tion is given to the Lamb; next, both are worshiped distinctly together; and lastly, both are worshiped unitedly together; for the chapter concludes with saying, "and the four and twenty elders fell down and worshiped Him that liveth forever and ever; where it is evident that the phrase, "Him that liveth forever and ever," denotes the same Divine Being, viewed perfectly as One, as had been called in the preceeding verse, in reference to his two first Essentials, "Him that sitteth upon the throne and the Lamb." That this epithet, "He that liveth forever and ever," is meant to include both the first Essentials of the Divine Nature, is clear from its being elsewhere applied to each of them distinctly. We have seen in a former quotation, that He that sat on the throne is called "He that liveth forever and ever;"* in another instance, Jesus Christ takes the same title: for he says, "I am He that liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive for ever more: " where the words translated "alive for ever more," are, in the original Greek, the same as are elsewhere translated He that liveth forever and ever." These remarks may serve to explain other passages in which the Divine Being is spoken of in terms which imply duality or triplicity; in all such instances we are not to understand a duality or triplicity of persons, but of Essential Principles in the Divine Nature, constitute together One Person. Thus we find, from an attention to the Old and New Testaments in all their parts, THAT JESUS IS JAHOVAH; THAT HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE, INSOMUCH THAT WHOSO SEETH HIM SEETH THE FATHER; THAT HE IS OVER ALL, GOD BLESSED FOREVER; THAT HE IS THE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF ALL THINGS BY AND FOR HIMSELF; THAT HE IS GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH; THAT HE IS THE GREAT GOD, THE LORD OF GLORY, THE INSPIRER OF THE PROPHETS, THE ONLY WISE GOD: THAT HE IS THE FIRST AND THE LAST; AND THAT, WITH RESPECT TO HIS HUMANITY AS WELL AS HIS DIVINITY, HE IS THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP OF ALL THE ANGELIC HOSTS. Can we then hesitate to admit, that the testimony and spirit of all prophecy respecting Him is, that HE IS THE SUPREME AND ONLY DIVINE BEING? Can any one fear to imitate the conduct of Thomas, when his incredulity was removed, and with a fullness of acknowledgement that excludes the possibility of thinking of any other, cry to Him from the bottom of his heart, "MY LORD AND MY GOD!"

Since then the doctrine of the Sole Divinity of Jesus Christ, is alike free from the objections which reason urges against the Tri-personal system, and from the contrariety to Scripture which is manifest in the Unitarian scheme, with what confi† Ch. i. 18. John xx. 28.

* Ch. iv. 10.

dence may it be recommended, and with what delight should it be received, as the only view of divine truth capable of relieving the mind from all perplexity! Whilst it delivers us from the anarchy and contradictions of Tritheism, it preserves to us all the consolation conveyed in the idea of a Divine Saviour. It removes all obscurity, all room for doubt, and presents us with an Object of worship, on which the understanding can fix itself, and which the heart can embrace with all its best affections.

SECTION VII.

THE TRINITY, AS CENTERED IN THE PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS

CHRIST.

PART II.

All Objections to the Doctrine fall to the ground, when certain Truths are known relating to the Lord as the Son of God, and the Glorification of his Humanity.

THE grand truth of the Sole Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, or that he is Jehovah clothed with Humanity, and that the Father and He are strictly One, has been, I trust, abundantly proved from Scripture; whence it necessarily follows, that the whole Trinity is centered in his Glorious Person. Doubts, however, may remain in the minds of some, unless they are made acquainted with certain other truths requisite for the elucidation of these very general ones, and capable of taking away the grounds of all the objections which can be raised against the doctrine. By presenting these, I trust we shall again, though by a different route, arrive at complete proof of the doctrine itself.

The objections to the doctrine that the whole Divine Trinity is centred in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose Person is thus the person of the Father, are chiefly drawn from these two sources: FIRST, from the belief, that the Being who became incarnate was a son of God born from eternity: here, therefore, I shall endeavor to shew, that the phrase, "Son of God," is the proper title of the Humanity born in time, and that the Being who assumed that Humanity was the One Jehovah: SECONDLY, objections are raised from the fact, that Jesus Christ, while in the world, sometimes spoke as if the Father were a seperate Being from Himself: here, therefore, I shall endeavor to shew,

That, while in the world, he was engaged in the work of glorifying his Humanity, or making it Divine, as part of his great work of Redemption: Thus that so long as he was in the world there was a part of his nature which was not divine; but that the work of glorifying the whole was completed at his resurection and ascension; that all belonging to him had then been made divine; and that thus he now ever liveth and reigneth, with the Father, an Indivisible One, the Only God of Heaven and earth. When these truths are seen, the ground of all the objections which can plausibly be raised against the doctrine, that the whole Trinity is centered in his Glorious Person will be taken away.

I. I am then, First, to meet the objection arising out of the belief, that the Being who became Incarnate was a Son of God born from eternity, by shewing, that the phrase, "Son of God," is the proper title of the Humanity born in time, and that the Being who assumed it was the One Jehovah.

The idea of a Son of God born from eternity includes such a contradiction in terms, that if those who entertain it will pardon the remark, we may well wonder how it could ever have found a propounder; especially, when, on searching the Scriptures, we discover that nothing whatever countenancing such a notion is there to be found. Had there been such a being as a Son of God existing from eternity, governing the universe in conjunction with his Father, and the head and particular Ruler of the church, is it to be supposed, that the church could have been left, for four thousand years, in total ignorance of his existence? Yet such is incontrovertably the fact. The Old Testament, which contains the records of all the churches that ever appeared on this globe, from the creation till the coming of the Lord, never once speaks of a son of God as then actually existing It speaks indeed, prophetically, of a son of God who, in the fulness of time was to be born, but never makes the slightest allusion to a Son of God then born already.

66

The translators of the English Bible have, indeed, once used the term in such a manner, as might lead the uninformed to imagine there was a proper son of God in the days of Daniel. For when Nebuchadnezzar had caused the three pious jews to be cast into the furnace, he is represented as saying, Lo, I see four men, loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and the form of the fourth is like the SON OF GOD."* But it is certain that the words of the original Chaldee, in which language this part of the Scripture is written, ought to be rendered "a son of the Gods; " and this is now admitted by all the learned; while it certainly is much more suitable to the charCh. iii. 25.

acter of the speaker, Nebuchadnezzar, a polytheist, and a worshipper of idols. Even if the Chaldee term for God, when in the plural number, will bear, like the Hebrew term, a singular meaning, still there is no ground whatever for calling the heavenly stranger whom the king saw, "the Son of God," but he ought to be termed "a Son of God;" in the same sense, according to a remark of the commentators, as the epithets, godlike, divine, &c., are applied by Homer to some of his heroes.Indeed, if the ancient Jews could have had an idea like that now entertained, of a Son of God from eternity, it still would be the height of inconsistency to make the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, who knew no more of the principles of the Jewish religion than he did of the modern Christian notions of the Trinity, speak according to such notions. Certain it is that the prophet Daniel, who writes this history, had no intention of making him do so; on the contrary, he represents him as saying, a little below*, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel and delivered his servants." And, no doubt, the being sent to protect the faithful Jews was an angel, and is called a son of God, or, according to the creed of Nebuchadnezzar, a son of the Gods, in the same sense as angels are called Sons of God in Scripture. This is in fact acknowledged in the margin of the common bible, which at ver. 25, for the illustration of the phrase, “son of God," refers us to Job i. 6; where we read, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord." These obviously, are the angels: and one of these sons of God, and not a proper son of God born from eternity, was, doubtless the son of God seen by Nebuchadnezzar. It is greatly to be lamented, that so very important a mis-translation should remain in the English Bible to mislead the simple.Printed too, as it is, with the word "Son" commenced with a capital letter, none who are destitute of other means of information can avoid supposing that there was a proper Son of God then existing; while no shadow of ground realy exists for such an imagination.

Seeing then that Moses and the prophets give us no information about a proper Son of God as existing when that part of the Divine Code was composed, we must come to the New Testament for instruction: where the term is often used, and always in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Of all the places in which it here occurs, perhaps that in Luke i. 35, is best adapted to convey a full insight into its meaning. It is there applied by the angel Gabriel to the Lord Jesus Christ at

* Ver. 28.

his birth, or rather, prior to his birth, in a manner which plainly intimates that there was no Son of God before. In the other gospels, this epithet is given to Jesus Christ, or is assumed by him but in this passage of Luke we learn the origin of the title, and the reason of it. Had there been a Son of God already existing, and it was this which became incarnate and was born of the virgin, we undoubtedly should have had some intimation of it when the angel announced to her the approaching event. He surely would have made some mention of the Being who was about to assume Humanity by her means. He would not merely have told her, that that Holy Thing which should be born of her should be called the SON OF GOD; but, that the Son of God who had existed from all eternity, was about, by her instrumentality, to come into the world. No such thing. He says: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Here is express mention of the Holy Ghost, and of the Highest, or Father, as operating in the divine conception: but nothing is said of a Son from eternity as being in any way concerned; and the omission most plainly implies, what all the perceptions of common sense must be outraged before we can doubt that the Son does not assist to produce himself, nor exist before he is born. The Holy Thing that was to be born, it is said, should be called the Son of God; and so called, not because it had already been born from eternity, but because, (what else does the illative particle, "therefore," intend?-because) it was now first conceived of the Holy Ghost and the Father.

Here, also, is another circumstance which it is impossible for the tri-personalist to reconcile with his creed that the Holy Ghost as well as the Highest or Father, is represented as standing in the relation of parent to the Son of God. It is commonly believed, that the Holy Ghost is a distinct personal being, seperate from both the Father and the Son; if so, then, according to the angel Gabriel, the Son had two distinct Fathers. The Athanasian creed says, that "the Son is of the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten; but the angel Gabriel positively declares, that the Son is of the Holy Ghost and the Highest, begotten alike of both. How evident then it is, that, before we can have clear and consistent notions of the Divine Incarnation, we must not only dismiss from our minds the wild belief of a Son of God, born from eternity, but also that equally extravagant and unscriptural notion, the seperate personality of the Holy Ghost.