« PreviousContinue »
Jesus himself, praying to the FATHER calls Him the ONLY True God.
The foregoing are, to the best of my knowledge, all the passages which can be considered as directly countenancing the doctrine, that Jesus is a person of one substance, power, and eternity with the Father. This doctrine, however, receives some support, from those passages which are supposed to prove the proper Deity of our Lord; for since the language of Scripture is very express, that there is but one God, it is inferred that the Son, if God, must be one God with the Father. This inference is a plausible one; and, in words, this doctrine pos. sesses a decided superiority over the High Arian scheme, (at least over Dr. Clarke's Arianism,) by preserving, in appearance, the proper unity of God; but if ideas are attached to the words employed, Trinitarianism is, in reality, either Tritheism or Sabellianism : if the Father, Son and Spirit are three persons, that is, three intelligent agents, and each God, there must be three Gods; if Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, they must also be one intelligent agent, or more accurately Father, Son, and Spirit, must be names merely for one intelligent agent, one God.' That Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, is not the same person with the Father, is so completely forced upon the mind by the
1 Sherlock, in his Vindication, (p. 66, adopts decisive language " To say that there are three distinct persons, " and not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense." And in p. 105, “Fatker, Son, and Holy Ghost, are as really distinci persons, as Peter, James, and John."
language of the Scriptures, that it is much to be feared that a large proportion of those Trinitarians who do connect ideas with their language respect. ing the Father, Son, and Spirit, really think of them as three distinct infinite minds," and of course as three Gods. Those who satisfy themselves with regarding the doctrine of Trinity in Unity as a mystery, without attempting to realize the language which they employ, would do well to examine the Scriptures, and see whether this mysterious doctrine was really taught by the Son of God, directly, or through his Apostles. My own conviction respecting the Scriptural grounds of the doctrine of the equality of the Son with the Father, I have already stated in p. 92; and in p. 107-109, I have adduced specific passages which are expressly contradictory to it.
Consideration of the Passages which are supposed
to support the Doctrine of the PROPER DEITY of Jesus.
These passages may be conveniently examined under five heads : 1. Those in which Jesus is, or is supposed to be, called God; 2. Those in which it is supposed that the creation of the natural world is ascribed to him ; 3. Those which ascribe to him other titles, perfections, and powers, which are thought to be inconsistent with his proper humanity; 4. Those which are supposed to teach his superiority to angels; and, 5. Those in which it is thought that Jesus is represented as the object of religious worship.
Sect. I. Passages in which Jesus is, or is sup
posed to be, called God.
10] Matt. i. 23. “ They shall call his name EMMANUEL, which, being interpreted, is, God WITH us.”-I have already stated my present conviction,, respecting the Introduction to Matthew's Gospel, (see p. 19, note *); and with that conviction, cannot allow that any inference from this passage can weigh in the argument: but if Jesus had been called Emmanuel, (which is not stated in any subsequent part of the N. T.), the name k would have implied no more, than those expressions imply. which are recorded in Luke vii. 16. ' A great prophet hath risen up among us, and, God hath visited his people.'-It is not said, “ Jesus shall be God with us,' but they shall call his name,
GOD WITH us:' and God was indeed with us by Jesus; He was with us by those wonderful works which Jesus wrought because God was with him'; and He was with us by Jesus, since by him he fully revealed His own gracious purposes to mankind. Jesus was
k See p. 23. note ().
| Acts x. 38.
the mercy-seat, where the God of love manifested His love to men; and if our Saviour had been called Emmanuel, I for one would have said that he was called so most justly.
11.) Luke i. 16. 17. And many of the children of Israel shall he (i. e. John) turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias.' As the Baptist went before Jesus, it has been inferred by some, that Jesus is intended by the words the Lord their God.'-This inference is contrary to the analogy of the Scriptures in general, and of the writings of Luke in particular; nor does the original justify it. The literal English is, ' And he shall proceed in His sight προελεύσεται ενώπιον και αυτου.: The Christ is in no way mentioned in the angel's speech to Zachariah; nor does the construction in any way require such a reference here.
12.] John i. 1. “And the Word was God, or, 'a God.'-If by the Word the Apostle meant Jesus Christ, he here gives the appellation God to him. I believe that he does this; and if, as I also believe, the Apostle did not regard his revered Lord as a being possessed of a nature supcrior to that of man, he was fully justified in so doing, by the
II possyouer is used nine times in the N. T. in three of which it signifies to proceed'; viz. Mat. xxvi. 39. Mark xiv. 35. Acts xii. io. If it be translated precede, an ellipsis must be supposed of tou xeisou, and the passage rendered, · And in His sight shall he go before the Christ in the spirit and power of Elias.'-- Eywilay very frequently occurs in Luke's writings, (see, among other instances, Luke i. 15, where it is said, that the Baptist would be great in the sight of the Lord,) and is usually and properly rendered in reference to place.
Jewish use of the appellation'. Jesus was the representative of God to mankind; and, as such, he was, in the Jewish phraseology, a God m.
Waterland, after urging against Clarke that he who is not supreme God cannot be properly God, says ", that “if by any way of allusion and re
semblance, any thing be called God, because re
sembling God in one or more particulars, we are 6. not to conclude that it is properly and truly
| See page 62, note (h). “ Schleusner on the word Juos, sense 4, remarks, that it is used metaphorically, to denote one who acts by the order, command, and authority of God, and in the stead of God upon earth.” Simpson's Essays, vol. II.
“ The two expressions, the Word was a God, and, the Word was a Man, being both used concerning the same per: son, cannot both be taken in the plain obvious meaning
of these terms to us, because this involves several palpable contradicions.” Ibid. p. 10. olf in the introduction to his Gospel, John had asserted that Jesus was truly God, he would have proposed to his readers a Messiah, whose very nature and properties were totally different from those of the person whom the prophets predicted, and whose advent the Jew's eagerly expected. He would also have contradicted the assertions of Moses, of John the harbinger of the Messiah, of Jesus himself, and of his aposties and disciples that he was a man.” Ibid. p. 17. But in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, there are several characters which obviously prove the proper humanity of the Logos ;” see i's. 14. (comp. page 64, note (k.) : vs. 30. vs. 41. 45. (compared with Deui. xviii. 18. 19.) and vs. 51.
m If any object to this interpretation, that it supposes two meanings of the word Jsos in tiie same sentence. I refer them to Jonn x. 34. 35. and Ps. xlv. 6. 7. for a complete removal of the difficulty.
n The following extracts were made, I believe, from the Vindication of the Divinity of Christ, p. 49-53.
I cannot however pledge myself for the accuracy of the reference, or of the quotation itself as to words; since I have not now the means of examining either.
Ibid. p. 19.