Ethan Smith's 1824 "View of the Trinity"

OliverCowdery.com -- The Premier Web-Site for Early Mormon History

Bookshelf | Spalding Library | Mormon Classics | Newspapers | History Vault

Ethan Smith
(1762-1849)
View of the Trinity
(2nd ed., Poultney, 1824)

Transcriber's Comments

More on Ethan Smith

Dissertation on Prophecies (1811) | Key to Figurative Language (1814)

Pamphlets (1814-7) | View of Hebrews (1823) | Key to Revelation (1833)

VIEW OF THE TRINITY.

A

TREATISE

ON THE

CHARACTER

OF

Jesus Christ,

AND ON THE

TRINITY IN UNITY OF THE GODHEAD;

WITH

Quotations from the primitive fathers

SECOND EDITION.

BY ETHAN SMITH,

PASTOR OF A CHURCH IN POULTNEY, (VT.)

"Immanuel -- God with us."
"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost."
"Because he believeth not the record that God
gave of his Son."

PUBLISHED AND PRINTED BY SMITH & SHUTE,
POULTNEY, (VT.)
........
1824.

[ ii ]

District of Vermont, To wit:

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the seventeenth day of January, in the forty-eighth year of the independence of the United States of America, SMITH & SHUTE, of the said District, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words following, to wit: "View of the Trinity. -- A Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity in Unity of the Godhead; with Quotations from the Primitive Fathers. Second edition. By ETHAN SMITH, Pastor of a church in Poultney, Vt. 'Immanuel, -- God with us.' 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' 'Because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.'" In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned."

JESSE GOVE,
Clerk of the District of Vermont.

A true copy of record, examined and sealed by

J. GOVE, Clerk.

[ iii ]

Recommendations.

==

Rev. Dr. Emmons'. -- "The Rev. E. Smith read to me, some time ago, his Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity. I much approved of his sentiments; and am very desirous that his piece should be published; because I think it is ably executed, and directly calculated to refute some dangerous errors, which are at the present day industriously propagated.

NATHANAEL EMMONS.

Franklin, (Mass.) March 30, 1814."

Rev. Dr. Griffin's. -- "I have had the pleasure of hearing the Rev. E. Smith read a considerable part of his Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity; and am one of those, who have urged him to lay this work before the public. In my opinion it is the most ample, consistent, and satisfactory exhibition of the Filiation of Christ, that I have seen. The author has evinced an extensive acquaintance with the holy scriptures, and indefatigable industry in collecting their testimony. In this age of error, I cannot but think that the publication of this work may be of essential service to the cause of truth; and do heartily wish it a general circulation, and the most distinguished success.

E. D. GRIFFIN.

Boston, (Mass.) March 23, 1814."

Rev. Dr. Morse's. -- "I have examined with attention the Rev. E. Smith's work, entitled a Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity.

In view of the errors of the times, of those particularly which have been spreading for some time past in this region, I consider this little volume as an excellent and very seasonable antidote to the poison of these errors. It is a work honorable to the talents, the industry, the piety, and candor of its author.

In this publication, I consider Mr. Smith as having rendered essential service to the Christian public, and that he has merited their thanks and patronage. I earnestly wish it may be read by all on either side, who feel an interest in the existing controversy on these great and fundamental doctrines of the gospel of Christ.

JEDIDIAH MORSE.

Charlestown, (Mass.) April 18, 1814."

Advertisement.

==

It is but justice here to inform the reader, in order that he may intelligibly peruse the following treatise, that for several years before the publication of the first edition, a certain branch of Unitarians in our land made a new attempt to promote the Unitarian interest, by advancing the scheme and arguments, against which this treatise directs its efforts. The scheme was conceived by its propagators to be in some important respects new; and calculated to reconcile all parties. It was vindicated with abilities. Some became proselytes; -- many were for a time stumbled; -- and considerable expectations seemed to be excited among Unitarians generally.

Regardless of names, or titles of books, this treatise was designed to examine the new scheme; and to trace and refute its arguments. It was thought to be best calculated for good, to lead the attention of the reader abstractedly to the sentiments and arguments of our opponents; without any consideration of names, or authorities. This plan was pursued.

Most of the arguments and sentiments of this work are such as apply to Unitarians of every description;

whether Arian or Socinian; or to any new shade of either. The great doctrines of the Trinity in unity of the Godhead, and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding what is said of Christ's dependence on the Father, both as a man and in his office of mediation, are capable of scriptural demonstrations; and must be viewed essential doctrines

vii

Preface.

==

It is the remark of an eminent man, that "Divinity consists in speaking with the scripture; and in going no further." By this rule I hope I shall strictly proceed, in discussing the deep and interesting subject of this treatise. The subject is a matter of mere Revelation. To this then, we ought to repair, and to abide by the decision there found. The mode of the divine existence is, of all things, the most mysterious and sublime. And of all subjects, it demands the most solemn awe, self-diffidence, and humble reliance on the dictates of Revelation. Learn what the Bible says upon that subject, and the point is gained. This is all that man can do. It is not only vain, but impious to object to the point thus decided, because unfathomable depths of mystery attend it.

The universe is full of mystery. Man is of yesterday, and knows nothing. If he have learned enough to take an intelligent survey of God's works, he is confounded wherever he turns his eyes. He looks at immensity of space, and is lost in wonder. He contemplates the planetary system, and the starry

viii

with amazement. On earth he finds a world of objects, each one of which is attended with insolvable questions; not excepting the smallest insect. After man's highest improvements in philosophy and science, he has learned only to feel, most exquisitely, that his knowledge is as nothing. Unexplored regions of wonder glimmer upon his astonished sight.

Many objections occur to men, less informed, relative to subjects proposed, which they deem unanswerable, or conclusive against the proposed point; but which objections, on better information, they find to be of no weight. Let many persons he informed, that there are thousands of people on the other side of the earth, directly opposite to us, with their feet towards ours, and their heads directly the other way; who yet feel themselves on the top of the globe, and think we are beneath them; and the account appears to these illiterate hearers impossible. They will make objections against it, which appear to them unanswerable; but at which the man of real information smiles.

How vain then, are the objections, made by worms of the dust, against what God has revealed of himself! Who can comprehend the infinite, eternal independent Jehovah? "Canst thou by searching find out God? -- It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" "The world by wisdom knew not God." "The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." We are confounded, when we think of rational, spiritual essences. How infinitely more so,

when we think of the eternal, independent, omnipotent, omniscient Spirit! We are lost in an ocean, without a bottom, or a shore! What shall direct our faith in such a case? The Word, the unerring Word of God! This is the only compass, the only polar star, on such an ocean. What God informs of himself is to be received with humble, adoring faith; though the subject exceed our comprehension, as far as God is above man. Not a word of cavil, or unbelief should escape the hp, or be conceived in the heart.

Man is blessed with three sources of information; his senses, reason, and faith or Revelation. These rise above each other. The senses furnish materials for reason; and reason discovers the need and evidence of Revelation. But faith alone embraces the sublime dictates of Revelation. Reason judges, where the senses cannot perceive. And faith embraces what reason cannot suggest, much less comprehend. Sense and reason read the language of Revelation; and then must wait for faith adoringly to embrace what God suggests. Reason is never to be impertinent in her objections, or questions, when God speaks. This is leaving her province, and committing herself to the ocean of infidelity. Here is the fatal charybdis, which has ingulfed millions in skepticism and ruin.

Relative to the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, of his Sonship, and of the Trinity in Unity of the Godhead, Revelation is our only guide. Find the plainest language of the Bible upon these points, and there we will hold; let whatever objections or difficulties

seem to attend. Where reason fails, let faith adore! My object in this Treatise is to ascertain the true sense of the sacred Oracles upon the subjects proposed; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

THE AUTHOR.

Hopkinton, Feb, 12, 1812.

CONTENTS.
____

(moved here from pages 203-04)

Section I.

11 What was the great question concerning Jesus Christ, after he entered his public ministry?

Section II.

19 On the Sonship of Christ.

Section III.

35 Further remarks relative to the Sonship of Christ. - 35

Section IV.

49 No benefit results from a supposed derivation of Christ's Divinity.

Section V.

53 Proper Divinity is infinitely incapable of derivation.

Section VI.

61 Jesus Christ is God underived.

Section VII.

119 Jesus Christ has a human soul as well as body.

Section VIII.

135 The Godhead consists of Trinity in Unity.

Section IX.

175 Testimonies of the primitive Fathers, in favor of the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity in the Godhead, and of the proper Divinity of Christ.

199 CONCLUSION.

[ 11 ]

SECTION I.
______

WHAT WAS THE GREAT QUESTION CONCERNING
JESUS CHRIST, AFTER HE ENTERED HIS
PUBLICK MINISTRY ON EARTH?

A variety of publications have appeared, insisting that Jesus Christ, in his highest mature, is literally the Son of God, as much as was Isaac the eon of Abraham, -- or Seth the son of Adam. To prove this proposition, the testimonies of Christ that he was the Son of God, and the questions and confessions of others in relation to the same point, in the first Christian age, are in these books adduced as direct in point, to prove such a literal derivation of Christ from God.

To ascertain whether there be any weight in such proof, we have first to ascertain what was the question concerning Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, and in the apostolic age.

We read of Christ's being "declared to be the Son of God with power, -- by his resurrection from the dead." Here is one decision of the great question of that day; and it is, that Christ was the Son of God. No doubt this implies all the great truths involved in his mediatorial name and character. But it looks more immediately at one point, which is now to he ascertained. This point was the great question of that day concerning him. And what was this? Was it, whether Christ's

highest nature was actually derived from God, as a son from a father, and thus began to exist, and is totally dependent? Or was this the great question concerning Christ? Was Jesus of Nazareth the true Messiah? Or was he an impostor?

Do we find at that day any such question as the following? In what sense is the promised Messiah the Son of God? What is the mode of his divine existence? Was his Divinity derived? Or was it underived? Is it dependent? Or is it independent? Is it eternal? Or had it a beginning?

Was not this the great question of that day? Was he, who was born of Mary, and who was reputed to he the carpenter's son, who preached and wrought miracles, was rejected by the Jews, as an impostor; but was received by many, as the Messiah; was this the Saviour of the world? Was he indeed that wonderful person, so long foretold, and promised under various titles; and among the rest, was to be known as the Son of God? Or was he an impostor?

Let this question be decided, and we at once determine what was the most literal sense of the texts, which speak of Christ's being declared to be the Son of God; of man's believing, or disbelieving that Jesus was the Son of God. If the great question was not concerning a literal Sonship of the Divinity of the Messiah; but concerning the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth; then what was said, at that period, concerning his being the Son of God, decides nothing relative to their views of the ground of his Sonship; or of a literal derivation of his Divinity from God, as from a father.

But this was the great point of contest at that day; Is this Jesus of Nazareth the Christ of God? The Jews denied; Jesus affirmed; and his miracles,

doctrines, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to glory, all united to evince the truth of his affirmation. When they asked Christ, "Art thou the Son of God? and he said, I am;" this was the meaning; Art thou the promised Messiah? and he said, I am.

John the Baptist from the prison proposed the very question of that day: "Art thou he, that should come? Or do we look for another?" The woman of Samaria says, "Come see a man, that told me all that ever I did: Is not this the Christ?" Let the Jews themselves decide this point. "Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." And the Jews had agreed, that if any did confess him to be Christ, they should be put out of the synagogue. The high priest said to Christ, "I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Christ said to his disciples, "But whom do ye say that I am? And Peter answereth -- Thou art the Christ." No question relative to a literal Sonship of Christ's Divinity appears to be contained in these testimonies. But the question then in agitation was, relative to his being the Christ, and not an impostor. In Math. xvi. 20, the disciples were exhorted to "tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." It was because Jesus laid claim to this high character, that the high priest rent his clothes, in pretence of horror at the blasphemy; and not from any idea that Christ asserted a literal Sonship of his Divinity. The Jewish rulers said, and were vexed, that Christ's claim "made himself equal with God." And again; "Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Christ told them, If ye believe not that I am he (the true Messiah) ye shall not

die in your sins." He did not mean, if ye believe not that I am a derived, dependant being, ye shall die in your sins: But, if ye believe not that I am the true Messiah, ye shall die in your sins. He said again; "If any man will do his will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God; or whether I speak of myself." Did Christ mean, that such an one should know, at once, that his Divinity was derived? Or that he should know, that his doctrine was the doctrine of God? The latter, most certainly! As John xx. 31, "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

Now therefore, when we read of Christ's being "declared to be the Son of God with power;" and of the confession of some of the primitive converts, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God;" we must conclude that the passages do not relate to a derivation of Christ's Divinity from God, as from a Father; but to the real Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth; and to there being salvation in him, and in him only. They relate to the same point, which Paul felt, when he was "pressed in spirit, and testified, that Jesus is the Christ." The evidence of this truth is ample. John says, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." Here was the great external criterion of that day. It was not to believe in a literal Sonship of Christ's Divinity; but to believe, that Christ had come in the flesh; or to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; in opposition to the clamours of Jews and infidels, that Jesus was an impostor. The proper manifestation of this belief at that day, was far more unpopular and dangerous,

than is the support of any point of Christian doctrine, at this period. Hence, duly to maintain that profession, at that day, was viewed as the best external evidence of a gracious state. Accordingly, the same apostle says again, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."

But when I remark, that a derivation of Christ's Divinity from God, as a son from a father, does not appear to have been any question at the commencement of the gospel day; but that the point in debate was, whether Jesus was the true Messiah? I do not mean to suggest, that this point, whether he was, or was not really God, was a matter of any degree of indifference; or was not understood and decided. I do not mean to admit, that the Arian, or Socinian, may receive any degree of countenance from the views of the people of that day. For this I do not believe. When the people were then taught, that Jesus was the Christ, the reference was immediately had to the Old Testament, to decide who the Christ was, as to his being and character. And this, in the question of that day, (whether Jesus was the Christ,) appears to have been taken as a point decided, that Christ was included in the true and living God. This appears to have been the case, from the remarks of the Jews, that his claiming to be the Messiah, was "making himself God;" also from the testimony of Thomas, when convinced of his Messiahship, "My Lord, and my God!" and from the tenor of the Old Testament language concerning the Messiah; as I shall have occasion to show. I see no room to doubt, that the general opinion at that day concerning the Messiah, was, that he is the "Mighty God; the Everlasting Father; the Jehovah of Hosts; the I AM; one with God; and really God. For they

had been taught all this in their holy scriptures. But when Jesus appeared, born and brought up among them, growing in wisdom and stature, like other children and youth, in a low grade of life, and perhaps laboring as a mechanic; -- it seemed to the haughty Jews impossible, that this should be that "Mighty God, and Everlasting Father," expected as the Messiah! This, together with his administration's, being so diverse from their fond preconceived notions of their own temporal aggrandizement under the reign of the Messiah, led them to "stumble at that stumbling stone." They would not believe that this was the Messiah. Hence this became the very question of the day. And those who properly received Jesus as the Christ, received him in the very character, in which he had been held up in the Old Testament. Christ said to the Jews, "Search the scriptures: for -- they are they that testify of me." And they did testify, that he was one with God, and was God; the I AM; the Jehovah of Hosts; the God of Israel, as will be shown under the section on the Divinity of Christ.

The Jews had been abundantly taught, through the law and the prophets, that they must "worship the Lord their God, and him only." "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," was a prime article in their law. Yet when one and another embraced the sentiment, that Jesus was the Christ, they made no scruple of paying him divine honors.

This shows, that they understood their scriptures to teach, that Christ is one with God, included in the pronoun ME in the first command, before whom no other, under the name of God, was to be admitted; and that he was thus included in the Lord their God, whom only they should serve. This accounts far even the most incredulous of

the apostles warmly acknowledging him, "My Lord, and my God." But no account could be given of all this, if the Jews had viewed the Messiah to be a distinct Being from the one only living and true God.

The Jews, it is believed, held to a Trinity in the Godhead. The idea that they did not, can by no means be admitted; notwithstanding all that infidel Jews, of later date, have suggested. Their scriptures did teach a Trinity in the Godhead: -- God, the Prince of Peace, and the Spirit of the Lord. We may safely presume, that the pious Jews did believe their own scriptures in this point, as well as others.

The celebrated Bishop Horsley, (in answer to the idea in Dr. Priestly, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an obstacle to the conversion of the Jews,) says, "In their most ancient Targums, as well as in allusions in their sacred books, they, (the Jews at the time of their restoration) will find the notion of one Godhead in a Trinity of Persons. And they will perceive that it was in contradiction to the Christians, that later rabbins abandoned the notion of their forefathers." -- Hence the bishop speaks of it, as a "wretched expedient," to' deny the doctrine of the Trinity with a view to encourage the restoration of the Jews. And he adds, "the Unitarian scheme of Christianity is the last therefore, to which the Jews are likely to be converted; as it is most at enmity with their ancient faith." This author again says, "the deification of the Messiah, was not that, which gave offence to the Jews; but the assertion, that a crucified man was that divine Person." And again. "The Jews in Christ's day had notions of a Trinity in the divine nature. They expected the second Person, whom they

called the Logos, to come as the Messiah. For the proof of these assertions, (he says) I will refer you to the works of a learned Doctor Peter Allix, entitled, The Judgment of the ancient Jewish church against the Unitarians. An anonymous work, (the Bishop further adds) entitled, Historical Vindication, or The naked Gospel; supposed to have been written by Le Clerc, printed in 1690, in vindication of Unitarians, acknowledged, that the Jews were Trinitarians: But says, they derived it from the Platonic philosophy; -- as did the first Christians from the same Platonism of the Jews." * The fact, that the Jews were Trinitarians, is all we wish. We shall form our own opinion relative to the source, whence they, and the first Christians, derived the sentiment.

The evidence I conceive to be very ample, that the great point in dispute, when Christ appeared in the flesh, was, Is this the Messiah? Is this Jesus, that sacred Person, who is to be known under the divine designation of the Son of God? If the affirmative were granted, they had no further dispute who he was. He was the Logos; the second Person in the Trinity of heaven; one with God. Hence the Jewish rulers charged him, that he being a man, made himself God: And again, making himself equal with God."

No declaration then, of Christ, or of others, at that day, that Christ was the Son of God, affords the least evidence in favor of a literal derivation, of his Divinity from God, as a son from a father; nor of his inferiority to the Father. And all attempts to obtain evidence in this way, in favor of such a derivation, are illusory and vain.

______
* Tracts, p. 216.

[ 19 ]

SECTION II.
______

ON THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. Much we read of his Sonship, and of his divine Father. Are we not hence taught, that Christ, in his divine nature, was derived from God, as really as was Isaac from Abraham? Answer. Merely Christ's being called the Son of God, leads to no such conclusion. There are children constituted, as well as children derived. Yea, there are children in figures as well as literal children. God is "the father of the rain, and begets the drops of the dew," -- because he produces them. Angels are called the sons of God, because he formed them in his own image. Adam for the same reason is called the son of God. Men are said to be God's offspring. Christians are peculiarly the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, because they are adopted into his family; -- possess his Spirit; -- cry Abbe, Father; and he is making them meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.

The circumstance then, of Christ's being called the Son of God, no more necessarily implies that his Divinity was derived from God, than the term when applied to other beings implies that they were literally derived from the divine nature. No doubt there is a peculiarity in Christ's relation to

God, as a Son. He is hence called God's own Son; -- his only Son; -- his only begotten. But those phrases do not necessarily enforce the idea, that the Divinity of Christ was derived from God. And other scriptures utterly forbid such an idea, as I shall endeavor in future pages to make appear. The Divinity of Christ is "without father, without mother, without descent; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time."

What sentiments then, does the word of God furnish, relative to the Sonship of Jesus Christ? It teaches that Christ is a Son (in a sense) literally; and also he is figuratively the Son of God. He has two natures in his one Person. One of them was begotten of God, in the womb of the virgin Mary; -- which is a reason, expressly assigned by God himself, why Christ is called the Son of God. And Christ in both his natures, Divine and human, was, as our Mediator, inducted -- constituted -- begotten -- into his mediatory office, in which he was perfectly obedient to God, as a perfect son obeying a father. And Christ was begotten (raised) from the dead, to his inheritance in glory; as I shall endeavor to show.

The Sonship of Christ clearly originates in his being begotten of God. This is decided by inspiration: Psalm ii. 7; "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Find the fulfilment then, of this passage, and we infallibly find the true origin of Christ's Sonship. It is evident that this passage in the second Psalm was a prediction of something then future. The event predicted existed at the time when David wrote the Psalm, only in the divine counsel; It was in the eternal counsel of God, that the second Person in the Trinity should become a Mediator, and be

known as the Son of God. In this sense, he was "the eternal Son of God." But the actual event, noted in this Psalm as the only ground of Christ's Filiation, was then only in decree. Ascertain therefore, when and how it was fulfilled; and the true origin of the Sonship is ascertained. But we find it clearly ascertained when, and how it was fulfilled. It was not at some period before the foundation of the world. It was not in the ancient times of the Old Testament. It was when the fulness of time was come for the Messiah to appear. The text is applied by the Holy Ghost, to the time and manner of Christ's coming in the flesh; or his miraculous conception; to his induction into his office, as the Prophet, and especially the High Priest of his people; and to his resurrection from the dead, and exaltation to glory. To the first it was applied, as in a sense literally fulfilled; and therefore in a sense which exhibits the primary reason of the Mediator's being called, the Son of God. And to the two other occasions above hinted, the noted text in the second Psalm is applied, as in a figurative sense fulfilled. We find the humanity of Christ begotten, at the time of his coming in the flesh. We also find the Person of the Mediator represented as begotten, by induction into his public character, especially as High Priest. And we find him represented as "begotten from the dead," and to his inheritance in glory, when he passed from his humiliation, to his exaltation.

Where the character, relation and circumstances of father and son are perfect, the relation of son involves the three ideas of generation, filial obedience, and inheritance. The first is essential to a literal son. And the second is involved, where the character and circumstances are perfect.

Such a son will certainly obey his father. This is essential to the filial heart, and the perfect filial character. And inheriting the father's property occurs to the mind, with no less force, as connected with the relation of a son, when character and circumstances are perfect. And to these three points, relative to Christ, the Holy Ghost clearly applies the prediction of God's begetting his Son. Let these three points be distinctly noted.

1. God miraculously occasioned the conception of the humanity of Christ. He thus fulfilled the prediction in the second Psalm. And hence Christ is the Son of God. This is the primary, the original ground of Christ's Sonship; as is fully decided by the Angel Gabriel in his interview with Mary. Before I note this interview, I shall adduce one preceding scriptural testimony; that the language of Gabriel may he better understood. The first sacred passage, where the relation of Father and Son between two of the Persons in the Trinity is noticed, is in 2 Sam. ii. 14. "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son." This is repeated in 1 Chron. xxii. 10. "He shall build an house for my name, and he shall be my Son, and I will be his Father." This was spoken primarily of the son of David. It related typically to Solomon; but really to Christ. Hence the apostle, in his first chapter to the Hebrews, when he was adducing various sacred passages from the Old Testament, to ascertain the character of Christ, quotes this passage; verse 5; "And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." Upon this text let it be noted,

When God spake these words to David, it was a prediction of an event then future, as it related to Christ, as much as it was in relation to Solomon.

The time should come when God would be the Father of Christ, and Christ should be God's Son. No indication is here found that God was at that time the literal Father of the Logos then in heaven. There is no such indication of a derivation of Christ's Divinity from God. Yea, its being predicted as a future event, that such a relation should exist, implied that no such relation did then exist.

The Greek of this quotation from Samuel is such as well to accord with the idea, that the relation of Father and Son, between these persons in the Trinity, was to be a constituted relation at a time then future. The quotation is in the words of the Septuagint, which translation the Holy Ghost here, and often sanctioned by quoting it. And a literal translation of the Greek text is as follows: "I will be to him (Christ) for a Father; and he shall be to me for a Son." * This phraseology, no doubt, gives the true sense of Christ's filiation; and is different from what would most naturally express the relation of Father and Son, had this relation been then actually in existence; or the Divinity of Christ had been derived as a Son from God.

I now proceed to note the interview of Gabriel with Mary. Luke i. 31-35. "And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called, the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: And of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the Angel answered and said unto her, The Holy

______
* "Ego essomai auto eis Patera; kai autos estai moi eishuion."

Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that Holy thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." We may believe Gabriel had in view here the noted prediction in the second Psalm; "Thou art my Son; to-day have I begotten thee." His language with the virgin is a comment upon this very passage. As though he had said, The time has now arrived when God is going to fulfil upon you, the most highly favored one among women, this his ancient prediction, relative to the Messiah. The first passage in the New Testament decides this point, in these words; "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." -- q. d. I am now introducing the history of God's fulfilment of the ancient prediction relative to his begetting his Son: Upon which he proceeds to note the miraculous conception, as the first and essential thing in "the generation of Jesus Christ."

Upon the words of Gabriel, in his interview with Mary, let the following things be noted: --

If Christ in his divine nature were literally the Son of God, and men ought thus to believe; -- why was not direct information here given, that the Person then in heaven, and who was about to condescend to be born of Mary, was the Son of God?

Why is it said only, that the holy thing to be born of her should be called the Son of the Highest, -- the Son of God? This conversation was not calculated to impress an idea, that the Logos then in heaven was the Son of God, as being derived from him; but that the time was then at hand, when this relation of Father and Son should be actually formed. God was now about to be to the divine Person, who had engaged to become a Mediator, for a Father; and this divine Person was about to be to this Father, for a Son.

The Angel assigns the primary reason, why the Logos appearing in the flesh should be called the Son of God. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." What occasion, or right, has man to inquire for any reason anterior to the one so naturally assigned here by the Angel, as the origin of the Sonship of Christ? Does not the heavenly Agent assign the primary and true ground of his Filiation? Who shall dare to assign an essential ground of Christ's Sonship anterior to this; and call on men to receive such a sentiment as an important article of the Christian faith? One might think that if God would send an Angel from heaven, to give express information of the origin of Christ's Filiation, it might be sufficient; that man might confide in a point so decided; and that he would not dare to call on others to believe in an anterior ground of Christ's Filiation. "Who has been God's counsellor, or taught him wisdom?" If it were a duty to believe in such an anterior ground of Sonship in Christ, the words of the Angel to Mary are sadly calculated to mislead; and man would need to be cautioned against receiving them in their most evident import.

It was just now hinted, that in the beginning of the New Testament, we learn the sense of the noted passage, Psalm ii. 7, relative to Christ's being begotten of God. Matt. i. 1; "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." -- i. e. The book in which the true sense of Christ's being begotten of God, is unfolded. Here then, surely, we must look, to find the correct view of his divine generation. But what do we here find? -- an account of the generation of Christ's divine nature, before the

foundation of the world? Not a word, which bears the least resemblance to it. But the writer proceeds and gives an account of the genealogy and generation of his humanity; of his induction into office; and his glorification. After giving his lineal descent, he says; "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise;" and proceeds to note the miraculous conception of his humanity; and circumstances attending; and says; "Now all this was clone, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Here is "the generation of Jesus Christ." Who will presume to say, that he has a generation far more ancient, and more important than what is here given? one that respects a literal producing of his divine nature, at some period before the creation or the world? Where is the least evidence found to support such a proposition? I have never been able to discover it. And it does not become man to be wise against, nor above what is written. The celebrated Bishop Horsley upon this subject says. "The Son of God is a title, which belongs to our Lord in his human character, describing him as that man, who became the Son of God, by union with the Godhead." * This is indeed the origin of Christ's Sonship, as is taught in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ."

The prophet enquires, Isaiah liii. 8, relative to Christ; "Who shall declare his generation?" Upon which some have remarked, that Christ's generation is indescribable; but he has a generation, which relates to his divine nature; though

______
* Posth. Ser. vol. 1. p. 93,94. Am. Ed.

none can describe it. This seems plausible. But it needs examination. The generation of Christ, in this passage, does not relate to the generation of his person, or nature, divine nor human. The sense of the passage we learn from a parallel passage, Psalm xxii. 30. An affecting account of Christ's sufferings had there been given. And to console the heart of the pious reader, it is promised, as a blessed consequence of his passion, that "a seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation;" i. e. a numerous progeny, or race. The word generation is often used in this sense, to denote a progeny, or family. The poet gives the true sense of this passage;

"A numerous offspring must arise,
From his expiring; groans;
They shall be reckoned in his eyes
For daughters and for sons."
So in the parallel passage under consideration in, Isaiah: An amazing description is given of the sufferings of Christ. And the prophet adds; "He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation?" His trials were vast. And who can calculate the extensive and glorious consequences, in the seed, who shall serve him, and who shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation? This appears the plain sense of the passage. Accordingly, the celebrated Pool remarks upon it. "Christ's death shall not be unfruitful. When he is raised from the dead, he shall have a spiritual seed; as is promised, verse 10; When he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed: -- A numberless multitude of those who shall believe on him, and be regenerated, and adopted by him into the number of his children." Mr. Scott (another celebrated expositor)

says, "The original word for generation (here) is seldom if ever used in this sense; (i. e. of a proper generation) so that modern interpreters generally dissent from the ancients."

But if any, after all, imagine, that the text, "Who shall declare his generation?" must relate to a literal generation of the person of Christ, then the answer to the question, Who shall declare his generation? is now furnished: -- God inspired the evangelists to declare it; to write "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." The apostle teaches, that there were mysteries, concerning Jesus Christ, hid from past ages; but now made manifest under the gospel. This generation of Christ, if it must be understood literally, must be one of those mysteries, now revealed by the evangelist, and the conversation of the Angel with Mary. But no derivation of Christ's Divinity from God is hinted in the passage.

2. We find the noted prediction of the generation of Christ, on which his Filiation rests, applied by the Holy Ghost (as at least in a figurative sense fulfilled) at his designation to his mediatorial work, especially that of our great High Priest. It was as the Son of God, that Christ must obey the Father, and atone for the sins of the world. It was to be the Son, whom the Father (in the plenitude of paternal affection) could not spare from death, when he had taken the place of the sinner; but must be freely delivered up for us all. It was a Son, who must be sent forth, not only made of a woman, but made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law, by the sacrifice of himself, that we might receive the adoption of sons. It must appear that God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, to die as our High Priest, as a propitiation for sin, that whosoever believeth

on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Now therefore, the designation of the Person of the Messiah to this course of filial obedience and sufferings, must be represented as a further and figurative fulfilment of the noted prediction in the second Psalm. Accordingly, in Heb. v. 4, after speaking of men's being ordained of God as high priests, who can have compassion on the weak, we read; "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee." Here it seems as though the designation of Christ to the work of High Priest, is figuratively represented as God's begetting him. Christ made not himself an High Priest; but He, who made or constituted him thus, -- it seems as though the text were going to say. But instead of expressing this, it is expressed, "He that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." The begetting, in the text then, seems to stand exactly in the place of God's constituting, or inducting him. Which shows that the latter is figuratively represented by the former. Accordingly, when Christ was inducted into his public ministry by baptism, and the holy unction performed by the Holy Ghost, -- the voice from heaven came, in allusion to the same noted prediction in the second Psalm, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." q. d. This Person, in his humanity, I have begotten in the womb of the virgin; and his Person, as Mediator, I have now figuratively begotten into his office of High Priest; and in this his office I am well pleased, and am ready to reconcile the world to myself. He is a "Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec."

3. We find the noted prediction of the generation of Christ, on which his Filiation rests, applied l�y the Holy Ghost, as in some figurative sense fulfilled, by his resurrection from the dead, and induction to his inheritance. Christ, after having been delivered for our offences, was raised again for our justification, by the power of God, and was exalted to his inheritance in glory, as the Heir of all things. And upon this event the apostle says; Acts xiii. 32, 33; "And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Here again the Holy Ghost announces a fulfilment of the noted prediction of the generation of Christ, in au event subsequent to his coming in the flesh. He applies it, as receiving a figurative and a final fulfilment, in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ to his inheritance of glory. Christ was begotten -- produced -- brought from the regions of the dead, to the throne of the universe, at his Father's right hand, as the Heir of all things. This was the third and last step in that series of events, which was to present the Son of God, the King of Israel, the Saviour of the world, as complete in his mediatorial kingdom, -- in the possession of his inheritance of glory. And it is noted as the finishing of the fulfilment of the noted prediction in the second Psalm. Accordingly, Christ is called, Rev. i. 5, "the first begotten of the dead." And in Col. i. 18, "the first born from the dead." Here the same figure is pursued. Christ was the resurrection and the life; the first fruits of them that slept; the rising of the Head from the tomb, as an earnest that all the members

shall follow. And this event, of Christ�s rising and exaltation, is noted as the finishing of his generation; the closing scene of the fulfilment of Psalm ii. 7. Accordingly a declaration is made, as it were, at the grave's mouth, of his Filiation, in the following words: "Declared to be the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead." And a declaration had before been made of the same thing, by anticipation, on the mount, when Jesus was transfigured. There, by prolepsis, the curtain of heaven was, as it were drawn, and Jesus was presented, to chosen witnesses, in his robe of glory, as though the work was done, and he had reached the inheritance and the throne. And the voice, from the excellent Majesty above, declared that Filiation, which rested on his being begotten of God; "This is my beloved Son; hear ye him." Here is the Person exhibited, by anticipation, as in glory, and completely that Son of God, in his Father's inheritance, so long predicted and expected.

In Psalm lxxxix. 19-37, we have farther light upon this subject. Christ is here predicted under the name of David, his type. "Then thou speakest in vision to thy Holy One; thou saidst, I have laid help on one mighty to save; I have exalted one chosen out of the people." A description of Christ, and his kingdom, follows. In verse 36 it is said; "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my Salvation." His being begotten, and his consequent Filiation then follows. "I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." In the Hebrew the my before first-born is not found. The sense is not this, I will make him, who is my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth, the plain sense is as follows; I will make --

constitute -- or beget him first-born; -- alluding to his being heir of all things; and hence it is added, "higher than the kings of the earth." Here the event as in Psalm ii. 7, was future. It was a thing to be accomplished, when the fulness of time should come, for God to be manifest in the flesh. Then it was that God would beget his Son, and make the Mediator first-born, and exalt him to glory, as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Thus the passages in the Old Testament, which speak of Christ's Filiation, and the origin of it, are by the Spirit of Inspiration construed as predictions of events then future, and actually fulfilled after the fulness of time came for God to be manifest in the flesh. And never is the least intimation given, that those passages relate to any derivation of the Divinity of Christ from God, at some period then past. Nor do they admit of such a construction. We find no hint of such a thing. The apostle says, Gal. iv, 4; "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman; made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Here we learn how Christ became God's Son. He was "made of a woman;" and "made under the law." He was God's Son, because God begat his humanity; and because he was made a Priest under the law, to obey and to atone. The many scriptures in the New Testament, which speak of God as the Father of Christ; and which speak of Christ as the Son of God, and as the begotten of the Father, must surely be so construed as to accord with the sense of those primitive texts, in the Old Testament, which have been noticed; and which the Holy Ghost has decided, do apply to the coming of Christ in the flesh, and to subsequent events, which have been

noted. We are thus furnished with an infallible clue, by which to find the true sense of the many passages in the New Testament, which relate to the Sonship of Christ. They can have no relation to any event before the world was; such as a derivation of the Divinity of our Saviour from God. They can have no relation to any Filiation of Christ, not founded in that divine generation of him in the second Psalm, which has been explained.

Objection. But is not this giving up a great argument, on which reliance has been made by Trinitarians, to prove the real Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Answer. We have conclusive arguments enough, to prove the eternal and proper Divinity of Christ. We need no lame arguments. The supposition, that Christ in his highest nature is derived from God, is so far from proving his real Divinity, that it fully disproves it. It supposes the Divinity of Christ to be infinitely posterior, and infinitely inferior to the Father 5 and therefore, that he is at an infinite remove from being truly God. The truth of this deduction is demonstrated, prima facie, in its own statement. The idea, that as a man propagates his offspring, who becomes a real man, equal to his father; so God has propagated his divine offspring, who has become really God; is an awful absurdity! The heathen used to imagine that their gods propagated their various species. Families of gods existed in the imaginations of the poets. And, what was very congenial to this opinion, they supposed their gods to have had goddesses; and that these celestial pairs were possessed of all the passions incident to man. Being familiar with these opinions from childhood, it would not have been strange, if some of the primitive proselytes to Christianity, hearing that Christ is

the Son of God, should annex this idea to the phrase, and imagine that the divine Person of Christ was literally derived from God, as a son from his father, in some mysterious sense, while yet Christ was eternal. But such a derivation of a Person truly divine, is impossible; as I shall endeavour to show in a subsequent section.

[ 35 ]

SECTION III.
______

FURTHER REMARKS RELATIVE TO THE
SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

If the Divinity of Christ were literally propagated by the Most High, in some period before the creation of the world; and this be an important point to be believed; why was it not clearly revealed in the Old Testament? How strange, that we should find there so little, if any clear evidence, that the relation of Father and Son then actually existed between the two first Persons in the sacred Trinity! We find those two Persons (and the three divine Persons in the Godhead) abundantly noted in the Old Testament. But we have no conclusive evidence in that sacred book, that a literal Father and Son then existed among them. The Mediator himself is there predicted, as the "everlasting Father;" Isai. ix. 6; yet not so in the economy of Grace. In the Hebrew it is, "The Father of eternity;" which shows that he is the infinite God indeed!

In the fore-noted text, 2 Sam. vii. 14; we have no intimation, (as has been remarked,) that God was then actually Father to the Logos, or Messiah, in Heaven. But that this relation should be manifested, in due time. In the other text, Psalm ii. 7, it has been shown that the relation of Father and Son was not revealed as existing at that time, only io the divine purpose. And that this divine

purpose was primarily fulfilled when Christ's humanity was divinely begotten.

In the prediction noted, Psalm lxxxix. 27, Christ's Sonship was a relation then future. "I will make him first-born." "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father." By many titles the Mediator was known in the Old Testament; but never by the title of Son, as being then actually the Son of God. Christ was known as the Seed of the woman (who was to come) the Seed of Abraham, Shiloh, the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel, the Star to arise, the Prophet to be raised up, the Lord's Anointed, Immanuel, or God with as, the Messiah, the Messenger of the covenant, the Angel, the Angel of God's presence, the Ancient of days, the Branch, the Sun of righteousness, the Desire of all nations, the chief corner Stone, Elect, Precious, God's Servant, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, a Leader and Commander of his people, a Covenant, Michael, the Lord, Jehovah, the Jehovah of hosts, the Redeemer, the Holy One, a Refuge, a Rod from the stem of Jesse, I Am, I Am that I Am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers. -- These last mentioned titles of God, the Angel of the Lord, in the burning bush, assumed, as will be noted in a future section. Some of these titles indicated what the Mediator then was; the infinite, eternal God: And others, what he should be demonstrated to be, when he should be manifest in the flesh, and known as the Son of God. But among all his many titles, he was never represented, as then actually the Son of God in heaven. Christ was then no more actually the Son of God, than he was actually the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David, the Branch,

or any other name, fulfilled only when he appeared in the flesh.

Two texts, which have been supposed by some to speak of Christ, as being then the Son of God, I think have been misapplied. Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed, relative to the persons, whom he beheld in his fiery furnace, that the form of the fourth was like unto the Son of God. But who could this heathen idolater mean, by the Son of God? He must have meant, some son of some god. What did he know of the God of Israel? or of the expected Messiah? He believed in heathen gods and goddesses; and in their propagation of their offspring. And his guilty conscience and frightened imagination suggested to him, that this miraculous deliverer of the victims of his impious rage, must be a son of a god; probably of the God of Israel. But we cannot learn from this confession of a heathen, who then had his vassal subjects convened before him to worship a golden god; -- and had just tauntingly said to them, Who is that god, that shall deliver you out of my hands? that the Messiah of the Jews was known, as being then actually the Son of God; and so familiarly known too, as that this idolater in a heathen land, would recognize him at first sight, and so readily speak of him under this title. To me this is utterly incredible.

In Prov. xxx. 4, we read, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name? Or what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" Some may imagine the son here means the Son of God? But I think this is not the case. The subject of the inquiry, in this text, is not God, but man.

What man can you imagine has done these things? This appears evident from the words of Christ, John iii. 13, where, in allusion to this text, he says, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven." And as the subject of inquiry, in that text, is a man; so the son spoken of must be the son of the same man. Accordingly, an eminent expositer gives this paraphrase upon the passage: "If thou think there be any such man, who can do these things, I challenge thee to produce his name. Or if he be long since dead, and gone out of the world, produce the name of any of his posterity, who can assure us that their progenitor was such? person." But if the Son in this passage mean Christ, he was then n Son only by prolepsis, as he was the son of David; because he was to appear in this character.

In Hosea xi. 1, we read, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt." So far as this relates to Christ, and is applied to him by the evangelist, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," it is a prolepsis; or a previous calling of Christ, God's Son, because he was to be known as the Son of God, when the passage, as it related to Christ, should be fulfilled, by his actually coming from Egypt. But the text in Hosea, to which the evangelist alludes, conveys no idea, that the Messiah in heaven, when the words were spoken, was God's Son. And the allusion of the evangelist to the words, above noted, does not convey such an idea. The word son there literally relates to Israel, who was God's son, his first-born; see Exodus iv. 22, 23.

The above remark may suggest the true exposition of the only three remaining texts, in the Testament, in which the Mediator may by

any be supposed to be spoken of, as the Son of God. These three relate immediately to Gospel times, when Christ was to be known as the Son of God. Isai. ix. 6, "For unto us a child is born; unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder." -- Surely this related to the time when Christ should be manifested in the flesh. And if the Son, in this text, mean Son of God, it seems to me so far from indicating, that he, in his divine nature then in heaven, was literally the Son of God, that it clearly indicates, that he wag not to be known as really the Son of God, till he was the "Child born." "Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given." Ezek. xxi. 10. predicting the destruction of the Jews first by the king of Babylon, but ultimately by God's great and sharp sword, the Romans, it is said, "It condemneth the rod of my son as every tree." I apprehend the term son here has no relation to Christ, but to the Jews. Israel was called God's son; Exodus iv. 22, 23; "Thus shalt thou say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold I will slay thy son, even thy first-born." It is in immediate allusion to this passage, that we read in the fore-cited passage in Hosea, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." And it is natural to suppose the passage under consideration, "It condemneth the rod of my son as every tree," is an allusion to the same text, and means the Jews. The translators understood it so; and hence wrote the word son without a capital. But should any say, it may mean Christ: I answer; It may typically, and by a prolepsis. Christ was known as the Son of God, when the

text was fulfilled in the destruction of the Jews by God's sword, the Romans. And both the Jews and the Romans did, at that time, contemn Christ.

The only remaining text in the Old Testament, where Christ is spoken of as a Son, is most evidently a prolepsis; speaking of him as Son, because he would be known, as the Son of God, when that prophecy should be fulfilled. This is in the second Psalm. This Psalm is a prediction of Christ's coming in the flesh, and of gospel times. The apostle applies the beginning of the Psalm to the raging of the enemies of Christ under the Gospel. Acts iv. 25, "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hath said, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up. and their rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ." He proceeds to note the conduct of Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the people of Israel, in their treatment of Christ, as forming a fulfilment of the passage. The Psalmist proceeds to predict the impious language of the enemies of Christ, both of the infidel Jews, and of the atheistical Antichrist of the last days; to predict the extent of Christ's kingdom, to the uttermost parts of the earth; (an event never fulfilled under the Old Testament) and to predict Christ's dashing his enemies to pieces with a rod of iron; first the Jews, and then the antichristian nations, as we may conceive; upon which the nations, at that period of judgments, are warned, and exhorted to "serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling; kiss the Son; lest he be angry, and ye perish." -- The whole was a prediction of events under the Gospel, when Christ is to be known, as the Son of God. He is in this passage called the

Son, in relation to that then far distant event; precisely as in verse 7th, before cited, his appearing in the flesh was predicted. But no passage in this Psalm does by any means decide, that the Messiah, then in heaven, was, in his divine Person, literally the Son of God. And we find no intimation of such a thing in the Old Testament. But how can this be accounted for, if the Person of the Mediator, then in heaven, were literally the Son of God?

The two first Persons in the Godhead are, in the Old Testament, abundantly known by other titles: but never by Father and Son. They are called God, and the Lord; or God, and Jehovah; God, and Immanuel; the Lord, and his Anointed; God, and the Angel of the covenant; God, and the Jehovah of hosts; God, and the Captain of the Lord's hosts; God, and the Angel of his presence; but never the Father and the Son. The exhibition of this relation was deferred to the time of Immanuel's appearing in the flesh. Then it was, that he should be made first-born. Then the infallible voice from on high should testify to the fulfilment of the decree, of God's begetting him, and owning him for a Son. These things do not seem to indicate, that a belief in an actual Sonship or derivation of the Divinity of Christ, is to be an article of the Christian faith. Had it been thus, we might expect to have found it clearly taught in the Old Testament, and that the Son of God would have been the great title, by which Christ would have been known under that dispensation.

The title of Son, under the gospel, is only one among many of the mediatory titles of Christ. And is much more frequently spoken of, under some of his other titles, than under that of the Son of God. He is called the Son of man nearly twice as often. John (who it is said wrote his

gospel with a peculiar view to evince the Divinity of Christ) first calls him the Logos, the Word, who (he says) was in the beginning with God, and was God; and by whom all things were made. Why did he not here, when introducing the very Person, whose Divinity he was going to substantiate, (and did in the very first sentence assert,) give him his great and appropriate title, the Son of God, if his divine nature were actually derived? If such a Sonship were indeed Christ's highest glory, and were to be a prime article in the Christian faith, why should we not here at least, find it to be the title, under which the Person of the Messiah is introduced? Is it not natural to expect, that John would here give to Christ his highest title? The title here actually given by John to Christ, when he informs, that he was with God, and was God, is the same with that given to Christ, as One in the Trinity, 1 John v. 7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are One." * And the title here given is the same with that, under which Christ appears, when, as the Captain of salvation, he is riding forth upon his white horse of victory, at the battle of the great day of God Almighty, Rev. xix. 13; "And his name is called the Word of God."

But when this divine Logos appeared in the flesh, then he was to be known as the Son of God. Then he was to be exhibited, as being begotten of God, and made God's first-born. Accordingly from that time he was often called the Son of God. And thus John proceeds to inform; "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld

______
* The objections against the authority of this text will be considered in their place, in a future section.

his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Here the writer was preparing the way to have this Logos, after he appeared in the flesh, called the Son of God, as he afterwards often calls him. He then says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. * The Logos, now manifest in the flesh, and who has thus become the only begotten of God, he hath declared God. Here John gives the transition, from the Mediator's being the Logos in heaven, one with God, and really God; to his becoming God manifest in the flesh, and known as the Son of God. John, after this, often speaks of Christ as the Son of God.

These remarks will unfold the sense of some other scriptures, which, at first view, seem to imply, that Christ was known as actually the Son of God, before his incarnation.

______
* "No man hath seen God at any time." This clause furnishes no objection against the real and proper Divinity of Jesus Christ. Pure Deity is an infinite Spirit, invisible. The Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, as well as that of the Father, is thus: No man ever saw the Divinity of Christ, with the bodily eye. But Christ has assumed a medium, which men have literally beheld. We see not a human soul. But we see a man by the medium of his body. The divine Logos, when he would appear to man, under the Old Testament, ever assumed some miraculous appearance, as a medium, which man might behold. This, as well as his body, in after days, was seen; while yet it is a truth, that "No man hath seen God at any time." And yet Christ is the true and the great God. Christ declared, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." And of the Jews; -- "They have both seen and hated both me and my Father." Yet, "No man hath seen God at any time." The seeing in this latter text means seeing pure Divinity with the bodily eye. But the Jews had seen Christ and the Father, in the miracles and wonders, which had evinced their Divinity and the truth of their doctrines. Those texts then are no contradiction. And no evidence is furnished in them against the pure Divinity of Christ.

"Unto the Son, God saith, Thy throne O God, is forever and ever." This, at first thought, seems to imply, that Christ was the Son, when God thus addressed him: "Unto the Son, God saith" -- The sense of the passage is this: Unto the divine Logos in heaven, but now known as the Son, God saith. This is evident from the passage in the Old Testament here quoted, where God thus addressed the Person now called the Son. The passage is Psalm xlv. 6; "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre." Neither in this passage, nor in its contexts, is any mention made of a Son. The Mediator is there spoken of as the King, fairer than the children of men; and the most Mighty. But now being known as the Son of God, the apostle says, "Unto the Son, God saith" -- i. e. unto David's King, who is the Most Mighty, but now known as the Son, God spake the words.

Again we read; "When he bringeth his first Begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship him." This, it may be said, seems to imply, that Christ was God's first Begotten before he was brought into the world; or his divine Person was the Son of God, while in heaven, before his incarnation. But the passage quoted teaches no such thing; therefore the quotation can mean no such thing. The passage quoted is in Psalm xcvii, where nothing is found of a first Begotten. The Person there, who in the quotation to the Hebrews, is called God's first Begotten, is called the Lord, or Jehovah, reigning with clouds and darkness round about him, but righteousness and judgment being the habitation of his throne. "A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightning lightened the world; the earth saw it and

trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Confounded be all they, that worship graven images, that boast themselves of idols; Worship him, all ye gods;" or Angels -- (as the Septuagint, and the apostle in the above quotation, render it.) Not a word is said here of the Messiah's being at that time God's first Begotten. Here he is the great and infinite Jehovah of the whole earth, in all the glory of the true God. But when God becomes manifest in the flesh, then the Father saith, "And let all the angels of God worship him." And he is now presented, in humanity, as God's first Begotten.

Again. "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Let the passages just explained by their primitive texts, decide the sense of this. Yea, let John, in his introduction of the Messiah, decide the sense of it. God so loved the world, that he sent his beloved and adorable Logos, who was in the beginning with God. and was God, one with the Father; hut who was now in human nature manifest to his people, as God's only begotten Son. The title under which he is now known, is given; but not the title, under which he was known, or which did apply to his Divinity, when God determined to send him.

The apostle, Gal. iv. 4, affords a clew to explain this point. "But when the fulness of time was come. God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." -- Here, when the time of the

promise arrived, God sent his Son. How was the Person, who was now sent, God's Son? The passage informs; "made of a woman; made under the law;" to redeem and save. Christ here was made the Son of God, by the miraculous producing of his humanity from the virgin Mary, that he might do the work of the Mediator; that he might exercise that filial obedience under the law, essential to his mediatorial character, and to man's salvation. This is the plain sense of the above text. And it perfectly accords with the words of Gabriel to Mary; and with the account given of this subject in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ."

Again. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." -- This may relate to the days of Christ on earth, when he was known as the Son of God. God did not then spare him; but "laid on him the iniquities of us all." He, who was presented as God's own Son, must suffer, and be delivered up to death. "Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things, which he suffered." And "It pleased the Father to bruise him, and to put him to grief." But should any think, that this text may relate to the divine act of sending the Saviour from heaven; (as it no doubt may;) the explanation of the foregoing texts may equally apply to this, and to all of a similar nature. This mode of speech is common. See Exod. iii. 1; "Moses led his flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." This mountain, when Moses here came to it, was not known as the mountain of God. But, it being known by this name, when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he speaks of his coming to the mount of God.

Christ uses the same kind of language. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" He here alludes to his own pre-existent state in heaven. But did he pre-exist in heaven as the Son of man? Surely not; but as the Logos; -- one with God, and who was God. But being now known as the Son of man, he modestly applies this name, by which he was now known, and by which he most frequently denominated himself, to his pre-existent person in heaven, tho' he was never known as the Son of man, till he tabernacled on earth, and was God manifest in the flesh. We say, When king David kept his father's sheep. But he was not king, when he kept them. We say, When king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born king, nor Solomon. But afterward being known by both the office and the name, these are carried back to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, My father was born in such a year. He does not mean, that he was born his father. In like manner, when we read, "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son" -- "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" -- the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom, infinitely dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God.

But such texts do not teach that the Divinity of Christ did literally sustain the filial relation to God, as having been begotten by the Father, at some period before creation. And we see, from numerous scriptures, that this sense cannot be admitted. The primitive texts of the Old Testament, which first point to the paternal and filial relation, we have seen applied, by the Holy Ghost, to the miraculous producing of Christ's humanity, and to

his being introduced to his mediatorial work, and to his inheritance. What right then has man to apply these texts, and others, which allude to them, contrary to the application made by the Holy Ghost? When we consider, that the Old Testament is silent concerning any paternal and filial relation, as then actually existing between the two first Persons in the Trinity, and that the Holy Ghost does apply the first predictions in the Old Testament, which speak of those relations between God and Christ, to the manifestation of the Messiah in the flesh; we may conclude that we have no divine warrant to say, that the Divinity of the second Person in the Godhead was derived from the First.

[ 49 ]

SECTION IV.
______

NO BENEFIT RESULTS FROM A SUPPOSED
DERIVATION OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY.

Among arguments which have been adduced, in favour of a derivation of the Divinity of Christ from God, are found such as the following, either expressed, or implied: -- That such a derivation would be most congenial to the idea of the divine paternal affection toward his Son; and most congenial to the idea of Christ's filial affection toward is Father. -- And that this scheme must magnify the love of God toward our fallen world; in that he would send a Son whose Divinity was derived from him, the Father, and therefore the most dear possible. That herein we may form a due estimate of the love of God to our sinful race: -- And that we can have no medium so suitable and striking, on any other plan, to lead us to form a suitable estimation of the love and grace of God, in the scheme of gospel salvation.

To creatures like men clothed in flesh, circumscribed, and most sensibly impressed with the feelings of parental and filial affections, arguments like the above, ably expressed, may appear forcible. But in this thing we must not judge after the outward appearance; but must judge righteous judgment. On reading, and attempting to weigh such arguments, questions like the following have occurred with force to my mind. I will just express

them as the only refutation, which I shall attempt, of the above arguments. If they strike others as they do me, they will afford all the refutation necessary. Relative to this, the reader will make up his own opinion.

Why should a derivation of the Divinity of Christ be deemed necessary? Must Christ be unable to feel in the best possible manner, that affection toward God the Father, which is most becoming the mediatorial character, unless he is in his divine nature actually derived and dependent? Or must the Mediator, if he be of underived Divinity, be less capable of feeling that tender affection toward mankind, which if derived and dependent he might possess? Is the Father incapable of feeling, in the best possible manner, the most suitable parental affection toward the Person of the Mediator, unless he be literally a Father to the Divinity of Christ? It is said among men, people do not know the parental affection, till they learn it from experience. Can the same thing be applicable to the Most High? "He that formed the eye, shall he not sec," unless he have material eyes? He that made the ear, shall he not hear, though he have no organ of hearing like ours? And he that implanted the parental affection, shall he not know what it is, even if he have not learned it, as have human parents, from experience? May not the Person of Jesus Christ be the dearest possible to the Father, unless Christ's Divinity be actually derived and dependent? May not the love of God to this fallen world be as real, as great, and as gloriously exhibited, in sending a Saviour who is possessed of Divinity that is underived and eternal; as in sending a Saviour derived and dependent? Why may not the economy of grace, in such a. case, be as great and wonderful? May not

One, of underived Divinity, love and be loved as intensely, as a person produced and dependent? Why may not such Persons of real Divinity, as the Trinitarians have conceived the Three in the Godhead to be, love each other with as real and intense affection, as God in one Person only could be supposed to love a Son actually begotten of the divine nature? Can derivation or dependence lay a foundation for the exercise of love, which cannot exist in the infinite God underived and independent? What excellency can derivation communicate, which underived eternal Divinity must be unable to supply? Can any being be more excellent, or adequate to every needful purpose, than the infinite God? Can it be more grateful to the feelings of piety to contemplate a Saviour derived and wholly dependent, than to contemplate one possessed of underived Divinity, in union with real humanity? Shall we say, such a derivation and dependence bring Christ nearer to man, and render access to him more easy and pleasing? It does indeed bring him down infinitely nearer to a level with man! It makes him a creature like ourselves. But is not the glorified humanity of Christ sufficient to render access to him (or to God through him) sufficiently easy and pleasing to the godly soul? Or is underived Divinity so dreadful an idea to the godly person, that it would be more unpleasant to view it as existing in the Person of our Saviour, or standing so near to us, as in union with the glorified humanity of Christ? Can we have more proper and exalted ideas of the love and grace of God toward fallen man, should we admit that Christ is of Divinity derived and dependent, than can be conceived upon the ground of his being underived and independent? Is it not a self-evident fact, that the love and grace of God are

infinitely more exhibited, in sending a Saviour of infinite Divinity, than in sending a derived, dependent Saviour? Does not the latter idea infinitely diminish the mercy of God in the scheme of salvation?

But is it possible for real Divinity to be derived?

[ 53 ]

SECTION V.
______

PROPER DIVINITY INFINITELY INCAPABLE
OF DERIVATION.

An exact resemblance of some of the divine perfections may be, and is, formed in creatures. Angels possess the perfect natural and moral image of God. The spirits of the just made perfect do the same. Man was made in the image of God. The image of God's natural perfections fallen man still retains. But his moral image man has lost. To the new born, the image of God's moral perfection is partially restored. Hence they are said to be "partakers of a divine nature;" and "of his fulness they have received, and grace for grace;" -- grace in the copy answering to its Prototype. What can render any dependent being more like God, than to have this image of God in that perfection, which is possessed by the inhabitants of heaven? They are the children of God. And they are as much like him, as to their moral nature, or the kind of their resemblance, as is possible. They are perfectly "satisfied with God's likeness." Shall it be said, that greater natural powers would render them more like God? Reply. Perhaps even this would not render the resemblance more perfect. For in point of degree, or greatness of powers, finite bears no proportion to infinite. But how great powers some of the Creatures of God do possess, we know not. And

who can tell but the human powers of Jesus Christ are, upon the Trinitarian principles, as great and exalted, as the Christ of the Arian can be conceived to be? -- far exceeding our highest conceptions.

But the question is, can real divinity be derived or propagated? Is not a conception of the affirmative a vast absurdity? Is God mutable or divisible? What is the real Divinity of the Most High? The following Attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: -- Self-existence, Independence, Infinity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, Infinity of holiness or benevolence.

Can there be real Divinity where either of these is wanting? Surely not, according to the sentiment which has universally been entertained of real Divinity, by the informed and judicious. And can these Perfections be communicated, or derived.? Can God himself propagate them? Can he propagate Self-existence? -- a derived underivedness? Or a dependent independence? Can God beget a being of independent Omniscience, Omnipotence, or Omnipresence? Can he produce another infinity of Holiness, answering to his own? God can do every thing that is possible. But are not these infinitely impossible? Can there exist a real God, besides the one only living and true God? Can another real God exist, yea, be produced. who is destitute of the above incommunicable Perfections? What is such a God? And wherein is he God?

But it is represented that God has a communicable nature, specifically his own, aside from the above incommunicable Perfections, which nature is essentially divine, and can never be communicated to creatures, though they are said to be in

God's image, to have his Holy Spirit, to be partakers of the divine nature, and to have received of God's fulness grace for grace. And we are called upon to believe, that this nature,(specifically divine, infinitely inferior to the divine incommunicable Perfections; and yet essentially superior to what a holy creature can possess,) is what God communicated to Christ; and that this made him really God; while yet he is totally dependent? But who can believe in such an intermediate divine nature? It is something destitute of properties, and indescribable. Where have we information of such a thing? Does the Bible give the least intimation of such a divine nature? a nature so specifically divine, that, while it can be communicated, it must render its subject a God, though distinct from the One God, who communicated it, and though wholly dependent? Whence is our information of such a divine nature? Are we taught it from analogy? -- that because many creatures do propagate their species, and communicate their own specific natures; therefore the infinite God mast be supposed to have a power in like manner to propagate his species? Bold deduction! equal to saying, that because God has given to many creatures a power to multiply; therefore he himself may be multiplied! Because many creatures possess divisibility; therefore God has divisibility! New creatures may be brought into existence; therefore new Gods may be brought into existence! This reasoning appears to me but little short of blasphemy. It is a reversion back to paganism. The idea, that because God sees fit to produce that number of some of his creatures, which he designed to produce, in the way of natural generation, therefore God himself may generate and has generated a God; appears too horrid to be

named among Christians; and too glaring an absurdity to need any refutation!

It has ever been received as one of the plainest dictates of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that whatever begins to exist, is a creature; that whatever is dependent, is a creature; and that it is impossible, for the infinite Jehovah to propagate another Jehovah! The infinite God cannot be wanting in wisdom or power, to form any creature, that he may please to form, of ever so exalted powers. But that he can produce a being essentially superior to a creature; or can produce a God, is a most glaring impossibility! God may form creatures in his own image, and may call them gods. This he has done, in heaven and on earth. "I said ye arc gods." "Worship him all ye gods." But this is a thing infinitely different from producing a real God! We have ample notice, in all those cases, that they were not real Gods, but creatures.

If these remarks; be correct, then Jesus Christ either must he possessed of real Divinity, underived; or he is a mere creature. There can be no possible medium. To say that Christ is neither the infinite God, nor a creature, is to talk without ideas. And this would come with a very ill grace from a man, who is very liberal in censuring others, for saying things upon the divine Trinity, which cannot be comprehensibly defined; and who deems it a sufficient objection against the sentiments of Trinitarians, that they involve some inexplicable mysteries. Such a man ought to be able to give us a more intelligible definition of that divine nature, which, as the basis of his scheme, constitutes Christ a God; while yet he is finite and dependent. In leaving this supposed divine nature involved in mystery, and destitute of all

conceivable properties, the author of this notion violates his own maxim; that, "To make use of terms, of which we can give no intelligible explanation, has no tendency to communicate light. Those, who make use of terms in relation to God or to Christ, ought at least (he says) to be able and willing to tell their own meaning in the use of those terms." But even this man finds it very convenient, when speaking of a supposed divine nature, derived from God, which constitutes Christ a God, while yet destitute of every truly divine perfection, to involve the subject in inexplicable mystery! Yet all his readers must believe in his mystery; while he is constrained to renounce the mystery of the Trinity! Let such a man be asked, if one God can be derived, why not many? many Mighty Gods, and Everlasting Fathers! many first Causes and last Ends of all things! It seems like trifling, otherwise I should be inclined to ask such a man, Who knows, upon his principles, how great a family of such Gods, even male and female, may yet exist? Surely, upon his principle, nothing forbids but the number should become vast! Pagan gods and goddesses have been vastly numerous, in the imagination of their votaries. That pagan god that might propagate one natural son, might propagate twenty, and as many daughters.

What essence or part of God is it possible to conceive could be divided and taken from that infinite, simple, indivisible, immutable Spirit, "with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning?" Is such a Spirit capable of diminution, or divisibility?

Pagans believed in a power of propagation in their gods. But the Bible demands the belief of nothing of this kind, relative to our heavenly Father.

We are taught to believe, that "Adam was the son of God;" (Luke iii. 38); and that Angels are the sons of God; (Job xxxviii. 7); not because they were formed of God's essence; but because he made them in his own likeness, and "partakers of the divine nature." And Christians are "partakers of the divine nature;" having of Christ's "fulness received, and grace for grace." But those things do not render them eternal, because the divine nature, of which they partake, is eternal. And we have no more right to conceive, that there is any sense, in which Christ's Divinity can have been literally derived from God, which is consistent with his being eternal.

There is one passage, which may seem to some, at first view, to favor the idea, of a derivation of Christ's Divinity. Prov. viii. 22 --; "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old, I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the world was. When there was no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the deep; when he established the clouds above; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep; when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth; then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in thr> habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men." It

is a good rule, in exposition, never to set a solitary passage against the general tenor of the Word of God. Scripture must explain Scripture. It never contradicts itself; however a solitary passage may seem, at first view, to contradict what is taught in many.

It is evident, and good authorities warrant us to say, that wisdom, in this passage, is personified by a well known figure or usage in human language. "Doth not Wisdom cry, and understanding put forth her voice? She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors." Here is the person, represented as a female, whose discourse composes the chapter. She represents herself as a person distinct from the Jehovah, who created the world. But Christ is the very Jehovah, who created all things, as will be noted. "All things were made by him." This person, in figure, gives an account (as might be expected, to enforce her instructions, and to make the representation complete) of her antiquity, and of her kindred with the Most High. She is accordingly let up from everlasting, and brought forth before the hills. But are we from this figurative passage, to believe that the wisdom of God was literally brought forth? Or, that the Jehovah of hosts, whom we have been contemplating, as the mighty God, the great God, the true and eternal God, had a beginning?

Supposing, that in the passage we do truly hear the voice of Christ, the difficulty is not hence increased. For he is speaking under the borrowed character, noted above. And accordingly he would give the same representation of this character, as above, and according to the conceptions of men. God himself is often spoken of, after the manner of men; and things are predicated of him,

which are far from being literally true. But to take occasion from the above passage to deny the eternity of Jesus Christ, and to incur all the insuperable difficulties, which attend the opinion, that the Divinity of Christ was actually derived, and is finite: and thus, that he is not the very God; is to violate all the best rules of exposition; and to contradict the numerous and most evident decisions of the sacred pages.

The terms God and creatures, have ever been received, as necessarily comprising all Beings in the universe. To present a being, who is neither the true and infinite God, nor yet a creature, is indeed to furnish "news," either from the "Bible," or from one's own bewildered imagination! But that Jesus Christ is of real and underived Divinity, does abundantly appear in the sacred Oracles; as I shall now attempt to ascertain.

[ 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

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

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

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.

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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?"

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

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

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.

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 spe