[ 61 ]
SECTION VI.
______
JESUS CHRIST IS GOD UNDERIVED.
The arguments which have been adduced by Trinitarians, in favour of the proper Divinity of Christ, I have never
seen refuted. I shall proceed to state some of them; and to make deductions from various scriptures, which establish
Christ's real Divinity.
That Jesus Christ is God underived, is evident from what was said of his type, Melchizedek; "Without father, without
mother, without descent; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time." Granting that this, as it related to
Melchizedek, is spoken in allusion to that order under the law, in which a correct register of their genealogy was
essential to a regular standing in the Jewish Priesthood; and that we are furnished with no such register, with
respect to Melchizedek; yet if the things here expressed be not literally true of the Divinity of him, who is the
Antitype of Melchizedek; with what propriety is such a representation given of the type? If Melchizedek was typically
(in the sense above given) without father, without mother, without descent, and without beginning; it must have been
designed to represent, that Jesus Christ in his Divinity is really thus. Else, what can be the indication? If it must
be an article in the Christian faith, (as some now affirm) that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not
62
without father, without descent, or beginning; but, that he was literally derived from God, as really as was Isaac
from Abraham; and that he had thus a descent, and a beginning; how strange is it, that we should find the above
passage in our inspired rule of faith? For in that case, it is a passage perfectly calculated to mislead, in a
momentous point. This inspired account given to the Hebrews of Melchizedek, when presented as a type of Christ,
does clearly decide, that while, in the economy of grace, God is to Christ for a Father, and Christ is to God for a
Son; yet Christ, in his Divinity, is "without father, without mother, without descent, or beginning."
The world, after the flood, lost the knowledge of the true God, and fell into idolatry. One object of the mission
of Christ into the world, and of Revelation, was to recover man from idolatry to the knowledge and worship of the
true God.
Would the Most High then, in the very outset for effecting this object, have instituted a system of idolatry, as
the means of effecting it? But if God sent a derived and dependent Being into the world, under the names, titles
and attributes of God, and commanded Angels and men to honor him, even as they honor the Father; then the Most High,
in the origin of his attempt to recover man from idolatry, instituted a system of idolatry. For idolatry is the worship
of some being, beside the one only living and true God. It is having another God, before the only One. This is the
immutable nature of idolatry. To speak with reverence, God himself could not cause that this should not be idolatry!
Shall it be said, God has a right to set up an own Son under his own name, though wholly distinct from himself, and
invest him with his titles and glories; and command all to worship
63
him; and if God" choose to do thus, why should man object? Reply. It is impossible for the God of eternal truth to
set up another God beside himself. It would be establishing, in the universe, a palpable untruth. And God cannot lie.
He would be giving his glory to another; and subverting the fundamental law of his own kingdom, which presents himself,
as the only God, and the only Object of worship. Is it possible that God, in undertaking to recover man from idolatry,
to the knowledge and worship of himself, should first establish another Object of worship beside himself? Is not this
a contradiction of his own object, as well as of the whole tenor of his word? His object is to recover men to the
worship of himself. And to effect it, he (upon the above supposition) sets up another object beside himself, to be
worshipped. But the language of God's word upon this subject is, "I am the Lord, that is my name; and my glory I will
not give unto another. Beside me, there is no God; I know not any." Certainly then, Christ and the Father must be
comprised in this pronoun ME, beside whom, Jehovah himself knows not any God. Inevitably the Persons of the Father
and the Son must each be found in this one God, who speaks of himself as the Only One. Christ is through the Scriptures
represented as, in some sense, distinct from the Father; while yet he is honored with the very names, titles and glories
of God; and is represented as really one with God.
The word Jehovah imports self-existence; and is a peculiar name of the infinite, eternal God. Deut. vi. 4; "Hear, O
Israel, the Lord thy God is one Jehovah." Psalm lxxxiii. 18;" That men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah,
art the Most High over all the earth." Yet abundantly
64
through the Old Testament Christ is called by this very name. Jer. xxiii. 6; "This is the name, by which he (Christ)
shall be called, The Jehovah our righteousness." Certainly then, Christ is the very God; one with the Father.
In Exodus iii. we have an account, that "The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the flame of fire out of the
midst of a bush." Who can be meant by this Angel of the Lord? Certainly a Person in some sense distinct from the
Father. For the Father is never represented as his own Angel. But Christ is often represented as the Angel of the
Lord; as will appear. He is the Messenger (Angel) of the covenant; the Angel of God's presence. As an Angel, he often
appeared of old. We cannot doubt but the Angel, who appeared to Moses in the bush, was the Person of Christ. But what
does he say of himself? He presented himself to Moses, as the infinite, eternal God. He there calls himself the Lord,
or Jehovah, (as in the Hebrew) and God. Moses must loose his shoes from his feet: The ground was holy; for God was
there. This Angel of the Lord styles himself, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He promises
Moses, that he would be with him. He suggests that he had made man's mouth, and would enable him to speak. He instructs
Moses to say to Israel, concerning him, "The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you." "And God said unto Moses,
I AM THAT I AM: And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." This the
Angel calls his name, in consequence of Moses inquiring for it; a name, which imports necessary, or eternal existence.
All that follows in this chapter teaches, that this Angel of the Lord was at the same time the eternal God.
65
"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you; this is my name forever, and this
is my memorial unto all generations." These are the titles of the infinite God. Yet the Angel of the Lord in the bush
did not scruple to take these names to himself. Would he have done this, if he had not been the very God? In this
account we learn, that there is the Lord, or Jehovah, the Person of the Father, beside this Angel, who was his
messenger; yet that this Angel was the very God. It follows that God and Christ were, in some mysterious sense, two,
yet essentially one.
This same Angel of the Lord had before appeared to Abraham, (Gen. xviii.) with two created Angels, on his way to the
destruction of Sodom. The two created Angels went on and appeared to Lot. But one of the three, (who is called the
Lord, as well as the Angel, and had exhibited his omniscience, by reproving the laughter of Sarah, who was absent,)
stayed and conversed with Abraham. In this interview he was uniformly called the Lord, or Jehovah. Abraham speaks to
him, as to Jehovah, the Judge of all the earth. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Are we not assured,
that the Angel here was the true and infinite God? But was not this Angel Jesus Christ? who afterwards said, "Before
Abraham was, I am." This I shall take for granted, that the Angel of the Lord, in various passages of the Old Testament,
who is at the same time called the Lord, (Jehovah,) was Christ. But would Christ have received from another, and
assumed to himself, titles peculiar to the eternal God, if he were
66
not the eternal God? It affords no relief to say, that he being God's own Son, God was willing to honor him with
the titles and worship due to God alone. For this is only pleading the authority of God himself, to establish
falsehood, and idolatry. It is the immutable law of the Most High, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If any
person then, be had, or worshipped, as God, who is not contained in this pronoun ME, in the first command; this
law is violated. But Christ is, by God's command, worshipped, by Angels and men. He is therefore contained in the
pronoun ME, in the first command. Hence we learn that he is one with God, and is God; as he himself testifies, "I
and my Father are one."
It is a fundamental law of the great Eternal, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; and him only shalt thou serve."
But Christ is to be worshipped. Therefore Christ is contained in the phrase, "the Lord thy God, and him only." God
and Christ are united in the antecedent to the words "Him only shalt thou serve." Here we learn their essential unity;
while yet they are in some sense two; -- the Lord, and his Angel. -- Christ's unity with God we learn in Abraham's
calling him Jehovah; and speaking to him as to God: And in his taking to himself, in the burning bush, the very titles
of the infinite God; and speaking by his own authority. And yet we learn that there is some real distinction between
him and the first in the Godhead, from his being called the Angel of the Lord.
This sentiment (that God and Christ are two; and yet that they are one,) is found throughout the Bible. God said to
Moses, Ex. xxiii. 20, "Behold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place,
which I have
67
prepared." That this Angel is Christ, is evident. "For they drank of that rock that followed them; and that rock
was Christ." 1 Cor, x. 4. He is called (Isai. Ixiii. 9,) "The Angel of God's presence, who saved Israel." Here
the Angel, and God, are two: Yet this Angel, through all the remaining part of Israel's journey, was spoken of, and
worshipped, as the Lord God. God says of him, "My name is in him." By God's name here, we are to understand not only
his titles, but perfections: My perfections are in him: -- In the Hebrew, "in his inward parts:" -- My perfections
are in his nature. -- As Christ says, John x. 38; "I am in the Father; and the Father in me." This Angel of God's
presence went before Israel, in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, in all their journey. His visible
appearance was called, the glory of the Lord. In this shekinah the Angel conversed with Moses. But he was called the
Lord, or Jehovah, and spake by his own authority. Read the history of Israel, from the time God said, at Mount Sinai,
that the Angel of his presence should go with them, and bring them into the land of Canaan; and you will find, that
this Angel was the infinite Jehovah himself. Compare Psalm lxxviii. 56, with 1 Cor. x. 9; "Yet they tempted and provoked
the Most High God;" "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." Here God
decides, that Christ (the Angel of his presence) is the Most High God. Is it not safe to abide by his decision, relative
to the mode of his own existence, even though clouds and darkness rest upon the subject? Can we read concerning this
Angel of God's presence, what he under the title of Jehovah said, commanded, and threatened, from time to time; --
deciding with an oath, that
68
that generation should not enter into his rest; and saying, "Let me alone, that I may consume them in a moment;
and I will make of thee a great nation? " Can we read of his destroying Korah, Dathan and Ahiram; -- and rebuking
and destroying kings for Israel's sake; saying, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm?" -- Can we read
all this history and all the references to it in the New Testament: and yet disbelieve, that this Angel of God's
presence with Israel was the very God? It is further said of him; "And the Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb,
saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount; turn ye, and take your journey." Here the Angel of God's presence,
who accompanied Israel, is called, "the Lord our God."
The same Person we find, in Dent, last chapter, transacting with Moses; and is the very God. After deciding that
Moses should not go into the promised land, he takes him up to the top of Pisgah, and shows him the goodly Canaan.
"And Jehovah said unto him, This is the land, which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will
give it to thy seed." Here the Angel, who was to bring Israel into Canaan, identifies himself with the Jehovah, who
covenanted with Abraham. But this was the Lord God Almighty: Gen. xvii. 1; "I am the Almighty God; walk before me,
and be thou perfect." Christ then, is the Lord God Almighty; one with the Father.
This same Angel presented himself to Joshua, when about to enter into Canaan, as "the Captain of the Lord's host." Here
he distinguishes himself from the Lord, of whose host he was the Captain. Yet in the solemn interview he is the Lord,
or Jehovah, claiming divine honors. Joshua's shoes must be put off. The ground in his
69
presence was holy. "And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and all the kings
thereof." -- Surely this Jehovah was God.
Should any say, If these things be thus, where is God the Father? If so many sacred passages, which speak of God
Jehovah, are to be applied to Christ; what remains for the Father? or where shall we find him?
Reply. The Father is not absent, nor excluded from the name of God, even while all his titles are applied to Christ.
But these representations teach, that God and Christ are, in some mysterious sense, two, yet essentially one: As
Christ decides; "That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. (John x. 33.) "He, that hath
seen me, hath seen the Father also." "They have both seen and hated both me and my Father." In passages almost
innumerable the Father and Christ are spoken of as two; and yet are presented in an essential unity; so that each
may affirm, that there is no other God beside himself. The above questions then, are founded in a misconception of
the subject; viewing the Father and Christ as two distinct Gods. But they are not two distinct Gods; they are one God.
God the Father really does all, that the divine nature of Christ does; he is not absent; nor is he. another God. And
yet the Bible does teach, that there is a real, though mysterious, personal distinction between the Father and the
Deity of Christ. The fact may not be denied; though the mode cannot by man be. explained. God covenanted with Abraham.
The Father is not to be excluded, from this transaction. Neither is the Deity of Christ to be excluded from it. For the
Angel of God's presence, the Angel of the covenant (in the
70
passage recited, in his interview with Moses on the top of Pisgah) assumes the transaction to himself: "This is the
land, "which I sware to Abraham" -- And in the interview, at the burning bush, he styles himself" the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, as his memorial throughout all generations. The idea is this; -- the second
Person in the Trinity is one God with the first. What the first does, the second, relative to his own Deity, scruples
not to ascribe to himself. While the two are God, and his Angel, yet, in some essential sense, they are one God.
Otherwise this Angel would not identify himself with the Highest, the eternal God. The Two (God and his Angel) are,
for distinction sake, called persons; not because the word person, as used among men, fully applies to them; but because
it comes the nearest to the thing designed of any word. For this reason, the Nicene council adopted the use of the
word Persons, as applicable to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Trinity. The Trinitarians have given ample
notice, that by this term, when thus applied, they do not mean in every sense the same, as when the term is applied to
man. With this notice given, they conceive themselves warranted, from the word of God, to apply the term as above
stated. For the Father, the Mediator, and the Holy Spirit are, through the Bible, spoken of as Persons, in some distinct
sense, and yet as one God.
Who was he that wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 24 --? Was this God the Father? Or was he the Angel of the covenant?
He surely must have been the latter. "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him (or one who appeared
like a man) until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against
71
him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
And he said, Let me go; for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said
unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for
as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him and said, Tell me I pray
thee thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob
called the name of the place Peniel; (the face of God) for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Compare this with Hosea xii. 3, -- "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power
with God; yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him in
Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial." I ask whether the angel
here (who is Christ) is not, in the very term Angel, represented as in some sense distinct from God the Father; and
yet, he is God, "even the Lord God of hosts," whose memorial is Jehovah?
Read the description given of the Jehovah of hosts, in Isai. vi: His train filling the temple; the winged Seraphim
covering their faces and their feet before him, and crying, Holy, holy, holy is the Jehovah of hosts; the whole earth
is full of his glory." The prophet cries, "Wo is me, for I am undone! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell
among a people of unclean lips; and mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." And he heard the voice of
Jehovah, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"
72
None can doubt but this person was the very God. He speaks by his own authority; "Whom shall I send?" And he is
plural; "Who will go for us?" We must believe this Jehovah of hosts is the very God. Yet the evangelist teaches,
that he was Christ. John xii. 41, speaking of Christ, "These things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake
of him."
In Isai. viii. 13, -- we read, "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your
dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of
Israel; for a gin, and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." But inspiration applies what is here said of the
"Lord of hosts himself," to Christ. 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8; "Unto you therefore, who believe, he is precious. But unto them
who are disobedient, the stone, which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the corner; and a stone
of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them, who stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they
were appointed." "The stone, which the builders refused, the same is become the head of the corner." "This is the stone,
which is set at naught by you builders." Jesus Christ then, is the "Jehovah of hosts himself."
Christ is the Lord God of the holy prophets> Rev. xxii. 6, "The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his Angel to show
unto his servants the things, which must shortly be done." Compared with verse 16. "I Jesus have sent mine Angel to
testify unto you these things in the churches," Here our Saviour (as though with evident design) teaches, that He is
"the Lord God of the holy prophets." We accordingly read of the prophets, 1 Pet. i. 11, "Searching what, and what manner
73
of time the Spirit of Christ, that was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ,
and the glory, that should follow." The ancient prophets then, were inspired by the Spirit of Christ. But "all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The Spirit of Christ then, is the Spirit of God. The same we learn in the
following passages. "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God." But, "if any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here again Christ is God. In 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, we learn, that Christ, (by his
Spirit, in the days of Noah,) went and preached to the ante-diluvians, who were now in prison, when Peter wrote. But
it was God, who spake to Noah, and waned the wicked world through him, and said, "My Spirit shall not always strive
with man." In these passages then, we arc taught infallibly, that the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God; and the
Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ: And that hence Christ is God.
God himself addresses Christ as God; which clearly decides Christ's distinct Personality, and yet his Unity in the
Godhead. See Heb. i. 8; "Unto the Son he (God) saith. Thy throne. O God, is forever and ever." Could the Most High
thus address a derived, dependent being, without establishing idolatry? Could he do it, without teaching the universe
to have another God before him? Could he do it, and yet say, relative to himself, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve?" I am God; beside me there is none else; I know not any." *
______
* Some have attempted to insinuate, that the above text, Heb. i. 8, will bear this interpretation, "Unto the Son he
saith, God is thy throne forever and ever." Any who may esteem it worth their while to read a full refutation of this
extraordinary
74
The text under consideration, is a quotation of Psalm xlv. 6; where David says, "Thy throne O God, is forever and
ever." David addressed the words to "the King. -- fairer than the children of men -- the most Mighty, whose right
hand should teach him terrible things -- under whom the people shall fall." Our translation is a literal rendering of
the Hebrew. And its addressing Christ, as God, accords with the tenor of the sacred word. No proper objection then,
can be made against it. The text to the Hebrews is a literal quotation of it. And there we learn from inspiration, that
it is an address from God the Father to Christ. And does it not most positively establish Christ's distinct Personality
in the Godhead; and yet his being one with God, and the very God?
In Rom. ix. 5, Jesus Christ is said to be "Over all, God blessed for ever." In 1 Pet. i. 1, he is "God our Saviour."
In Titus ii. 13, he is "the great God and our Saviour." *
In 1 John v. 20, it is said of Jesus Christ, "This is the true God, and eternal life." In Isai. ix. 6, Christ is
called, "the Mighty God, the everlasting Father." In Jer. xxiii. 6, he is "the Jehovah our righteousness." And in
Rev. i. 8, he is by his
______
forced and most unnatural rendering of that clause of the text, may find it in the Panoplist for May, 1811, page
544-9. It would be wonderful indeed for God to represent himself, as the throne of one of his creatures! This would
be unprecedented in the Bible! Nothing is too glaring for some men to undertake, to undermine the offensive
sentiments of holy writ. We read of handling the word of God deceitfully. And this is an evil not uncommon, at the
present day.
* Greek -- "tou megalou Theou, kai Soteros hemoon." -- The article put before great, belongs equally to Saviour,
as to God, not being added there, as it must have been, had not Saviour stood in apposition, being the same with
the preceding, God: -- A full proof, that the sense is this; Jesus Christ is the great GOD, and our SAVIOUR.
75
own testimony "the Alpha and Omega, who is, and was, and is to come, the Almighty." Is a derived, dependent being,
"the Almighty?" Most certainly not. Should any doubt whether it is Christ, who here speaks; -- the affirmative is
incontestable; as any will see, who will compare Rev. i. 8-18; ii. 8. Here it was Jesus Christ (in the midst of the
golden candlesticks, and who had been dead and was alive,) who called himself the Alpha and Omega, the First and the
Last, the Almighty.
In Isai. xliv. 6, we read; "Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the
First, and I am the Last, and beside me there is no God." But Jesus Christ, in the above passages in the Revelation,
applies this to himself. Hence we have his testimony, that he is the Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer,
the Jehovah of hosts.
From the great work, which was assigned to the Mediator, light is cast upon this important subject. I ask the conscience
of every person, taught in the sentiments of the gospel, Was not an infinite atonement necessary, according to the
tenor of the Bible, to take away the sin of the world? Was not the righteousness of an infinite Being, or the
righteousness of God, necessary to avail for lost man, and redeem him from sin and hell, and entitle him to heaven?
Does not the whole economy of gospel grace proceed on the ground of an atonement made by Christ, adequate to the
eternal torments of guilty man? and of a righteousness wrought out by Christ, adequate to that exceeding and eternal
weight of glory, freely tendered in our fallen world; and which will be conferred on all the chosen of God? Though
pardon and salvation are of free grace; yet the scheme
76
of grace teaches, that God would not have been just, had he bestowed or tendered them on any ground, short of a
sufficient exhibition's being made on man's behalf, of justice and righteousness, to magnify the Divine law. Here the
infinite riches of grace are exhibited; that God would not only pardon and save lost man; but would be at the infinite
expense necessary to open the way for the proper bestowment of pardon and salvation. But could any thing be equal to
this redemption from hell, and title to heaven, short of an infinite atonement, and an infinite righteousness? A
foundation short of this mutt have been infinitely insufficient for the eternal superstructure, which was to be built
upon it. To say, that God might, in order to confer on his Son an infinite honor, determine, that an atonement and
righteousness, which a finite Son could effect, should be declared and viewed as of infinite avail, appears preposterous.
For it must, after all, appear to the intelligent universe, that the ground presented, as the only foundation of the
pardon and salvation of guilty man, is in fact finite. This must of necessity operate to the amazing dishonor of God.
All the torments of the miserable in hell cannot, in any conceivable time, atone for their sins. The certainty of this
appears from the fact, that the damned must suffer forever. Can it be admitted as possible then, that the sufferings
of a Saviour, who is only derived and dependent, can make an adequate atonement for the sins of the whole world? and
this too, in so short a time, as Jesus of Nazareth suffered? The idea, of resolving this thing into the divine
sovereignty, or suggesting, that God has a right to say, that the atonement and righteousness of his own finite dependent
Son, shall be viewed as of infinite avail, can never satisfy
77
a rational being. For the question will arise, Why might not God as well pardon and save, without any atonement made,
or righteousness wrought out, in behalf of man? Or if something done, which is finite, may be pronounced sufficient,
why might not an Angel have done the work of the finite Mediator? which work, at God's sovereign word, should be
pronounced sufficient for the salvation of lost man? Yea, why might not God as well dispense with all his exhibitions
of justice and propriety, in his vast kingdom; and let a system of merely arbitrary words be substituted in their stead?
Is not God's infinite authority sufficient to have those words believed, though all his administration be in
contradiction to them? Could he not work miracles, and cause all his subjects to believe his contradictory assertions?
Many such questions occur to the mind, on the suggestion, that God may say, that a finite Son shall make an adequate
atonement; or shall do what shall be esteemed sufficient for the eternal salvation of his Church.
But we must remember, that God's government is for the benefit of his finite creatures. And they must be able eventually
to discern an uniformity and fitness in all his works. One thing must be proportioned to another; and the divine
administration must accord with the principles of truth and justice; or his glory will be proportionably diminished.
Words, without corresponding deeds, are falsehoods. But God cannot lie, neither in word nor deed. Christ's atonement
and righteousness then, must be infinite.
But how could a finite Saviour make an infinite atonement? Yea, how could such an one make any atonement at all? Or
how could he work out a righteousness for others? Must not a derived
78
being owe personally to God, according to the immutable religion of nature, as well as of Revelation, all the service,
that he is able to render? Every dependent being must owe to God the love and service of his whole heart, soul,
strength and mind. How then could the righteousness of a derived being be of avail for any one beside himself? much
less of that infinite avail, needed for the salvation of the fallen world? Yea, how could it be "the righteousness of
God?" How could Christ be, "Jehovah our righteousness?"
To render a derived Saviour adequate to the work, for which Christ was designed; or to give an infinite weight to his
atonement, righteousness, and administration; the advocates for such a Saviour must have recourse to the indwelling
of the fulness of the Father in Christ, in this case, the sufficiency of the Mediator is rested on the infinite fulness
of Divinity, that dwells in him. But if recourse must be had, after all, to the infinitude of the indwelling Divinity,
in the derived Son of God; what is gained by supposing the nature of Christ, that actually suffered, to be superior to
human nature? Nothing is gained, except that small addition of merit, which may be supposed to result from the
superiority of this derived nature over human nature. But how trifling must this be, when compared with the infinitude
of the indwelling fulness of the Father, on which dependence is really made? This infinitude of merit needs no such
addition. Infinity of merit must be sufficient without it. Such an addition goes not to the point, on which dependence
is finally made, -- the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father. But no Trinitarian doubts but the fulness
of the Godhead dwells in Christ. The Trinitarian rests the infinitude of the atonement on the
79
underived Deity, who dwells in the man Jesus Christ. And the opponent (who believes at all in an atonement) must
have recourse to the indwelling fulness of God, in Christ, to render his atonement of sufficient avail. What then has
he gained by representing Christ as possessed of a nature superior to all creatures, aside from the indwelling fulness
of God? For he does not with this find Christ adequate to the work of mediation, without The indwelling fulness of
God. And the Trinitarian finds Christ fully adequate to the work, with the indwelling of his proper Deity, without
supposing his created nature to be more than human.
The sentiment, that to atone for the sins of the world, the sufferings of the Saviour must, in some sense be deemed
infinite, most clearly lies at the foundation of the Christian system. "without the shedding of blood, there is no
remission." And this blood must be of infinite avail. It must be (as we are taught by inspiration to view it) the blood
of God." "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood;" (Acts xx. 23.) The ears of some are
won; led by the phrase, the blood of God. I believe as much as they that the invisible God is an infinite Spirit: And
that a pure Spirit hath not flesh and bones, or blood. Yet I feel myself fully warranted to use the phrase, the blood
of God; to say that this atoned for sin; and that without the shedding of such blood, there could be no remission.
The abundant language of the Bible, representing Christ as God, and yet as dying for sin, warrants the phrase, the blood
of God, as that which has ransomed fallen man. And the text, in Acts xx. 23, just quoted, fully warrants it. *
______
* The correctness of our reading of this text, is by some called in question, In some manuscripts of the New
Testament, it
80
The suffering of Christ must have been the suffering of God in a sense, that was either real, or constituted. A person
really divine either must exhibit himself as capable of suffering, and really suffering for sin; or else he must adopt
a creature into such a constituted union with himself, as that both this divine and this created nature shall go to
constitute one complete Person: And the sufferings of the created nature shall be esteemed as the sufferings of the
whole Person, or the sufferings of God. There. is no other possible sense, in which
______
is found, "Feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with his Own blood." And in some, "Feed the church of
the Lord and God." But I am satisfied with our reading, for the following reasons:
1. It accords with the tenor of the Bible, to speak of the church as the church of God; and to call Jesus Christ, God.
I have already shown in this section, and mean to show more fully, that Christ it abundantly called, and represented
to be, God; both in the Old and New Testaments; the mighty God, the great God, the true God. The reading, therefore,
"Feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with his Own blood," fully accords with the general language of
the Bible. And the sentiment of this reading forms a hinge, on which hangs The salvation of the Church. For there can
be no medium between The blood of God, and that of a mere creature. But it There be no atonement made for sin, but what
is made by a Mere creature, where is the foundation of the Christian’s hope? Admitting the reading, "the church of the
Lord, which he purchased With his own blood," nothing is gained by the opponent. For we are, in that case, warranted,
by the whole tenor of the Bible, to annex to the term Lord here, its highest sense, Jehovah, Who is the mighty God.
He has redeemed the church by His own blood. The church, then, is bought with the blood of God. The propriety of the
phrase is founded in the constituted Oneness between the second Person in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, as will
be shown.
2. The reading "the church of God," is found in eight manuscripts. And the following ancient fathers have quoted the
text according to our reading: Epiphanius, Basil, and Ambrose In the fourth century: Cassian, Ibas and Celestine, in
the fifth: And Fulgentius, Primesius, and Bede, in the sixth. See Panoplist For April, 1811, page 508.
81
the sufferings of the Mediator can be of infinite avail, as being the sufferings of God. But Christ's sufferings are
esteemed the sufferings of God: And his blood is esteemed of infinite avail, as the blood of God. Therefore real
Deity did dwell in the man Jesus, in such a sense, as to constitute them One, the Person of the Mediator. This
connection of the two natures is a mystery; but it is no contradiction, nor absurdity; it is not above the power of
God to effect.
No doubt many plausible things may be said, (if men are disposed,) against the divine economy of constituting such
a connexion between a Person really divine, and a created nature, as that the sufferings of the latter shall be
esteemed as the sufferings of God. The objector, if he be hardy enough! may say, It is all a mere pretence. God did
not suffer at all. "He only substituted a creature to suffer in his stead; like the king, who engaged to die, and
who fulfilled his promise by marrying a poor woman, thus becoming one with her, and causing her to die; which conduct
would not be very honorable!" But let me ask, what point in Divinity is not capable of being cavilled at? What point
of divine truth has not been attacked, and presented in a base libel! Things seemingly plausible may be said in
opposition to every cardinal doctrine in theology. But in view of the above objections, let me inquire; do not the
same difficulties attend the scheme of our opponents, so far as they rely on the constituted indwelling of the fulness
of God, to give an infinite dignity to the derived Son of God, and an infinite merit to his atonement? But their great
reliance is on the dignity and fulness of God the Father, to furnish their Mediator for his work. The relief is too
small to be noted, to say, that the derived Person
82
of their Mediator, in whom the Father dwells, is very far greater than human; being formed of the Father's essence!
For to what does all the difference between derived natures amount, when compared with the infinite God? Before him
all dependent beings sink to nothing! The reliance of our opponents, who hold to a literally derived Son of God, is
in fact solely on the Father, exclusively of any other truly divine Person in the Godhead (for they believe in no
other) for both the existence, and all the ability of the Son of God to atone for Sin, or to officiate in any of the
duties of the mediatorial office. There can be no adequate merit or dignity attending them, but what comes from God
the Father. Yet some of our opponents represent the Son as having made the atonement, and as doing all the work of
the Mediator. And some of them will admit of it as an infinite atonement; a mediation of infinite efficacy; while to
render it thus, their reliance must be on the indwelling, and the infinite fulness of the Father. Do not the same
objections then, stated above, apply with as great force to their own scheme? Most certainly! for, did God the Father
suffer, in the sufferings of Christ? And if not, how could his infinite fulness and dignity add any weight to the
sufferings of the finite Son? But if the opponent can imagine, that the infinite fulness and dignity of the Father
can add an infinite weight to the atonement made by the derived and finite Son of God; why can it not as well he
admitted, that the constituted union of real Deity (the second Person in the Trinity) with the man Jesus Christ, may
give an infinite dignity to the atonement made by him? Why shall the latter scheme, any more than (he former, be
represented as a mere pretence? But, may not God constitute
83
a connection between one of the infinite Persons in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, so that they shall properly
be called and viewed one? Is not God able to do this? And has he not a right to do it, whatever difficulties or
objections may arise concerning it in the minds of fallen man? All connections in creation depend on the sovereign will
of God. Suppose God could previously have consulted man, relative to many of these connections; as, that between man's
soul and body; that between God's own sovereign, universal agency in the government of the world, (making all things
for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil; Prov. xvi. 4,) and the free agency and accountability of man; what
would the wisdom of man have replied? Could he have been God's counsellor? Inexplicable difficulties would have
appeared. But God has established these, and all other created connections in the* universe. The laws of nature are of
his ordaining: and it is in vain for man to object. And no less vain or impious is it, to object to the constituted
connexion between the real Deity and humanity of Christ, which unitedly constitute his Person. The union is constituted.
It is not essential to either nature. But it was constituted by the sovereign will of Him, who constituted all the
created connexions in the universe. Man may repeat the question of Nicodemus in another case, "How can these things
be?" This question may be asked concerning some part of every work of God, not excepting the smallest atom; and no man
can answer if. Man is of yesterday, and knows nothing! He is surrounded with an universe of wonders! Is it incredible
then, that the infinite Creator of this universe should have unfathomable depths in his name, and the mode of
84
his existence? Is it incredible, that He, whose name is Wonderful, and whom no man knoweth, but the Father, has things
relative to his Person, which exceed the philosophy of vain man?" Canst thou by searching mid out God?" Who shall
object, or why, if God please to say, that the humanity of Christ shall be taken into such an union with one in the
Godhead, that the blood of the human nature, shed for sin, shall be called and esteemed the blood of God, to make an
infinite atonement; and the infinite glory of underived Deity shall be possessed by this wonderful Person of two
natures? Shall man say, that such inexplicable things attend the consideration of such a Person, that they cannot
believe in him? This, alas, would be nothing new! "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." Christ has
long since been to some a stumbling block; and to some foolishness. But to others he is "the power of God, and the
wisdom of God." Would such a connexion, as has been stated, between the two natures, human and divine, (supposing God
had revealed the certainty of it, in language, which could admit of no doubt) amount to an absurdity? Would it
evidently degrade the divine character? If not; who can say, that such a connexion does not in fact exist? For the
Word of God does read, as though this were the case. And thus it hits been understood, by. the body of the Church of
Christ, for many centuries.
Relative to Christ's being of underived Divinity, let it be further noted; if he were not underived, would God the
Father have ascribed to him the work of creation? and would he have ascribed to him immutability? Unto the Son, God
saith, Heb. i. 10, -- "Thou Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are
85
the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment; and
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
Here immutability, as well as creation, is ascribed by God the Father to Christ; -- "Thou shalt endure -- thou art
the same." -- As in the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 6. "Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, to day, and forever." Can
such repeated divine ascriptions of immutability be applied to a derived, dependent being?
And could such a being create the world? Would the infinite God repeatedly ascribe the work of creation to a finite
dependent being; and say to him, "Thou Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of
thy hand?" Are not here two persons; and the second, as well as the first, really God? The earth and the heavens are
the work of Christ's hands. Yet we read, "He, that made all things, is God." "The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament showeth his handy works." Is not Christ then, God? We are taught Heb. i. 2, that God made the worlds
by his Son; or by this second Person, now known as his Son. Does this import, that Christ created the worlds only by
a delegated agency? Or that his agency in creation was only such as that, by which holy men wrought miracles? Some
pretend this. But the Jehovah of hosts, abundantly in the prophet Isaiah, assumed creation to himself, as one of his
essential distinctions from false gods. Did this Jehovah of hosts hold this distinction only by a delegated power or
privilege? If this were all, his thus creating the world was no evidence of his real Divinity; any more than
86
Moses' working miracles before Pharaoh, was an evidence of his real Divinity.
The idea, of God's creating the world by Christ, is this, (as we may conceive;) the agency of the whole Godhead, was,
in that work, represented as exercised through the second Person in the Trinity. He, having entered into the covenant
of redemption with the Father, exercised the power of the Godhead in creating the world. The agency of the three is
represented as manifesting itself through him. Accordingly each of the three, in different sacred passages, is
represented as doing the work. But it is more peculiarly ascribed to the second Person, as though the agency of the
three carne into operation through him. But it is so represented in a sense, which implies, that this second Person
is the very God; -- an original in the work; and not merely a dependent instrument, by whom God wrought. God never
did (nor could) say to Peter, Thou, Peter, hast healed the lame man at the beautiful gate, and raised Dorcas: These
things are the works of thy hands. Nothing like this was ever said, by the Most High, to a creature, by whom he himself
had wrought miracles. But the utmost care was taken to distinguish between the Deity, and the instruments, that did
the work; and to have all the praise given to the former. Moses, the type of Christ, (and who was admitted to the
greatest intimacy with God, of all the men on earth;) yet for seeming to take to himself some of the praise of his
bringing the water from the rock, was shut out of the promised land! Instruments of divine operations, (human or
angelic,) have been careful to take none of the praise of their operations to themselves; but to give it all to God.
God informs, that he is a jealous God, and will never give his glory to another. Yet abundantly
87
God ascribes the work of creation, and of upholding all things, to Christ; and this in the most positive language.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with
God. All things were made by him; (the Word, or Christ) and without him was not any thing made, that was made." --
"The world was made by him." "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible,
and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him,
and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. i. 13-17. "And upholding all things
by the word of his power." These things are said expressly of Jesus Christ. But can all this be said, by the God of
truth, of a finite, derived, dependent Being? The parts of creation above enumerated, contain all created, dependent
beings, in heaven or earth. Surely then, Christ himself, (who created them,') cannot be among them, a finite, dependent
being. And who can believe in a derived, dependent Creator of all things? A dependent Almighty! How could all things
be said to be created for Christ, as well as by him, if he were not very God? Are all things, in heaven and earth,
created by and for a being distinct from, and dependent on, the true God? Let Paul decide this. "O the depth of the
riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
-- For of him, and through him. and to him are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Here we learn who Christ,
in the former passage, is, by whom, and for whom, all things were made. He is the very, unsearchable God, in this
latter passage; of whom,
88
through whom, and to whom are all things; to whom he glory forever. Compare these passages with Rev. iv. 8, -- where
the four living creatures, day and night, sing" Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
They proceed to give glory and honor and thanks to him, who sat on the throne, and liveth forever and ever. The elders
then fall before him, saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created
all things; and for thy pleasure they are, and were created." Here then we learn the sentiments of the true ministers
and followers of Christ. For these four living creatures are emblems of Christ's ministers; and the elders are
emblems of the members of his kingdom of grace. If we say the Being they worship here is the infinite Father; the Son,
in the other passages, is identified with him. For there all things were made by and for Jesus Christ. But if we say,
this is the Son on his throne of the universe; (as probably is the fact;) we then acknowledge the Son to be the Lord
God Almighty, receiving the highest ascriptions of glory and praise from all heaven. Is it possible then, for any to
deny, that Christ is the underived, eternal God, identified with the Father?
Hear the decision of Jehovah himself. Isai. xllv. 24; "I am the Lord, that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth
the heavens alone, that spreadeth forth the earth by myself." Here Jehovah alone, and by himself, created all things.
Yet we are expressly and abundantly taught that Christ created them. Surely then, Christ is that Jehovah himself, who
spread abroad the earth alone.
By Christ all things consist. He "upholds all things by the word of his power;" Heb. i. 3. But is it not "in God that
we live, move, and have our
89
being?" From this we learn, that Christ is God.
In Isaiah, God, "the high and lofty One, who inhabits eternity," declares, that he "dwells also with him, who is
of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and the heart of the contrite ones." Thus
Jehovah, who inhabits eternity, is "nigh unto them who are of a broken heart; and sayeth such as be of a contrite
spirit." But Christ says to such, "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come unto you." He says to his ministers,
"Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." In these, and similar promises of Christ, we learn, that
he is identified with "the high and lofty One, who inhabits eternity," dwelling with the humble. Christ says, "If
any man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him; and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode
with him." Here are the two first Persons in the Trinity, dwelling with every holy soul: Two omniscient Persons:
We will come unto every obedient person, and make our abode with him. Could Christ speak this, as a derived, dependent,
finite being? Could such an one, be at one and the same time, with millions of saints, in different parts of the
universe? And would such an one thus rank himself with the omnipresent God? We here find two omnipresent persons;
God and Christ. They are spoken of as two; and yet abundantly represented as One. There is no reconciling these numerous
passages, but by saying, God and Christ are two Persons, equal and eternal, in one God. Christ says, "Where two or
three are met in my name, there I am in the midst of them." Not simply, I will be, but I am: As he said to Moses in
the bush, "I am, that I am. Say unto them, I am hath sent me unto thee." "Before Abraham was, I am," Not I
90
was; but I am. Christ thus identifies himself with the eternal Jehovah. How exactly Christ's promises of his presence
with his people, accord with the same promises of Jehovah in the prophets: "Fear not, for I am with thee; be not
dismayed, for I am thy God." "I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." Are the above promises of Christ consistent
with his being a derived, dependent being? Is not omnipresence an essential attribute of God? And Christ's ascribing
this to himself, as well as to the Father, gives us his own testimony, that he, as well as the Father, is God.
The apostle says, of Christ's pre-existent Divinity, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
man." Here Christ, before he came in the flesh, and before we have any account of the Father's dwelling in him. or of
the Spirit's being given him without measure, was existing in heaven, a distinct Person in the Godhead, and viewed
himself equal with God. Is not this testimony decisive that Christ is. God? The form of a servant, in the above text,
is a servant. The likeness of man, is a man. And the form of God is God. Christ was in the form of God; and he thought
it not robbery to be equal with God. But if the highest nature of Christ were derived and dependent, it must have been
infinite robbery in him to have claimed equality with God!
Some object to the above text, that the word translated equal, in the original is not an adjective, but an adverb;
that it is not isos, equal; but isa, equally. If there be any weight in the criticism, it is wholly in favour of
Christ's Divinity. For then the adverb equally, may be viewed as qualifying
91
the verb importing to be; literally thus; Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be, equally
with God, i. e. equally with the Father, Christ possesses independent existence. Perfectly this accords with the
title which Christ took to himself in the burning bush, "I AM THAT I AM." And to the Jews; "Before Abraham was, I AM."
This title, with the name Jehovah, and Jah, ascribed to Christ, imports necessary existence. Surely then, it was not
robbery in Christ to exist, equally with the Father.
The Jews understood Christ as claiming equality with God, notwithstanding all the notices he gave, of the dependence
of his humanity: "Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." -- Again; "Making himself equal with God." Christ
was so far from correcting this, as a mistake, that he told them plainly, "I and my Father are one." "I dwell in the
Father; and the Father in me." "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." "If ye had known me, ye had known my
Father also." Would the meek and lowly Jesus have said such things as these, and have put himself before the Father,
("I and my Father are one,") if he had been as much inferior to the Father, as is a derived, dependent being, to the
infinite, eternal Jehovah? It appears impossible! What! the faithful and true Witness speaking most impious falsehoods?
It is said by some, that Christ and the Father are one, only as Christians are one with God and Christ, and one
another. As Christ intercedes; "That they all may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one
in us." The oneness here is only a moral oneness: or being of one spirit, and one design. But is there nothing more of
equality, between God and Christ, than a
92
moral oneness? How then is the blood of Christ called the blood of God? Does the oneness between Christians and God,
render the blood of the martyrs the blood of God? or of any avail to atone for sin? Why not, as well as the blood of
Christ, if the martyrs had all the oneness with God, which Christ possesses? There is both a moral and a natural
oneness between God and Christ. And to the moral oneness, and not to the natural, that clause in the intercession of
Christ relates. But this by no means disproves an essential oneness between the two first Persons in the Godhead.
Such a oneness other scriptures teach does exist. And this clause in the intercession, hints nothing to the contrary.
It relates to that kind of oneness, which exists among Christians.
The following divine testimony establishes the equality of Christ's Divinity with that of the Father. "That all men
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." How is the Father honored? He is honored as the independent
eternal God. How then must the Son be honored, in order to be honored as the Father? Surely as the independent, eternal
God. Or else he is at an infinite remove from being honored, as is the Father.
The following passages evince the proper Divinity of Christ. 1 John iii. 5; "And ye know that he was manifest to take
away our sins, and in him is no sin." Who was manifest to take away our sins? God is the only antecedent to the
pronoun HE in the text. Verse 1, -- "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of
God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when be shall appear, we shall be like him;
93
(God) for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he (God) is
pure. -- And ye know that he (God) was manifest to take away our sins."
Again, "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." -- There is and
must be an overwhelming mystery, to short-sighted creatures, in the union of Christ's two natures, that he is Immanuel,
God with us: "Which things the Angels desire to look into." -- Those, who would attempt to divest this subject of
mystery, do violence both to the spirit and the letter of the testimony of God himself upon this subject. For God
informed that Christ's name should "be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the
Prince of Peace." And he asserts, that "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in
the flesh." Here, the Logos, in the first of the Gospel of John, who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us," is, as he
was by John, called, God. Here he was manifested in human nature. And here we are divinely taught, that without
controversy it is a great mystery. *
______
* Some inform us, that this text is, in our reading, incorrect. It is said that, in some ancient Greek MSS. it read?,
"Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh." And in one MS. -- "which was manifest in the flesh."
I will now assign my reasons, why I am well satisfied with. the present reading in our Bible.
1. We have much authority in favor of it. Many Greek MSS. it is confessed, have the passage, as we have it. And it
is said, that "only two undisputed testimonies, among all the Greek MSS. exist in favor" of the reading, "who was
manifest in the flesh." (See Panoplist for April, 1811, page 310 --) The noted Alexandrian MS. in the British Museum,
"has been the subject of much doubt and dispute, owing to the controverted word having been in some of the lines
(essential to determine its character) touched by a modern
94
David says, "Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The apostle, alluding to the same passage, says, "If so be
ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, -- to whom coming, as to a living stone,
______
hand." (Ibid.) Mill, Walton and Barriman declare in favor of this MS.'s conaining our present reading.
Good authorities arc found among the fathers in favor of our present reading. The Apostolic Constitutions, in the
second century, have the text as it is in our Bible. Lactantins, in the fourth century likewise: and Gregory Nyssen,
and Chrysostom, of the fourth century, have it thus, very clearly. And Thedoret of the fifth century.
2. I can, to my satisfaction, account for the alteration of some of the ancient MSS. from "God was manifest in the
flesh," to ** who was manifest in the flesh." For this alteration, in Greek MS. was very small, and might be the
effect of innocent mistake; while the alteration from who, to God, must have been more likely to be the effect of
wicked design. This I will now show. In the ancient Greek manuscript-writing, the word for God was written thus,
ØC. (Ths, for Theos.) And the word for who, thus, OC, (Os.) The Greek letter Sigma being written like the English
C. The only difference here between the word for God, and the word for who, is a dash in the middle of the
Omicron, or O, to convert it into the letter Theta, having the sound of Th. How easily then might this small dash, in the
centre of the O, have been by some transcriber omitted through mistake? and the mistake overlooked? Yea, how easy to
conceive, that this dash, in the ØC, in the text under consideration, might, in some original, from which a transcriber
was copying, be effaced, by age or use; so that, in glancing his eye upon it, he might mistake OC for ØC? But to
suppose so important a dash inserted in the copy, when it was not in the original, and thus to convert it from who,
to God, must appear much more like the effect of design, and, much more improbable.
3. The reading "who was manifest in the flesh," is ungrammatical; and it utterly obscures the sense. With what
antecedent can the who agree? Not with godliness; for that, in the original, is in the feminine gender; and who is
masculine. And it cannot agree with mystery. For that in the original is of neuter gender. It therefore has no
antecedent. Neither does it make sense. It informs not, who was manifest in the flesh. It is like the following
broken sentence; What an astonishing visit! Who come here to-day, was a singular character. Thus obscure is the text
rendered, by reading who, instead of God.
95
disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious." Here Christ is chosen of God, and precious. In some
sense then, he is a different Person from God the Father. Yet he is the Lord (Jehovah) in those words of David, who
is the very God. Hence they are two Persons, and yet one God.
In Isai. liv. 5, we read, "For thy Maker is thy husband; the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the holy
One of Israel: The God of the whole earth shall he be called." But is not Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the husband
of the Church? -- The affirmative is undeniable. And it follows, that Christ is the Person, who there speaks, and who
is the Maker of the Church, the Jehovah of hosts, the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth. In the Song of
Solomon, Christ is the Bridegroom of his Spouse. And in the New Testament the Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Says Paul, "I have espoused you to one Husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." "For the husband
is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the bead of the Church; and he is the Saviour of the body." Here is the
very Redeemer, the holy One of Israel, in that passage in Isaiah. Most evidently the Being in ail these passages is
one and the same. Christ then, is the true and living God. though in some sense a distinct Person from the Father.
______
4. The text, in our present reading, perfectly accords with the language of the Bible. It has been made to appear,
that Christ, in the language of the Bible, is God, the true God, the great God, the mighty God. And Christ was
manifested in the flush. The sentiment then if true, whether the text speak it, or not. And the opponent has done
but little towards carrying his point, even could he prove, that the text ought to be read, "who was manifest in the
flesh;" and thus that it has no meaning; which yet cannot be proved.
96
Again; in Isaiah xlv. 23, Jehovah swears by himself, that to him "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall
swear." When God swears by himself, it is "because he can swear by none greater." Heb. vi. 13. But from this passage
in Isaiah, Paul informs the Romans, that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it 18 written,
As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then, every one of
us shall give account of himself to God." -- in these two passages, we are taught, that Christ is God, the Judge,
and the Jehovah, who sware by himself; and therefore knew none greater than himself, by whom to swear.
It is the essential prerogative of God, to search the heart. Of the wicked deceitful heart of man, God says, "Who can
know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways." Much of such
language as this do we read, of the eternal Jehovah. "The Lord's throne is in heaven; his eyes behold, his eyelids
try the children of men." "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." -- "His eyes
behold the nations." "God looketh on the heart." "The righteous God trieth the hearts and the reins." "For thou,
even thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men." Now if we can find this very prerogative ascribed to
Christ, we shall then find ourselves warranted to say, that Christ is indeed God, who only knows the heart of man.
But we do find this very thing. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, (the Jews,) because he knew all men; and
needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man." "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, (Greek,
Jesus seeing their thoughts,) said. Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts." "For Jesus
97
knew from, the beginning, who they were that believed not; and who should betray him." Should any, to evade this
evidence, say, Jesus knew these things by information from God; I answer; let Christ himself decide it: The "Son
of God," Rev. ii. 18,23, says, "And all the churches shall know, that I am he, who searcheth the reins and hearts,
and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." Christ does not say here, that I am given and enabled
to know the hearts; but "I am He, who searcheth the reins and the hearts." I am that very God of the Old Testament,
who said, "I, Jehovah, search the heart, and try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways." Christ
accordingly adds, "And I will give unto every one of you according to your works?" As if he had said, I am the very
Jehovah, who by Jeremiah spake these words; and all my churches shall know it. What opinion then must we form of
those, who are laboring to disprove, in the churches, this divine sentiment; and are laboring to propagate the
opinion that Christ is derived, and totally distinct from that Jehovah, who searches the hearts? Peter did not view
his Saviour thus, when he devoutly appealed to Christ's omniscience; "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
that I love thee." And Thomas; when he said, "My Lord, and my God."
Could Jesus Christ have made the above application of an essential divine prerogative to himself, if he were only of
derived Divinity, or were a constituted God; acting only by a delegated authority? Would not a magistrate, who thus
treated his government, be guilty of high treason? And would not the crime be of a deeper die, in proportion to the
grade of his magistracy? Should the lowest magistrate seriously assume to himself the title;
98
and all the honors due to his king, or emperor, it would be a serious offence. But it would be a much more serious
offence, should a prime minister do it.
The infinite Jehovah, God of Israel, says, Isai. xliii. "Thus saith the Lord, that created thee, O Jacob, and he
that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called theee by thy name; thou art mine. --
I am the Lord thy God, the holy One of Israel, thy Saviour -- Every one that is called by my name; -- I have created
him for my glory, I have formed him, yea I have made him. -- Before me there was no God formed; neither shall there be
after me. I, even I am the Lord; and beside me there is no Saviour. -- Thus saith the Lord your Redeemer, the holy
one of Israel; -- I am the Lord your holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King."
Here the one God is the Creator of Israel. But did not Christ create Israel? John 1. 10: "He was in the world, and
the world was made by him; he came to his own, (came to the Jews, whom he had created, and taken into covenant with
himself,) and his own received him not." "All things were made by him, (Christ) whether they be thrones or dominions,
principalities or powers." Surely then Christ was that God of Israel, that holy One.
That holy One of Israel declares, that no God was formed before him; and none should be formed after him. Can Christ
then be a distinct God from him, and formed or derived after him? Surely not. This holy One of Israel was their
Saviour; besides whom there is no Saviour. But is not Christ the Saviour of Israel? The apostle says of Christ, "Neither
is there salvation in any other." Inevitably then Christ is that holy One, that just God and Saviour of Israel, beside
whom there is no
99
other God, no other Saviour. There is no evasion of this conclusion, without denying the decisions! of God himself.
Jude says, "Now unto him, that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of
his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now
and ever, Amen." And 1 Tim. ii. 3; "in the sight of God our Saviour." In these texts Christ is most clearly identified
with the infinite Jehovah: Not merely morally one, as are all the saints: But essentially the same Being; the same
infinite God.
This Jehovah, Israel's Redeemer and holy One, says in the above passage in Isaiah, "I am the Creator of Israel, your
King." But is not Christ the King of Israel? Nathanael said to him, John i. 49; "Thou art the King of Israel." The
Jews expected their Messiah to come in this character. Pilate hence inserted it on his superscription -- "The King of
the Jews." The Jewish rulers wished to have the following substitute, "He saith I am the King of the Jews." Christ
then is that King of Israel, that Jehovah, that holy One, in Isaiah. That same Jehovah, God of Israel, says, "Look
unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else." But Christ says, "I will
draw all men unto me." Here he applies to himself the very idea of the above text. David, after describing Christ's
humiliation, says, "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord." But this, Christ applies to
himself, by inviting all men to come to him; and predicting, that all men on earth (in the Millennium) shall come to
him.
If Christ be not the true and living God, the Jews were justified by the divine law given them, in putting him to
death, as a deceiver and a blasphemer.
100
For the law of God given to them expressly provided, that any person, who should attempt to draw them off to the
worship of any God, beside the true Jehovah, God of Israel, should be surely put to death. Even should he "give a
sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass;" yet if the object were, to lead them to worship any, beside
the true God, they should surely put him to death; their "eye should not pity, nor spare, nor conceal him." If Jesus
Christ then, were not the true and living God of Israel, the Jews were obliged, by their own law, to put him to death.
For, notwithstanding the notices he gave them of the dependence of his humanity on God, Christ did present himself
to the Jews, as God. They understood him thus. "Thou being a man, makest thyself God." He did receive, and never
forbid, worship paid to himself; and be taught "that all men should honor (or worship) the Son, even as they honor
the Father." Now therefore, if Christ were not the true God of Israel, did he not teach them to worship another
beside the true God of Israel? And if he did, how could the Jews be exempt from the demand of their law, that such
an one should be put to death? To say, that Christ acted under the divine commission, and exhibited plenary evidence
of his being sent of God, though he were a distinct being from the God of Israel? and that God permitted him to receive
divine honors, gives no relief in this case. For it is to say, that God acted contrary to his own law; that he thus
denied himself; and betrayed his people. For the One God of the Jews did positively and abundantly assure them, that
there was no God beside himself; that he knew not any; none formed before him, or after him; that he was their Saviour;
and
101
there was no Saviour beside him. Surely then, if Christ presented himself to the Jews, as their Saviour, and an object
of worship; and yet as a being distinct from the infinite Jehovah, the God of Israel; I see nothing why he ought not,
according to the law of God, to have been executed as a deceiver!
To represent Christ as a being distinct from the Father; and to allow, that he is at the same time called God; is to
own two Gods. There is no possibility of evading this charge, till it can be made to appear, that one real God, and
one constituted God, do not amount to the number two. To say they are one in spirit, gives no relief; for so are all
the saints. To say the two distinct Beings are one in original essence, helps not the case. For upon the scheme of the
opponent, they are now no more one in essence, than is a human father and his son. But these are as really two, as are
two angels in heaven. There is no evasion of the charge of having two Gods, but by allowing that the Father, and the
Divinity of the Son, are equal in one Godhead, and that in some mysterious and essential sense, they are absolutely
one , God. And we find it a fact, that they are abundantly so represented. And I see not why it should be less
offensive to believe in two distinct Gods in heaven, than to believe in one God, mysteriously consisting of Father,
Word and Holy Ghost. *
______
* Let not the advocates for the sentiment, that Christ n literally derived from God, is a Being distinct from the
Father, and does receive worship, ever more please themselves that they are Unitarians, and worshippers of one God.
We are worshippers of one God. But they are worshippers of two Gods. It is impossible for them to evade the charge.
We hold to a Trinity of Persons in one God: they to a duality of distinct Gods. What have they gained, in point of
consistency, in renouncing our theory? Have they not incurred far
102
The law of God demands, that we should "love the Lord our God," with all the heart, soul, strength and mind. But is
not the same love demanded towards Jesus Christ." Was man ever cautioned against loving Christ more than God; or too
intensely? We are much cautioned against loving the creature more than the Creator. But we are so far from being
cautioned against loving Christ more than God, that we are clearly taught, that to love Christ, is to love God. Not
merely that love to Christ is an evidence of love to God; for love to Christians is thus; but love to Christ, is
itself love to God. As he that hath seen Christ hath seen the Father; so he that hath loved Christ hath loved the
Father. Accordingly man's want of love to God is expressed, and threatened as follows; "If any man love not our Lord
Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha." Does the divine economy render idolatry essential to an escape from
the wrath to come? Must a derived being, totally distinct from the infinite Jehovah, the God of Israel, be supremely
loved; or man be lost?
Isaiah says of the wicked, in the last days. "They shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the
earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his Majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth." But in
the New Testament we learn that it is Christ, who at that very time arises to shake terribly the earth, and to data
wicked nations to pieces, as with a rod of iron. * It is Christ,
______
greater difficulties, than they have escaped? By what name ought they to be called? Surely, not Unitarians. There is
no more real unity in their two Gods than between "Adam and Seth."
* Psalm ii. 8.
103
who at the same period says, "Behold I come as a thief," * Christ is the Word of God, riding forth, at that day,
upon his white horse of victory, Rev. xix. 11--. In those passages, while Christ is the Word of God. and the Son;
he is at the same time the Jehovah, who "alone shall be exalted in that day."
Surely it is the Kingdom of Christ, which is to be exalted in the Millennium. No believer in the Gospel will doubt
of this. It is called "the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Yet "Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day." And
it is "the God of heaven, who will then set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." Dan. ii. 44. Christ then,
is Jehovah alone, the God of heaven. Although relative to Christ's humanity, he is made. head overall things to the
church; and God the Father hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, that is above every name; yet relative to
his Divinity he is, according to the clear sense of the above passages, viewed in their connexion, Jehovah alone, the
God of heaven, exalted in that day. Accordingly the prophet says, of that very period, Isai. xl. 9-11, "Say unto the
cities of Judah, Behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him;
behold his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a Shepherd, he shall gather the
lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." -- This is Christ
coming in his kingdom. Yet he is "the Lord God." The saints triumph; "Lo this is our God; we have waited for him, he
will save us." Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah
______
* Rev. xvi. 15.
104
is our King, be will save us. Are all these things said of a derived, dependent being, who is distinct from the
Father? Is it such a being alone, who is "exalted in that day?" These Scriptures teach, that Christ in his Divinity,
is one with God; and is the great, the living and true God.
Jesus Christ relative to his human body, said, "Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up." "But God
raised him from the dead." Christ here decides, that he is God. And he decides that he has two natures in his one
Person, divine and human; And sometimes he speaks of himself in relation to the one, and sometimes in relation to the
other. When he spake, in the days of his humiliation, of his dependence on God, he spake in relation to his mediatorial
character, as will he shown. But when he spake in relation to his divine nature, he spake as God. I will raise up this
temple of my body in three days. "I will; be thou clean." To the dead, "I say unto thee arise." "Lazarus, come forth."
To the stormy lake, "Peace, be still!" To the Disciples, "I will make you fishers of men." "The Son of man hath power
on earth to forgive sins." "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it." "I will not leave you comfortless; I
will come unto you." In relation to his humanity, and mediatorial character. Jesus wrought miracles in his Father's
name. In relation to his Divinity, he wrought miracles in his own name, and received the praise of it. Should any doubt
relative to the correctness of this distinction, between Christ's two natures, let Christ himself decide it. "I am the
Root and offspring of David." * Here, in a short clause, he speaks in relation to both his natures.
______
* Rev. xxii. 16.
105
He is David's Root, and David’s offspring; David's Jehovah, and David's Son; David's God, and David's descendant:
David's Creator, and his seed according; to the flesh." Can any believer in Revelation doubt whether Christ does
possess two natures? and whether this fact together with his constituted mediatorial character, may Solve all the
seeming contradictions o Christ's dependence on God; and yet his being himself the very independent God? if they will
doubt, they are not the first, who have doubted. The cavilling Pharisees doubted; and our Lord put them to silence
with the very truth in the above text. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think
ye of Christ? Whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit
call him Lord, saying; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son?" This reduced them to silence. Christ was both David's Lord, and Son.
In his Deity, he was the former; in his humanity the latter. And had the Pharisees understood (and had grace enough to
acknowledge) this evident sense of the scriptures concerning Christ, they could have answered his question, with great
ease, by saying; Christ's Divinity is David's Jehovah, whom he set always before his face, and worshipped us God. But
Christ's humanity is made of the seed of David, according to the flesh: Or, Christ is David's Root, and offspring.
The two natures in Christ are often clearly distinguished from each other, and things said of him, which apply to but
one of these natures. As 1 Cor. xv. 27; "But when he saith, All things arc put under him, it is manifest that he is
excepted, who did put ail things under him." Here reference
106
is had to Christ's glorified humanity; that it is the infinite God, who glorified the man Christ, and put all things
under his power. Compare this with Phil. iii. 21; -- "the Lord Jesus Christ -- who is able even to subdue all things
to himself." The word in the original, in the former of these texts, (importing the putting of all things under
Christ) is the same with that in the latter text translated to subdue. Christ, in the latter text is said to be able
to do the very thing, which God, in the formed text, is said to do. The former text then, alludes to Christ's humanity;
the latter to his Divinity.
I might multiply evidences of Christ's proper Deity, till almost the whole scripture would
pass in review: But it is needless. A few more sacred testimonies however. I must beg the reader's patience to peruse,
before I close this section. The great truth before us does not rest on a few obscure hints, or detached passages;
but it is interwoven through the Bible; and forms the essential basis of its glorious scheme.
Many scriptures, which I esteem divine testimonies to this point, I omit, because the decision is not carried so
clearly upon their face. I do not mean to make a quotation, which I do not believe is decisive in favor of the real
Deity of Christ.
Paul tells the Corinthians, that he was determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
But was not the glory of God his object? Jesus Christ then, in Paul's view, was God. To preach Christ, was to preach
God. To know Christ, was to know God. Christ was Paul's only object. Yet God was his only object. This accords with
the words of Christ, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
Paul again speaking of Christ, who will appear in judgment, the King of kings, adds, "Who only
107
hath immortality; dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to
whom he honor and power everlasting. Amen." * If Christ only hath immortality; then surely he is God, the only
living God; or else there is no God of immortality. The Father is not, in this text, excluded, but included. But the
passage shows the unity of God and Christ. Each of them only hath immortality.
Paul says; "I am dead unto the law, that I might live unto God." Yet he tells us, "For me to live is Christ;" --
"that we should live to him, who died for us, and rose again." "Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God
with your body and spirit, which are God's." Thus with Paul, Christ was God. God and Christ, in point of real Divinity,
were with Paul convertable terms.
Man is commanded to rejoice and glory only in God. "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall
glory." "As it is written: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." "And rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
"We also joy in God." But yet Paul says, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Your rejoicing being more abundant in Christ" -- "in whom though now ye see him not. yet believing, ye rejoice with
joy unspeakable and full of glory." There is no avoiding the conclusion, that in those passages, God is Christ; and
Christ is God.
If Christ be not the living God, hut a derived, dependent being, in his highest nature, why did the apostles work
their miracles in his name, and not in the name, of God? -- Should they not have performed them in the name of that
divine Power,
______
* 1 Tim. vi. 16.
108
who actually did the work? Would they be divinely directed to perform their miracles in the name of a derived,
dependent being? and to have the praise ascribed to such an one? This would be most unaccountable. All power
belongeth unto God; yea unto the Lord our God belongeth the issues from death. The praise of God's works ought to
be given to him, and not to the instruments of his operations. It is one great object of Revelation, to teach
creatures devoutly to distinguish between instruments of good, and God the infinite giver. And would Christ have
directed his apostles to violate this principle? Yea, would he have violated it in his own Person and examples?
It is true, Christ repeatedly gave notice, that all he did was from God; and of himself he could do nothing. But
it is as true, that he is as abundantly represented as being himself the great, the living, and true God; and
operating as such. How shall we dispose of this seeming contradiction? The clew has already been hinted: Christ
has two natures in his Person. He is God; and he is man. And he is constituted a Mediator. And in passages concerning
Christ, reference is sometimes had to the one of his natures; and sometimes to the other. This is a most evident
fact. "I am the root and offspring of David." Here, in the pronoun I, are contained God and man. As God, he wrought
by his own power; as man, he wrought by the power of God.
In the various communications of Christ, and in the records given of him, this seeming paradox is abundantly exhibited,
for the trial of man's faith, that Christ was God; and he was man; that he was independent; and was dependent; and the
essential attributes of God, and of man centered in him. This stumbled the Jews; and has stumbled
109
thousands. "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." "Unto you, therefore, who believe, he is precious:
But unto them, who are disobedient, the stone, which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner;
and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them, who stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto
also they were appointed."
Christ says "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son; and he, to whom
the Son will reveal him." This appears to indicate, that those two Persons in the Godhead are equally incomprehensible;
and thus equally divine. No wonder then, that when God was manifested in the flesh, his name should be called Wonderful;
that it should be declared a great mystery; and that it should be to many a stumbling block, and foolishness.
Jesus Christ is the Life. "I am the resurrection and the Life." "I am the way, the truth, and the Life." "In him was
Life." "This is the true God, and eternal Life." Christ is not merely the way to life; but is himself said to be
eternal Life; the Prince of Life. Christians have eternal life. But they cannot be called the Life. Christ as a man
and Mediator speaks of this power of Life being given him. But if nothing appertained to Christ, but a derived nature,
which received this gift of the Father to have life in himself, surely Christ could never, with such emphasis, be
called the LIFE. If the person of Christ had no life, but a given life, he would not have said, "Because I live, ye
shall live also:" But, because God lives ye shall live also. The Life of their lives must be in God. Yet it was in
Christ: who therefore is God.
110
Christ, upon promising the Comforter, said, "He shall glorify me; for he shall take of mine, and show it unto you."
Do we not here learn, that Christ is God, one with the Father? Would the Holy Ghost have it as a first object, to
glorify a derived dependent being? "He shall take of mine, and show it unto you." But what docs the Holy Ghost show
to Christians? He shows them the character and glory of God; and the way of salvation. The following is the result of
this discovery, as the apostle decides relative to all the new-born; "And rejoice in hope of the glory of God." The
Comforter then, in order to glorify Christ, glorifies God.
John remarks, that Christ's miracles manifested forth his glory. Again; "Of his fulness we have received, and grace
for grace." If Christ had no nature, but what did in fact receive divine communications, why is it said to be his glory,
that was manifested forth? and his fulness, from which Christians receive their divine aids and consolations? Do they
not receive these things from God? And did not Christ's miracles manifest forth the glory of him, who said "My glory
I will not give unto another?" Did Paul's miracles manifest forth Paul's glory? Or was it of Peter's fulness, that the
healed Eneas, and the raised Dorcas received? Surely not. And if Christ, in his whole Person, were as dependent as was
Paul, or Peter; does it not as really give the glory to another beside God, to ascribe it to Christ, as to ascribe it
to Paul or Peter?
Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthened me." But was not Paul's sole dependence on God? "The
Lord stood by me and strengthened me." "Now he, that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing, is God;" "For
111
it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to do." "God who hath given unto us his holy Spirit." Surely then,
Christ is God.
Jesus Christ will fashion the bodies of his saints "like unto his glorious body, according to the working, whereby he
is able to subdue even all things unto himself." -- Christ's voice raises the dead. "I am the resurrection and the
life." But we are informed, that "The Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them." In this therefore, we learn
the truth of Christ's words, "I and my Father are one." "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Christ is called
"the Author and Finisher" of the Faith. But this same faith, we are informed, is of "God's operation." "It is the gift
of God." Inevitably then, Christ is God.
Read the description of Christ, in Rev. i. chapter; and the ascriptions of glory to him there found. "Unto him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own blood, -- be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen." Are the
heavenly hosts idolaters? Is this Saviour, whom they worship, a merely derived, dependent being? If he be, I see not
that the Bible can be exonerated from the just imputation of establishing a most deep and refined system of idolatry!
While it calls men to the worship of the one only living and true God; it at the same time institutes, and justifies
the worship of one, who is totally distinct from, and dependent on the one only living and true God. A sentiment
which appears an infinite absurdity!
Behold the dying Stephen "full of the Holy Ghost," devoutly "calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my
spirit." Could such an address be made, under an infallible guide, to any being short of the infinite God?
112
In the Apocalypse, the infinite Divinity of Jesus Christ is repeatedly and clearly ascertained. Some of these
evidences of Christ's proper Divinity have been already noted. One or two more I will now exhibit. The Person, who
styles himself the Alpha and Omega, in the Revelation, who is evidently Jesus Christ, (see Rev. i. 8-18; ii. 8; xxi.
6, 7,) says, "He that overcometh, shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." These
are the words of him, who in the preceding verse says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will
give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." These are the very titles that Christ
repeatedly in this book takes to himself. It is Christ then, who here speaks, and says, of him that overcometh, "I
will be his God, and he shall be my son." But would Christ say such things as these, if he were not the true and
living God? Would not the affirmative make Christ a blasphemer! He is the God and fountain of life, to the Church
triumphant! and this too, it appears, after the Son shall have given up the mediatorial kingdom, at the end of the
world, that God may be all in all! Christ has a nature in his person, that even there will be the God and Fountain
of life to all, who shall overcome. This idea accords with the repeated inspired assertions, that Christ has a
kingdom, which shall have no end; even though his mediatorial kingdom shall close at the end of the world.
Of the new Jerusalem, it is said, "The Lamb is the light thereof." And, "The throne of God and the Lamb shall be in
it, and his servants shall serve him, and they shall see his face, and his name Shall be in their forehead."
Rev. xxii. 3, 4. Are not God and the Lamb here presented as one and the same God? What is the antecedent to
113
the pronoun HIS and HIM, in the singular number, repeatedly used in this text? God and the Lamb are the antecedent.
But if God and the Lamb be two distinct Beings, why is it said in relation to both of them, "his servants shall
serve him, and shall see his face, and his name shall be in their forehead?" No doubt the Father and the Lamb are in
a sense two, as has appeared. But if the Lamb were not essentially one with God, it could not have been said of the
New Jerusalem, "The Lamb is the light thereof;" nor could God and the Lamb have been represented, in the above text,
as one Being, whose servants serve him, who see his face, and his name is in their forehead.
Jesus Christ is the Judge of the world. In Isai. xl. 10, it is said, "Behold the Lord God will come his reward is
with him." But Christ says, Rev. xxii. 12, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me." Christ then, is that
Lord God in the former passage. The great day is hence called, interchangeably, the day of Christ; as Philipians i. 10;
and the day of God; as 2 Pet. iii. 12. "God will judge the world by the Man whom he hath ordained." "The Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because
he is the Son of man." In these and other scriptures, we learn, that the Son is the Person of the final Judge. And
these and similar scriptures relate to the mediatorial character of Christ. To this official character the judgment
is indeed a thing committed. But is there nothing in the Person of the final Judge of the world, but what is dependent?
This is the question. And all that has been adduced in this section, goes to decide that in the Person of the Judge
114
is infinite Divinity, as well as humanity. He is the root, as well as the offspring of David.
I will note some of the scriptures, which relate to the Judgment, and the Person of the Judge. And let the reader
decide whether Christ be, or be not, really God.
Psalm 50. "The mighty God, even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth, from the rising of the sun, unto the
going down thereof. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. , Our God shall come, and shall not keep
silence; a tire shall devour before him; and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the
heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those who have
made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness; FOR GOD is JUDGE HIMSELF. Hear,
O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee; I AM GOD even THY GOD." -- Here is the final
Judge of the world. Is this the true God? Or is this a derived and constituted God?
The remainder of the Psalm furnishes evidence no less decisive, that the Being, who there speak?, is the infinite God.
We are assured it is he, who knows all the fowls of the mountains; and that nil the cattle upon a thousand hills are
his. The world is HIS and the fulness thereof. He says, "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee; and
thou shalt glorify me. But unto the wicked God saith, -- These things hast thou done, and I kept silence. -- But I
will reprove thee, and set them in order before thee. Now consider this, ye who forget God; lest I tear you in pieces,
and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise, glorifieth me; and to him that ordereth
115
conversation aright, will I show the salvation of God."
This Psalm must be viewed as the words of Christ. It is evidently the words of the very Person of the final Judge.
But "the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." And of himself, as the final Judge,
Christ says, "All who are in their graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth" -- "When the Son of man shall
come in his glory, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and
he shall separate them." Most exactly these accounts, and what follows this last quoted passage, (Mat. xxv. 32, --
to the end,) accord with the above solemn description, in the 50th Psalm. "The mighty God, even the Lord hath spoken
and called the earth -- He shall call to the heavens and to the earth -- Gather my saints together unto me." Here is
the voice of the Archangel, and the trump of God. But Christ tells us, it is his voice, that the dead shall hear,
and shall come forth; (John v. 25, 28.) When Christ speaks of the Son of man coming in the glory of his Father, he
speaks of himself in relation to his humanity, and to his constituted official character.
The Father in such passages, represents the fulness of the Godhead, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. But Christ speaks
also of his coming in his own glory. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit on the throne
of his glory." And surely, in the 50th Psalm, Christ does come in his own glory, as God. "God is Judge himself. --
I am God, even thy God. -- The mighty God, even Jehovah." Would the meek and lowly Jesus have given such a
representation of himself, if he had been only a derived, dependent being? Impossible! In this Psalm is
116
presented the same Angel of the Lord, who appeared to Abraham, whom Abraham calls Jehovah, and whom he addressed
as the Judge of all the earth, who must do right. Christ is the Judge. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment unto the Son." Yet the Judge is God. Paul says, "We are sure the judgment of God is according to truth,
against them who commit such things." -- "And thinkest thou, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" -- "And
treasureth up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God?" "Is there
unrighteousness with God? How then shall God Judge the world?" -- Surely then, though Christ is the Judge; yet, in
the New Testament, as well as the Old, the Judge is God himself. "The Lord himself shall be revealed from heaven, in
flaming tire, taking vengeance on them that know not God." Mere is the Son of man coming in his glory. This text
appears to be in allusion to that passage in the 50th Psalm, "A fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very
tempestuous round about him." The two passages relate to the same Person and event, -- the appearing of Christ, the
Judge of the world. The apostle calls it the glorious appearing of the great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ.
It is evident, from the view taken of these passages, which relate to the judgment, that Jesus Christ is the very God,
as well as man. He is in some mysterious, sense distinct from the Father, who judgeth no man: Yet he is infinitely
superior to a derived dependent being. "God is Judge himself." God and the Judge are essentially one.
There is no doubt but the three Persons in the Godhead will all be engaged in the great
117
Work of the final judgment. But the divine exhibition is represented as being made through the Person of Christ.
When it is said, "the Father judgeth no man," it cannot mean, that he is excluded from the solemn scene, or has nothing
to do with the judgment. Nor can it mean, that the Person, who is the manifest Agent in the judgment, is essentially
inferior to the Father. For neither of these ideas does the Bible admit. But the sense appears to be this: The Judge
will be rendered visible, by his glorified Immunity; it will appear that this humanity is united to infinite Divinity;
that this infinite Divinity of the Judge is possessed of some personal distinction from the Father, who is at the head
of the economy of mediatorial grace; yet that there is an essential unity between the Person of the Judge, and the
Father; and that the whole Godhead are united in that momentous and final Assize.
Some explanations of difficulties relative to things seemingly contradictory being said of Christ, will be given toward
the close of the next section.
[ 118 ]
(this page is blank)
|