever. Amen." Here, GOD AND CHRIST. 185 certainly, are not two equal persons ; but one is God, and the other an instrument in his hands, whom he raised from the dead. Turn now to Ephesians. "Now unto him, that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us ; unto him be glory in the church, by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." I trust it would be superfluous to make any more quotations in order to show the relations of God and Christ to each other, and to show that Christ, by the very terms of the most striking doxologies, is not only not included in Deity, but shut out of it. Such passages show us how far the epithet " Lord," when applied to Christ, is intended to go, and how far it stops short of Deity. They show us what it is to be God, and what it is to be Lord, and therefore explain the passage which I quoted them to illustrate ; " One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." I shall have space in this lecture to discuss only one of that class of texts, which seem to me to prove the absolute unity of God, and at the same time the ex- clusion of Christ from all participation in Deity. It is found in Christ's last prayer with his disciples. " And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." There are several very remarkable features about this prayer, bearing upon the point which we are now dis- cussing. The Being to whom this prayer is directed, is the Being who, throughout the New Testament, is 16* 186 GOD AND CHRIST. called " the Father," and he here is called the only true God. The being who addresses him is Jesus, but not only Jesus, but Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah. " This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Not only so, it is the Son that prays to the Father. " Father, the hour is come. Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." And then again, cc Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jesus prays, then, as the Christ, and as the Son, to the Father, as the only true God. Could any words more explicitly deny that Jesus the Messiah, and the Son of God, had any participation in Deity ? I wish to point your especial attention to the attributes of these two persons, and the relations they sustain to each other. Jesus prays to the Father, and says that it is eternal life to know him, — in what capa- city ? As the only true God. Can anything be more explicit than this ? The Father is the only true God. Now if the Father is the only true God, then there must be a Trinity in him, if there is a Trinity at all. He cannot be one of three per- sons, each one of which is the only true God as much as himself. Then, if Jesus Christ be a Per- son of the Trinity, why should he be so carefully shut out of the Deity ? c; This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ? " To square with the Trinitarian hypothesis, it should have been : u This is life eternal, that they might know thee, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, to be the only true God." But what is the attribute of Jesus Christ, that makes GOD AND CHRIST. 187 it eternal life to know him ? The Evangelist goes on to tell us, u and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." It is then his having been sent by the only true God. The common theory is, that the Father, the first Person of the Trinity, sent the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. But this theory is here shown to be a mis- take. It is the Father, the only true God, who sent Jesus Christ. The celebrated Dr. Watts has some very forcible remarks on this subject, in his treatise, which he enti- tled, " Useful and Important Questions concerning Jesus, the Son of God." This most pious divine, after writing his Psalms and Hymns, which have done more to sustain the doctrine of the Trinity than almost anything else, became, in consequence of years of learned and candid research, a Unitarian of the strict- est sort. We have in his works a record of his inves- tigations of the doctrine of the Trinity, and they are everywhere impartial, humble, and devout. Concern- ing the representation of one Person of the Deity sending another, he makes the following judicious ob- servations. " The divine nature of Christ, how dis- tinct soever it is supposed to be from God the Father, yet can never leave the Father's bosom, can never divest itself of one joy or felicity that it ever possessed, nor lose even the least degree of it ; nor could God the Father ever dismiss his Son from his bosom. Godhead must have eternal and complete beatitude, joy, and glory, and can never be dispossessed of it. Godhead can sustain no real sorrow, suffering, or pain. Therefore, in the common scheme, all this glorious and 188 GOD AND CHRIST. pathetic description of the love of Christ, in leaving the joys and glories of heaven, when he came to dwell on earth, has no ideas belonging to it, and it can be true in no sense, since it can be attributed neither to the divine, nor the human nature of Christ, nor to his whole person." When did the mission of Jesus begin ? The first we read of it, is immediately after his baptism. He w r as led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he spent forty days in retirement. John, at his baptism, saw the Spirit descending upon him like a dove, and re- maining on him. After the retirement in the wilder- ness, Jesus returned in the poiver of the Spirit into Galilee, and immediately began to preach, saying, u Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." In what did his mission consist ? Let him declare in his own words. Immediately after his return to Galilee, he came to his own town, Nazareth, and in the syna- gogue read and applied to himself the following pas- sage. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, &c. To day is this Scrip- ture fulfilled in your ears." This certainly is a different sort of sending from that of the first Person of the Trinity sending the second out of heaven. He was sent because the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and because he was anointed to preach the Gospel to the poor. Parallel to this is the declaration of John : ct He, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto GOD AND CHRIST. 189 Aim." This is totally inapplicable to the second Person of a Trinity, when considered as sent by the first. The second Person of the Trinity could not have the spirit of the Lord upon him, nor have the spirit given him without measure. The mission of Christ does not run so far back as the Trinitarian system supposes, nor does it apply to any divine nature that is supposed to belong to him. Strongly corroborative of this view of things, is the ground upon which Christ placed his authority. Had he been the second Person of the Trinity, the shortest way for him to have demonstrated his authority, would have been, to have shown that he was the second Per- son of the Trinity, and then his authority would have followed of course. God the Son must have just as much authority as God the Father. But he rests his authority upon the ground of having been sent. If he was God the Son, or God in any sense, the very fact that he was, would have been commission enough. He could have no higher authority. Yet he does not base his authority upon his being God, but upon the fact that God had sent him. u My doctrine," said he, lc is not mine, but his that sent me." " He that will do his will, shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." If he spoke of him- self, then he confesses his doctrine was not from God. What plainer declaration could he have made, that he himself was not God ? If he had been God, then his doctrine must have been from God, for the very reason that he spoke it of himself. It is not his nature then, but his commission, that gives him authority, his 190 GOD AND CHRIST. having received his doctrines from God. " He, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God," not be- cause he is God, but because he is inspired, "for God giveth the spirit not by measure unto him." But it may be inquired, Do not the words, u sent " and "come," when applied to Christ in connexion with the words "from God," and " from heaven," favor the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least that Jesus Christ existed in heaven with God before his birth ? I answer, No ; and I will give my reasons. To come from God, or from heaven, in the phraseology of the New Testament, means to be divinely authorized. Jesus says on one occasion: "If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth, and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." The sending, and coming forth, here spoken of, must mean taking upon himself the office of a divine teacher. That he might have done of himself unau- thorized. But he could not not have come from God in the other sense, of himself, without being sent. In the same sense Nicodemus says to him : " Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles that thou doest, except God were ivilh him." Coming from God, is not coming literally from heaven, but having a divine com- mission. " There was a man sent from God, w r hose name w T as John." If we interpret this literally, we shall assert that John preexisted with God in heaven. It means that he was sent by God as a prophet. "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? " If we interpret this literally, we shall prove GOD AND CHRIST. 191 that the baptism of John was practised in heaven be- fore it was instituted on earth. So when Jesus speaks of himself as coming from God, or from heaven, we are not authorized by the language of the New Testa- ment to consider it as meaning any more than his being sent on his mission as a teacher, being in com- munication with God, and receiving the spirit without measure. There is another important point, which is all but settled by this prayer of Christ with his disciples, — the sense in which Jesus applied to himself the title, " Son of God." The misinterpretation of this phrase may be said to have been the germ of the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact of Christ's praying has often been brought as an objection to his being God. How could God pray to God, or how could God pray at all ? Tt is answered by saying, that he prayed in his human na- ture. But the advocate of the Trinity gets rid of one difficulty only by plunging into another. If he prayed in his human nature, then he applied the title, u Son of God," to his human nature. For he says to the only true God, cc Glorify thy Son," and immediately after, cc Glorify thou me," making " Son " and " me " synonymous. If that be the case, he is not the Son, the second Person of a Trinity ; and " Son of God," when applied to him, means no such thing. If we wish to know the ground upon which he appropriated this title to himself, there is no better authority than his own. On a certain occasion he was accused of blas- phemy, for applying this appellation to himself in the very sense claimed for it by the Trinitarian system, 192 GOD AND CHRIST. " because he, being a man, made himself God." And how did he defend himself? On the ground that they were right in their interpretation, that he was God,. and therefore had a right to the name of God, as integrity and fair dealing would have compelled him to do if he were God in fact ? By no means. He makes no such claim, but he puts it on the ground of his divine commission, that God had sanctified him, and sent him into the world. What being sent by God into the world means, we have already seen. God, or the Father, certainly never sanctified the second Person of the Trinity and sent him into the world. "If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be gainsaid, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world ; Thou blasphemest, because 1 said, I am the Son of God ?" I have, in this lecture, brought to your notice four most explicit texts, which to my mind decisively prove the truth of the Unitarian faith. I have shown you from them what God and Christ are, and what relations they sustain to each other. I have shown you that the phrases, " mediator," " Lord," " sent of God," and " Son of God," have nothing to do with the nature of Christ, but are applied to him only in his official character. All ground of support, therefore, which they seem to give to the doctrine of the Trinity, is taken away. We see that there is but one God in any sense ; that the term Father, when applied to God, is co- extensive with the word God, and all idea of three persons totally vanishes and disappears. GOD AND CHRIST. 193 There are two more considerations, which may have more weight with some minds than anything I have yet brought forward, one of which I have already men- tioned ; the comparison of the different forms of salu- tation, which occur in different Epistles. In some of them we have, " Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." In others, "Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." This, when fully considered, will be found to amount to an entire refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Consider what these two forms of expression involve. God the Father, and God our Father, are used as synonymous terms, perfectly equivalent to each other. They are both applied to a Being who is entirely dis- tinct and separate from Christ, for the words are " God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," and " God oar Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." God our Father, is not a Person of a Trinity. He is the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. He is the Person to whom we pray when we say, u Our Father, which art in heaven." From God our Father and any other person, must mean from God and from a person who is not God, not from the first and second Persons of a Trinity. But the Apostle uses God the Father as precisely synonymous with God our Father. If God our Father, and God the Father, are precisely equivalent to each other, then God the Father is the whole Deity, and is not the first Person of a Trinity. And if Jesus Christ sustains the same relation to the Father, that 17 194 GOD AND CHRIST. he does to our Father, he cannot be a Person of a Trinity, and he cannot be God at all. The par- allelism of these passages, when analyzed, contains in itself an entire negative both of the plurality of the Divine nature and the Deity of Christ. Nay, Christ has told us himself, in the most explicit terms, that his Father is not a Person of a Trinity, but the whole Deity, in his message to his disciples, after his resurrection : u Go to my brethren, and say unto them, Behold, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." This simple sentence con- tains in itself a refutation of the whole Trinitarian hy- pothesis. The other consideration, to which I refer, was the representation of Christ as sitting on the right hand of God. This idea is purely Oriental, and is derived from the custom of placing a person peculiarly honored or exalted, in Eastern courts, at the right hand of the sovereign. A king, in an Eastern court, placed his son, or his chief minister, on his right hand, on occasions of state, to show that he was next him in power. So, according to the Theocratic and Messianic ideas of the Jews, the Messiah was to be next to Jehovah in power. Jehovah was the supreme King of Israel. The earthly kings, who reigned over that nation, were considered to reign with, or under him, to be exalted to his throne. So the Messiah was to be the suc- cessor of these kings, and greater than they all. He was to reign over all the earth, as they reigned over Judea. Afterward, when the spiritual nature of Christ's GOD AND CHRIST. 195 kingdom was revealed, the Apostles kept up the old language, and represented Christ as exalted to God's right hand at his resurrection, and exercising a spiritual dominion over his church. So much for the reason of this use of language. I shall now consider what is involved in this language itself, so far as the general subject of these lectures is concerned. I first remark, that this exaltation, in the language of Scripture, does not make Christ a participant of Deity, but shuts him out of it. "If then ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right of God." He cannot be God, even in the highest state of exaltation, and sit on the right hand of God. This would be a contradiction in terms. Neither can one equal Person of a Trinity sit on the right hand of God, for he must be comprehended in that very God at whose right hand he sits. Neither did sitting on the right hand of God belong to Christ originally, so that he descended from it, and was restored to it. Neither was he there previously to his resurrection. He was placed there by the power of God subsequently to the resurrection. For the Apostle says : " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom, and revelation in the knowledge of h\m, the eyes of your understanding being opened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us ward, who be- lieve according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from 196 GOD AND CHRIST. the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places." His exaltation to the right hand of God, is spoken of by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews as being subsequent to his crucifixion. «** - < y\ «*°* .1 '•«*• k ,,# \* .. -* •'" :- -ov* 4^ ■ ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process ftP "^ * ^^^S^^S * ^ ' Neutra,izin 9 agent: Magnesium Oxide Wj^£§i» # * ^ ^** *+&6W&* W Treatment Date: July 2005 > ' fi ^f o, ^> * v \* ,. PreservationTechnologies *,&£ a world leader in paper preservation aP <^ *trf!V^SvWl o *£* ij^ * JSffll 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive ^*> * &0L-. Cranberry Township, PA 16068 (724)779-2111 tfJ^J