WITH A REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THAT DOCTRINE,
CONTAINED IN SERMONS LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE REV. JOHN MITCHEL, OF NEWRY.
BY THE REV. DANIEL BAGOT, A.B.
CHAPLAIN OF ST. PATRICK'S CHURCH IN NEWRY.
DUBLIN
PUBLISHED BY MARTIN KEENE & SON, COLLEGE-GREEN;
AND SOLD BY OLIPHANT, EDINBURGH; JELLETT, ARMAGH; M'COMB,
BELFAST; AND GREER AND BAILIE, NEWRY.
1831.
TO THE ADVOCATES OF SCRIPTURAL TRUTH,
ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE RENOUNCED THE SENTIMENTS WHICH THE FOLLOWING
TREATISE HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO REFUTE,
THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY
THE AUTHOR.
Nearly four years have elapsed since the Sermons, to which the following treatise refers, were published; and during that time it has frequently been a matter of surprise to some, and of triumph to others, that they have elicited no reply.
The Author has hitherto been unwilling to engage in the undertaking, with the hope that some person of more experience and information would have done so, but as this does not appear likely, and as the Sermons alluded to have arrived at a second edition, and have been industriously and extensively circulated, he now ventures to present this volume to the public.
To the first three Sermons of Mr. Mitchel, he has little objection to e'er. In them lie stands upon cm elevation high above Socinianism, and from the 'vantage ground of Scripture refutes the errors of that destructive system, as ably and successfully as any Trinitarian could desire.
In the first chapter of the following work, the Author has given a general view of the entire system which he maintains, and which Mr. Mitchel has attempted to oppose, in order to show how very partially he has attacked that system. It may at once be seen that he has not alluded to the one-tenth of the arguments by which the doctrine of the Trinity is maintained, and that those which he has left unnoticed would, by themselves, be a sufficient support for that doctrine, even if he had successfully overturned the rest.
There is one characteristic in Mr. Mitcher s publication which the Author would be anxious to emulate—the spirit of mildness and apparent candor which pervades it. It unquestionably exhibits a greater amount of liberal and conciliating charity than any other publication which has hitherto emanated from the system with which he stands connected. He has well and fairly observed the legitimate distinction between persons and opinions; and invariably acted upon a principle which ought ever to pervade a controversy of a religious character, that though truth can be only on one side, sincerity may be on both. This must give to the defense of his sentiments an advantage which the Author would not wish to leave him the sole possession of.
The only object which the Author has had in view in the publication of the following treatise, is the maintenance of what he conceives to be important Scriptural truth; and with this feeling he begs leave to entrust it to the indulgence of his readers.
Newry, 1st November, 1831.
The doctrine of the Trinity (or Tri-unity) is this, that the Scriptures reveal to us one BEING as the Supreme God, and that this Divine Being subsists in a plurality of PERSONS, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
To demonstrate this doctrine it will be necessary to establish the following propositions:
That there is but one God.
That there is a plurality in the Divine nature.
That there are three Persons mentioned in Scripture, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to whom this plurality is confined.
That the essential attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed to these three persons, in consequence of which we must believe the Supreme Deity of each.
And 5. That we must believe the Deity of each Person in consistency with the unity of the Divine-Being; or that, in other words, we must believe the doctrine of the Trinity.
We shall endeavor to prove each of these propositions in order.
1. THERE IS BUT ONE GOD.
Deut. 6. 4, " The Lord our God is one Lord."
John, 17. 3, " Thee, the only true God," etc.
1st Cor. 8. 6, " There is but one God, the Father,"
Eph. 4. 6, " One God and Father of all," etc.
2. THERE IS A PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE:
Gen. 1. 1, " God created," in which the Hebrew term for " God" is in the plural number, and for " created" in the singular.
Gen. 1. 26, " And God said, let us make."
3. 22, " One of us."
11. 7, " Let us go down."
19. 24, " The LORD rained from the LORD."
Deut. 6. 4, " The Lord our God is one Lord," or, as it is in the original, " The Lord our GODS is one Lord."
Psalm 110. 1, " The LORD said unto my Lord."
Isaiah, 6. 9, " Whom shall I send, and who will go for us."
3. THERE ARE THREE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE, THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST, TO WHOM THIS PLURALITY IS CONFINED.
These three persons are constantly referred to in Scripture; for instance, in Mathew, 3. 16 and 17, the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT are represented as giving their distinct sanction to the undertaking of the Som. In Math. 28. 19, each person is represented as presiding over the Christian Church, and the Apostles are directed to dedicate every member of that Church respectively to each. In John, 14. 16, the Sox is represented as interceding, the FATHER as granting, and the HOLY GHOST as coming. And in 2. Cor. 13. 14, the three persons are prayed to by the Apostle as the authors and sources of spiritual blessings. And it is further evident that the plurality which we have proved in the last section is to be referred to these three persons, from the fact that whenever the works referred to in the passages we have quoted are taken notice of in other parts of Scripture, they are expressly ascribed to these three persons; for instance, the work of creation is frequently ascribed to the Father—is ascribed to the Son, in John, 1. 3, and Coll. 1. 16. etc. —and to the Holy Ghost, in Gen. 1.2, and Job, 26. 13, etc.; and the mission of Isaiah, spoken of in Isaiah, 6. 8, is ascribed to the Father on the admission of all Christians—to the Son, in John, 12. 41—and to the Holy Ghost, in Acts, 28. 25 and 26.
4. THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SUPREME DEITY ARE ASCRIBED TO THESE THREE PERSONS, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH WE MUST BELIEVE THE SUPREME DEITY OF EACH.
We need not adduce proofs to shew that the essential attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the FATHER, for the Deity of the Father is admitted by all Christians.
The essential attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the SON in the following passages:
The TITLES in
Isaiah, 6. 5, explained by John, 12. 41, " The King, the Lord of Hosts."
Isaiah, 7. 14, explained by Math. 1. 23, " Emmanuel, God with us."
Isaiah, 9. 6, explained by Luke, 1. 32, " Mighty God, everlasting Father."
In John, 1. 1, God.
Romans, 9. 5, " Over all God, blessed for evermore."
In Heb. 1. 8. " God."
Titus, 2. 13, " The great God."
1. John, 5. 20, " The true God."
Rev. 19. 16, " King of Kings and Lord of Lords."
And the title " Lord," which is so frequently ascribed to Christ in the New Testament, is the term which is used in the Septuagint version of the Bible as the translation of Jehovah.
ETERNAL EXISTENCE IS ascribed to Christ, in Micah, 5. 2, " Goings forth from old from Everlasting."
John, 8. 58, " Before Abraham was, I am."
Coll. 1. 15, "First born of every creature."
Coll. 1. 17, " Before all things."
Heb. 1. 8, " For ever and ever."
Heb. 13. 8, " The same yesterday, to-day, and forever."
Rev. 1. 8, "Alpha and Omega."
Rev. 1. 17, " First and last."
OMNIPOTENCE is ascribed to Christ, in Psalm, 45. 3, " Most mighty."
Isaiah, 9. 6, " Mighty."
Math. 28. 18, "All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth."
Phil. 3. 21, " Able to subdue all things unto himself."
Heb. 1. 3, " Upholding all things by the word of his power."
Rev. 1. 8, " Almighty."
And his being the Creator of the world presupposes his omnipotence. His miracles also demonstrate his almighty power.
OMNIPRESENCE is ascribed to Christ, in Math. 18. 20, " Where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them."
Math. 28. 20, " Lo, I am with you always."
Eph. 1. 23, " Fills all in all."
And his performing the work of Providence, as asserted in Coll. 1. 17, necessarily implies his omnipresence.
OMNISCIENCE is ascribed to Christ, in John, 2. 25, " He knew what was in man."
John, 6. 64, " Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not," etc.
Rev. 2. 23 (explained by Jer. 17. 9 and 10), "I am He which searches the reins and hearts," etc.
And his performing the office of Judge necessarily requires omniscience to enable him " to bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts." 1. Cor. 4. 5.
The WORKS of Supreme Deity are ascribed to Christ, viz.:
Creation, in John, 1. 3.
Coll. 1. 16, etc.
Providence, in Coll. 1. 17.
Heb. 1. 3, etc.
Dominion, in Isaiah, 6. 1.
Heb. 1. 8, etc.
Giving and restoring life, in John, 5. 21.
John, 6. 40, etc.
The forgiveness of sins, in Exodus, 23. 21.
Col. 3. 13, etc.
The act of future judgment, in John, 5. 22.
The WORSHIP peculiar to Supreme Deity is referred to Christ, in John, 5. 23, " That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the father," etc.
Heb. 1. 6, " Let all the Angels of God worship him." Phil. 2. 10, " That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."
In Isaiah, 6. 3, the Cherubim are represented as worshipping Christ.
In Luke, 24. 52, the Apostles are said to have worshipped him.
In Acts, 7. 59, Stephen, when full of the Holy Ghost, prayed to him.
St. Paul is frequently represented as praying to Christ, as in 1. Thess. 3. 11, and 2. Cor. 12. 8, 9 Christians are described by the worship which they paid to him, as in 1. Cor. 1. 2.
The Supreme Deity of Christ is also indefinitely implied in the following passages, viz.:
John, 10. 30, " I and my Father are one."
Coll. 2. 9, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Phil. 2. 6, " Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
(3.) The essential attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the HOLY GHOST in the following passages:
The TITLES, viz.:
In Acts, 28. 25, he is said to have been the Lord Jehovah, who gave a commission to Isaiah (see Isaiah 6. 9.)
In Rom. 15. 19, he is said to have been the God through whose power Christ performed his miracles (see Acts, 2. 22.)
In John, 3. 5 and 8, he is said to have been the God of whom believers are born (see John, 1. 13.)
In Acts, 5. 3, he is said to be the God against whom Ananias lied (see verse 4.)
In 1. Cor. 3. 16, he is said to be the God whose temple believers are.
In Gall. 5. 22, he is said to be the God by whose operation faith is produced (see Coll. 2. 12.)
In 2. Peter, 1. 21, he is said to have been the God by whose inspiration the Scriptures are given (see 2. Tim. 3. 16.)
In Acts, 13. 2, he is said to have been the God by whom Paul was made a Minister (see 2. Cor. 3. 6.)
In Mark, 12. 36, he is declared to have been the Lord God of Israel, who spoke by the Prophets (see Luke, 1. 70.)
And in many other passages, the term of HOLY GHOST and the titles of Supreme Deity are reciprocally interchanged for each other.
IMMENSITY and Omnipresence are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in Psalm, 139. 7, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit," etc.
Rom. 8. 9, in which he is represented as dwelling in all believers.
ETERNITY is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in Heb. 9. 14, " The Eternal Spirit."
OMNISCIENCE is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in 1. Cor. 2. 10, " The Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God."
The OMNIPOTENCE of the Holy Ghost is inferred from the works which are attributed to him.
The WORKS of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, viz.:
Creation, in Gen. 1. 2.
Job, 33. 4, etc. Providence, in Psalm, 104. 30.
Isaiah, 59. 19, etc.
Raising the dead, Rom. 8. 11.
John, 6. 63.
Government of the Church, in Acts, 13. 2.
20. 28, etc.
The Honors of Supreme Deity are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, viz.:
He is united with the Father and the Son in the baptismal form (Math. 28. 19.) and in the apostolic benedictions (2 Cor. 13. 14.)
He is recognized by the Apostles as possessing sovereign and absolute authority over the Church (Acts, 15. 28.)
He is appealed to by the Apostle Paul as a witness of the secrets of his heart (Rom. 9. 1.)
He is exhibited as an object of Worship to the Angels in Heaven (Isaiah, 6. 3, explained by Acts, 28. 25.
We would now conclude this selection of evidence by collecting it into one general argument, viz.:
The only way by which we can ascertain the Deity of the Bible is by that revelation of the titles, attributes, works and honors of Deity which the Bible presents, and therefore he must be God with whose person these characteristics of Deity are associated: but as we have shewn that they are ascribed to three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the conclusion is evident, that we must consider each of these persons as truly God.
V. WE MUST BELIEVE THE DEITY OF EACH PERSON IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE BEING,
Or, in other words, whilst we maintain the Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we must he careful not to consider these three persons as three distinct Gods: we are therefore obliged to believe that they co-exist in some mysterious and inexplicable manner as One Supreme and Everlasting God.
PART 2.
CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS URGED BY MR. MITCHEL AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
That the following passage implies that the Father alone is the only true God: " And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou bast sent." John 17. 3. (Mitchel' s Sermons, p. 72.)
ANSWER.
1. We cannot give an interpretation to this passage which would altogether destroy the consistency of Scripture, which, as we have shewn, so frequently appropriates to Christ the peculiarities of Supreme Deity. Is it, for instance, probable that the Apostle John, who gives to Christ the very same title of "true God" in 1. John, 5. 20, should here contradict himself? Or is it probable that this passage can exclude Christ from a participation of the same Supreme Deity with the Father, when the next verse but one plainly asserts that he and the Father enjoyed a mutual communication of glory with each other before the world was created? —" And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Here we have an unanswerable proof of his Supreme Deity, especially when we compare these words with the language of Jehovah in Isaiah, 42. 8: " I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will not give to another." We therefore infer, that the plausibility of the objection which is derived from this passage is founded altogether upon a superficial view of its phraseology, and not upon its inherent import.
2. As it was the grand design of Christ's mission "to turn men from idols to serve the living and TRUE God," we thence infer that the Father is addressed in this passage as "the only true God," not in opposition to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, but in opposition to a plurality of false Deities, as held by the Heathens; and this interpretation will appear more evident, when we consider that the exclusive particle "only" is connected with the word " true," and not with the term " Father;" for it is not said "thee alone the true God" (so as to confine true Deity to the person of the Father), but "thee the only true God," so as to represent the Deity which the Father possesses as the only true Deity; and therefore there is nothing in the sense of this passage from which it can be inferred that the Son and the Holy Ghost do not possess the same " only true" Deity with the Father.
That the following passage teaches a doctrine directly contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity: " To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1. Cor. 8. 6. (page 78.)
ANSWER.
In addition to our observations in reference to the last objection, which also apply to this, the preceding context clearly shews that the Apostle does not place the " one God the Father" in opposition to Christ, but to the " Gods many" whom the Heathen worshipped, or else, when he asserts, immediately after, that " there is one Lord Jesus Christ," he must, by a parity of reasoning, be understood to speak in opposition to the Lordship of the Father, and thereby to contradict many passages of Scripture in which the Father is expressly styled Lord; for the exclusive particle " one" is annexed to the term "Lord" as well as "God." And further, the very same assertion is made of the " one Lord Jesus Christ," which is made of the " One God the Father," namely, that he is the Creator and preserver of all things, from which it follows that he is the " One God with the Father," as well as that the Father is the " one Lord with him."
When we thoroughly consider the entire reasoning of the Apostle in the 4th, 5th, and 6th verses, we shall find that this passage, so far from supplying an argument in opposition to the Deity of Christ, is a strong testimony in its favor. His object is to contrast the many objects which the Heathen worshipped with the one object of Christian adoration. In doing so, he first designates the numerous objects of Heathen idolatry by the general phrase, " those that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in earth," and then subdivides them into two classifications of " Gods many and Lords many;" so that the " Lords many" were as much included amongst those who were " called Gods.' as the Gods many. In a similar manner, he represents the one object of Christian worship, in the first instance, under the general term " God" (" there is none other God but one," verse 4), and then, in verse 6, distinguishes this one God into the two persons of the Father and the Son, under the titles of "one God and one Lord." Our argument, then, for the Deity of Christ from the passage is this,—if, on the one hand, the " Gods many and Lords many" are both equally comprehended by the Apostle under the single designation, " those that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in earth," then, on the other hand, the "one God the Father, and the one Lord Jesus Christ," are both equally comprehended under the more comprehensive statement, " To us there is but one God." Whoever doubts the conclusiveness of this reasoning is bound, in the first instance, to account for the Apostle having at all mentioned the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with the subject of which he treats—and why, if Supreme Deity is to be exclusively appropriated to the person of the Father—why, I say, the Father only is not contrasted with the false Deities of the Heathen.
That the following passage words a similar refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity: " There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (p. '79.)
ANSWER.
If the Apostle's assertion, that there is "one God and Father of all," refers exclusively to the person of the Father, so as to contradict the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it will equally follow that his assertion, that the Holy Ghost is the " one Spirit," in v. 4, and that the Son is the " one Lord," in v. 5, will imply that the Father is neither " Lord" nor " Spirit." This passage, therefore, only excludes the Son and the Holy Spirit from being " God the Father," and not from being " God."
Even if the expression, "One God and Father of all," refers to the person of the Father, yet the same things which are here said of him are elsewhere said of the Son (see John, 3. 31, Rom. 9. 5, Coll. 1. 17, Heb. 1. 3.) But it is not necessary to consider the term " Father," as referring exclusively to the first person of the Trinity, as it is frequently an epithet attached to the Divine Being, to denote his being the Creator, Preserver and Protector of his creatures. And further, as we hold that the term " God" is a general term, applicable, and actually applied, to each of the three persons, it is incumbent upon our opponents to shew, that, in the passage under consideration, it is the exclusive name of a single PERSON, and not the usual name of the Deity, as comprehending the THREE PERSONS, who are each indifferently represented in Scripture as the Creator, Preserver, and Protector of men.
We maintain that all the texts which our adversaries advance in support of the Divine Unity have no reference whatever to the question at issue. We are Unitarians, as well as they. We assert, as explicitly, the unity of God, but, at the same time, we believe that in this unity there is a distinction of persons. Now, the legitimate way to answer our sentiments would be to adduce arguments to shew that no such distinction of persons exists, instead of which we are met with proofs to demonstrate a proposition which we cordially hold, and in the very first instance concede, that "there is but one God." Can the opponents of a Trinity shew that the unity of God is decidedly inconsistent with some sort of plurality? If so, how then can they account for the peculiarity of language in which Moses asserts that there is one God: " Hear, oh I Israel; Jehovah our Gods (for the term in the original is plural) is one Jehovah?" May there not also be some unknown sense in which an absolute and unqualified unity might imply an imperfection? And perhaps it is the darkness with which our intellectual powers are encompassed, and the immeasurable distance at which we stand from the great object of our contemplation, that cause men to ascribe to the Deity a unity which his nature does not possess; for instance, in reference to objects of bodily vision, darkness and distance invariably attach to them the appearance of an absolute unity and simplicity of aspect, which, if seen under more favorable circumstances, would not be found to belong to them. The sun appears, from its great remoteness in the Heavens, to be a perfectly uncompounded body, without distinctiveness or variety; and if we may venture to institute a comparison between the shadow and the reality, may not the infinite distance of the Supreme Being, in a moral sense, from the spiritual observation of his creatures, cause him to wear an aspect of unqualified unity to the minds of those who survey him with the unassisted eye of human reason?
In page 129, Mr. Mitchel gives the following professed reply to the argument which Trinitarians adduce from the plural mode of expression which occurs in Gen. 1. 26, and 3. 22—" What more easy or natural than to suppose that God the Father, in determining to create man, should thus address himself to his beloved Son, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;' or afterwards, ' Man is become as one of us to know good and evil.' "
ANSWER.
This solution, from an opponent of the Doctrine of the Trinity, has at least the credit of being original, but, on examination, will be found to contain a concession altogether subversive of the system which Mr. Mitchel maintains; it is, in fact, precisely the interpretation which the Trinitarian has always given of the passages in question, and, as we shall shew, inevitably involves its proposer in an admission of the Supreme Deity of the Son of God; for, if creation be the peculiar work of Jehovah, so peculiar as to be considered by the Apostle as a demonstrative proof of the power and Godhead of the Creator (Rom. 1. 20); and if Jehovah appropriates to himself the execution of this work, to the exclusion of every agent and assistant whatsoever (Isaiah, 44. 24), then Mr. Mitchel's admission, that the Son was addressed by, and comprehended with, the Father in these passages, gives us the premises from which to draw the conclusion, by an irresistible consequence, that the Son was the one God with the Father who created the universe.
And further, we can also prove the Supreme Godhead of the Son from the context of Gen. 1. 26: " let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Now here Mr. Mitchel admits that the Father addresses the Son in these words; and therefore the word "us" includes the Father and the Son, and the expression, " our image," means the image of the Father and the Son: —but the following verse uses the term " God" as synonymous with " us," and interprets the expression " our image" to be the " image of God:" " So Gon created man in his image, in THE IMAGE OF Goy created he him." The conclusion, therefore, is evident, that the term God is a title equally applicable to the Father and the Son.
But, as we believe that Mr. Mitchel's interpretation is allowed by very few of our opponents, it will not be considered as a digression to advert to two other solutions, which are more commonly advanced by Anti-Trinitarians to account for the plural mode of expression in these passages, viz.:
1. That Moses ascribes to the Supreme Being the style of a Sovereign.
To which we answer, That the custom of Kings using the plural -number is much more recent than the time of Moses; it did not, for instance, exist in the time of Daniel (Daniel, 3. 29, and 4. 37., etc.)
That though a single individual may say " us" or "we," yet there is no figure of speech which would allow one person to say of himself, with common propriety, "One of us."
(3.) That the converse of the solution is much more probable, that the aspiring presumption of earthly rulers has copied the plural mode of speaking from this language, attributed to the Supreme Being.
The other solution is 2. That Angels are associated in those passages with the Supreme Jehovah.
To which we answer, That this would contradict those passages of Scripture in which it is said that Jehovah would not give his glory to another (Isaiah, 42. 8, and 48. 11.)
That it would contradict the passages in which it is said that God had no partner in the work of creation (Isaiah, 44. 24, Mal. 2. 10, Heb. 3. 4.)
That, on this supposition, the next verse should be thus worded: " So God and the Angels created man in their own image, in the image of God and the Angels created they them."
Thus we find that no method by which our adversaries have endeavored to account for the phraseology in these verses can avert the conclusion which we have drawn from that phraseology—namely, that it denotes a plurality of persons as subsisting in the unity of the Divine Being.
The form of Christian Baptism cannot properly be understood as bearing testimony to the Doctrine of three Persons in one God. fp. 143.)
ANSWER.
The form of Baptism has never been regarded as absolutely demonstrating by itself the doctrine of the Trinity. In the present treatise, it has been advanced to prove, along with other passages of Scripture, that there are three supreme persons presiding over the work of man's redemption, to whom, in other places, the attributes of Supreme Deity are ascribed. But there are some considerations connected with the appointment of this form, which make it worthy to be regarded as an evidence attaching a strong probability to this doctrine.
The natural import of Baptism is, that persons are thereby dedicated to the service of the being in whose name it is performed, and thenceforward bound to render to him worship, and honor, and obedience.
Those who were baptized into the Christian religion, in the infancy of the Church, were many of them Gentiles who worshipped a plurality of Gods, and would therefore be predisposed to regard Christianity as only another system of Polytheism, if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into whose name they were baptized, were not the " one living and true God," whom they "turned from idols to serve."
The Arian interpretation of this form, which represents two created and finite beings in association with the supreme and untreated God, without any qualifying particle to denote their inferiority and subordination, is most improper and derogatory to the dignity and supremacy of Jehovah.
The mention of three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, and the mention of the word " NAME" in the singular number with the doctrine that these three persons possess a unity of being and a common appellation, Gon.
The form of Apostolic benediction is as little to be relied on, for as that form does not always take in the three persons, so neither is it always confined to them. (p. 143.)
ANSWER.
It is of no consequence that this form should not always comprehend the entire Trinity, for as each person is frequently mentioned by himself in Scripture, it is no less consistent with our sentiments that two should be mentioned conjointly. And whatever effect the omission of the Son and Holy Ghost in any of these forms may be supposed to have upon the doctrine which teaches their Supreme Deity, the doctrine of the Supreme Deity of the Father is equally affected—for there are several instances in which his name is omitted (see Phil. 4. 23, 1. Thess. 5. 28, 2. Thess. 3. 18, etc.)
There is no instance in which the form of benediction includes any other person than the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Mr. Mitchel adduces the following passage in Rev. 1. 4, " John to the seven Churches which are in Asia: grace be unto you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness,"—but to this we answer:
That the expression, "seven Spirits," cannot refer to Angels, as they would be unable to grant the grace and mercy prayed for, and are expressly excluded, in Col. 2. 18, from every share of religious worship.
It is probable that, in a book replete with mystical and symbolic language, the Apostle has expressed the benediction in a corresponding form; intending this phraseology to be a symbolic description of that Divine Person, who is styled, in the forms of benediction elsewhere, by the simple designation of the Holy Ghost. The number seven is frequently used in Scripture to denote perfection; thus the seven horns and seven eyes attributed to Christ, in Rev. 5. 6, denote his perfect power and knowledge; the seven eyes in Zech., 4. 10, denote the perfect knowledge of God; and so likewise the Holy Ghost is designated by the periphrasis " of seven Spirits before the throne," to denote the perfection of his knowledge and the diversity of his gifts and operations. And in conformity with this interpretation, we find it said of Christ, in Rev. 3. 1, that he "bath the seven Spirits of God," because "THE SPIRIT was given to him without measure," and " in him all fulness dwells;" so that this benediction does not comprehend any other persons than those of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but is precisely parallel with those in which their name is simply mentioned.
And now, in order to shew that there is some force in the argument which Trinitarians derive from this form, in opposition to Mr. Mitchel's assertion, we remark:
That it is, in every sense of the word, a solemn prayer addressed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and it would be manifest idolatry in any, much more in an inspired person, to offer up a petition to two created beings, no matter how super angelic, in conjunction with the Supreme God.
That the presentation of a prayer to the three persons necessarily implies their competency to grant the blessings which are desired; and that these blessings are of the highest spiritual order which it would require the resources of Deity to supply.
That the Father alone is the only true God, to the exclusion of the Son. (Sermon 4, throughout.)
ANSWER.
I must object most strongly to the plan of reasoning which he has pursued throughout the entire sermon, for the professed object of establishing this position. Flu holds, in common with the Trinitarian, that Christ existed in a pre-existent state of greater dignity than the circumstances of his earthly condition displayed: the legitimate mode, therefore, to establish his position, that the Father alone is the only true God, would have been to contrast the several passages in which the glory of the Father is described with those which treat of the circumstances of Christ, in his pre-existent state and unconnected with his assumed nature upon earth; instead of which, he has brought forward numerous passages, in which the glory and Godhead of the Father are-alluded to, in contrast with the inferior circumstances of Jesus Christ in the flesh. By doing so, however, he has proved nothing but what every Trinitarian will most readily concede.
I cannot, however, allow his system to retain the advantage which it unfairly derives from this mode of proceeding, and shall illustrate the principle upon which his reasoning is based, in its correct and legitimate form, by contrasting some passages in which the abstract condition of Christ is spoken of, with others which describe the glory of the Father in reference to the same qualities, and shall then deduce the fair inference which such a comparison involves, viz.:
TEXTS RELATIVE TO THE FATHER.
1- Thou, whose name alone is Jehovah. Ps. 83. 18.
2- Thou only art holy. Rev. 15. 4.
3- Do not I fill Heaven and Earth? saith the Lord. Jer. 23. 24.
4- He is thy life. Deut. 30. 20.
5- Know ye that Jehovah he is God, it is he that hath made us? Ps. 100. 3.
6- I am the Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God besides me. Isaiah, 45. 5.
7- In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." Ex. 20. 24.
8- What things soever the Father doeth, John, 5. 19.
9- For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickened them, John, 5. 21.
10- Even as they honor the Father, John, 5. 23.
11- I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. Isaiah, 44. 6.
12- Thou, even thou, art Jehovah alone; thou hast made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preserves them all. Neh. 9. 6.
13- Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Math. 4. 10.
14- Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Isaiah, 45. 23.
15- For Jehovah your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords. Dent. 10. 17.
16- I search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. Jer. 17. 10.
TEXTS RELATIVE TO THE SON.
1- This is his name, whereby he shall be called Jehovah our righteousness. Jer. 23. 6.
2- But ye denied the holy one. Acts 3. 14.
3- Him that fills all in all. Eph. 1. 23.
4- Christ who is our life. Coll. 3. 4.
5- All things were made by him. John, 1. 3.
6- The word was God." John, 1. 1.
7- Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Math. 18. 20.
8- These also doeth the Son likewise. John, 5. 19.
9- Even so the Son quickens whom he will. John, 5. 21.
10- That all men should honor the Son. John, 5. 23.
11- I am the first and the last. Rev. 1. 17.
12- For by him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Coll. 1. 16, 17.
13- Let all the Angels of God worship him. Heb. 1. 6.
14- We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11.
15- King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 19. 16.
16- And all the Churches shall know that I AM HE which searches the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to his works. Rev. 2. 23.
We might institute a comparison between many other passages of a similar import, but these will suffice for the argument which we now proceed to deduce, viz.:—If the texts in the one column are sufficient to demonstrate the Supreme Deity of the Father, then, by a parity of reasoning, the texts in the second column, which are as emphatic in their meaning and form of expression, demonstrate the Supreme Deity of the Son; or if, on the other hand, the opponent of the Trinity contradicts the Supreme Deity of the Son, in despite of the passages which we have referred to, he thereby virtually contradicts the Supreme Deity of the Father, which is described in terms precisely equivalent. Thus the Anti-Trinitarian is reduced to the dilemma of representing the Bible as a system either of Atheism or Polytheism—of Atheism in the latter case, or of Polytheism in the former, if, on admitting the force of the passages we have advanced, he should deny the doctrine which teaches that the two persons of Father and Son are the ONE only and true God.
Mr. Mitchel endeavors to destroy the force of our argument, from the following passage, by maintaining its application to King Hezekiah, and not to Christ:—" Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with justice, from henceforth, even for ever. Isaiah, ix, 6, 7. (p. 129.)
ANSWER.
It is a most extravagant violation of reason and common sense to apply these expressions to King Hezekiah—a mortal man. In what sense could Hezekiah's name be called wonderful? In what sense could he be called counsellor? In what sense could he be called the mighty God?—the everlasting Father?—the Prince of Peace? And in what sense could it be said of his government that it should be without end? These are questions to which we require an adequate solution before we can consent to give the passage such a reference.
But when we refer the prophecy to Christ, it assumes a meaning and consistency which it could not possess on any other application. He alone is " wonderful" in the circumstances of his birth, his miracles, his resurrection and ascension, and in all the incidents of his history: he may be properly styled "counsellor," as having been one of the council of the eternal Trinity, to whom God said, " Let us make man:" he alone may be properly designated " the Prince of Peace," as having been exalted to be a Prince and a Savior to make peace between God and man, by the blood of his cross: and of him alone can it be said that his government shall have no end.
But Mr. Mitchel has advanced four reasons, which, in his judgment, render this prophecy inapplicable to Christ:—The first is, "that if we apply the passage to him we must believe that God was a child, and born into the world;" to which I answer that we do not believe in the Deity of the man Christ Jesus, and that no person who will observe the contrast between his Deity and Humanity, which the Prophet draws in the passage, can be in danger of entertaining such a belief. His second reason is—" that if we look upon Christ as literally the everlasting Father, we must believe that he is the father of himself;" to which I answer, that the term " Father" is not always used as the distinguishing title of the first person in the Godhead, but is frequently applied to the Deity, as being the Creator and Preserver of all things, and in this sense is an appropriate designation of Christ (see Coll. 1. 16, 17.) His third reason is—that " the passage is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ in the most gratuitous manner, and without any Scriptural warrant whatsoever;" to which I answer, that we have the testimony of two Evangelists in favor of this application: Mathew, for instance, quotes the first two verses, which are connected with the passage in question, as a prophecy which received its fulfilment in the benefits which were derived from our Savior’s Ministry (compare Isaiah, 9. 1, 2, with Math. 4. 15, 16); and the very passage itself is substantially applied to Christ in the words of the Angel to Mary—" He shall he great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; anti he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."—Luke, 1. 32, 33. His fourth reason is, that the connection of this prophecy with another in Isaiah, 7. 14, which he also applies to Hezekiah, shews it to have a similar reference; but to 4 this' I answer, that he is also incorrect in considering this latter prophecy as referring to Hezekiah. In order to demonstrate this, it will be necessary to refer briefly to the history with which the passage in Isaiah, 7. 14, stands connected.
We are told that in the days of Ahaz, King of Judah, Rezin, the King of Syria, and Pekah, the King of Israel, went up with confederate armies to attack Jerusalem, upon which the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people were " moved as the trees of the wood are moved by the wind." In consequence of this, Isaiah was directed to take his son Shear Jashub with him, and to meet Ahaz, for the purpose of announcing the consolatory intelligence, that his kingdom should be preserved, and that the destruction of his enemies was at hand. When Ahaz had refused to select a sign to shew that the declaration should he fulfilled, Isaiah himself announces a sign—first, in the 14th and 15th verses, that the kingdom of Judah, so far from being then destroyed, should continue until such a time as the miraculous event of a virgin being with child should occur; and secondly, a more immediate sign in the 16th verse, for the special consolation of Ahaz, that before the Prophet's infant son (Shear Jashub, whom he held in his arms, and who is expressly said, in chapter 8. 18, to have been for a sign) should come to years of discretion, the land of Rezin and Pekah, which, from their close alliance, seemed to be but one land, should be forsaken of both her Kings, which latter circumstance took place within two or three years afterwards, when Hosea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Kings, 15. 30), and when the King of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin (II. Kings, 16. 9.) Keeping this interpretation of the passage in view, we may paraphrase it as follows:— 5. 11. The Lord himself shall give you a sign. The scepter shall not depart from Judah for the space of seven hundred years, until the miraculous occurrence of a virgin conceiving and bearing a son! whose name shall be called Immanuel, which, when interpreted, implies "God with us."
But though he is " God with us," yet he shall possess a real and proper humanity, both as to body and mind;—as to body, for he shall be nourished upon the ordinary food of children; and as to mind, because he shall progressively arrive at years of discretion, and increase in wisdom like other children.
But lest this sign should be too remote, and therefore insufficient to remove your present alarm, I will give you a sign of your immediate deliverance from the armies of Rezin and Pekah: so far from their succeeding against you, they shall themselves be the subjects of a successful invasion, for, before this my child, Shear Jashub, shall arrive at years of discretion, the territories of Rezin and Pekah, which, on account of your present alarm, you so much abhor, shall be deprived of their Government.
This interpretation will be confirmed by a consideration of the following reasons:
The birth of the child is spoken of as a miraculous event, for so the word "sign" means in the original; but what was there miraculous in the birth of Hezekiah?
The birth of the child is spoken of as future, but Hezekiah was born many years before the delivery of this prophecy; for Ahaz reigned but 16 years (2 Kings, 16. 2), and Hezekiah was 25 years old when he began to reign (2 Kings, 18. 2.)
The allusion which Micah, who prophesied after Isaiah, makes to the passage, proves that he considered its fulfilment as future, and to refer to the "ruler" who should be born in Bethlehem (see Micah, 5. 3): " Therefore will he give them up till she which travailed hath brought forth."
The emphatic terms in which Mathew asserts that the prophecy was fulfilled in the nativity of Christ. He does not, for instance, merely say, "then was fulfilled," (as in chapter 2. 17, and 27. 9), but he says, " Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled."
Thus, I hope that I have been able successfully to shew, that this prophecy cannot refer to any other than to our Savior. Two points, however, must be considered, before our argument from the passage is complete: 1st, that he was called Immanuel—and 2d1y, that the word, when applied to him, imports his Deity.
We are told by Mathew that the son of Mary was called " Jesus," because it was prophesied that he should be called " Immanuel;" the two words being the same in substance,—" Immanuel" signifying" God with us," and " Jesus" Jehovah the Savior. Or the term Immanuel may be regarded, not as a proper name of Christ, but as an appellative descriptive of his nature, as he was God and man; in the same manner as the title " Boanerges" was given to James and John, as a designation indicative of the character which they displayed.
The term Immanuel, when considered in connection with the history of Christ's nativity, and with other expositions of his nature and character, is an auxiliary proof of his Supreme Deity. The instances to which Mr. Mitchel has referred of the names of individuals being compounded with the name of God, such as Abel, Elijah, Ezekiel, etc., are easily accounted for by the peculiar circumstances in which those individuals were placed, and there cannot be adduced, in any one such instance, any collateral statement, by virtue of which these titles could be brought to compete, in emphasis or signification, with the term Immanuel, as applied to Christ. But no Trinitarian regards the appropriation of the term Immanuel to the Savior, as affording a sufficient argument for his Deity, in an isolated and independent point of view.
That " The other prophecies of the Old Testament, which have a plain and immediate reference to the promised Messiah, so far from representing him as the Supreme God, uniformly represent him as the messenger and servant of the Supreme God," and that the Jews never understood them as importing his Supreme Deity. (p. 132.)
ANSWER.
Most of the prophecies of Christ refer to his Mediatorial Office, for the discharge of which he took upon him the form of a servant, and became subordinate and obedient to the Father.
Many of the other prophecies of Christ, in the Old Testament, do contain arguments for his Supreme Deity—for instance:
In Isaiah, 8. 13, 14, " Sanctify JEHOVAH 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." In this prophecy we have the title " Jehovah of Hosts" ascribed to him; and that it was fulfilled in Christ, see Rom. 9. 32, 33, 1. Pet. 2. 7, 8.
In Isaiah, 40. 3, " The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH, make straight in the desert a highway for our God," etc.—the reference of which to our Savior is proved from Luke, 3. 4.
In Zech. 12. 10, JEHOVAH is represented as saying, " they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." For the proof of the fulfilment of this prophecy in Christ, see John, 19. 37, and Rev. 1. 7.
In Malachi, 3. 1, " Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple"--the fulfilment of which is recorded in John, 2. 14.
3. To the objection that the Jews never regarded the prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament as implying his Deity, it is quite sufficient to say that their testimony is worth nothing, as we know that they have been guilty of egregious errors, both as to the time and nature of the accomplishment of all the prophecies relating to the Messiah.
OBJECTION 10.
To obviate the amazing force of the argument for the Supreme Deity of Christ from John, 1. 1:—" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—Mr. Mitchel, having admitted that the term God is here " directly, and without dispute, applied to Christ," makes the following most extraordinary observation—" Yet you will find something, either in the form of expression, or in the context, or in both, that serves to distinguish him from that still greater Being whom he himself acknowledges to be his Father and his God.—Thus, whilst the Evangelist tells us that ' the Word was God,' he tells us, that the Word was with God.' "
ANSWER.
It is much more likely that the latter statement, " the Word was God," should be an explanation of the former, that " the Word was with God," than the former of the latter.
If the Apostle intended, by the assertion, that " the Word was with God," to explain away and contradict the statement which immediately follows, that " the Word was God," we presume that the verse, in order to be so understood, should have been expressed thus—" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, but the Word was not God:" for how can common sense suppose it possible that the Apostle would use an affirmative proposition as an equivalent to a negative one, and especially on such a subject I am willing to adopt his principle of explaining the statement by a reference to the context:—the question then is, in what sense does the Apostle say that the Word was God (if the expression be capable of more senses than one?) We refer to the commentary which he gives in verse 3, that "all things were made by the Word," thereby shelving that his meaning is that the Word was God, in the sense of Supreme Creator of the Universe.
It is almost a waste of time to refer to Mr. Mitchel's remark, that the statement, " the Word was with God,' would go to destroy the Divine Unity, if he had meant to represent the Word as the Supreme God, for what other God could the Supreme God be with?" How often is it necessary to tell the opponent of our doctrines, that we most strenuously hold the doctrine of the Divine Unity; and if Mr. Mitchel will read the words of our Savior, in John, 17. 5, he will find an answer to his question: " And now, oh Father! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." This passage proves the following paraphrase of John, 1. 1, to be correct; " Before the world was, the Son existed with the Father in an equal participation of his glory, and the Son was the one God with the Father."
To Rom. 9. 5, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen;"—upon which Mr. Mitchel says, " This is no place for the introduction of Greek criticism; but those who are acquainted with the original will perceive that the verse in which these words stand might be translated so as to run thus:--‘ Whose are the Fathers, of whom, as concerning the flesh, is Christ, and whose is the God over all, blessed forever;' and this would be in close conformity with other similar enumerations by the same Apostle; for example—' there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' But even if the translation here were correct, as I believe it is not, and that Christ is called God over all,' we must still say, with the same Apostle elsewhere—' When all things are put under him,' it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (p. 137.)
ANSWER.
However conformable with the Apostle's statements elsewhere this passage might be made by such a reading,—the alteration which is necessary to render it so affords one of the grossest instances of torturing and wresting the Scriptures to suit a peculiar creed of any that can be imagined,—Mr. Mitchel has very wisely and cautiously said, "this is no place for the introduction of Greek criticism," because every principle of fair and admissible criticism is against the change he has proposed. The passage could by no means be so translated, and for the following reasons:
1. It would require a transposition of two words in the original, and a change of the accent over one of them, for which no authority can be produced from any manuscript whatsoever, and which, on the admission of our opponents, is done only by suggestion! —and surely it is rather too much to require us to admit a suggestion of what might be written as a just interpretation of what has been written. Even Mr. Belsham himself confesses that this alteration cannot he received: in his Calm Enquiry, he makes the following extraordinary comment upon it:—" This conjecture, ingenious, and even probable, as it is, not being supported by a single manuscript version, or authority, cannot be admitted into the text. But one may almost believe that the present reading might be owing to an inadvertence in one of the earliest transcribers, if not in the Apostle's own amanuensis"!!—p. 224. Who cannot see, that if the principle of suggestion be allowed in the interpretation of Scripture, the Atheist may accommodate the Bible to his views, and call himself a Christian The Greek word for blessed would also require the article to be placed before it; because, according to the idiom of the language, an adjective placed after its noun, with an article prefixed, should also have an article.
On this construction, the conjunction "and" should not have stood before the sentence, " of whom is the Christ," but should have been reserved for the concluding member of the climax, " AND whose is the God," etc. Mr. Mitchel was evidently conscious of this, as, in the amended version which he has given, he omits the " and" before the words " of whom is the Christ," and places it before the last sentence; but it is not so in the original.
This would represent the Apostle as here asserting what, in this very epistle, he had expressly contradicted, namely, that God was peculiarly the God of the Jews; for, in Ch. 3. 29, he says, " Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles also."
5. It was necessary that the Apostle, having just stated that Christ, "according to the flesh," was descended from the Jews, should explain his meaning, by stating what other nature he had which was not according to the flesh; and accordingly, the statement that he was, as to a superior nature, " overall, God blessed forever," is absolutely necessary for the purpose.
But Mr. Mitchel must have been sensible how untenable this criticism is, since he has provided another method of eluding, as he thinks, the force of our argument from the text. " Even if," says he, " the translation be correct, and Christ is called God over all, we must still say, when all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him," to which I merely say, that every Trinitarian will most willingly admit the exception he requires; for it is no part of our doctrine to hold the superiority of the Son to the Father.
This passage, therefore, cannot he tortured into any other form than that in which it appears in our Bible, and, as such, it affords an incontrovertible argument for the Supreme Deity of the Savior, as it ascribes to him four distinct peculiarities of Godhead:-1st, Supremacy, in the words " over all;" 2d, the title " God;" 3d, the appellation " blessed," which is exclusively appropriated in Scripture to the Supreme Being (as in Mark, 14. 61, Rom. 1. 25, 2. Cor. 11. 31); and 4th, Eternity, in the words " for evermore."
Before we proceed to the next objection, we may remark, that Mr. Mitchel's proposed alteration of this passage is one of FIVE methods which the adherents of his system have contrived, in order to evade the invincible argument for Christ's Supreme Deity which this text supplies. And is it not an obvious reflection, that the fact of our opponents proposing so many interpretations is a decisive proof that they were conscious of not having any clear and definite support for any one?
To Hebrews, 1. 8, " Thy throne, oh God I is for ever and ever;"—upon which Mr. Mitchel says: " From this passage a superficial reader might conclude him to be the Supreme God. But let the most superficial reader look at the very next verse, uttered by the same Sovereign Being, and his conclusion falls to the ground.
Thou host loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' If Christ were meant to be represented as the Supreme God, who could there be that might be called his God?—who, in that case, might anoint him with the oil of gladness?—who, in that case, ought to be regarded as his fellows?" (p. 135.)
ANSWER.
The 9th verse refers to Christ in reference to his MEDIATORIAL office, in which capacity he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and from which God the Father raised him above his fellows. But the 8th verse, from which our argument is derived, cannot have the same reference, for it speaks of his throne continuing for ever and ever, whereas his mediatorial kingdom was to cease when the purposes for which it was established should be accomplished (1 Cor. 15. 28.) The 9th verse, therefore, cannot be intended as an explanation of the 8th, since they refer to Christ in two distinct capacities, which are set in contrast to each other.
But how, says Mr. Mitchel, can the Apostle call the Father his God, if, at the same time, he was equal to the Father? This question is precisely analogous with that which perplexed the Jews—how could he be David's son, if, at the same time, he was David's Lord? And the answer to the latter is precisely the same as I give to the former:—as possessing Deity, he was David's Lord—as born in the flesh, he was David's son; so, also, as David's son, the Father was his God—and as David's Lord, he was equal to the Father.
There is also no difficulty, connected with the assertion of Christ having "fellows," under our view of his character, which does not equally affect the sentiments which Mr. Mitchel has professed. In page 149, he says that Christ " was a being next in power and glory to the Supreme God:" we therefore propose the very same question which he has—who, in that case, ought to be regarded as his fellows?—and when he considers this question, he will find himself obliged to have recourse to the circumstances of his humanity, and explain the term " fellows" to mean the members of our species, whose nature he assumed.
Having thus answered the objection which has been advanced against the verse in question, we may here remark, that if we had no other evidence for the Supreme Deity of Christ than what this chapter (the 1st of Hebrews) affords, we would still have an unanswerable support for that doctrine. The general argument which pervades it, that Christ was superior to Angels, at once contradicts the opinion that he was a being of an Angelic order, or of a nature lower than the Angels; and almost all the distinguishing attributes of Supreme Godhead are distinctly ascribed to him in this chapter—for instance, the title of Lord, or Jehovah, in verse 10; God, in verse 8; eternal existence, in verses 11 and 12; the work of creation, in verses 3 and 10; providence, in verse 3; worship, in verse 6; and everlasting dominion, in verse 8.
To 1. John, 5. 19, 20—" We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ: this is the true God and eternal life."—Mr. Mitchel, in order to obviate the force of this passage, gives the two expressions, " true God" and " eternal life," in the concluding sentence, a different application:—" The Apostle," says he, "is evidently speaking both of God and of the Son of God; and in the concluding sentence, he sums up what he had said of both in these words,--' This is the true God,' namely, the Father, and this is eternal lift,' namely, the Son." (p. 138.)
ANSWER.
1. The grammatical construction of the sentence is not sufficiently definite to warrant such an interpretation, as it would obviously require some additional expressions in order to give these two terms, " true God" and "eternal life," a distinct and separate reference, Mr. Mitchel was himself conscious of this, as, in the para- phrase which he has given of the passage, he has been obliged to supply the demonstrative pronoun and the verb before the latter expression, " eternal life."
The natural reference of the pronoun " this," in the sentence, " this is the true God," is to the latter antecedent, which was Christ; and there is no reason for deviating from this principle in the passage before us, unless we should be unreasonably required to admit the petitio prinei pii of our opponents, that Christ cannot be called the " true God."
This construction would represent the Apostle as making an assertion, namely, that the Father is the true God, which he had twice made in the 19th verse, and which it would, therefore, be quite redundant and unnecessary to repeat again in the 20th.
As the grammatical construction of the passage requires that the terms, " true God" and " eternal life," should refer to the same person—if we can determine the precise reference of one, it must necessarily establish the reference of the other. Now, the expression, " eternal life," is in no instance given to the Father, but is invariably used as a designation of the Son (observe, for instance, the statement of St. John, in the 2d verse of this very epistle, " for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and skew unto you that ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father"); and, therefore, the expression, " TRUE Goo," is as unequivocally applied to the Son in this verse.
We may here remark, that the Apostle immediately subjoins this parting admonition " little children, keep E 2 yourselves from idols;" and we would ask, if Jesus Christ was not the true God, is it likely that John, with such an affectionate and paternal anxiety to preserve his readers from the sin of idolatry, would have used such a carelessness of expression as our opponents attribute to him, and have introduced such an unusual and unnatural ellipsis into his stile, when he ought to have been most express and satisfactory in his statements, and to have regulated his phraseology so as to prevent his readers from being guilty of idolatry, in supposing Christ to be the true God, when he really was not? Need we advance another argument to shew, that the Apostle, in this passage, says of Christ, " this is the true God?"
To 1. Tim., 3. 16—" God was manifest in the flesh," etc.—a passage which we did not refer to in the Synopsis, because, as it is supposed that the term "God" was not used by the Apostle, we could not argue from it as a text in which a title of Deity was directly ascribed to Christ, but, on an examination, it will be found that it still affords an instance of an indirect application of the name of God to him,—Mr. Mitchel makes the following observations:- —" The true reading of this passage in the original has not been well settled. With that, however, I shall not trouble you; but, reading it as it stands in our translation—' Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' Let me only ask you, in what sense is it supposable that the Supreme God, who fills Heaven and earth, and is represented to us as unchangeable, could be received up into glory? We know with what ease and correctness this language applies to our Lord Jesus Christ." (p. 137.)
ANSWER.
There are two different readings proposed in this passage from that which appears in the common version.
To read the neuter relative, instead of the term " God," so that the passage would run thus—" great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh," etc. But to this we reply, that the evidence to support it is not sufficiently strong, and that it would render the passage absurd and unintelligible; for what could the Apostle mean by saying, that the mystery of godliness (or the Gospel) was manifest in the flesh! justified in the spirit I or received up into glory!
To read the masculine relative, instead of the term " God," so that the passage would run thus—" who was manifest in the flesh," etc. On which we remark, that there is very strong evidence to support this reading, and that it would afford us an argument for the Deity of Christ, nearly, if not altogether, as forcible as we could have by retaining the term " God;" for the masculine relative should refer to the last masculine antecedent in the preceding context, which is " Gon," in the 15th verse, as is evident from the following version of the passage Which is the Church of the living God (the pillar and ground of the truth, and, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness), who was manifest in the flesh, etc.
And this assertion would be precisely similar to the statement of the Apostle John, in his 1st chapter, verses 1 and 14, that the word, which " was God," was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and Paul's declaration, that he who was manifest in the flesh was " God," would alone justify his emphatic expression of admiration, that " great is the mystery of godliness."
But as Mr. Mitchel admits, that the several statements contained in this passage apply to our Lord Jesus Christ, we presume that he either allows the present reading or the substitution of the masculine relative, in either of which cases we have shewn that the passage contains an argument for the Supreme Deity of Christ.
But he has asked, " how can it be said that the Supreme God, who fills Heaven and earth, could be received up into glory?" To this we answer, at once, that it was " God manifest in the flesh" who was received up into glory; and the statement could not have been made, if God had not been manifest in the flesh.
That the application of the title God to the Savior is no argument for his Supreme Deity, since it is frequently applied to creatures, and would, therefore, by a parity of reasoning, prove their Supreme Deity. Mr. Mitchel says:—" The term God, as implying authority and dominion, is often in Scripture applied to beings whom we should never think of confounding with the Supreme God. Thus, Exodus. 7. 1: ' And the Lord said unto Moses,—see, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh.' Judges, Magistrates, and civil Rulers, are denominated Gods in Psalm 82. 6, etc." (p. 135.)
ANSWER.
Whenever the title God is applied to creatures, it is always in such a manner, and associated with such concomitant expressions, as prove, beyond any possibility of mistake, that it is only applied in a figurative, or some other very subordinate sense. Let us, for instance, refer to the passages of this nature which Mr. Mitchel has advanced.
The first is from the language of God to Moses, in Exodus, 7. 1—" See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh;" or, as it should be translated, " I have made thee GOD to Pharaoh." Now, from the mere connection of this verse with the history of the circumstances alluded to, it would appear plainly that the term God is to be understood in a figurative sense—importing that Moses, as an ambassador to Pharaoh, acted as the deputy and substitute of the Most High. But look to the 16th verse of the 4th chapter, and you will find this meaning of the passage asserted by Jehovah himself, where he says, " Thou shalt be to him instead of God." This is the only instance in the entire Bible in which the term " God" is, in any sense, applied to any single man; and it is to be remarked that it is Jehovah himself who applies the term in the very low sense which we have shewn: Moses did not arrogate the title to himself, nor any other person ascribe it to him.
The second passage is from Psalm lxxxii, 6—" I have said, ye are Gods." Now, here the term is not applied to any one individual, but to several; and, therefore, as the Bible is not a system of Polytheism, it is manifest, at one glance, that it must be applied in a figurative sense. But this is not all: the preceding and subsequent context, with which the verse stands connected, shew that the term is used by the Psalmist in the very lowest sense: " How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked: - - they know not, neither will they understand; they walk in darkness. - - - I have said, ye are Gods—but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes." Is it not evident that the Psalmist calls the Judges and Rulers, here alluded to, by the title Gods in an ironical sense, in order to give a greater emphasis to this humiliating representation of their character and destiny, which is contrasted with that appellation? But this criticism is almost unnecessary, as Mr. Mitchel himself has embodied a refutation of his objection in his statement of it, where he says that " the term God, as implying authority and dominion, is often in Scripture applied to beings whom we should never think of confounding with the Supreme God."
It now remains for us to shew that these passages do not afford the slightest appearance of parallelism with those in which the name of God is applied to Christ; and to do so, we remark, that when we argue for the Deity of the Savior from the application of this title to him, our argument is not derived from the mere fact of its being ascribed to him, but from its being ascribed frequently, and with such concomitant expressions, as oblige us to understand it in its supreme sense:— thus, when the Apostle John asserts that the Word was God, he subjoins the assertion, that " all things were made by him;" and when Paul stiles him " God," in Rom. 9. 5, he connects it with a declaration, that he is over all, blessed forever; and when he stiles him " God," in Heb. 1. 8, he at the same time asserts that his throne is for ever and ever. Or, let us illustrate this position by a reference to the case before adduced, of the application of this term to Moses; and admitting, for the sake of argument, that it was really and directly ascribed to him, I ask, do we find any consistency or agreement in the subsequent history of Moses with the dignity and authority which this term should imply? So far from it, we find that when Moses arrogated to himself an independent power, and " did not sanctify Jehovah in the eyes of the children of Israel," he was severely punished for his presumption. On the other hand, we find, in the Scripture account of the dignities and prerogatives connected with the person of the Son of God, an ample conformity and consistency with the honors and attributes which an ascription of the title God in the highest sense can imply. For instance, if an ascription of the title God, in the same sense in which it is applied to the Father, should imply a participation of the same dignity and dominion with the Father, we are told in Scripture that Christ sits upon the right hand of the Father; or if it should imply a participation of the same honor which is paid to the Father, we are told, "that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father."
And here, we may remark that the term " God" is the only title of Deity for which our opponents can advance the slightest pretense of a subordinate application: the titles " Jehovah," " Jehovah of Hosts," "King of Kings," "Lord of Lords," etc., are in no case whatever ascribed to creatures.
To John, 10. 27 to 30—" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hands. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand: I and my Father are one." By this latter statement, we maintain that Christ meant to say that he and his Father " are one Being," importing, thereby, a physical union; Mr. Mitchel, on the other hand, interprets the passage to mean a mere moral union of design; his remarks are as follow:—" It was upon this that the Jews charged our Lord with making himself God,' to which groundless charge he replied as before quoted; and yet Christians continue, upon the same ground, to make the very same assertion. Our Lord does not say, here or elsewhere, that the Father and he were one God; that would have settled the question. But his meaning is easily ascertained by reference to his own explanation, contained in John, 17. 11 Holy Father, keep, through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are and again, at the 20th verse, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me, through their word, that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gayest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one.' " (p. 139.)
ANSWER.
We admit that the import of the expression, "to be one," cannot be decided by its mere grammatical construction, but must be determined by a reference to the peculiar circumstances under which it was uttered. In John, 17. 11, it is admitted, on both sides, that it implies merely a moral union of affection and love. But we presume, that a comparison of this text with the assertion of our Savior, in John, 10. 30, will shew that no parallelism exists between them. Christ, for instance, claims to himself, in the 28th verse, the very same capability of protecting and preserving his people, as he attributes to his Father in the 29th verse:—" No man," (or rather " no one," including their most powerful spiritual adversaries) said he, " is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands," and he gives a satisfactory reason for this declaration—" My Father is greater than all," and "no one shall pluck them out of my hands;" for which he gives, in our view of the passage, as satisfactory a reason, " I and my Father are one." Now, it is most evident that a mere unity of design would not establish the requisite ability to protect his people which this declaration must, from its connection with the argument, import. Nothing less than a oneness of power and wisdom, and of Divine resources, to contrive and exert the promised preservation, would be sufficient; and how these could exist, without a unity of essence, it remains for the opponent of Christ's Deity to illustrate and confirm. This passage, therefore, is by no means parallel with John, 17. 11, " that they may be one, as we are one," in which Christ merely alludes to that perfect unity of will, which (as well as the physical union spoken of in John, 10. 30) subsists between him and the Father.
But Mr. Mitchel has endeavored to nullify this interpretation of the phrase, " I and my Father are one," which we have shewn, from its connection with the preceding context, by a reference to the verses which follow, which he alludes to in this objection, and has quoted as far as to the 36th verse, in page 136. How far he is justified in this will be seen by a reference to the circumstances of the narrative in question, viz.:
While Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch, the Jews came up to him to enquire whether he was really the Christ? Our Lord answered, that he had told them before—referred them to his miraculous works, as an evidence of the fact—declared the reason of their not believing, to be, because they were not his sheep, adding, that as no one was able to pluck his sheep out of his Father's hand, so no one could pluck them out of his hands, because he and his Father were one. Upon this, the Jews, understanding him to claim the prerogatives of Deity, as is evident from their own words, in the 33d verse, "because thou, being a man makes thyself God," were proceeding to execute upon him the sentence of their law against blasphemy, by taking up stones to stone him. Our Lord then proceeds to justify, himself in making the declaration which had given them so much offence, " that he and his Father are one," which he does from the 35th to the 38th verses, which consist of two parts—first, an argument a fortiori, in verses 35 and 36, to justify his assertion that God was his Father—and, secondly, an explanation of the sense in which he and his Father were one, with a reference to the testimony by which his veracity was established, in verses 37 and 38. His argument, a fortiori, is this—" if the appellation of God is given to those who had no other claim to the title than that to them the word of God came, how can you deem it presumption, much less blasphemy, in me, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, to say that I am the Son of God?"—(which is the same as calling God his Father.) And his explanation of the sense in which he and his Father were one is contained in the 38th verse: " The Father is in me, and I in him."
Upon hearing this explanation, the Jews were proceeding with the same violence as on his former declaration, "that he and his Father were one;" for we read, in verse 39, " therefore, they sought again to take him:" evidently shewing that his explanation had not reduced, in their minds, the high import of his former statement, but had kept it up to the very same standard of interpretation, as implying a unity of essence with the Father. Now, here was the opportunity for Christ, plainly and definitely, to disclaim the Divine honors he had assumed, if Mr. Mitchel's system he correct. But did he do so? HE DID NOT; although, if he were not entitled to the dignity he assumed, every principle of piety, of duty, and of Christian charity, demanded such a statement as could not be misunderstood; for, read the 39th verse—" therefore, they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hands;" evidently leaving his last declaration, " the Father is in me, and I in him," to explain his former assertion, that " he and his Father were one."
The question, then, is reduced to this: What is the nature of that oneness of Christ with the Father, which is explained by the declaration, " the Father is in me, and I in the Father?" And to ascertain its import, we refer you to the following detail:—
John, 1. 18, " The only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father."
John, 5. 19, " What things soever the Father doeth these doeth the Son likewise."
John, 5. 21, " As the Father raises up the dead, and quickened them, even so the Son quickened whom he will."
John, 5. 23, " That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father: he that honored not the Son, honored not the Father which hath sent him."
John, 5. 26, " As the Father hath life in himself, so bath he given to the Son to have life in himself."
John, 10. 15, " As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father."
John, 14. 9, " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
John, 16. 15, " All things that the Father hath are mine."
John, 17. 5, " And now, oh Father 1 glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
From these passages, and many others which could be adduced, it is clearly established, that the oneness of Christ with the Father consists in a communion of affection, power, knowledge, worship and glory, with the Father; and these involve a perfect identity of nature.
But, even admitting that the declaration, " I and my Father are one," refers only to a unity of design, it still affords an argument nearly, if not entirely, as strong for our Savior’s Supreme Deity. For would it not be the greatest presumption in a creature to put himself on a par with his Creator, by saying that a unanimity of opinion existed between them? And was it so far possible that Christ (as inferior to the Deity) could have counteracted the intentions of his Father, in reference to the security of his people, as to render it necessary for Him to say that he and his Father entertained a unity of sentiment upon the subject? The declaration would be both presumptuous and absurd, if uttered by a created and finite being.
To Col. 2. 9—" In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" upon which Mr. Mitchel says—" That is, probably, that the Son of God, in human nature, was the fullest display that could be given of the Divine Attributes in a bodily form. But whatever this may mean, it must all be referred to the good pleasure of the Father Almighty; Far it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,' And we cannot F 2 suppose that the Apostle meant that all Christians should become Gods, when he prays that they may be filled with all the fulness of God.'" (p. 142.)
ANSWER.
The only intelligible meaning which we can attach to Mr. Mitchel's explanation of this passage, " that the Son of God, in human nature, was the fullest display that could be given of the Divine attributes in a bodily form," is to receive it as an express, though, of course, unintentional, assertion of his Deity. For what more does any Trinitarian believe, than that the Son of God possessed the Divine attributes in his own person; and, when he became incarnate, gave such a display of these attributes, in his human nature, as to justify the declaration, that he was " God manifest in the flesh?"
But this passage requires no commentary, in order to shew that it clearly asserts the Deity of Christ, as is evident from the amazing amplitude and distinctness of phraseology which the Apostle adopts. The term " fulness" is used in Scripture to denote plenty, or abundance, or all that is possessed by the thing spoken of (as in Rom. 11. 25, 15. 29.) The meaning of the expression " bodily" may be ascertained by a reference to the 17th verse of this chapter, in which the term " body" is placed in contrast with the typical character of the Jewish ordinances, "which were a shadow of things to come;" it therefore means " actually," "really," "substantially," as if he had said that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt really in Christ, in opposition to the partial and symbolic residence of the glory of God in the ark. The term for "Godhead," in the original, is the very strongest term which the Greek language could afford to designate the abstract essence and nature of Deity.—And the expression " dwelleth" denotes a permanent inhabitation, in opposition, for instance, to the transient manifestation of God's glory between the cherubim; so that the declaration, that in Christ " DWELLETH ALL the FULNESS of the GODHEAD BODILY," is one of the strongest and most emphatic assertions of his Deity to be found in Scripture.
But Mr. Mitchel has instituted two arguments to destroy the force of this passage:—" Whatever," says he, "this may mean, it must all be referred to the good pleasure of the Father Almighty; for 'it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.' " The passage alluded to occurs in Col. 1. 19, and will it be credited by the reader, that the term " Father," upon which, the entire force of his argument is based, has been gratuitously inserted by our English translators, and does not occur in the original? The literal rendering of the Greek is, " For in him all fulness pleased to dwell;" which is evidently a figurative mode of asserting, that "in him all fulness dwells." But Mr. Mitchel's object in making this reference was obviously to imply, that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ only by communication or concession from the Father Almighty—which is impossible; for if, as we have shewn, "all the fulness of the Godhead" imports the aggregate of all the essential attributes which constitute the abstract nature and essence of Deity, these could not be the subject of communication—they could only dwell in Christ (i.e., as to his Divine nature) by virtue of his being really and truly God.
The other argument which he has advanced to nullify the force of this passage is an assumption of its parallelism with Eph. 3. 19—" We cannot suppose," says he, " that the Apostle meant that all Christians should become Gods, when he prays that they may be filled with all the fulness of God." Now, will it be again credited by the reader, that the entire force of this argument also rests upon a mistranslation of a preposition in the original Greek: if you revert to the original, you will find that the Apostle does not even intimate that believers could be filled with all the fulness of God. The correct translation of the passage is—" that ye may be filled towards, or unto, all the fulness of God;" in which he exhibits the fulness, or supreme perfection of Deity, as the ultimate object and model towards which they were to approximate (as far as finite beings could) by a progressive acquisition and expansion of the several graces which he had before enumerated: but he by no means intended to convey an idea that they could be filled with all the fulness of God; for, after all their attainment of Christian virtues, still their moral beauty will be but a shadow of the sublime amplitude of Jehovah's glory—and the infinite distance between the character of the Creator and of his creatures will forever be preserved. Need we add, that his exhibiting " the fulness of God," as a model to guide Christians in their endeavors to accumulate holiness, is in perfect consistency with other commands of Scripture—such as, " Be ye holy, as God is holy," " Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
But may I here take the liberty to protest, most strongly, against the principles by which our opponents conduct their reasonings against the Supreme Deity of Christ? When the original Greek appears to be more in their favor than our English translation, they are ready enough to take advantage of it by a reference to the original (as is evident from their criticisms upon 1. Tim. 3. 16, and Acts, 20. 28, etc.); but when an inaccuracy or ambiguity occurs in our English version, which gives a semblance of support to their sentiments, whilst the original is against them, they are disingenuous enough to argue from the very incorrectness of the translation, with as much confidence and unconcern as if the principles of their reasoning were perfectly legitimate (as, for instance, in the arguments connected with the present objection, and others which we shall have occasion to notice.) I mention this in order to guard my readers against it; and I cannot avoid remarking, that the advocates of a cause which requires such support must feel deeply conscious of its weakness.
To Phil. 2. 6—" Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" upon which he remarks:—" The only expression in Scripture which seems to claim for Christ an equality with God is this. Our Lord's previous and positive disavowal of any such claim might lead us to expect some inaccuracy in the translation here. The Apostle is exhorting Christians to humility and lowliness of mind, by the example of Christ; and, according to the present rendering, the attitude in which our Lord is presented, of claiming equality with God, would seem unfavorable to his argument. But the passage may, without violence, be rendered thus—' Thought it not robbery to be like unto God.' By this translation, you at once give force to the Apostle's reasoning, and reconcile the expression to the general teaching of Scripture. If it were the doctrine of Scripture, or of this passage, that Christ is the Supreme God, what meaning would there be in the declarations, that he was in the form of God?—or thought it not robbery to be equal with God? In what sense could the Most High and immutable God make himself of no reputation,' and become obedient unto death?'—or who is Me God that could' exalt him?' —or where was the room for his exaltation to higher degrees of glory than he always possessed?" (p. 145.)
ANSWER.
We shall first reply to Mr. Mitchel's single criticism on this passage, and then give a paraphrase of it.
He considers that the expression which has been translated, " equal with God," might be rendered " like unto God." But what is the authority or proof which he has advanced to support this alteration?
1st. He says that " our Lord's previous and positive disavowal of an equality with God might lead us to suspect some inaccuracy in the translation here." But we reply to this, that Christ made no such disavowal, as we have already shewn in our consideration of Objection 16; so that this remark is nothing less than a petitio pincipii, or an assuming as true the very question in dispute.
2d. He says, " the attitude in which our Lord is presented, of claiming equality with God, would seem unfavorable to the Apostle's argument." But to this we reply, that our Lord is not represented in any such attitude, as we shall presently shew; and that the Apostle's argument is derived from the fact, that " he made himself of no reputation." The assertion, " that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God," is made as a preface to his argument, to render it more forcible by the contrast it affords between his previous dignity and subsequent condescension.
But the Greek word, which is translated " equal with," could not be translated " like to:" it invariably signifies to be " equal to," or " on a parity with"—as, for instance, in John, 5. 18, " Making himself equal with God;" in which latter passage the adjective occurs—but in the text under consideration the adverb is used; because the idiom of the Greek language requires that the verb substantive should take the adverb, and not the adjective, in conjunction with it. And whenever the sacred writers want to express a mere similitude, or "likeness to," they invariably use a different Greek word, as may be seen on a reference to the following passages: Luke, 6. 47, Acts, 17. 29, 1. John, 3. 2, etc.
The passage, therefore, may be paraphrased thus:
Who, being in possession of all the constituent attributes of Deity, did not consider an equality with the Father as an act of presumption to which he was not legitimately entitled; yet, notwithstanding this dignity, he voluntarily humbled himself, and came into the world, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and was made in the likeness of man; and, being formed in fashion as a man, he still farther humbled himself by becoming obedient, to the extent of dying—of dying, even upon the cross: therefore, let this example of Christ be a constraining motive to induce you to cultivate lowliness of mind, and to interest yourselves for the welfare of others. And this view of the passage places the Apostle's argument in the strongest light, as the force of his reasoning depends upon the greatness of the contrast between Christ's previous state of glory and his subsequent humiliation in the flesh. If, therefore, his glory, before his incarnation, was the glory of Supreme Deity, his condescension, in humbling himself, was infinitely greater than if his previous dignity had merely consisted in being "like unto God."
But he asks—" If Christ is the Supreme God, what meaning would there he in the declaration, 'that he was in the form of God?' " To which I answer, that the expression, " form of God," denotes " in the condition or nature of God." This is the general import of the Greek word, translated "form;" and the antithesis of the passage confirms this interpretation—for as his being in the " form of a servant" denotes, when considered in reference to his history, his being really and properly a servant, so his being in " the form of God" denotes his being really and properly God.
He also asks—" In what sense could the Most High and immutable God make himself of no reputation?" To which I answer, that the proposal of such a question as this must arise altogether from his misconception of the doctrine we profess. We do not maintain that any change took place in the nature or essential properties of Deity, when the word which was God became flesh, and tabernacled amongst us. We refer the expressions, made himself of no reputation altogether to the manifestation of Christ to men: he appeared amongst them in such a condition that they despised and rejected him: or, if I might presume to illustrate the subject by a comparison, I would say, that as there is no change in the essential splendor and glory of the sun, when an eclipse takes place—so, when the manifestation of the eternal Word in the flesh produced in the view of men a temporary eclipse of the Divinity, there was no change in the essential glories of his Godhead, which Angels still continued to regard as perfect, undiminished and supreme. And in conformity with this view, we find Christ speaking of his being in Heaven at the very time when he was manifest in the flesh.—John, 3. 13.
For a reply to Mr. Mitchel's remaining questions—" Who is the God that could exalt him?" and " Where was there room for greater exaltation than he always possessed?"—it is sufficient to• refer to John, 17. 5, and to the context verses-8, 9.
Against the eternal existence of Christ, as proved from Rev. 1. 11—" I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last;" upon which he says—" This is the only passage of any weight, which has been, or can be, adduced in support of his absolute eternity—an attribute which is no where expressly claimed for him. And it may help you to understand his meaning in this passage, if you read the following—Rev. 3. 14, where he stiles himself the beginning of the creation of God;' Coll. 1. 15, where the Apostle Paul expressly calls him ' the first born of every creature;' and Rev. 1. 5, where the Apostle John denominates him ' the first begotten from the dead.' " (p. 140.)
ANSWER.
It would be difficult to produce an instance of a more precipitate criticism than the above. There are several other passages in Scripture in support of the absolute eternity of Christ, which should be answered before that doctrine can be denied, such as Micah, 5. 2, Coll. 1. 17, etc. Mr. Mitchel has altogether overlooked the important fact, that THESE WORDS, IN REV. 1. 11, ARE THE VERY SAME FORM OF EXPRESSION WHICH THE SUPREME JEHOVAH ADOPTS, IN ISAIAH, 44. 6, to designate his own eternity:—" Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts, I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST; and beside me there is no God." So, that if these words are competent to describe absolute eternity in the one instance, it will be difficult to shew why they are not sufficient to convey the same idea in the other.
But he considers that this passage may be explained by a reference to Rev. 3. 14, in which Christ is styled " the beginning of the creation of God;" intending, I suppose, to contradict his eternal existence, by adducing this latter passage, as asserting that he was the first created being whom God called into existence. But if you refer to the passage, you will find that its import in the original is, " the ruler, or the author, of the creation of God;" in which, by a figure of frequent occurrence in Scripture, the abstract term is used for the concrete; as, when Christ is styled " the way," " the truth," or " the life," the meaning is, that he is the author of the way, " the author of the truth," and " the author of spiritual life."
Nor will Coll. 1. 15, "the first born of every creature," afford any contradiction to the doctrine of Christ's eternal existence. Its connection with the succeeding verse clearly shews that it cannot mean that he was a created being:—" the first born of every creature, FOR (or BECAUSE) by him ALL things were created," etc. Here, if the word " first born" imports, as Mr. Mitchel's argument requires, that Christ was the " first created" being, how could his having created all things be any reason or proof that he was the "first created being" himself? The expression " first born" was in common use, among the Jews, to designate the chief proprietor and Lord, and in this sense it is here figuratively applied to Christ. This interpretation alone will render the sequence of the argument just, that Christ is the chief Lord and proprietor of every creature, by virtue of his having created all things.
Thus, you will see that this designation of Christ, " first and last," which is so often applied to him in the book of the Revelation, remains in full force as an argument for his eternal existence. But it also demonstrates the doctrine, that he is the ONE God with the Father, to whom the same words are applied; for two distinct beings could not each say of himself, at the same time, "I am the first and the last."
Against the omnipresence of Christ; upon which he says—" The omnipresence of Christ, in the same sense with the Father, is sought to be inferred from his own gracious promise, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' This is a most glorious and comfortable truth; a truth in which we should all most cordially rejoice. But this blessed truth may be received and rejoiced in by Christians, without ascribing the absolute omnipresence of thee Deity to our Lord Jesus Christ. His own words, John, 14. 25, These things have I spoken unto you, BEING YET PRESENT WITH YOU;' and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians, I Cor. 5. 3., / as absent in the body, but PRESENT IN THE SPIRIT and to the Colossians, 2. 5, Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit;' making all due allowance for the vast difference between the beloved Son of God and his Apostle, may lead us to understand our Lord's meaning, in this gracious promise, so as not to confound him with that Being who fills Heaven and earth by the very necessity of his nature." (p. 141.)
ANSWER.
The force of the argument from Math. 18. 20, and 28. 20, for the omnipresence of Christ, depends upon a fact which Mr. Mitchel has taken no notice of, namely, that they are analogous to passages in the Old Testament which describe the omnipresence of Jehovah. The phrase, "in the midst," occurs in Zeph. 3. 5, 15 and 17—" Jehovah is in the midst of thee;" and the promise, " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is precisely similar to the promise of Jehovah in Ex. 20. 24—" In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee." And I ask the opponent of our Savior’s Supreme Deity, how the former promise could be fulfilled by a being who does not possess the same faculty of omnipresence which alone enabled Jehovah to fulfil the latter?
But he thinks that a comparison of these passages, with others which he quotes, will shew that they cannot prove that Christ possessed the absolute omni-presence of Deity. The first passage he refers to is John, 14. 25—" these things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you," which evidently refers to his bodily presence, and WHICH REFUTES THE VERY ARGUMENT WHICH HE HAS BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO SUPPORT; for, by its contrast with Math. 28. 20, it proves that the promise, in the latter passage, could only be fulfilled by virtue of a Divine presence, which the Savior was able to exert.
The second passage to which he refers is the language of St. Paul—" I verily, as absent in the body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present." This merely implies that the Apostle, by an exertion of the imagination, had represented to his own mind the state in which the Corinthian Church was involved by the conduct of the person alluded to in the first verse, and which had been reported to him, and had formed his judgment accordingly, as if he were actually present. But the context of this passage suggests an invincible argument for the omnipresence of Christ. In verse 1, he says—" it is reported commonly," i.e., the Apostle's information upon the subject to which he alludes was derived from an account which had been transmitted to him by others. Now, contrast this with the language of our Savior, in his addresses to the Seven Churches in Asia, in each of which he uses phraseology which implies an immediate and personal recognition, as in Rev. 2. 2, 9, 13, and Rev. 3. 1, 8, 15--" I know thy works," etc. And how our Lord Jesus Christ could take direct cognizance of the different circumstances of the different assemblies of his people upon earth, without the faculty of omnipresence, remains for our opponents to shew.
He also refers to the language of the same Apostle to the Colossians—" Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ." In these words, the Apostle simply means that he was present with the Colossians in thought and affection, according to a mental power, which every rational being possesses, of imagining himself present to witness the prosperity of those for whom he is interested, and of feeling pleasure, though absent, in their advancement. But not one of the passages which Mr. Mitchel has advanced bears the slightest parallelism, either in sense or expression, to the promises of our Savior, from which our argument has been derived. We therefore still maintain, that neither promise could be sincerely made, except by a being who was conscious that he possessed the Divine attribute of omnipresence; and also, that as the promise in Matthew, 18. 20, is precisely the same with that of Jehovah in Ex. 20. 24, any position, advanced to overthrow the argument derived from one, must, by a parity of reasoning, invalidate the argument derived from the other.
Against the omnipotence of Christ, upon which he says—", I can do all things,' saith Me Apostle, through Christ strengthening me.' In a similar sense, but, doubtless, in a much higher degree, our blessed Lord may be said to do all things, through the great power conferred on him of the Father. But those passages, which are thought to attribute omnipotence to Christ, ought certainly to be understood in such a sense as not to contradict his own positive declarations, when he tells us that 'to sit on his right hand, and on his left, is not his to give;' and that all the powers he possessed high and inconceivable as they may be to us, were nevertheless given him of the Father."' (p. 142.)
ANSWER.
The method in which Mr. Mitchel has argued against our Savior’s possession of the Supreme attributes of Deity is truly surprising. In reasoning, for instance, against his omnipresence, he contrasted the language of the Apostle, " though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit," with the words of Christ—" where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Now, the only argument, upon this comparison, which could answer his purpose, would be to maintain, that the two passages are precisely equivalent in sense and expression, and that, therefore, as the words of the Apostle could not demonstrate his omnipresence, so neither could the promise of our Savior prove his omnipresence; but; in the very paragraph in which he drew the comparison between the two texts, he destroys the principle which could alone render his reasoning just and legitimate, by saying that he makes "all due allowance for the vast difference between the beloved Son of Cod and his Apostle." His reasoning, also, against the omnipotence of our Savior possesses the very same anomaly: he quotes, for instance, the words of the Apostle, "I can do all things through Christ, which strengthened me."—Now, his reasoning from this passage should evidently be, that we might as well prove the omnipotence of Paul from it, as the omnipotence of Christ from those passages which we had advanced to demonstrate that doctrine; but, instead of openly stating this argument, he altogether destroys any force which he may have attached to it by the concession which he immediately makes: " In a similar sense, but doubtless in a much higher degree, our blessed Lord may be said to do all things, through the great power conferred on him of the Father."
This passage, therefore, according to Mr. Mitchel's own admission, is of much lower import than any which can be advanced in support of Christ's capability to do all things. 'When the Apostle says, "I can do all things," he immediately adds, " through Christ, which strengthened me,"—thereby shewing, that he merely means that he can do all things which Christ's strengthening might enable him to do. This text, therefore, affords to us a valuable evidence of the great confidence which the Apostle reposed in the omnipotence of Christ.
But, he says, "all the powers which Christ possessed were, given him of the Father:" this we freely admit, understanding the word " power" in the sense of " authority;" for it is part of our system to believe, that all the authority which Christ, As MEDIATOR, possessed, was derived from the Father, who sanctioned and superintended the discharge of his official undertaking. But the Son of God must have possessed in himself every capability requisite for the discharge of that office, before he undertook it; for, if it was requisite for the Deity to confer ability, as well as authority, upon the Mediator, any created being might have been selected as well as the only begotten Son of God. And thus, when the Apostle speaks of our Savior’s discharge of one of the most difficult parts of his Mediatorial office, he recognizes his inherent and personal power to achieve it—" who shall change our vile bodies, according to that mighty working whereby HE IS ABLE (not he is made able) to subdue ALL things to himself." But our arguments are advanced to prove that Christ possessed power in the sense of omnipotence: these arguments are based upon many passages of Scripture which Mr. Mitchel has not adverted to, especially upon those in which he is declared to have created all things. Now, omnipotence could not have been given to him, as a distinct being, by the Father; for the existence of two distinct omnipotent beings is a manifest impossibility. If Christ be omnipotent, he must be ONE GOD WITH THE FATHER.
But further—be says that those passages which are thought to attribute absolute omnipotence to Christ ought certainly to be understood in such a sense as not to contradict his own positive declaration, " that to sit on his right hand, and on his left, is not his to give."—To this it is easy to answer, with much more plausibility, that as this is the only instance which can be advanced, in which our Savior appears to disclaim omnipotence, and that as the passages which we adduce to prove his possession of that attribute are many, this one declaration ought certainly to be understood in such a sense as not to contradict the other numerous testimonies of Scripture, which prove his omnipotence. But as he has elsewhere commented upon these words of Christ, and as they are supposed to contain a strong argument against the doctrine we maintain, I shall consider them as the subject of a distinct objection.
Against the omnipotence of Christ, from Math. 20. 23—" When the mother of Zebedee' s children came to Jesus, and besought him to grant that her two sons might sit, one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom, here was his reply—' To sit on my right hand, and on my left, IS NOT MINE TO GIVE; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.' I ask you here, is anyone able to suppose that our Lord designed, by these words, to represent himself as equal in power to the Father? It is not his to give; the Father had reserved it to himself. Could the fact of his subordination to the Father be more plainly or unequivocally taught?" (p. 98.)
ANSWER.
His argument from this passage is most unfairly based upon a mistranslation. The words, "it shall be given," have been gratuitously inserted by the translators, without any warrant from the original, which should be thus expressed—" To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, BUT TO THEM for whom it has been prepared of my Father." The inserted words are printed, in our English version, in Italics, in order to shew this, but Mr. Mitchel, in his quotation of the passage, has neglected this precaution.
Now, when we examine the circumstances under which our Savior made this declaration, we shall find nothing in it to contradict the doctrine of his omnipotence, or to prove his subordination, in his abstract condition, to the Father. Mr. Mitchel, for instance, believes in the omnipotence of the Supreme God; but, at the same time, he must believe that he cannot do anything inconsistent with his own character, or with those principles of unswerving rectitude by which his moral government is controlled. The Supreme Deity, therefore, might say that he CANNOT dispense the glories and prerogatives of Heaven to those who aspire to their enjoyment from mere motives of unrighteous ambition, without compromising his omnipotence, or giving occasion to his creatures to question his possession of that attribute. Now, this is precisely the character of the circumstance which is here brought under the cognizance of the Redeemer: the request, to " sit upon his right hand, and on his left," was evidently, from his comments in the 22d and 26th verses, made through ignorance and presumptuous ambition; it was, therefore, by no means inconsistent with his Deity to reply, as he did, that it was not his to dispense the dignities of his kingdom upon those who were actuated by such motives in soliciting them; that his Father had arranged the principles upon which these dignities were to be conferred; and that, as He and his Father were one, the same principles must guide them both.
And, in conclusion, this passage must be so understood; for our Savior elsewhere asserts the very prerogative which our opponents pretend that he here disclaims, as in Rev. 3. 21—" To him that overcomes WILL I GRANT to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne."
That the miracles of Christ do not prove his Deity or omnipotence; upon which he says:—" The miracles of our Lord have been adduced by some, in proof not merely of his Divinity, but of his Supreme Godhead; but Christ never adduced them, save in proof that the Father hash sent him. It has been asserted, too, that Christ performed all his miracles of himself, of his own uncle-rived powers, whereas Christ tells you no such thing. On the contrary, he tells you that he did nothing of himself, and that all power was given him of the Father." (p.10 4. ) And again: "I should no more think of proving his Divine nature by his miraculous works, than I would think of setting about, by the same rule, to prove the Divinity of Moses and the Prophets, under the old dispensation, or that of the Apostles of Christ, under the new." (p. 29.)
ANSWER.
The comparison here instituted between the miracles of the Prophets and Apostles, and those of our Savior, will be found, on examination, to he totally untenable. Whenever any of the Prophets wrought a miracle, they were scrupulously careful to attribute the power to God. The miracles of Moses are referred to; but when we advert to their history, we will find that he is represented as merely a subordinate instrument, through whom THE DEITY performed them, and that, in every particular instance, he received a special communication and direction from the Most High. Nor was he regarded in any other point of view by Pharaoh; for he never supposed that Moses himself could avert any one of the plagues with which he was visited—but his language was, " intreat the Lord, that HE MAY TAKE AWAY the plague from me and my people." And when, on one occasion, Moses and Aaron affected, through inconsiderate passion, to perform a miracle in such a manner as did not sanctify the Lord before the children of Israel, but seemed to shew that the power resided in themselves, they were excluded from the land of promise, as a punishment for their presumption.—(Numbers, 20. 12.) But there is something still more remarkable in the manner in which the Apostles performed their miracles; they not only carefully disclaimed the possession of any inherent efficacy in themselves, " as though, by their own power or holiness," they had achieved them (Acts, 3. 12), but they attributed the miracles they wrought to the power of Christ. How remarkable, for instance, is the language of Peter and John to the lame man, at the door of the temple—" In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise up and walk"—(Acts, 3. 6); and that of Peter to Eneas—" Jesus Christ makes thee whole" —( Acts, 9. 31); language which would have been unmeaning and absurd, if Christ did not possess that Almighty power which was necessary for the performance of the miracles referred to?
But, on the other hand, when we examine the narrative of our Savior’s miracles, we shall find that he invariably performed them in a manner which would have been a presumptuous intrusion upon the powers and prerogatives of Deity, if he did not possess an inherent and personal ability. When the woman of Canaan cried unto him, saying, " have mercy on me, thou son of David," the prayer implied a recognition, on her part, of his being able, in himself, to confer the blessing she solicited; and our Savior’s reply, " oh woman! great is thy faith—be it unto thee, even as thou wilt," conveys an admission, on his part, that her sentiments were correct (Math. 15. 21, 28.) His enquiry to the blind men, "believe ye that I AM ABLE to do this?" (Math. 9. 27, 30) is also a strong evidence of his inherent capability. Observe, also, the narrative in Mark 1. 40, 41, of a leper who came and said unto him, " IF THOU WILT, THOU CANST make me clean," upon which Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and said unto him, "I WILL: be thou clean." And the most stupendous of all miracles, his own resurrection, he attributes to his own agency—" destroy this temple, and I WILL RAISE IT UP in three days." We could adduce many other examples to the same effect; but these are a sufficient evidence of the Son of God possessing, in himself, underived and independent power; for can it be supposed that either Christ himself would not have been as solicitous for the honor of the Supreme Jehovah as the Prophets or Apostles, and as equally cautious, in each of these cases alluded to, to correct the false sentiments which the different applicants entertained of his ability?—or that the Most High, who will not surrender his glory to another, would have given sanction to a creature aspiring to the omnipotence of Godhead?
The miracles of our Savior are, however, as well as the creation and other works of Deity, indifferently ascribed to the Three Persons, between whom there is a communion, or rather a oneness, of operation. Thus, the Father is said to have performed them in John, 14. 10—the Holy Spirit in Math. 12. 28; and the remarks we have made shew that they were performed by an independent power residing in the Son—for as the Three Persons constitute one Omnipotent Being, it is perfectly indifferent to which any of the works of Godhead are ascribed. Mr. Mitchel has argued from the words of our Savior in John, 5. 19, "the Son can do nothing of himself," that Christ did not possess an independent power in himself. But, I ask, is it fair to derive an argument not merely from part of a verse, but from part of a sentence, and to omit the remaining part altogether, so as to conceal from view the real mind of the Spirit? The entire verse is this—" Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, BUT WHAT HE SEETH THE FATHER DO; FOR WHAT THINGS SOEVER HE BOTH, THESE ALSO DOTH THE SON LIKEWISE:" in which words he claims a perfect identity of operation with his Father as unequivocally as language can express; for the connection of the former clause of the verse with the remainder proves its meaning to be this—" that the Son, being one with the Father, can do nothing separately from him." And how, I would ask, could a created being, or one subordinate to the Supreme God, adopt such language as this without the most presumptuous blasphemy? Let the experiment, for instance, be tried of putting these words into the mouth of a Prophet, and let us imagine Moses to have addressed Pharaoh in such language as this—" Verily, verily, I say unto you, I can do nothing of myself, but what I see the Supreme God do—for what things soever he doeth, these I do likewise; for as the Supreme God raises up the dead, and quickened them, even so I, Moses, quicken whom I will." We feel at once that the supposition is monstrous and absurd; nor would it lose any of its force, if applied to the highest created being that exists, who still stands at an immeasurable distance from the glorious and infinite character of him that sits upon the throne. How inconsistent, then, with the word of God must that system be which would render such a supposition not only allowable, but just?
But Mr. Mitchel remarks, that the manner in which our Savior performed the miracle of raising Lazarus is a proof that he did not possess the necessary power in himself—" When he raised Lazarus from the grave, he acknowledged his miraculous power from on high—' I thank thee, oh Father! that thou has heard me.' " But read the following words, and they will shew that the object of our Savior, in presenting an address to Heaven, was, in order that the miracle might be efficacious in convincing his Apostles, and the multitude standing by—" I knew that thou hears me always, but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they might believe that thou hast sent me;" for by thus publicly appealing to, and connecting himself with, the omnipotence of Heaven, he could best refute the declarations of those who attributed his miracles to infernal agency. But he had power in himself, equally with the Father, to raise, not only Lazarus, but whomsoever else he would, as he declares in John, 5. 22—" For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickened them, even so the Son quickened whom HE WILL." And this remark will equally account for any other instance in which he addressed himself to his Father, on the occasion of performing a miracle.
These remarks, I trust, contain a full and sufficient reply to Mr. Mitchel's objections against the argument we derive from the miracles of Christ. I must here, however, take notice of an error which Mr. Mitchel has frequently fallen into, that of misrepresenting our sentiments, by confounding the Deity and the humanity of Christ. We do not, for instance, suppose that the MAN, Christ Jesus, possessed in himself an underived and independent power to perform miracles; the power he exerted was in him by virtue of his connection with Deity; and the works he achieved were, as we have shewn, a sufficient evidence, that " in him dwelt ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily," according to his own expressions, which are of a similar import—" Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me, for the very works' sake."—John, 14. 11.
Against the omniscience of Christ: upon which he says—" That our blessed Lord knows what is done in the Churches, and that he searches the hearts of the children of men, is the undoubted doctrine of the Gospel; but if, by such representations, you think you can establish his absolute omniscience, you may, by the same rule, as well prove the omniscience, not only of his Apostles, who had the faculty of discerning spirits,' but of all Christians, whom the Apostle John thus describes:— Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.' Such expressions are not to be understood according to the letter." (p. 141.)
ANSWER.
In reference to the statement of the Apostle in 1. John, 2. 20—" Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,"—it is sufficient to say, that the word " all" is evidently explained by the connection in which it stands with the remainder of the sentence: "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things;" i.e., ye know all things of which the unction from the Holy One communicates the knowledge.
There is no instance whatever, in Scripture, of the Apostles possessing the faculty of "discerning spirits by an underived and independent power;" for, unless that be maintained, there can be no parallel supposed between them and the Lord Jesus Christ. There is mention made, in 1. Cor. 12. 10, of a " faculty of discerning spirits" which the primitive Christians possessed; but it is mentioned as one of the gifts of the Spirit of God, who imparted it to whomsoever he would, to be exercised occasionally for the general ben fit of the Church. There can, in short, be no instance adduced, from the word of God, of any man possessing an independent knowledge of the human heart, which embraced an acquaintance with all the thoughts of all men generally, and without limitation.
Mr. Mitchel has made a concession, in his statement of the preceding objection, which, I conceive, if he could consistently do so, he would be glad to retract. " That our blessed Lord," says he, " searches the hearts of the children of men is the undoubted doctrine of the Gospel." In this short sentence, he has virtually admitted the Supreme Deity of Christ. To search the hearts of the children of men is the unquestionable prerogative of the Supreme God. Thus, we read in 1. Kings, 8. 39—" For thou, even thou only, knows the hearts of all the children of men;" 1. Chron. 28. 9—" Jehovah searches all hearts;" Psalm, 44. 21—" Shall not God search this out, for he knows the very secrets of the heart?" Therefore, as Mr. Mitchel admits that " Christ searches the hearts of the children of men, he must, by an inference which he cannot evade, admit that be is the Supreme God, whose prerogative alone it is to do so.
But there is a still more irresistible argument than even this, for the omniscience and Supreme Deity of Christ—viz.: the Supreme Jehovah, in Jer. 17. 9, 10, makes the following challenge to all the rational inhabitants of the universe—" The heart is deceitful, above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Can there be found in Scripture a more emphatic and unequivocal declaration, that it is exclusively in the power of the Supreme God to search the heart, than this, in which JEHOVAH. HIMSELF is the speaker? And can you, for one moment, suppose that any created being would be guilty of such monstrous blasphemy as to apply to himself this language of the Deity? And yet, if you turn to Rev. 2. 23, you will find the Son of God applying this very language to himself—" And all the Churches shall know that I AM HE WHICH searches the reins and hearts; and I WILL GIVE unto every one of you according to your works." This is a direct and manifest quotation of the passage in Jeremiah, as spoken by the Supreme Jehovah; and observe, that our Lord does not merely say, " that I search," but he says, "that I am he which searches," thereby, as expressly as human language can allow, identifying himself with the Supreme God, who is represented as the speaker in the passage in Jeremiah.—What need, then, have we of any further evidence for the omniscience and Godhead of the Savior? It appears to me, that those who can imagine such language to have been used by a created being are virtually justifying the presumption and blasphemy of Antichrist, " who opposes and exalted himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sits in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2. Thess. 2. 4.
Against the omniscience of Christ, from Mark, 13. 32:—" Our Lord himself, however extensive his knowledge, positively disavows omniscience, in the same sense with the Father, when he tells us that he knows not of the day and hour of judgment, which are known to the Father only." (p. 142.)
ANSWER.
The entire passage is as follows:—" But of that day and hour knows no man—no, not the Angels which are in Heaven—neither the Son, but the Father;"—to the objection from which we thus reply:
That this must refer to the human nature of Christ; for we have sufficient evidence, from Scripture, to show that, in reference to his Divine nature, his knowledge was co-extensive with the Father's: we read, for instance, in Math. 11. 27—" No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son;" and in John, 10. 15—" As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father;" and, as we have shewn in our answer to the last objection, Christ identifies himself, in Rev. 2. 23, with the Supreme God, who asserts absolute omniscience in Jer. 17. 9, 10.
It refers to his human nature; because it was on account of his possession of that nature that he was appointed by the Father to execute the judgment to which the passage alludes. It is also said, in Luke, 2. 52, that one of the essential characteristics of Christ's nature, as a man, was a capability of a progressive advancement in knowledge: " Jesus increased in wisdom." For, although we maintain the Supreme Deity of the Savior, we are not absurd enough to suppose that the incommunicable attributes of his Deity could be imparted to his human nature; for, as we believe him to have been really and truly man (that is, to have possessed all the essential attributes of humanity), as well as really and truly God (that is, to have possessed all the essential attributes of Deity), if we believed that the peculiar attributes of his Godhead were communicated to his human nature, we should be obliged to maintain the absurdity, that the man Christ Jesus was both finite and infinite in power, extension and knowledge, at the same time I But, as we believe that he did not possess omnipresence, or eternal existence, as to his human nature, we do not consider it a greater difficulty to find that he did not possess omniscience in the same respect. It is, in fact, no part of the Trinitarian's creed to suppose, that the spiritual principle of the eternal Word was resident in the human body of Christ, as a soul, to guide and actuate that body—for we do not believe that the infinite faculties of Deity could dwell in a finite and circumscribed residence; but the argument which Mr. Mitchel has derived from this passage is founded upon a supposition, that our doctrine teaches that the properties of Christ's Divine nature were necessarily communicated to his human nature.—THIS PASSAGE, THEREFORE, SO FAR FROM BEING AN OBJECTION AGAINST THE SUPREME DEITY OF THE SAVIOUR, IS PART OF THE SCRIPTURAL MATERIAL BY WHICH WE PROVE THAT HE POSSESSED A REAL AND PROPER HUMANITY.
There is, then, no greater difficulty in answering this objection against the omniscience of Christ, than in answering his declaration upon another occasion—" Now, I am no more with you," if advanced as an objection against his omnipresence. Both should be met by drawing a distinction between his Divine and human nature. The plausibility of the objection from Mark, 13. 32, rests upon an assumption of our opponents, that our Lord never asserts of himself, without an expressed limitation, what is only true in reference to his nature, partially considered; an assumption which is not warranted by Scripture, as there are examples to the contrary. For instance, Christ asserts of himself, without any limitation whatever—" Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always,"—an assertion which is only true in reference to his human nature, as he elsewhere says, " I am with you always, even to the end of the world." The inference is obvious, and strengthens the explanation we have already given, that as he has asserted, without any express limitation, what is only true in reference to his human nature, when he says that he would not be with his disciples always, so, by analogy, he also asserts what is only true in reference to his human nature, when he says that he was ignorant of the day and hour of judgment. And the analogy is complete, because we have texts to prove the omniscience of Christ, as to his Divine nature, as strong as those by which his omnipresence is established.
Against the Deity of Christ, from Math. 19. 16—" And behold, one came and said unto him, good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why calls thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God."—Upon which Mr. Mitchel says—" Could any mind, except a mind accustomed to take its instructions from some other teacher, imagine that our Lord intended, in these words, to represent himself as the Supreme God, or as on a footing of equality with the Supreme God? On the contrary, it appears to me, and, I think, will to a plain, unprejudiced mind, that he intended to convey a meaning directly the reverse. If Christ were himself the Supreme God, or equal to the Supreme God, how should we account for the distinction, so strongly and unequivocally marked in the words before us, between himself and that God?" (p. 75.)
ANSWER.
The inference which is drawn from this passage, that Christ disclaims the appellation " good," and therefore the title " God," is unjust. It might as fairly be asserted that he disclaims the title, " Son of David," in proposing the following question to the Jews—" If David, then, call him Lord, how is he his son?"
It is evident, from the preceding context, that he proposed this question to the young man, in consequence of the stile in which he had addressed him. He had spoken to him merely as an ordinary human teacher, in language similar to that in which the Jews were accustomed to address the Doctors of their law (Math. 23. 7), and it was inconsistent in one who entertained no higher view of his character to have applied to him an epithet which should have been appropriated to God alone. It was, therefore, as natural for our Savior to enquire of one who held incorrect views of his person—" why calls thou me good?"—as it was to ask the Jews, under circumstances of a similar kind—" If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" And his object, in both cases, was precisely the same—namely, to excite an enquiry, in the minds of those to whom he spoke, into his real character and dignity. But there is nothing in the construction of this passage which could warrant the inference, that our Savior considered the epithet "good" as too high for him; unless we should either allow to our opponents the benefit of a petito prireipii, that he was not God, or permit them to supply an ellipsis, so as to read the question of our Savior thus—" Why tallest thou me good?—/ am not good; there is none good but one, that is God." But although either of these methods would be perfectly congenial with the principles of interpretation which the adversaries of Christ's Deity usually assume, we are not disposed to concede them.
Against the argument for the Deity of Christ, derived from his being the creator of the world, upon which he says—" The Scripture clearly teaches us to regard Christ as a being next in power and glory to the Supreme God, who has been employed as the highly-honored agent of God in the creation of the world."—(p. 149.)
ANSWER.
1. This is a most gratuitous assertion, and could only rest upon a belief that the Supreme God was incapable of active power, and required the assistance of a created being—which would, in fact, amount to this, that God was not the creator of the world at all, since Christ would, on this hypothesis, be represented as doing and executing everything, as the AGENT.
2. There is no allusion whatever in Scripture to the interposition of a subordinate agent in the work of creation. In the narrative given by Moses, God is represented as the immediate cause: " God said, let there be light." What then?—did an agent interfere to execute the command? Decidedly not: " God said, let there be light, and there was light." The following passages likewise represent the Supreme God as the only efficient and direct creator of the universe: Job, 9. 8—" Which alone spreads out the heavens." Psalm, 33. 9—" For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Isaiah, 44. 24—." Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am Jehovah that makes all things—that stretches forth the heavens alone—that spreads abroad the earth, by myself" And Isaiah, 45. 12—" I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." This language would be totally unaccountable, on the supposition that God employed an inferior created being as his minister and agent in the great work of creation.
3. It would be totally impossible that a created being could he employed as the agent of the Creator; for what influence could he have, or what advantage could he be? The very idea of creation implies the nonexistence of any pre-existent matter; and therefore, there would be nothing which the finite powers of a created being could act upon.
And further, I ask, whether it was a finite or an infinite power which Christ, considered as the agent of the Deity, employed in creating all things? If I am told that he exerted an infinite power, the answer is either a concession of his Supreme Deity, or it blasphemously deifies a creature, by ascribing to him an incommunicable perfection of the Supreme Jehovah: or, if I am told that he exerted a finite power, I reply, that this would be insufficient to achieve so stupendous a work as to give being to what before had none.
4. The force of the Apostle's argument, in Rom. 1. 20, would be destroyed by the supposition that a finite being was the immediate agent in the work of creation: —" For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." His argument is, that the creation displays to the view of men a demonstrative proof of the eternal power and godhead (or of the eternity, power and godhead) of the Creator; but this argument loses its entire force, if a being, who possessed no such eternal power and Godhead, could have been the ostensible agent in such a work.
Christ, therefore, could not, as a subordinate and created being, have acted as the agent of the Deity in the work of creation. Hence, his Supreme Deity necessarily follows, for " he that built all things is God"—Heb. 3. 4. And Christ is represented as having made all things: " for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible; whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by him, and for him."—Coll. 1. 16.
Against the argument for the Deity of Christ, from his being appointed Judge, upon which he says—" Christ's high office, as the 'Judge of the world, is supposed to ascertain the fact of his Supreme Deity.—There is one sense in which God himself is Judge, and there is another in which the Son of God is Judge; and they are both comprehended and explained by the Apostle, where he says, in Rom. 2. 16—' In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ.' Remember what he himself says to his Disciples, Math. 19. 28—' Ye, which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' This, doubtless, is to be understood in a sense quite subordinate to the judgment of Christ. But remember, also, what he hath said of himself, that all judgment is committed to him of the Father—and what the Apostle has said of him, that he is ordained of God to be judge of the quick and the dead.' And we may rest assured, that lie who hath appointed him to that high, interesting, and glorious office, has given him all powers, has communicated to him all capabilities necessary to the full and perfect discharge of it." (p. 144.)
ANSWER.
Upon this objection, I offer the following remarks There is no mention whatever of the Supreme God having communicated to Christ (considered as a finite and created being) any capability to enable him to execute judgment. It is said, indeed, that God the Father " hath given him authority to execute judgment;" but authority and capability are two very different things.
An appointment to act in any delegated capacity merely communicates a right or title, but cannot convey any new or extraordinary qualification. Suppose, for instance, the King of England were to appoint an unlettered peasant to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, would the commission impart to him a qualification to discharge the duties of that office? Surely not. And this principle is true in reference to the proceedings of the Almighty. We find him, for instance, making use of the ministry of Angels and of men in conducting the purposes of his ordinary and ecclesiastical Providence, but we do not find a single case in which he has employed them in any service to which the mental and moral powers which they had previously possessed were not fully adequate and sufficient; and whenever any department of his administration required an exertion of such capacities as belonged to Deity alone, the Scriptures invariably represent him as executing that particular office by an immediate interposition, as in the case of the promulgation of the law on Sinai.
3. It cannot require any lengthened reasoning to prove, that the final Judge of mankind must possess such qualifications as are essential to Deity alone. He must have Divine majesty, to give grandeur and solemnity to the proceedings.—He must have omnipotence, to raise the dead—to regulate the details of investigation, and to award to all their final destiny. —He must have omniscience, to enable him to expose every attempt to conceal—every effort at evasion—" to bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and to make manifest the counsels of the hearts."—And he must exhibit, in his own person, the moral rectitude and unswerving justice of the Supreme Governor of the universe, in order to give a decisive verdict, to command an instant acquiescence, and to prevent the expectation of any ulterior appeal to a being superior to the Judge. On the other hand, the system which Mr. Mitchel advocates would represent a finite and . created being,—subordinate, and therefore infinitely inferior, to the Supreme Jehovah, who once had no existence, who is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, nor absolutely good,—as appointed to be Judge of quick and dead I—How monstrous the idea I To avoid the difficulty which is connected with it, he has been obliged to add an invention of his own imagination to the statements of Scripture, and vaguely and gratuitously to suppose that God has given to Christ all "powers and capabilities necessary for the discharge of the office"—forgetting, altogether, that nothing short of the powers and capabilities of Godhead would be sufficient; and if these even could be communicated, the supposition would represent the Supreme Jehovah as deifying a creature I Christ, therefore, as the future Judge of men, must possess, in himself, every qualification requisite for the discharge of that office. But, in accommodation to the infirmities of our nature, he will not appear in his abstract character of Deity, but in his Mediatorial person and character, as "God manifest in the flesh." Whilst, therefore, we maintain that he must possess Deity, in order to have the required capabilities, it is no less true that, AS MAN AND MEDIATOR, he has received a commission from the Father to execute judgment, as well as to perform the other departments of his official undertaking.—And hence it is said, in John, 5. 27, that the Father " hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man;" and in Acts, 17. 31—that God "bath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he has ordained;" and in Rom. 2. 16—that " God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." But no man, but that One, who is alone the manifestation of the Godhead in human nature, could be appointed to this solemn and important office.
Mr. Mitchel has referred to the declaration of our Savior to his Apostles, in Math. 19. 28, in order to obviate the force of our argument for Christ's Supreme Deity, derived from those passages in which he is represented as the Judge of the world:—" Ye, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is unnecessary to offer any reply to his argument from this passage, as he himself, strange to say, has subjoined a refutation of it, by saying—" This, doubtless, is to be understood in a sense quite subordinate to the judgment of Christ." I may, however, remark, that this verse can have no reference to the day of judgment, because there is no assignment of any peculiar dignity to the Apostles alluded to in those parts of Scripture in which the proceedings of that day are minutely detailed; on the contrary, the Apostle Paul says, of all the followers of Christ, whether Apostles or not—" We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." The meaning of this verse may, perhaps, be expressed by the following paraphrase —" Verily, I say unto you, ye which have followed me, in the new state of things which Christianity shall introduce, when the Son of Man 'shall, after his ascension, be exalted to his Mediatorial throne, ye shall be appointed to high official dignity in my spiritual kingdom upon earth, to preach those doctrines by which the twelve tribes of Israel shall be judged."
In order to show the irresistible force of the argument for the Supreme Deity of the Savior, from the fact of his being exhibited in Scripture as the future Judge of mankind, we shall contrast some of the passages in which the Supreme Jehovah is spoken of as Judge with others in which Christ is described, in similar language, as Judge, viz.:
1
“I am GOD, and there is none else; I have sworn by myself; the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Isaiah, 45. 22, 23.
“We shall all stand before the judgment seat of CHRIST; for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11.
2
Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of JEHOVAH, because he cometh to judge the earth. 1. Chron. 16. 33.
For the SON OF MAN shall come, in the glory of his Father, with his Angels; and then he shall reward every man, according to his works. Math. 16. 27.
3
But JEHOVAH shall endure forever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment; and he shall judge the world in righteousness." Ps. 9. 7, 8.
When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy Angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations." Math. 25. 31, 32.
4
JEHOVAH shall judge the ends of the earth. 1. Sam. 2. 10.
The FATHER judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." John, 5. 22.
5
“Our Gon shall call to the heavens, from above, and to the earth ( that he may judge his people), gather my Saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice; and the heavens shall declare his righteousness, for God is Judge himself." Ps. 1. 4, 5, 6.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4. 16, 17.
6
Then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before JEHOVAH, for he cometh —he comes to judge the earth; he shall judge
the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth." Ps. 96. 13.
Hereafter shall ye see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven. Math. 26.61.
7
Let the hills be joyful I charge thee, therefore, together before Jehovah, for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity." Ps. 98. 8, 9.
I charge thee, therefore, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" - - - - " henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me at that day." 2. Tim. 4. 1, 8.
8
Jehovah is known by the judgment which he executes. Ps. 9. 13.
The Father hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man." John, 5. 27.
9
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before GOD and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev. 20. 12.
We must all appear before the judgment seat of CHRIST, that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad." 2. Cor. 5. 10.
10
For Gon will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil. Eccl. 12. 14.
Judge nothing before the time, until the LORD come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. 1. Cor. 4. 5.
11
I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. Jer. 17. 10.
These things said the Son of God—I am he which searches the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." Rev. 2. 18, 23.
I leave the reader to draw the obvious conclusion from this comparison.
Against Christ being exhibited as an object of worship; upon which he says:—" The only point, of any weight, that remains to be noticed, is the worship which is alleged to be given to Christ, and which, it is thought, represents him as the Supreme God. I need not remind you, that the term worship, as used in the Scriptures, does not always mean that adoration which belongs exclusively to the God and Father of all; and that its signification is limited and explained by the persons and the objects to whom it is applied. Thus, to give you one or two instances out of many: in Daniel, 2. 46, Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel „7' and in Luke, 14. 10, the words of Christ himself are, then shalt thou have worship, in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.'" (p. 146.)
ANSWER.
We are well aware that the term " worship" is frequently used by the sacred writers in a subordinate sense, as implying nothing more than civil homage and respect. Thus, the statement quoted from Dan. 2. 16 merely means that the King did reverence to Daniel, and presented such tokens of respect as were consistent with Eastern manners; and the statement in Luke, 14. 10, evidently means no more than this—" Thou shalt be honored, or highly thought of, by those who sit at meat with thee." Thus, also, in Math. 18. 26, we have another instance of this low sense of the word.
But Mr. Mitchel does not seem to have estimated the entire extent of the argument for the Deity of the Savior, which we derive from the fact, that he is regarded as the legitimate object of religious worship. In stating that argument, we use the term worship in its highest sense, as importing such homage as is exclusively appropriated to the God of heaven and earth; we use it, as comprehending every possible modification of religious worship—such as prayer, thanksgiving, benediction, doxology, tic.; and as referring to every visible form and attitude by which it can be manifested.
I must, therefore, state this argument somewhat in detail, viz.:
We have the testimony of Isaiah, that Christ was exhibited as an object of worship to the inmates of Heaven before his manifestation in the flesh. In chapter 6., we are told that the Seraphim presented the language of sublime and solemn adoration to THE LORD, whom Isaiah saw sitting upon a throne, encompassed with every appendage of Supreme Godhead. But we have the decisive testimony of the Apostle John, that this Loan was Christ: for in chapter xii„ having quoted part of the commission which had been given to Isaiah upon the occasion of the vision alluded to in the 40th verse, he immediately subjoins, in verse 41—" These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spoke of him."
During his manifestation in the flesh, he received many acts of external worship and of direct petition, under such circumstances as a created being, fully sensible of the duty which he owed to his Creator, could not consistently admit of. For instance:
Math. 8. 2—" There came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean." Mark describes it thus, chapter 1. 40—" There came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him." And Luke, 5. 12—"fell on his face, and besought him, saying," etc. Now, here we have the external attitude of worship, the presentation of a direct petition, and an admission and appeal to Christ's independent power to perform the miracle; and all this sanctioned and recognized as correct, by our Savior’s repeating the very words of the petition before the multitude, " I WILL: be thou clean."
Math. 9. 18—" There came a certain ruler and worshipped him." Luke, 8. 41—" He fell down at Jesus' feet." Here we have a similar instance of external prostration and prayer to Christ, and a similar reception of it on his part.
Math. 14. 33—" They that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God."
Math. 15. 25—" Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." Mark says, chapter 7. 25—" she fell at his feet."
Math. 28. 9—" They came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."
John, 20. 28—" And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God."
Now, upon these instances we remark, that they are as express and positive acts of devotion, if not much more so, as those which were elsewhere rejected by the Apostles, on the principle that such acts of worship should be exclusively appropriated to the Supreme God. The reception, for example, which Cornelius gave to Peter is described in Acts, 10. 25, in language not near as strong as many of those passages which we have quoted above—" As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped him; but Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself also am a man." Also, when the people of Lycaonia would have paid homage, and offered sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul, as Gods, their ardent solicitude for the honor of Jehovah made them exclaim—" Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." And when the Apostle John fell down to worship at the feet of the Angel, whom Jesus sent to testify unto him, the Angel exclaimed—" See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God." Now, can we suppose that Christ, on the supposition of his being a subordinate creature, was less scrupulously anxious to protect and maintain the exclusive prerogatives of the Deity, than the Apostles were, and that he would have been less watchful to reject every presentation of homage which the Apostles rejected as only to be paid to Deity? It does not affect our reasoning, that the persons, who paid this homage to Christ, entertained only vague and obscure notions of his character and dignity; our argument is based upon the fact of our Savior’s admitting and acknowledging the worship which was paid to him; and we argue, from his receiving it, that he must have possessed that Deity which the Apostles considered as an indispensable title to such worship.
3. After his ascension into heaven we have many instances of various modes of religious adoration being paid to him, viz.:
In Luke, 24. 52, we are told that the Apostles worshipped him immediately after he was carried up into heaven.
Acts, 1. 24—" And they prayed and said, thou Lord, who knows the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." It is evident that the Lord, to whom they prayed on this occasion, was Christ, as he had originally chosen them to be Apostles—as they were to be his Apostles and his witnesses—and as the election of a successor to Judas properly belonged to Christ's Mediatorial office, as " head over all things, to his Church."
Acts, 14. 23—" And when they had prayed with fasting (or praying to) they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." The acts of praying and of commending refer to the same person—" the Lord, on whom they believed," which was Christ.
Acts, 7. 59, 60—" And they stoned Stephen; invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried, with a loud voice, Lord! lay not this sin to their charge." Here we have the dying martyr, immediately after he had been filled with the Holy Ghost, and when he was therefore incapable of error, offering up two petitions to Christ, the very same as those which our Savior presented to his Father on the cross, and which implied a recognition o. our Savior’s possessing the Supreme prerogatives and powers of Deity.
Rom. 1. 7—" Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." In this passage God our Father and Christ are prayed to in the very same form of words as the sources of the highest spiritual blessings. See also the other benedictions, at the commencement and conclusion of the other epistles of St. Paul, in which the name of our Savior is frequently placed in order of address before that of God the Father.
Thess. 3. 11, 13—" Now, God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love, one toward another, and toward all Non, even as we do toward you, to the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father." This prayer throughout is specially addressed to Christ.
Thess. 2. 16, 17—" Now, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father," — - " comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." Here Christ is again mentioned as an object of equal adoration with God the Father.
2. Cor. 12. 8, 9—" For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee; my strength K 2 is made perfect in weakness." The Lord, to whom the Apostle prayed on this occasion, was Christ, as is evident from the remainder of the verse--" Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power (or strength) of Christ may rest upon me."
Rev. 22. 20—" Even so come, Lord Jesus." This is a solemn prayer, offered up by the Apostle, after the vision and the prophecy had been sealed.
So frequent was the practice of offering petitions to Christ, in the infancy of the Church, that Christians were characterized by a designation derived from the custom. Observe, for instance, the language of Ananias to the Savior, in Acts, 9. 14—" And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name;" and of St. Paul, in 1. Cor. 1. 2—" And unto all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."
Doxologies, which are another important modification of religious worship, were also presented to Christ, as in 1. Pet. 4. 11—" That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ; to whom be praise and dominion, for ever and ever, amen." 2. Pet. 3. 18—" Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; to him be glory, both now and forever, amen." Rev. 5. 12—" Worthy is the lamb which was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." These doxologies are precisely parallel with those which are offered to the Father, in 1. Pet. 5. 11— 1. Tim. 1. 17, and 6. 16;—so that if they are acts of divine worship, when applied to the Father, they must be equally so when presented to the Son. Or else, when addressed to the Savior, they must be understood in a sense infinitely inferior to that in which they are used when addressed to the Father; and what, then, should we think of the correctness and integrity of the Apostles, in not having introduced some qualifying terms to mark the different acceptation in which they should be understood in each case?
There are also express commands in Scripture to give Divine worship to Christ. In Ps. 45. 11—" He is thy Lord, and worship thou him;" for this Psalm refers to the Savior, as is evident from the Apostle having quoted part of it with such an application, in Heb. 1. 6.
John, 5. 23—" That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father."
Heb. 1. 6—" Let all the Angels of God worship him."
And in Rev. 14. '7, we read this command—" Worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters;" which is equivalent to an express and direct command to worship Christ, for, " by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth."—Coll. 1. 16.
We may also remark that Christ is exhibited in Scripture as the object of faith, as, in John, 14. 1—" Ye believe in God, believe also in me;"—of love, as in 1. Cor. 16. 22—" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha;"—of absolute submission, as in Coll. 3. 21—" Ye serve the Lord Jesus Christ;"—of personal devotedness, as in 2. Cor. 5. 15—" That they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again;"—and of many other affections, which are so many specific acts of internal and personal devotion, which could not be paid to a creature in consistency with the entire and exclusive homage which we owe to the Creator.
I might place this argument in another point of view, by sheaving that all the constituent parts of a regular prayer are directly referred to Christ in Scripture, as, for instance:
INVOCATION. John, 20. 28, and 21. 17.
ADORATION. Math. 16. 16; Heb. 1. 10.
CONFESSION. Luke, 5. 8; Acts, 22. 19, 20.
PETITION. Luke, 17. 5; Acts, 7. 59, 60; Rev. 22. 20.
DEDICATION. John, 6. 68.
THANKSGIVING. Rev. 5. 12, 13.
BLESSING. Rev. 22. 21.
I shall now close this quotation of evidence with the following general remarks:- 1. The natural propensity of mankind has ever been to " worship and serve the creature more than the Creator," and the great design of the Christian religion was, " to turn men from idols to serve the living and true God." I ask, then, if Christ were merely a created and finite being, as Mr. Mitchel represents him to be, would not all these passages, to which we have referred, be an insurmountable obstacle to prevent men from acknowledging God the Father as the only object of religious adoration, and hold forth every temptation, both by example and command, to present divine homage to the Savior, so as to leave the world with sufficient excuse for doing so?
If, as Mr. Mitchel states, Christ were only a created being, subordinate to the supreme God, then there would be an infinite distance in character and dignity between him and the Supreme Jehovah, which ought to be scrupulously observed in every expression having a reference to each. But it is evident, from the passages referred to, that the sacred writers have not recognized the existence of any such disproportion between the Father and the Son, since they have regarded them both as possessing the same title to worship, and, in many instances, have associated them together in the same form. And, I ask, would it not be the greatest indignity, and the most insulting violation of his exclusive prerogative, to worship the Creator with the same solemnities, and with the same form (as in Rev. 5. 13) which are, at the very same time, presented to the creature?
I cannot possibly imagine how those who, notwithstanding this mass of evidence, object to Christ being regarded as an object of worship, could refute the Roman Catholic practice of offering religious adoration to departed Saints and martyrs. If, for instance, Mr. Mitchel were to accuse the Roman Catholic of idolatry in presenting his supplications to a Saint, might he not very fairly reply—" How can you, " who will not admit the Deity of Jesus, but who regard him as a finite and created being, accuse me of idolatry in praying to, or worshipping a Saint? How " am I more guilty of the sin of worshipping a creature, " than the Apostles were when they worshipped Christ, " after his ascension into Heaven? Or, how am I " more guilty of idolatry in applying to a glorified " Saint for protection, than Stephen was, when he " prayed to the Redeemer in his dying moments?—or " than the Apostle Paul, when he prayed to him to be " delivered from the thorn in the flesh?" It would be totally impossible for one who entertains Mr. Mitchel's views of the person of Christ, to answer this appeal of the Roman Catholic. It would be no avail to reply that Christ is vastly superior to every Apostle and Saint, for if he be, notwithstanding, regarded as a finite being, the difference between him and the very least of all Saints would be absolutely nothing, in comparison with the infinite distance between him and the everlasting God. Nor would it be an answer to endeavor to prove, that the Apostles, and Stephen, and Paul, only intended to present to him some very subordinate species of homage, quite distinct from the supreme worship which they exclusively appropriated to the Most High, as this would be virtually acquitting the Roman Catholic of the very idolatry of which he had been accused, by adopting and sanctioning the distinction of two kinds of worship by which he endeavors to justify the practice of paying homage to the Saints. Thus, you see, that the opponent of Christ's Deity could not answer the Roman Catholic, either by raising the character of Christ, or by lowering the character of the worship paid to him: he would he reduced to a dilemma, from which he could not possibly be extricated, except by adopting the doctrine of the Supreme Deity of the Savior, and then he might triumphantly reply to the Roman Catholic, that "the Apostles, and " Stephen, and Paul, and all the other Christians who " are represented in Scripture as having paid religious " homage to the Redeemer, did so, because they " regarded him as possessing the attributes and prerogatives of Supreme Deity." Thus, you perceive that the advocate of the Savior’s Godhead could alone give such a reply to the Roman Catholic, as would leave the charge of idolatry in full force against himself.
4. I shall conclude these remarks by proposing the following question to the serious and attentive consideration of those who deny the Supreme Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost:
How DO YOU. ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT, THAT IN EVERY REVELATION THAT IS GIVEN TO US IN SCRIPTURE OF THE OCCUPATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE INVISIBLE WORLD, WHILST ALL THE CREATED INMATES OF HEAVEN ARE REPRESENTED AS DOING HOMAGE BEFORE THE THRONE OF THE EVERLASTING ELOHIM, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE NEVER ONCE MENTIONED AS JOINING IN THAT WORSHIP, OR DOING HOMAGE TO ANY SUPERIOR BEING?
I propose this question confidently, and require the opponent of the Trinity to take into account the following observations, in arranging his reply to it:
1. In Psalm 148 the Psalmist calls upon Angels, kings, people, and every order of animate and inanimate beings to praise the Lord, but makes no mention of the Son and Holy Ghost; but, if they had been created by the Father, as alone God, they would be under an equal obligation, with all the beings whom God had called into existence, to worship and praise him.
2. If the worship, which the Angels pay before the throne of God, be exhibited to our view, for the moral purpose of illustrating the obligation which we are under to adore and serve him, by the example of beings so much superior to what we are, the argument would have possessed much more force, by the sacred writers having exhibited the Son and the Holy Ghost, whom Mr. Mitchel considers to be super-angelic beings, in the act of worshipping the Supreme God.
In fact, when the opponent of the doctrine of the Trinity shall have maturely considered this question in all its bearings, I feel confident that he must come to the conclusion that the Son and Holy Ghost are not represented as worshipping, because they, with the Father, are the ONE Supreme and Everlasting Elohim who sits upon the " throne, high and lifted up," and who is worshipped by "every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth." For he cannot possibly adopt, in opposition to the entire tenor of Scripture, the monstrous alternative, that the Supreme Jehovah has granted a dispensation to two created beings, by virtue of which they have been released from an obligation and a service, which devolve upon all creatures, by the very necessity of their nature.
That Christ directed his Disciples to pray to the Father only, upon which he says:—" In prescribing to his followers a form of devotion, our Lord has expressly instructed them to address their prayers to their Father in Heaven; nor has he anywhere else taught his Disciples to offer up their prayers to any but the same Holy and Merciful Father, to whom he was accustomed to e'er up his own. He does, indeed, elsewhere instruct them to pray the Father, in his name,' as Mediator between God and men.'" (p. 74.)
ANSWER.
We not only admit, but maintain, that our prayers to the Deity are to be offered up through the " Man Christ Jesus," who is the " one Mediator between God and men;" hut, besides this, we have brought forward. Scripture facts to shew, that his Disciples did not confine their practice merely to this, but offered up prayers, not only through, but directly to, Christ himself. Whilst, therefore, we maintain, that to offer up prayers, through him, was perfectly consistent with his character as Mediator, we also maintain, as a distinct position, that to offer up prayers directly to him can only be justified by a belief in his Deity.
But to the assertion, that Christ no where directed his Disciples to pray to any but to the Father, we answer:- 1. The inference which Mr. Mitchel would draw from this, that Christ should not be prayed to, rests upon an assumption that he does not possess Deity (i. e. upon a petitio principii; ) whereas, if the doctrine of his Deity be true, he must, of course, be included under the expression, " Our Father, which art in Heaven;" the word, " Father," being in that case used, not as the distinguishing title of the first person in the God- head, but as a name of Deity, denoting the relationship which he sustains towards his creatures.
Christ could not have directed his Disciples to pray to him in any other capacity than as God; and therefore, if he possesses Deity, he is comprehended under every direction in Scripture to offer up prayers to the Deity.
It would have been altogether inconsistent with our Savior’s object of discovering his character, by a gradual and progressive development, to have expressly claimed to himself all the prerogatives to which he was legitimately entitled at the commencement of his Ministry; nor could he, consistently with his having "humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation," assert those very dignities which he had laid aside, by exhibiting himself as the object of prayer, during his humiliation in the flesh.
Although, however, Christ did not expressly claim Divine honors, whilst he was upon earth, yet we have shewn that he did not reject them, when offered. It is, therefore, imperative upon the advocates of Mr. Mitchel's system to shew, that his reception of such honors as should be given to none but God does not as expressly involve an admission of Deity, as if he had directly commanded them to be presented to him.
From the facts which we have adduced to prove that Christ was prayed, to and worshipped, by his Disciples, after his resurrection, we ask Mr. Mitchel to prove, that his openly and plainly asserting himself to be the proper object of direct worship was not one of those "many things which he had to say unto his Disciples, and which they could not yet bear."—John, 16. 12.
6. If the fact, that Christ did not openly claim to be the proper object of prayer is a legitimate reason for inferring that he should not be prayed to, then Mr. Mitchel must believe that the Apostles (Acts, 1. 24), and Stephen (Acts, 7. 59), and Paul (II. Cor. 12. 8), and John (Rev. 22. 20), were guilty of idolatry in presenting direct petitions to him.
That Christ prohibited his Disciples from offering prayer to him, his proposed proof for which is as follows:—" In speaking even of the period of his highest exaltation, he said unto them—' In that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father, in my name, he will give it you.' " (p. 147.)
ANSWER.
It is extremely difficult to refrain from language inconsistent with that Christian temper and candor with which every religious controversy should be conducted, when we find such an argument, as this will appear to be, confidently and boldly advanced. As far as Mr. Mitchel is concerned, he is screened from the obloquy which is connected with the person who first proposed it, as I am confident that he has advanced it only in consequence of too implicitly relying upon the correctness of those who have preceded him in the advocacy of the system which he maintains. But I have no hesitation to say, what I shall clearly substantiate, that the person who first proposed this Objection was either grossly ignorant of the Greek language, or else willfully intended to take advantage of an apparent ambiguity in the translation, whilst he knew that the original gave him no support.
Let us, then, examine the passage referred to, which you will find in John, 16. 23.
You may perceive that the word "ask" occurs twice in the verse. In the latter clause, it alludes to the offering up of prayer to the Father, through Christ, as the Mediator, and is used as the translation of the Greek word, which signifies to "pray." But, in the former clause, from which Mr. Mitchel's argument is derived, it is the translation of a different word, which signifies to " ask questions." The meaning of the passage, therefore, is this:—The Apostles had been proposing several questions to our Lord immediately before, and throughout the delivery of the discourse in which these words occur.—(See John, 13. 6, 25, 36; 14. 5, 8, 22, 16. 19.) Upon which our Lord tells them, in the verse under consideration—" In that day" (when the Spirit, whom he had just before promised them, should come) "ye shall ask me nothing," (or, ye shall ask me no questions, because the Spirit will teach you all things.) Thus, you perceive that this verse has nothing whatever to say to the subject of offering up prayers to the Savior, which Mr. Mitchel might have easily ascertained by a reference to the 19th verse of the same chapter, in which the word " ask" is used in its proper acceptation, and is explained by its synonymous word, to " enquire:"—" Now, Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said?"
To John, 5. 23; upon which he says:—" When he requires it of all men to honor the Son, as they honor the Father who sent him,' it is not on the ground of any claim to be God, equal with the Father, but on ground that cannot sustain any such claim to equality, that all judgment had been committed unto him by the Father.' " (p. 148.)
ANSWER.
We have already proved, and again maintain, that Christ's being appointed judge implies his Deity and equality with the Father.
All men are required " to honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," not merely on account of all judgment being committed to the Son, but also for other reasons, which Christ has stated in the verses preceding this. In verse 17, he asserts that the Father worketh hitherto, that is, from the creation up to the present hour, without any interruption by the law to observe the Sabbath day, and that he also did the same; —in verse 19, he says that the Son can do nothing of himself, that is, separately from the Father, and that what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise;—in verse 21, he says, that as the Father raises up the dead, and quickened them, even L 2 so the Son quickened whom he will;—and in verse 22, he says that the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.—And then, after his asserting to himself these four prerogatives, equally with the Father, which must imply his possession of the same Deity with the Father, he asserts, that on the ground of these, " all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." And let the reader take notice, that our Savior said all this in reply to a charge, mentioned in verse 18, of his making himself " equal with God." If, therefore, he did not intend to represent himself as fully entitled to the same honor as his Father, he surely would not have used language which cannot, by any torturing, be reduced to any other signification.
When Stephen, at his death, was favored by the vision of the glory of Christ, he addressed him, not as the Supreme God, but as the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of God.' " (p. 148)
ANSWER.
There is no reasoning, whatever, in this objection, as it takes no notice of our argument, which is this, that the Son of Man must have possessed the same true and proper Deity with the Father, at whose right hand he sits, or else Stephen, when full of the Holy Ghost, must have been guilty of idolatry in addressing two prayers to him.
Mr. Mitchel's doctrine, as expressed in page 147, is, that Stephen should have " offered up his prayers to the Father Almighty, in the name of Christ;" whereas the Sacred Historian represents him as offering up two petitions directly to the Savior; it remains consequently for him to reconcile his sentiments with the statement of Scripture.
The case of Stephen praying to the Savior, therefore, remains unanswered.
Against the instances, contained in the book of Revelation, of homage being offered to the Redeemer by the Angels in Heaven; upon which he says:—" The whole of the Heavenly homage is represented as offered to him, not in the character of the Supreme God, but, as distinguished from the Supreme God, in the character of the Lamb that was slain." (p. 148.)
ANSWER.
It would be quite sufficient to reply to this objection, that it contains an insinuation, that the Saints and Angels in Heaven are guilty of idolatry, as they must be, if they present their homage to any being who is not the Supreme God.
The representation of Christ, as " the Lamb which was slain," is only a symbolic mode of expressing the particular manifestation of his mercy, to which the doxology refers, and may allude to his Mediatorial person, as " God manifest in the flesh."
In the doxology contained in Isaiah, 6. 3, which is described as being offered before the Son of God appeared in his Mediatorial person, he is addressed, in common with the Father and the Holy Ghost, under the title of Jehovah of Hosts," as we have shewn by a reference to John, 12. 41, and Acts, 28. 25.
Against the arguments derived for our Savior’s Supreme Deity from John, 5. 17, etc.; upon which he says:—" Our Lord had miraculously healed an impotent man on the Sabbath day; and therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said, also, that God was his Father, making himself equal to God.' This was their charge; how was it replied to Not by an assertion of his Godhead, or of his equality with God—such a thing never escapes. His immediate reply, therefore, was—' Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself. The Father a:udgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father which hath sent him. I can, of mine own self, do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and nay judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which /kith sent me. The works that the Father haft given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me' (not that I am the Father, or equal to the Father, but) that the Father hath sent me.' " (p. 103.)
ANSWER.
I am here obliged to ask, from what version of the Bible the above quotation has been taken?—or has it been copied, second hand, from some disingenuous and unfair opponent of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ? It is composed of a selection of those verses in the chapter which seem to give countenance to the cause, which they are taken from their connection to support; whilst the intermediate verses are omitted, because they teach the doctrine of Christ's equality with the Father. I request of the reader to compare this quotation with the chapter, as it stands in the Bible, and he will find that it consists of the 16th, 17th, 18th, part of 19th, 22d, part of 23d, 30th, 36th, 37th and 38th verses, whilst the following passages are passed over, viz.:
Part of verse 19—" But what he sees the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these ( or the same) doeth the Son likewise."
Verse 20—" For the Father loveth the Son, and showed him all things that himself doeth; and he will skew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."
Verse 21—" For, as the Father raises up the dead, and quickened them, even so the Son quickened whom he will."
Verse 24—" Verily, verily, I say unto you, lie that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life."
Verse 25—" Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall have life."
Verse 26—" For, as the Fattier hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself."
May I not, therefore, confidently say, that these verses were omitted, in the quotation contained in the statement of the above objection, because they presented difficulties which could not be reconciled with a denial of our Savior’s Deity? And it is a remarkable fact, that the latter part of the 19th verse is generally omitted, in quotations advanced from this chapter, by those who have written against this doctrine—a singular proof that they have silently regarded this verse as alone sufficient to overthrow their entire system.
We must now briefly examine this entire passage, from the 16th to the 38th verse, in order to ascertain the evidence which it affords upon the question under discussion. Our Savior had been accused of violating the Sabbath, by performing a miraculous cure upon that day. When, upon another occasion, recorded in Math. 12. 11, a similar charge had been advanced, his defense was simply this, that a work of mercy was an act which all men might perform upon the Sabbath, without being guilty of a breach of the fourth Commandment, and if our Savior had merely given this reply in the case under consideration, it would afford no evidence for supposing that he was at all superior to those whom he addressed. But he proceeds to justify himself in a very different way upon this occasion, namely, by assuming the very same freedom, from every ceremonial restriction, which his Father in Heaven possessed. "My Father," said he, " worketh hitherto, and I work;" as if he had said, " My Father has continued uninterruptedly to perform his works of Providence upon every day, from the creation up to the present hour, and I, who am his Son and his equal, do the same."
This reply, considered as a justification, must imply his equality in power and privilege with the Father. Let us now see how the Jews understood it:— Therefore, says the Historian, in the 18th verse, " the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God;" (or said that God was his Father, in such a peculiar and proper sense as to imply that he was equal with God.)
This, then, was the definite charge which the Jews advanced against him, and to which our Savior replied, in his second address, that he made himself equal with God. And how easy, I ask, would it have been for him to have made the following answer, if Mr. Mitchel's system be true—" You mistake me much, if you suppose that I claim an equality with the infinite and uncreated God; I am but a finite and created being, who have been sent into the world to perform a work of philanthropy, and to deliver a message of kindness to man." But he gave no such explanation: on the other hand, he proceeded with a discourse, which, whilst it contained allusions to his official capacity and relationship to the Father, as Mediator, at the same time confirmed his previous statement, and illustrated, in several particulars, the nature of his equality with the Father, 1. We may notice, in his reply, the following allusions to the circumstances of his Mediatorial of:
His being sent by the Father, verses 23, 30, 36-his exercising his delegated functions according to the will of the Father, verse 30—and his assignment of works to be performed by him in his assumed capacity, verses 27, SO; all of which fully demonstrate, that Christ possessed an official subordination to the Father, but cannot prove that he possessed an inferiority of nature, because they do not refer to his abstract condition, as he existed with the Father before the world was.
2. We may notice, in the verses which Mr. Mitchel has omitted in his quotation, a detail of some particulars which illustrate the equality of the Son with the Father, viz.:
Verse 19—" The Son can do nothing of himself." This does not mean that the Son can do nothing, except by the power of a Deity infinitely superior to himself, for then there would be no meaning in the entire sentence, of which this is only a part, and which runs thus—" The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." The meaning, therefore, of saying, "the Son can do nothing of himself," is, that he can do nothing separately from the Father, and that he has no interest independent of the Father. But this assertion, in the mouth of a created being, would be false, for a creature can do what the Deity cannot do—he can err and sin; and, therefore, he who says, " I can do nothing, but what I see the Father do," cannot be a creature. In Mr. Mitchel's quotation of this verse, he has omitted, in the first sentence, these words, " but what he sees the Father do." Need I remark, that if this method of quoting parts of sentences from Scripture be allowed, the Atheist might undertake to prove his principles from the Bible, by producing these words, from Ps. 14. 1, " There is no God?"
In verse 21, he asserts an equality with the Father, in the Divine power to communicate physical life to whomsoever he will.
In verse 22, he declares that the Father has assigned to him the office of Judge; a capacity to which we have before proved that he could not have been delegated, if he did not possess a oneness of attributes, with the Father, to enable him to execute it.
In verse 23, he asserts, both positively and negatively, that he is entitled to the very same honor with the Father.
In verse 25, he asserts that he possesses such power as will produce the future resurrection of the dead, "who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and live."
Thus, you perceive, that this passage, when thoroughly considered, contains several invincible arguments for the Deity of Christ, which Mr. Mitchel, so far from answering, did not even allude to. And it is still more remarkable, that in his second Sermon, when producing texts against the Socinian, to prove, as he says, " the superior dignity of the Redeemer," he has not quoted either the 17th, 19th, 21st, 22d, or 23d verses of this chapter, which is evidently a tacit admission that these verses would prove much more than it was his object to establish.
From John, 10. 29:—" Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.'" (ps. 92, 105.)
ANSWER.
The word " all" does not include the Son, who is spoken of, in a distinct proposition, in verse 30. The connection of this passage with the subject to which it refers, in verses 28 to 30, shews that it may be paraphrased thus—" My Father, who gave me my sheep, is greater in power than all those spiritual adversaries who would oppose the welfare of my sheep, and, therefore, no one can pluck them out of my Father's hands. Nor has my Father less consulted for their security in giving them to me, for as I and my Father are one in power, no one can pluck them out of my hands."
From John, 14. 28:—" My Father is greater than I;" upon which he says—" When our Lord makes this unequal declaration, I find no difficulty in understanding him, according to the plain meaning of his words, and in conformity with the general tenor of Scripture. But men, by their groundless hypothesis, create difficulties for themselves." (p. 112.)
ANSWER.
This passage is usually answered by a mere vague reference to Christ, as Mediator; but I think that the connection in which it stands will afford a much more definite reply. The entire passage is this—" If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than 1."
Now, to answer the purpose for which Mr. Mitchel has advanced it, our Savior must have meant to say—" My Father is greater than I, in nature." But I ask, why should the love which the Apostles entertained towards Christ induce them to rejoice on this account? If Christ were inferior to the Father, in nature, his going to the Father could not change his condition in that respect.
The import of the passage, then, is clearly this:—Whilst our Savior was in a state of humiliation, he had emptied himself of the form of God, and of the dignities of his pre-existent and abstract state, whilst the Father retained his glory as one of the persons in the Godhead; and therefore possessed a temporary superiority in glory to the Son. The verse may be thus paraphrased—" If ye loved me, ye would rejoice at my saying that I am to leave this state of degradation, and to go unto my Father—for my Father is greater in glory than I am, whilst I continue upon earth,—and when I go to him, I shall be again glorified with that glory which I had with him before the world was."
And you may perceive that this passage, when correctly understood, contains an insurmountable argument for Christ's equality with the Father, in his abstract state; for if, on his going to the Father, the Father should still continue to be greater than he, his appeal to the love of his Apostles, to rejoice because he was going away, would lose its force and meaning.
That Christ is spoken of so distinctly from God, in the following passage, that he can not be God; John, 11. 21, 22:—"' Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou had been here, my brother had not died: but I know that, even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.' " (p. 82.)
ANSWER.
This, and many similar passages, are usually explained by saying that they merely express the subordination of Christ, as Mediator, to the Father. But this verse requires a specific examination, because it illustrates and proves an important position—namely, that this subordination is too emphatically described, when it contradicts the Deity of the Son of God, by denying his possession of an inherent and personal power, and by representing him as a created and finite being, totally dependent upon the power of a God infinitely superior to him.
For instance, if the sentiment contained in these words of Martha were correct, they would certainly afford a valid proof of the truth of Mr. Mitchel's doctrine, for they evidently convey no higher estimate of the power of Christ, and are, in fact, a statement of the creed of one who regarded him as nothing more than a created being, altogether dependent upon the Supreme God. But observe how deficient and erroneous this opinion of Martha was; for our Savior immediately corrects her, and asserts for himself the very power for which she represented him as altogether dependent upon God—" I am the resurrection and the life—he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live, and whosoever lives and believeth in me shall never die. Believes thou this?"
This passage, then, when considered in connection with our Savior’s reply, affords a strong argument for his Supreme Deity. Martha was correct in considering that the raising of her brother required the power of Deity, but she was wrong in considering that Christ did not possess this power: our Savior, therefore, in asserting it for himself, plainly asserted his own Deity.
From John, 7. 16—" 'My doctrine is not MINE, but nis that sent me.' " (p. 81.)
ANSWER.
This declaration, considered as a reply to the question of the Jews, merely refers to the source from whence our Savior, as a Prophet, derived the doctrines which he taught. When Jesus was teaching in the temple, " the Jews marveled, saying, how knows this man letters, having never learned?"—Upon which Jesus made the above reply, which may be thus explained—" My doctrine is not mine, in the sense to which you allude. I have not acquired it by ordinary study and research, but I have received it from my Father, who sent me to manifest his will unto the world."
Now, so far from this reply affording any support to the sentiments which Mr. Mitchel holds, it is the very reverse of what would contain any OBJECTION against the doctrine of Christ's possessing, in his abstract character, the same Deity with the Father. If, for instance, when the Jews asked the above question, our Savior had made an opposite reply, and said—" You M 2 are wrong in saying that I have never learned. I have spent thirty years of my life in close application " to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. I have " taken every advantage of conversing with the Scribes "and Doctors of the law. I have constantly attended " upon their public instructions, and have been brought " up at the feet of one of the most eminent of their " order, and therefore I am fully competent to deliver "those discourses which you hear from me." Nothing short of such a reply as this would afford a valid OBJECTION against his Deity, as it would have entirely overlooked his connection with his Father in Heaven. But the answer which he made was vastly different, and intended to prove that his doctrine, as a Prophet, was the doctrine of his Father—a position which is perfectly consistent with his Supreme Deity.
From those passages in which the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to, in reference to the Mediatorial office which he sustains, as God manifest in the flesh, under the Gospel dispensation; such as the following:—" God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.'— John, 3. 16. Him hath God the Father sealed:— John, 6. 27. ' The God of our Fathers halt raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.'—Acts, 5. 30. ' There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' "—I. Tim. 2. 5, (Sermon 4.)
ANSWER.
In order to shew that these and similar passages are perfectly consistent with the doctrine of Christ's Deity, in his abstract condition, it will be necessary to give a concise view of the doctrine of Scripture upon the subject of the Mediatorial office of the Redeemer, in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity.
We believe, for instance, that there exists a threefold distinction in the Godhead, in consequence of the three persons, called in Scripture THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE HOLY GHOST, being represented as possessing the essential attributes and characteristics of Deity. Now, the Godhead may be contemplated in two distinct points of view:
1st. In reference to the abstract circumstances of the Divine Being, that is, without taking into account the peculiar manifestation of his character in the Gospel. In this point of view, we conceive that the Scriptures afford us ample evidence of the perfect equality of the three persons; or, in other words, that the Word and the Holy Ghost, considered abstractedly from the offices which they have undertaken to discharge under the economy of Redemption, possess the same titles and attributes with the Father, and, in mysterious conjunction with him, have been the Creator and Preserver of the world, and are exhibited as one Being with the Father, as the object of homage to the inhabitants of the universe. It has been the general object of the preceding Treatise to demonstrate this doctrine, and it may not be irrelevant to sum up the entire subject in one comprehensive argument, which will be found, even of itself, sufficient to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, viz.:
The Being, whom Isaiah is represented, in the 6th chapter of his Prophecies, to have seen, is admitted, by all parties, to have been the Supreme and Everlasting God. And if we analyze the circumstances of the vision therein described, we shall find almost every peculiarity of Supreme Godhead connected with the Being alluded to—for instance:
The name of JEHOVAH, in verse 1.
The name of JEHOVAH OF HOSTS, in verse 3. SUPREMACY, in the words " high and lifted up," in verse 1.
SOVEREIGNTY, in the words, " sitting upon a throne," in verse 1.
MORAL PERFECTION, in the words, " Holy, Holy, Holy," in verse 3.
THE GLORY OF CREATION AND PROVIDENCE, in verse 3.
HOMAGE, in verse 3.
Now, on a reference to the 8th verse, we find this Being represented as using this extraordinary language: —" Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" How, then, is this phraseology to be accounted for? Why did he say " Who will go for us?" and not " Who will go for ME?" This question is answered by two other passages of Scripture, which incontrovertibly demonstrate the doctrine of a Triune Jehovah. For instance-1. We believe, in common with Mr. Mitchel, that God, the Father, is alluded to. 2. We have the testimony of John, 12. 41, that Isaiah spoke the words of the commission which he received on this occasion, when he saw the glory of Christ, and spoke of him. 3. The Apostle Paul, in Acts, 28. 25, introduces his quotation of the commission which the Prophet received, by saying that it was spoken by the Holy Ghost. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, were the one Jehovah of Hosts who is described in the chapter.—And let the reader observe, that we advance this argument as a proof of the Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost, abstractedly from their official connection with the economy of redemption; for this vision is represented as having been exhibited to the Prophet before the WORD of God became flesh, and before the Holy Ghost descended as Paraclete. Let it not, therefore, be met by any passages which speak of the Son and Holy Ghost in these two official capacities.
2. The Godhead may be contemplated in reference to the official character which the three persons are represented as sustaining under the Gospel dispensation. THE FATHER is manifested as holding the rank of President, for the purpose of vindicating the integrity of the Divine government, in which capacity he has deputed the Son to his Priestly office, superintended the discharge of his Mediatorial functions, from Bethlehem to the cross, and testified the acceptance of his sacrifice by having raised him from the dead. THE SON is manifested as having assumed our nature, in order to consummate the work of our redemption, for which purpose he came down from Heaven, and was made man, in order to die as a sacrifice for the guilty; and, having finished his work upon earth, he ascended into Heaven, and, in his Mediatorial person, sat down upon the right hand of the Father. THE HOLY GHOST, also, is manifested as sustaining the office of Paraclete, for which he was sent by the Father and the Son, and, by his regenerating and sanctifying influences, continues to render the atonement available for the salvation of those who believe.
Keeping this distinction between the abstract character and official manifestation of the three persons in view, I now request the reader to attend to the following remarks, which will clearly illustrate the irrelevancy of all the passages which Mr. Mitchel has quoted in his fourth Sermon, and elsewhere, which refer to the particulars of his Mediatorial administration:- We hold that the Son acted in perfect obedience to the will of the Father in becoming Mediator, and that, as such, he is subordinate to the Father.
We, at the same time, maintain, that his official subordination is perfectly consistent with his abstract Deity; and that, in fact, he could not have assumed the office of Mediator, if he did not possess all the attributes and resources of Godhead to qualify him for its accomplishment.
Whilst the Son of God was manifest in the flesh, in the person of the man Christ Jesus, it is natural to suppose that he would adopt language adapted to the change of circumstances in which he appeared, and that he would not, whilst in a state of humiliation and " of no reputation," speak in a manner suited only to his abstract condition as the Son of God; and hence, it is not strange that he should have frequently represented himself as subordinate to the Father.
The New Testament professes to be a history of the official undertaking of the three persons for the benefit of man; and, therefore, it is not unlikely that its general phraseology should represent the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to the Father. But, as the offices which they sustain, require the powers and prerogatives of Deity, it is not unlikely that it should very often refer to their abstract character, as possessing the one Godhead with the Father.
The fair method of trying the value of all the passages relating to the Mediatorial office of Christ, which are advanced as objections against his Deity, is to ascertain whether they can be applied to him, before his manifestation in the flesh; for if not, they cannot determine anything in reference to his abstract condition, and must be accounted for by some peculiarity connected with the circumstances of his existence, after he became manifest in the flesh.
When we argue for the Deity of Christ, we do not mean to maintain the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in Bethlehem; we mean to say that the WORD, which became flesh, and dwelt among us, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, was the one God with the Father and the Holy Ghost from all eternity.
There is this difference to be observed between the abstract and official character of the three persons, that in reference to the former, all the titles, attributes, acts, and homage of Supreme Deity are indifferently ascribed to them, with the exception of the names of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which designate their distinct personality; whereas, in their official character, they perform distinct offices, and, consequently, sustain distinct characters, which cannot be indifferently predicated of all.
As we have proved, that the name of " God" is used in Scripture either as the designation of the Supreme Being, as comprehending the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or is, in many cases, used to particularize only one of the three persons, it may be well to illustrate its different application, as follows:
It is frequently used in reference to acts which are indifferently ascribed in Scripture to the three persons, in which case it is to be understood as the general name of Deity, as including the three persons; as in Gem 1. 1—" God created the heaven and the earth;" Heb., 3. 4—"He that built all things is God," etc.
It is sometimes used in connection with the term Father, in which case it is intended to designate only the first person, as in John, 6. 27—" Him hath God the Father sealed;"—I Cor. 15. 24—" When he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father;"—Phil. 2. 11--" To the glory of God the Father," etc.
It sometimes occurs in a passage in which the names of the Son and Holy Ghost are likewise mentioned, in which case it is a designation of the Father; I37 as in 2. Cor. 13. 14—" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," etc.
It sometimes occurs, in connection with a statement which refers peculiarly to the first person, in which case it is intended to designate God the Father; as in John, 3. 16—" God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son," etc.
Sometimes it occurs in connection with a statement which is either expressly referred to the Son, or can only apply to him; as in John, 1. 1—" The Word was God;" and in Titus, 2. 13.—" Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ," in which the title of " Great God" must apply to Christ, because the "glorious appearing" to judgment, which is spoken of in this passage, can only relate to him, who is to come as Judge.
It sometimes occurs in connection with a statement which refers peculiarly to an office of the Holy Ghost; as in Phill. 2. 13—" It is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure;" and in Rom. 15. 5—" Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another." In these passages, the term God must specially refer to the Holy Ghost, because it is his peculiar office to produce the influences which are alluded to.
It very frequently occurs, throughout the New Testament, in passages in which the name of Jesus Christ is also mentioned, in which case it may either refer to the person of the Father, or may he the comprehensive title of Deity. But the internal evidence of any passage is at once sufficient to determine its application.
The reader is requested to apply these principles to any one of the passages which Mr. Mitchel has quoted, and which has not been specially referred to in the foregoing Work, and he will find that, while the most of them are admitted to assert an official subordination, not one of them can establish a natural inferiority.
The phrases, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, He hath anointed me'—' He hath sent me,' seem altogether inconsistent with the idea of perfect equality. 70 feel the force of this observation, try how it will sound to change the person, and to say that the Son ' anointed' the Father, and sent him to preach the glad tidings of the kingdom. But if this language be inadmissible, what becomes of the equality? (p. 102.)
ANSWER.
The phrases alluded to, as well as many others, carry with them an internal evidence that they refer to the Mediatorial office of Christ; in reference to which, we do not maintain the perfect equality of the three persons. The proposed test, therefore, of ascertaining their equality is inapplicable and illegitimate.
But in reference to the general dispensations of the Godhead, unconnected with the peculiar offices which the Son and Holy Ghost perform under the Gospel, we fully admit the fairness of this test; and accordingly we find many assertions indifferently made of the three persons in Scripture. In addition to passages which have been quoted in the course of this Treatise, we refer to the following:—
1
The title of "Lord" is indifferently predicated of the three persons:—
Romans, 10. 12—" The same Lord over all is rich," etc.
Luke, 2. 11—" A Savior, which is Christ the LORD."
2. Cor. 3. 17—" The LORD is that Spirit."
2
The title of " GOD or ISRAEL" is indifferently predicated of each:—
Math. 15. 31—" The multitude glorified the Goo OY I'SRAEL."
Luke, 1. 16, 17—" The children of ISRAEL shall he turn to the LORD THEIR GOD; and they shall go before HIM."
2. Sam. 23. 2, 3—" The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me—the GOD OF ISRAEL said."
3
The origin of the Divine Law is indifferently ascribed to each:—
Rom. 8. 7—" The carnal mind is not subject to the LAW OF GOD."
Gall. 6. 2—" Fulfil the LAW OF CHRIST."
Rom. 8. 2—" The LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE."
4
The inspiration of the Prophets is indifferently ascribed to each person:--
Heb. 1. 1—" God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoke unto our fathers by the Prophets."
1. Pet. 1. 11—" Searching what, or what manner, the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, which was in them," etc.
Pet. 1. 21—" Holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST."
5
Christian experience is indifferently described as walking with each person:—
Gen. 5. 24—" Enoch WALKED with GOD."
Coll. 2. 6—" As ye have therefore received CHRIST JESUS THE LORD, SO WALK ye in him."
Gall. 5. 16—" WALK in the SPIRIT."
6
Each person is indifferently said to dwell in believers:—
John, 14. 23—" If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and MAKE OUR ABODE WITH Him."
John, 14. 17—" The Spirit of Truth" - - " dwelleth WITH YOU, and shall in you."
7
Power is indifferently ascribed to each:—
Eph. 3. 7—" The grace. of God given unto me by the effectual working of his POWER."
2. Cor. 12. 9—" That the POWER of Christ may rest upon me."
Rom. 15. 19—" By the POWER of the Spirit of God."
8
The attribute of truth is indifferently predicated of each:—
John, 7. 28—" He that sent me is TRUE."
Rev. 3. 7—" These things saith he that is TRUE."
1. John, 5. 6—" The Spirit is TRUTH."
9
The attribute holy is indifferently predicated of each:—
Rev. 15. 4—" Thou only art HOLY."
Acts, 3. 14—" Ye denied the HOLY one."
1. John, 2. 20—" Ye have an unction from the HOLY one."
10
The power of quickening the dead is indifferently ascribed to each:—
John, 5. 21—" The Father raises up the dead, and QUICKENETH them."
John, 5. 21—" Even so the Son QUICKENETH whom he will."
1. Pet. 3. 18--" QUICKENED by the Spirit."
11
Divine teaching is indifferently referred to each:—
John, 6. 45—" They shall be all TAUGHT of God."
Gall. 1. 12—" Neither was I TAUGHT it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
John, 14. 26—" The Spirit will TEACH you all things."
12
Each person is said to dwell spiritually in Christians:-
2 Cor. 6. 16—" God hath said, I will DWELL IN them."
Eph. 3. 17—" That Christ may DWELL IN your hearts."
Rom. 8. 11—" His Spirit, that DWELLETH IN you."
13
The communication of spiritual life is indifferently ascribed to each:—
Eph. 4. 18—" Alienated from the LIFE OF GOD."
John, 1. 4—" IN HIM WAS LIFE; and the life was the light of men."
2. Cor. 3. 6—" The Spirit giveth LIFE."
14
The gift of eternal life is indifferently ascribed to each:—
Rom. 6. 23—" The gift Of GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE."
John, 10. 28—" I GIVE unto them ETERNAL LIFE."
Gall. 6. 8—" He that soweth to the Spirit, shall OF THE SPIRIT REAP LIFE EVERLASTING."
15
Christians are indebted to each for sanctification:—
Jude, 1.1—" To them that are SANCTIFIED BY GOD THE FATHER."
Heb. 13. 12—" Jesus, also, that HE MIGHT SANCTIFY THE PEOPLE by his own blood."
Rom. 15. 16—" Being SANCTIFIED by the Holy Ghost."
16
Christians are indebted to each for their justification:—
Rom. 8. 33—" It is GOD that JUSTIFIETH."
Isaiah, 53. 11—" By his knowledge (or by the knowledge of himself) shall my righteous servant JUSTIFY many."
1. Cor. 6. 11—" Ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the LORD JESUS, and BY THE SPIRIT Of our GOD."
17
The resurrection is indifferently ascribed to each:—
1. Cor. 6. 14—" GOD WILL RAISE up us by his own power."
John, 6. 39, 40, 44, 54—" I WILL RAISE him up at the last day."
John, 6. 63—" It is the Spirit that QUICKENETH."
18.
Each person is represented as the object of offence by sin
Ps. 119. 11—" That I might not SIN AGAINST THEE."
1. Cor. 8. 12—" Ye SIN AGAINST CHRIST."
Luke, 12.10—" Unto him that BLASPHEMETH AGAINST the HOLY GHOST it shall not be forgiven."
19
Each person is represented as the giver of wisdom:—
James, 1. 5—" If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of GOD, that giveth liberally."
Luke 21. 15—" I WILL give you a mouth, and WISDOM."
1. Cor. 12. 8—" To one is given, by the Spirit, the word of WISDOM."
We might institute this comparison in many other respects, but the foregoing are sufficient to shew, that the three persons of the Godhead are indifferently spoken of in Scripture as possessing the very same Divine powers, and sustaining the very same prerogatives, except in the official relationship which they bear to each other in reference to the work of man's redemption, in which case the Father is more usually represented as devising, the Son as achieving, and the Holy Ghost as applying, the atonement.
From 1. Cor. 15. 24—" ' Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.' " (p. 107.)
ANSWER.
This passage is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of our Savior’s Supreme Deity, as the Word who was God. It refers to the termination of his Mediatorial kingdom, over which he presides for a limited period in his Mediatorial person, as " God manifest in the flesh." For when all the purposes for which the particular administration of Christ has been appointed shall have been attained, he shall conclude his Mediatorial office by surrendering up his power into the hands of the Father—his manifestation in the flesh shall cease—the man, Christ Jesus, shall be a subject in the everlasting Kingdom of Jehovah—each person shall lay aside his official character, and resume his original condition of Supreme Godhead—and the Deity shall no longer reveal himself to his creatures through the intervention of a visible Mediator;—but God, as the Triune Father, Word and Holy Ghost, shall be all in all, as the immediate governor and administrator of all things.
To this interpretation, which the analogy of Scripture fully establishes, we would subjoin the following remarks upon the passage.
The reader is requested to observe the variation of the person mentioned in the 24th and the 28th verses; in the former of which the Apostle represents Christ as surrendering his kingdom to " God, even the Father;" and in the latter, in which he speaks of the government of the universe, after the cessation of Christ's Mediatorial kingdom, he does not say that " God, even the Father," shall be all in all, but he uses the general term " God," which we have proved to be the comprehensive title of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost.
The doctrine of our opponents, that Christ, in his abstract character, was a finite and created being, would imply that there was one created and finite being in the universe who sustained the government of all things, and is not himself subject to the Supreme God for the 28th verse speaks of the subjection of the Son as not taking place until after the termination of his Mediatorial kingdom.
The works which this passage represents the Mediator as performing are such as require his possession of all the attributes of Deity to enable him to achieve them.
Christ will not resign any thing connected with his abstract nature, as he existed before his appointment to his Mediatorial office, which was superadded to his previous condition; and it is as equally true, that he shall retain glory with the Father, after his Mediatorial kingdom shall terminate, as that he possessed glory with the Father, before that kingdom commenced.
Against the Deity of Christ, from the fact of his having prayed to the Father, while on earth; upon which he says:—" You will please farther to recollect the many places where our blessed Savior is represented as offering up prayers, not only on behalf of others, but of himself also, to his Father in Heaven;—as praying, not merely with calm and earnest devotion, but in the utmost agony, with strong crying and tears;'—as praying, not merely for the sake of example, but in solitary places, and continuing all night in prayer to God." (p.111.)
ANSWER.
It is evident that Christ's praying to the Father must have originated altogether from his assumption of humanity, or else let Mr. Mitchel produce a single allusion to his having prayed before his manifestation in the flesh.—And we are supported by the Apostle in this remark; for he confines the petitions which Christ offered up to the Father, in reference to himself, to the time of his continuance upon earth, as in Heb. 5. 7—" Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death."
In proportion to the moral attainments of the creature will be his sense of •dependence upon the Creator; therefore, as the man Christ Jesus was morally perfect, his sense of dependence upon God was necessarily so great, as to lead him to manifest it by constantly repeated acts of prayer.
As Christ was to be our model of imitation in all things connected with morality and godliness, is it to be supposed that he would have left us the irreligious example of living without prayer?
All the intercessory prayers of Christ, as, for instance, those alluded to by Mr. Mitchel, in John, 17., were offered up to the Father in consequence of the Priestly office, which, as Mediator, he has undertaken to execute for his people.
Against our Savior possessing two distinct natures, a human and divine; upon which, after quoting passages to shew the subordination of the Son to the Father, he says:—"/ am aware that the whole force of this testimony is attempted to be turned aside by a very simple contrivance—a nice distinction, which demands our particular notice. The distinction—the contrivance—is this, that, in all cases where Christ acknowledges a subordination to the Father, he is to be understood as speaking only in his human nature. If this were any where taught us, either by our Lord himself; or any of his inspired Apostles, it would materially alter the state of the case. But is this really so? Nothing can be farther from the truth. Have we been taught any such distinction in Scripture?" etc. (p. 113.)
ANSWER.
The doctrine of Mr. Mitchel appears, from this and other parts of his Sermons, to have been—that the spiritual nature of Christ was united to the body which he assumed, and served instead of a human soul; so that, in fact, he was only a man so far as he appeared in the visible form of man. We, on the other hand, maintain, that when the WORD became FLESH he assumed our entire nature, inclusive both of body and soul; for which we submit the following proofs:— Christ is called a " man" in several passages of Scripture, without any qualifying expression to lead us to give the term any other than the ordinary signification, as including both a human soul and body.—See Acts, 2. 22; Acts, 17. 31; 1. Tim. 2. 5, etc.
He displayed, during his continuance upon earth, every characteristic feature of a perfect and entire human nature.
In 1. Cor. 15. 21—" Since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead," the Apostle contrasts the human nature of Adam with the human nature of Christ, in such a manner as proves their perfect similarity.
In verse 23, he says that " every man shall be made alive in his own order; Christ the first fruits." Now, the import of this comparison establishes the fact that Christ is of the very same nature as those who shall rise at the last day; for the " first fruits" are of the same nature as the entire harvest. And if Christ did not possess a human soul as well as a human body, his resurrection could not have been a perfect specimen of ours, nor an evidence that our souls should rise again.
In Heb. 2. 11, we read, " For both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one," (i.e. of one nature according to the context) " wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." The title of brethren can only be applied to persons who possess the same nature, both moral and physical.
Verses 17, 18—" Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." In these verses it is evident that the Apostle represents our Savior’s experience of temptation, while on earth as enabling him to feel a sympathy for his people when they are under temptation. But in order to have a full experimental knowledge of our circumstances under temptation, he must have possessed the very same nature, both as to mind and body, which we possess; for surely the temptations to which human nature is liable would wear a vastly different aspect to the view of a super angelic being. The same inference may be drawn more strongly from Heb. 4. 15—" We have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." In this passage, it is implied, that the human nature of Christ resembled ours in every respect except its sinfulness.
But there is a still stronger proof than these that our Savior assumed our nature in its entire character. We have, for instance, on the one hand, many passages which we have referred to in the course of this treatise, asserting his absolute omniscience; and, on the other hand, we are told, in Luke, 2. 52, that " he increased in wisdom;" and, in Mark, 13. 32, that he knew not the hour of judgment: now, I ask, how are these contradictory statements to be reconciled? Simply, by understanding the declaration that " the WORD was made FLESH," as importing that the Son of God assumed a human soul as well as a human body, and that whilst as the Eternal 'Word he was omniscient, as the man Christ Jesus, invested with the mental faculties of a man, his knowledge was progressive and circumscribed.
These arguments may suffice to show that Mr. Mitchel's assertion that there is no proof of our Savior’s possessing two natures, is without foundation. The belief of his real and proper humanity is as necessary as of his real and proper Deity. Whilst the latter was necessary to enable him to discharge the office of Mediator, and to give value to his work, the former was requisite, in order to bring him into the same situation with those whose surety he became, to bring him under the law, to render him capable of suffering, and to enable him to be our example in all things. How the Divine and human natures were united in the person of the Redeemer we cannot comprehend, much less can we attempt to explain. It is one of those truths which lie at the ultimate verge of Revelation, which our present faculties and resources of investigation can never enable us to comprehend.
Against our Savior possessing a human as well as a Divine nature, upon which he advances the following argument:—" Our Lord tells ,us, in John, 12. 49—' I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me; he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.' This, then, is one of those instances wherein Christ is supposed, by the Trinitarian hypothesis, to speak in his human nature. Well, now, turn to the 16th of the same Gospel, and attend to what our Lord says of the Holy Ghost whom he promised that the Father should send, in his name, to be the guide and comfort of his Disciples, and who, you know, is one of the co-equal persons of the Athanasian Trinity. Howbeit when He the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come.' Now it is not pretended that the Holy Ghost ever assumed the human nature; and therefore it cannot be alleged that he ever speaks or acts in that nature. Yet our Lord uses the very same language with respect to him as he does in similar cases in reference to himself. He plainly declares that neither of them 'speaks of himself; that both of them speak as they heard, and were taught." (p. 114.)
ANSWER.
This reasoning, although so confidently advanced, is at once overthrown by simply remarking, that the language of our Savior, in John, 12. 49, is not one of those instances in which Christ is supposed, according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, to speak in his human nature. It was in reference to his official character as Mediator that he said " I have not spoken of myself;" and it was also in reference to the official character of the Holy Ghost, as Paraclete, that he says of him, he shall not speak of himself." This distinction between the abstract and official character of the Son and Holy Ghost, though so frequently alluded to in Scripture, has not been taken notice of by Mr. Mitchel.
But by considering this OBJECTION we may easily account for many statements which seem to present difficulties against the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, which are not made in reference to the Holy Ghost. It is said, for instance, in reference to the Savior, that he knew not the day or hour of judgment: now, I ask, why do we not find the same declaration, or one similar to it, made in reference to the Holy Ghost, since, if He, according to Mr. Mitchel's doctrine, be subordinate and inferior to the Supreme God, we might naturally expect to find some such statement to shew that his knowledge was limited; but we find no such statement; on the contrary, it is said of him that "the Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God." The reason of this difference evidently is, because the Holy Ghost was not manifest in the flesh, and therefore did not, like the Son, assume a nature in reference to which his knowledge might be represented as limited and circumscribed.
Against the Deity of the Holy Ghost; upon which he says:—" I refer it to yourselves to determine whether this Holy person, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeded from the Father,' who is sent by the Son, and who speaketh not of himself, but according to the instructions he has received, whether this being is to be understood as o 2 154, the Supreme God, or equal to the Supreme God." (p. 116.)
ANSWER.
This OBJECTION has already been virtually answered in our replies to the objections against the Deity of the Son. The Holy Ghost being sent refers to the official character which he has undertaken to sustain under the Gospel dispensation, and proves, what we fully admit, an official subordination, but cannot prove a natural inferiority. On the contrary, the mission of the Holy Ghost is an argument for his Deity, for unless he was really and truly God, he would not have possessed the qualifications necessary to enable him to discharge the office assigned to him. Compare, for instance, his mission with that of Angels who are sent to minister to them who are heirs of salvation: they are only sent to particular places and persons—the Holy Spirit is sent to all Christians, wherever they may be situated: Angels are obliged to remove from place to place in the execution of their commissions—the Holy Spirit is omnipresent: Angels act as servants, and render obedience to the being who sends them—the Holy Spirit is independent of all superior control, for "he divides to every man severally as he will."
The Holy Ghost's not speaking of himself merely implies that he would not introduce any new system of doctrine, but would instruct the disciples more fully in those sacred truths of which Christ had only taught the elements.
We may here take notice of the strong evidence which is derived for the Supreme Deity of Christ, from the fact of his sending the Spirit. In both John, 15. 26, and 16. 7, he says, " I will send him unto you." Now, I ask if the Holy Ghost be, as we maintain, God, must not Christ have been his equal, in order to justify his use of this language? Or if, as some maintain, the Holy Spirit be merely an influence or energy of God, can we suppose that the influences and emanations of Deity could be at the disposal of a creature
Against the argument for the Deity of the Holy Ghost, derived from Acts, 5. 3—" Peter said unto Ananias, Why bath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost?—why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Upon which he says:—" There must be a great lack of evidence for the Athanasian doctrine, when so weak an argument is relied on; and it is the strongest that can be produced to prove the Supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit: for in the same book of Scripture we find a similar argument, to prove the Supreme Deity of an Angel. Acts, 23. 9—, We find no evil in this man; but if a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken to him let us not fight against God.' The plain meaning of the above passage is, that by lying to the Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, Ananias had in effect lied to the Holy Spirit—and that lying to the Holy Spirit was the same thing as lying to God himself, who had given them his Holy Spirit. This is no forced interpretation, for you will all recollect that it is quite con formable to the usual phrase of Scripture. Thus our Lord says to his Apostles—' He that despises you despises me, and he that despises me despises him that sent me.' And thus the Apostle Paul says—' He that despises us despises not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.' " (p. 116.)
ANSWER.
The passage referred to in Acts, 23. 9, is not parallel with Acts, 5. 3. In the latter the substantive "God" occurs with the article prefixed to it, which is placed in apposition with the " Holy Ghost" in the beginning of the verse; but it does not occur in the former passage, in which the words, " let us not fight against God," are a translation of a Greek verb, which might more correctly be rendered " let us not engage in a polemical warfare."
But even admitting the two passages to be parallel, Mr. Mitchel has not observed the correct analogy between the persons spoken of in each. The " Angel," in the former, is not placed in contrast with the " Holy Ghost," in the latter, but with the Apostles; therefore, the statement in Acts, 23. 9, would not prove the Deity of the Angel, but of the Being who sent the Angel to speak to Paul, just in the same manner as the statement in Acts, 5. 3, does not prove the Deity of the Apostles, but of him who inspired the Apostles to speak to Ananias, which was the Holy Ghost.
In 1. Thess. 4. 8, the Holy Ghost is referred to in his official capacity as being given to the Church by God the Father: but in Acts, 5. 3, he is placed in direct apposition with the term "God," so as clearly to prove that he is God.
In the interpretation which Mr. Mitchel has proposed, in order to evade the argument from this passage, he has entirely overlooked the fact that the Holy Ghost is represented in it, and also in the 9th verse, as the primary object of direct offence by the sin which Ananias committed; whereas, he has represented him as no more the object of offence by that sin than the Apostles, but that a superior being was sinned against through him. In fact, in order that the passage should justify Mr. Mitchel's explanation, it should run thus—" You have not lied unto men, nor unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God:" or affirmatively thus—" You have lied to Apostles, and to the Holy Ghost, and, what is worse, you have lied unto God."
Mr. Mitchel has asserted that " this is the only passage of Scripture which presents any difficulty upon the subject of the Deity of the Holy Ghost;" therefore, to obviate the impression which this statement is calculated to produce, we submit the following proofs in addition to those which have been given in the Synopsis, which will shew that the Scriptures are replete with passages to prove his Supreme Deity, viz.:
1
The Holy Ghost is the God of whom believers are born:—
John, 3. 6—" That which is born of the SPIRIT."
1. John, 5. 4—" Whatsoever is born of Gon."
2
He was the Lord to whom Simeon prayed:—
Luke, 2. 26—" It was revealed unto him by the HOLY GHOST that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ."
Luke, 2. 28, 29—" He blessed GOD, and said, LORD, now let thou thy servant depart in peace, according to, THY WORD."
3
He is the God who dwells in believers:—
John, 14. 17—" He dwelleth with you and shall be in you."
1. Cor. 14. 25—" GOD is in you of a truth."
4
He was the Most High God whom the Israelites tempted:—
Ps. 78. 56—" They tempted and provoked the MOST HIGH GOD."
Is. 63. 10—" They rebelled and vexed his HOLY SPIRIT."
5
He was the God who appointed office-bearers in the Churches:
Acts, 20. 28—" Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the HOLY GHOST has made you overseers."
1. Cor. 12. 28—" And GOD hath set some in the Church; first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets; thirdly, teachers," etc.
6
He was the Lord Jehovah whom the Israelites tempted in the wilderness:—
Ex. 17. 2—" Wherefore do ye tempt the Lord?"
Heb. 3. 7, 8—" The HOLY GHOST saith, to-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers TEMPTED ME," etc.
7
He was Jehovah who inspired the Prophets:—
Numbers, 12. 6—" If there be a Prophet among you, I, the LORD, will make myself known unto him in a vision."
2. Pet. 1. 21—" Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST."
8
He is the God who is the author of spiritual influences:—
1. Cor. 12. 6.—" It is the same GOD which worketh all in all."
1. Cor. 12. 11—" All these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."
9
He is prayed to by the Apostle in
1. Thess. 3. 11:— Now God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you: for it is evident that the term " God" refers to the Holy Ghost, since the construction of the passages requires as full a distinction to be observed between " God himself" and "our Father," as between "our Father" and "our Lord Jesus Christ."
10.
He is also prayed to in 2. Thess. 3. 5:— The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patient waiting for Christ; for the term " Lord" refers to the Holy Ghost, not only because he is particularly distinguished from God the Father, into whose love he is to direct them, and from Christ, but also because the special influence for which the Apostle prays is asserted to be the production of the Holy Ghost, in Rom. 5. 5—" The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost."
11
Christ directed his Disciples to pray to the Holy Ghost, in Luke, 10.2
Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth laborer’s into his harvest. For it is evident that he is the Lord of the harvest, from his assuming the office of sending forth laborer’s, as in Acts, 13. 2, 4—" The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them - - - so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost," etc.
12
He is said to dwell in believers, as in a temple, in 1. Cor. 6. 19:—
What I know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" The idea of a " temple" presupposes the Deity of the person who dwells in it. No one dwells in a temple but God.
13
The Apostle expressly calls the Holy Ghost " God," in Coll. 2. 2:— The mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; for that he is designated by the title " God" is evident from this, that the conjunction which is made use of to specify a distinction between " the Father" and " Christ" is also used between the terms " God" and "the Father," and, therefore, establishes the very same distinction between them.
14
The Holy Ghost is represented as the object of the greatest moral offence of which men can be guilty in Mark, 3. 28, 29:— All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost -bath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. There cannot be adduced a more unanswerable proof of the Deity of the Holy Ghost than this passage affords, for it is totally impossible to explain it upon any principle that would suppose that men would be forgiven their transgressions against the Supreme God, whilst they could not be forgiven their transgressions against a created being I In fact, God alone is represented to us in Scripture as the proper object of offence by sin; and he must be the Supreme God against whom any transgression could be so aggravated as to be unpardonable.
These arguments may be sufficient to shew that Mr. Mitchel's assertion is gratuitous.
Some persons represent the doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Ghost as not so clearly established by Scripture proofs as that of the Son. I cannot agree with them. It may, indeed, be remarked that the Sacred Writers often appear to institute a digression from the subject they are treating on, in order to assert the Deity of the Son, whereas the system which they seem to adopt, in reference to the Deity of the Holy Ghost and of the Father, is to pre-suppose it as self-evident, and to take it for granted; and the reason may be this, that since the Holy Ghost did not appear in a form which might render his Deity questionable, it was not necessary to assert so directly and emphatically that he was God, as it was in reference to the Son, who was manifest in the flesh, and whose human nature was, therefore, an obstacle to the belief of his Deity.
Before we conclude this section, it may be necessary to remark, that there are many who not only deny the Deity, but even the personality, of the Spirit. As far as Mr. Mitchel is individually concerned, he admits the latter; but, as we believe there are very few connected with the system to which he belongs who would agree with him in this opinion, it may not be considered irrelevant to offer a few arguments in support of the personality of the Holy Ghost—viz.:
The personal pronoun in the masculine gender is used to designate the Holy Ghost as in John, 16. 7—" If I depart, I will send him unto you;" verse 8—" When he is come, he will reprove the world;" verse 13—" When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and lie will shew you things to come," etc.
Personal faculties and feelings are attributed to him: UNDERSTANDING, in 1. Cor. 2. 11—" The things of God knows no one but the Spirit of God;" WILL, in 1. Cor. 12.11—" Dividing to every man severally as he will;" GRIEF, in Eph. 4. 30—" Grieve not the Holy Spirit;" SPEECH, in Acts, 13. 2—" The Holy Ghost said;" APPROBATION, in Acts, 15. 28—" It seemed good to the Holy Ghost," etc.
Personal offices and actions are attributed to him: of a MASTER, in John, 14. 26—" He shall teach you all things;" of a GUIDE, in John, 16. 13—." He will guide you into all truth;" of a WITNESS, in John, 15. 26—" He shall testify of me;" of a COMFORTER, in John, 14. 16—" I will pray the Father, and he will give you another comforter," etc.
There is the same evidence for the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost, in the Baptismal form and Apostolic benedictions, as there is for that of the Father and of the Son, as is evident from their grammatical construction.
The language of the Apostle, in Rom. 15. 13—"through the power of the Holy Ghost,"—would be absurd, on the supposition of his not being a person; for if he be a mere influence or power of God, then "the power of the Holy Ghost" would be equivalent to the "power of the power of God."
There is a manifest distinction observed between the influences produced, and the Spirit who is the producer of those influences, in 1. Cor. 12. 4—" There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit," so as to prove, beyond doubt, that the Holy Ghost is not an influence, but a person.
From these arguments, it will appear evident that the Scriptures teach us the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. But it is necessary to remark, that when we use the word "person" to express the distinction which subsists between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, we do not intend to convey the very same idea as when we employ it to denote the personal distinction which exists between one man and another. We do not profess to explain its import in reference to the Godhead. We use it, because it is a Scriptural term which occurs in Heb. 1. 3; and from the mysteriousness which is necessarily connected with the nature and subsistence of the Supreme Being, it must have some peculiar and exclusive meaning which a finite understanding could not comprehend, for " the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God." This remark should be particularly attended to, because our opponents frequently advance arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, which are based upon an assumed definition of the word " Person;" these arguments are to be answered by refusing to admit the accuracy of the definition which is thus taken for granted, and by saying that we do not use the word in its common acceptation, but merely to denote that there exists between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, some sort of distinction which bears a mysterious resemblance to an ordinary distinction of persons, and which is not inconsistent with the unity of the Divine nature. And although we cannot explain how one Divine nature can be common to three persons, in such a manner as not to violate the unity of that nature, we do not concede any advantage to our opponents in the argument, for as they are equally unacquainted with the mysteries of the Godhead, they cannot demonstrate that it is impossible for the Divine nature to be common to three persons, without destroying its unity.
That it is unnecessary to have definite opinions upon the character and dignity of Christ; in reference to which he says:—" If it had been thought a matter essential to the faith and salvation of men, that the nature and dignity of that Divine Redeemer should be apprehended alike by all, it would doubtless have been revealed in suck a manner as to leave no room for honest enquirers to doubt or to differ on the subject. That honest enquirers—that men of the highest talents—of the first education—of the most undoubted sincerity and piety—have taken different views of this matter, is, to my mind, a clear indication that it has not been very distinctly revealed, and that it cannot be of such vital importance as it is sometimes represented. Will a criminal, under sentence of death, waste his time in disputing about the rank and office of the person who is authorized to bring him a reprieve, before he can make up his mind to accept of his Sovereign's pardon? An act of grace has been passed in the Courts of Heaven, to rescue sinful man from merited perdition; these glad tidings have been conveyed to us by a messenger from above;—be that messenger who he may, it is plain the message comes to vs with the highest Divine authority; and shall we turn away from that joyful, that life-giving message, and consume our time, our talents and our temper, in vain and fruitless disputation about the dignity of the messenger?" (p. 14.)
ANSWER.
It would be very difficult to prove that the author of the above paragraph maintains the doctrine of Atonement, by the death of Christ, as it rests the hope of man's salvation altogether upon " an act of grace, passed in the courts of Heaven," before the Son of God was manifest in the flesh, and represents him as merely the " messenger" who was sent to communicate that intelligence. How different is this from the doctrine which the Scriptures reveal—that Christ was the " unspeakable gift" of God—that he was a " ransom" for the sins of the world; and which exhibits his death upon the cross as the only foundation of a sinner's hope. I am aware that Mr. Mitchel has said, in his 53d page, that he universally teaches the doctrine of the Atonement; but if his notions of that doctrine he consistent with regarding Christ as only a messenger—with founding the salvation of man upon an act of grace, passed in the courts of Heaven, and not upon the work which Jesus Christ has accomplished upon the earth, and with considering the dignity of his person to be totally unconnected with the object of his mission—he cannot possibly use the word " Atonement" in the same sense in which the New Testament employs that term. The very essence of the Atonement, as revealed in Scripture, consists in its deriving its efficacy altogether from the supreme dignity of the person who effected it—a fact which Mr. Mitchel has entirely overlooked.
I shall reply to this OBJECTION by stating, as briefly and concisely as possible, a few reasons, which render it necessary to entertain definite and correct sentiments upon the dignity and Deity of Christ.
1. If we contemplate the undertaking of the Savior in the very lowest point of view, as merely the transmission of a message from the Creator to his creatures, is it not of much practical importance to be apprised of the dignity of his person and character, in order to ensure a cordial and submissive reception of the message he was sent to convey? And is there not an im- measurable importance attached to the subject of his embassy, and a proportionable responsibility connected with those who reject it, when it is known that the message has been delivered by the voice of him who can shake the earth, and not by a merely created being? Our Savior, for instance, refers to this very argument in a parable which he delivered, as illustrative of his mission, in Luke, 20. 13—" Then, said the Lord of the vineyard, I will send my beloved Son—it may be they will reverence him;" and the Apostle to the Hebrews expatiates more fully upon it in his 1st and 2d chapters, where, having instituted a course of reasoning to prove that Christ was superior to Prophets and Angels, and was, in fact, the " Lord who, in the beginning, had laid the foundations of the earth," he draws this conclusion—" Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which, at the first, began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?"
2. It is necessary to entertain definite sentiments upon the dignity of our Savior’s person, in order to ascertain whether we, who believe in his Deity, are guilty of idolatry in offering to him Divine adoration, or whether those, who consider him to be a created being, are guilty of sacrilege, in withholding from him that reverence and worship to which, as God, he is legitimately entitled. This is a point of vital importance. If Jesus Christ be not invested with the attributes of Supreme Deity, then we present unto him a service which should be exclusively appropriated to an infinitely superior being, and are guilty of an idolatry as erroneous in principle, and as sinful in practice, as ever was presented before the shrine of a Heathen Deity. In what, for instance, did Pagan idolatry consist? In worshipping and serving the creature (not more than but), " besides the Creator" (as it is in the original), so that we are equally guilty of idolatry, if we pay to Christ an homage either similar or inferior to that which we pay to the Father; for, in either case, on the supposition of his not possessing Deity, we would be worshipping and serving the creature, besides the Creator. On the other hand, if Christ be entitled to Supreme adoration, those who withhold it are guilty of a crime which is equal in magnitude with that of neglecting the worship of the Father; for "he that honored not the Son honored not the Father that sent him."
3. It is necessary to entertain correct sentiments upon the dignity of the person of Christ, in order to be able to appreciate the love of God, which is so emphatically spoken of in such passages as the following:—" God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son"—John, 3. 16. " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"—Rom. 8. 32. " In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him"—I. John, 4. 9. In these passages, and in many others, the dignity of the Savior is exhibited as the standard by which we are to estimate the extent of the love of God. If, therefore, his love, in giving his Son, was so amazing and inconceivable as to exceed all finite comprehension, how infinite and inconceivable must be the dignity of the Savior? On the other hand, what are we to think of a system which would represent " God's " unspeakable gift" as nothing more than a creature, infinitely inferior to the Being who has sent him? Surely such a representation of the character and dignity of Christ altogether neutralizes and annihilates the love of the Father to the world? And if we contemplate the amount of glory connected with the office to which Christ was appointed—the dignity to which, as Mediator, he has been elevated—and the universal homage which is paid to him by all the inhabitants of the universe, in consequence of the work of kindness he has achieved—if he be a created and finite being, the Scriptures should, with more propriety, refer the love of the Father to his only begotten Son, as its legitimate and immediate object; for in that case it might more correctly be said, that " God so loved his Son that he appointed him to an office of unprecedented dignity and of rival ship with himself."
4. It is necessary to determine the dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ, because the estimate which men form of the other doctrines of Christianity is invariably modified and characterized in proportion to the sentiments which they entertain in reference to the person of the Savior. They, for instance, who believe him to have been merely a created being, will be found to possess opinions equally low upon the subjects of human depravity, the necessity of an atoning sacrifice, justification by faith, and sanctification by the influences of the Spirit. Their opinions upon the subject of human depravity must be low—because he who believes that God's justice could be vindicated by the sacrifice of a creature must consider the estimate which he forms of the corruption of human nature to be inconsiderable. Their sentiments upon the necessity of an atonement must be vague and obscure—because they divest the Savior of those attributes which can alone impart to the atonement its value and sufficiency. Their opinions upon the doctrine of justification by faith must be equally erroneous—because the righteousness of a creature could only serve for his own justification, and could not be communicated to another. And their sentiments upon the necessity of sanctification, by the influences of the Spirit, must also be inadequate, if their estimate of the corruption of our nature be incorrect, and if they deny to the Holy Spirit those qualifications of Godhead which are necessary to enable him to perform the office of Sanctifier. In fact, the doctrine of our Savior’s dignity is the very essence and nucleus of Christianity; so that, just in proportion as the opinions of men upon this fundamental tenet rise or fall, their opinions upon every other doctrine will be influenced in a similar degree; and none but those who admit his Supreme Deity can attach to the other doctrines of the Gospel that importance and elevation which they possess in the Bible.
5. It is necessary to believe in the Supreme Deity of the Savior, in order that his death may be regarded as an adequate expression of God's hatred of sin. The transgressions of mankind, when considered in reference to the infinite holiness of that Being against whom they are committed, must necessarily wear to his observation an aspect of infinite enormity. Would, then, the death of a finite and created being afford to the inhabitants of God's moral universe a sufficient indication of the estimate which he forms of transgression? Would not the solitary death of one created being, whilst myriads were pardoned, afford but a partial exhibition of the unsullied purity of Jehovah's character, and of the amount of satisfaction required by his justice P But admit the Deity of Christ, and his death is at once an expression of God's hatred of sin, commensurate with the length and breadth of the estimate which he forms of it, and presents an emphatic and awful testimony of the moral enormity of transgression.
6. The Deity of Christ is absolutely necessary, in order to give value to the atonement which he has effected upon the cross. The very nature of an atonement implies that its efficacy is intended for beings distinct from him who was the agent of its accomplishment. Now, if Christ was a created and finite being, every work which he discharged was necessary for his own justification, and he could perform no more than what was incumbent upon him by the very necessity of his condition, as a subject of the moral government of God. He could, therefore, have no righteousness to communicate—no work of supererogation to offer, on behalf of a ruined and a guilty world. How awful, then, are the consequences of that system which denies the Deity of the Savior, and thereby destroys, altogether, the vicarious sufficiency of his sacrifice 1 But contemplate the atonement, as consummated by him who was " God manifest in the flesh," and the work which he performed, as MAN, acquires an infinite value from the character which he sustains as Got), and becomes full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and oblation for the sins of the whole world.
7. It is necessary to believe the Supreme Deity of Christ, in order to give influence and cogency to the motive to Christian obedience which the Gospel supplies. That motive is " the love of Christ," exemplified in becoming poor, in order that we, through his poverty, might be made rich. If, then, Christ was a mere created and finite being, where was the extreme condescension, the infinite disinterestedness of his love, without which it cannot possess that constraining efficacy which is ascribed to it in the Scriptures? The enterprise in which he engaged was one so inconceivably grand, and brought with it such an emolument of dignity and of glory, that if he was a creature, his philanthropy should rather he attributed to motives of personal ambition, and a desire of personal aggrandizement. Where was the humiliation in a merely created being consenting to undergo a few short hours of suffering, no matter how intense, in order to be elevated to a participation of the throne of the Eternal—to be appointed to the government of the universe—to receive the adoration and worship of all the inmates of Heaven—to be recognized as the arbitrator of the final destinies of man—and, in fact, to supersede the dominion of Jehovah by an exertion of his prerogatives, and an assumption of his glory? By such a representation the benefit resulting to man would become insignificant and unobservable, in comparison with the immensity of glory acquired by the Savior. There must, in short, be some sense in which even the Mediatorial exaltation of the Son of God was an act of condescension, in order that his object in undertaking the office might exclusively refer to the welfare of his people; but this cannot be the case on any supposition which would contradict his Deity,
8. It is necessary to believe in the Deity of Christ, in order that we may not divert our affections from the Supreme God, and attach them to a creature. It is the express command of Scripture that we should regard the benevolent interference of the Son of God as deserving, on our part, the most intense devotion of gratitude and love. The Apostle, for instance, prays for the Ephesian Church, that they " may be able to comprehend, with all Saints, what is the height and breadth, and length and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge." Now a love which passes knowledge obviously requires, upon our part, a gratitude equally inconceivable. Can we, then, suppose the Gospel to be a system commanding us to endeavor to approximate to an immeasurable amount of gratitude to a created being, infinitely inferior to the Supreme and everlasting Creator! But, admit the Deity of Christ, and this moral anomaly is at once removed; and then alone we can safely say, without danger of derogating from the exclusive prerogatives of the Godhead—" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him he anathema maranatha."
I have merely suggested these remarks in a brief and cursory manner, as subjects for the meditation of the reader; and when he considers, with candid and unprejudiced attention, the moral arguments they contain, I have no hesitation to say that he will come to the conclusion, that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is that which constitutes the very essence and peculiarity of the Gospel.
I have now finished my investigation into this important subject, and commit it to the attentive perusal of the reader with much diffidence and anxiety. As my only motive was to endeavor to uphold religious truth by strong Scriptural arguments, I have paid but little attention to the embellishments of composition. I know hot whether to anticipate a reply; for it has hitherto invariably happened, that the advocates of Trinitarianism have been left in possession of the field. Let the reader judge whether this may not be a tacit acknowledgment, from those who oppose our sentiments, that their cause is indefensible and weak.
THE END.