Imágenes de páginas

the Lord's hosts." If this were the Person of the Father; whose Angel was he? Of whose hosts was he the Captain? And who sent him? For the meaning of the word Angel, is, one sent.

Which of the persons of the sacred Trinity did Isaiah behold, when he "saw the Lord upon a throne of glory, high and lifted up?" A writer of the gospel informs, "those things said Isaiah, when he saw his (Christ's) glory and spake of him." David says, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand," &c. Here David's Lord was Christ; and thus he was the King of Israel.

But it may be said, has not our writer proved his doctrine? If so, facts are stubborn things, whatever objections may be made. This is the point, then, to be examined. And,

1. Arguments that prove too much, must be fallacious. From the precise train of the arguments of our writer, we can prove that it was the person of the father who appeared in the man Christ; and not any supposed second Person of a Trinity. Christ taught that he could of himself do nothing. "The Father who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Here then (says the argument of our writer,) the only divinity that dwelt in Christ, was exclusively the person of the Father! precisely as was the God of the Jews, in our writer's text, whom Christ calls his Father.

And we may hence proceed to inferences, of the same legitimacy with those of this writer, that hence we learn that there is no second, and no third person in the Godhead.-It is the person of the Father, who is "the Captain of our salvation ;" who died on the cross; and is "head over all things to the church ;" or else the person, who has these characteristics is but a mere creature, in whom the Father dwelt.

And other arguments, of the same kind, may be adduced, to show, that the person of the Father is, exclusively, the only Divinity of the Saviour of the world. Said the Saviour, concerning his death and resurrection, "I have power to lay it down; and have power to take it again." Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it." But the Father raised Christ from the dead, “Like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father." Let our writer's argument, then,make the deduction, that hence the divinity in Christ, was exclusively, the person of the Father!


But, as no Trinitarian will admit this conclusion, so the argument of our writer is not to be admitted.

2. The persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are in essence one God. This our writer admits; and yet seems to have forgotten there is but one God. Yet this one God is three that bare record in heaven. All the glories of the Infinite One, belong to each of the three. And the second person, when he appeared on earth, and when he conversed with the unbelieving Jews, whom they saw as a man, did often ascribe what appeared to be in him

more than human, to God; whom he sometimes called God; and sometimes his Father. This he often did, instead of ascribing such divine operations to the second person of the Godhead dwelling in him. But when he did thus, and was speaking as a man; he, by the word God, and his Father, evidently meant the same that we call God, viz. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This three in one, is our God; whom the Jews claimed as their God; and who was the God of Abraham. Christ in such connexions, spake of God, and his Father, only in distinction from his humanity, and without any regard to the distinction of persons in the Godhead; as nothing of this distinction was then in dispute. And where Christ spake as mediator, (God and man united,) it is thought that he would and did, generally, ascribe what was done by divinity within him, to the Father, inasmuch as he and the Father were one in God; and inasmuch as the Father was, officially, the infinite supervisor of all things, and thus did all things, even that Christ did. But can we admit, that when Christ (in the days of his humiliation on earth) thus ascribed what was wrought by divinity within him, to the Father, rather than to the second person of the Trinity, veiled in his humanity, he meant to deny the existence of a second divine person in the Trinity? surely not, any more than that he meant to deny the existence of the Holy Ghost. While Christ thus ascribed his divine operations to the Father; he yet often gave notice of his own infinite divinity, and equality to the Father; as might be shown by many of his expressions, and many texts.

We are led then, more particularly,

3. To show where is the mistake of this writer. In his text Christ says, "It is my Father that honoreth me, of whom ye say that he is your God."

The writer takes for granted, that by the word Father here, Christ means the first person in the Trinity; to the exclusion of the second and third. And hence he infers, that the God of the Jews, and of Abraham, was the first person of the Trinity; to the exclusion of the second, and third persons. But this (taken as admitted) is not admitted. Christ was not speaking here as a Trinitarian disputant, relative to the doctrine of the Trinity; and thus warranting us to take the word Father here in its distinctive sense. But by Father, he meant the same as God, the three in one; as is evident from what follows; "of whom ye say that he is your God." Here by his Father, he meant the same that they called their God. But this was the same as our God,-the infinite Three in heaven. This view fully answered Christ's then present purpose; which was to show, that he was the Messiah: and not an imposter. He was teaching, that God dwelt in his humanity-the God whom they claimed as their God; this was the being, who produced and commissioned his humanity then addressing them.

But to view Christ as speaking here, distinctively and exclusively, of the first person in the Trinity; and hence to infer, as our writer has done, that as the Father here was the same with the God of the Jews, and of Abraham, therefore the God of Abraham, and the King of Israel was exclusively and distinctively the first person of the Trinity, is incorrect, and without foundation, and contradicts much of the sacred oracles.

The word Father is abundantly thus used in the Bible, to denote not exclusively the first person of the Trinity; but the infinite God; the three in one. Take one or two texts, as a specimen of many. "Therewith bless we God, even the Father.” “ Every perfect gift cometh down from the Father of lights." By the word Father, in such texts, (as in the text of our writer,) is meant God; the one infinite God. But when the word is used with (and in distinction from) the Son and Spirit; then it clearly means the first person in the Trinity.

4. The Jews, when our Saviour told them that their God was his Father, did not understand him as meaning to exclude his own divinity from the being whom he called his Father; but the reverse. "Because thou being a man, makest thyself God." They even understood Christ, as identifying himself in his divine nature with the God of Abraham. They thus understood him in this very discourse with the Jews, from which our writer selects his text.

They tauntingly said, "Thou art not yet fifty years old; and hast thou scen Abraham ?" Christ answered them, "before Abraham was I am," He does not say here I was ;-but "I am ;" alluding to the very name he expressed in the bush-" I am that I am;"--and when he added, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," they understood him thus; and hence caught up stones to cast at him. Could he, then, mean to teach, that he was not the God of Abraham, as our writer would prove.

5. The God of Abraham is the God of the Christian church. "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." But who is the God of the Christian Church? Is this exclusively the first person of the Trinity? Our God is the "Three that bear record in Heaven-which three are one." Hence that Three is Abraham's God. And each, in that Three, is Abraham's God. And here is found a most cogent argument in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity.

6. Had our writer been a Unitarian, and had Unitarian sentiment been correct, it is confessed, that his arguments would have been logical, and conclusive. When I first read the sermon, I thought it must have been from the pen of a powerful Unitarian. And finding that he had peremptorily ranked Dr. Watts among the Unitarian writers, was not calculated to undeceive me. There

seems an unpleasant affinity between his arguments, and those of Unitarians. The latter infer from Christ's being the Son of God, that he cannot be God himself! And the former would infer, from Christ's being the Son of the God of Abraham, that he cannot himself be the God of Abraham.

7. We find three classes of sacred texts, alluding to Jesus Christ. In one, he is man. In one, he is God. In one he is Mediator. As man, and as mediator, he acknowledges a total dependance on God the Father. As a man, he is physically dependant, (as are all men.) As mediator, Christ (human and divine) is officially dependant. His office is constituted. Hence as Mediator, he acknowledges the Father in all things. "The Father doeth the works." This Christ does, because the Father presides over the whole economy of the Godhead in creation, providence, and redemption.

But we have a great class of sacred texts, which assures us of the real divinity of Christ. In these he is one with the Father; God over all; the mighty God; the Almighty. And never is Christ to be viewed, when officially acknowledging the Father in all things, as excluding his own divinity from the Godhead! He, as well as the Father, is the God of Abraham, and our God.

A singular infelicity attends, at least some of our writer's inferences. They are in direct contradiction to the sacred oracles. His inference that "the Father of Christ was the King of Israel," has this unhappiness attending it. Nathanael said to Christ, (John 1,49,) "Rabbi, thou art the son of God; thou art the King of Israel." Nathanael had no idea, that his being the son of God, wasin consistent with his being the King of Israel. Such was the sentiment too of the Psalmist; "The Lord said unto my Lord." Christ was David's Lord; hence was the King of Israel. Christ says, " I am the root and offspring of David." Here he was David's Lord, and Creator.

This leads to note another inference of this writer !

"Then the Father of Christ is the Creator of the world." Had his meaning been, that the Infinite Three, is the Creator of the world; no Trinitarian would object. But his sermon leads us to understand him, that the Father, distinctively, and exclusively, is the Creator; and he speaks of "the importance of giving to each (person in the Godhead) the glory due to his name." To the Father should be ascribed creation; to the Son, redemption; and to the Spirit sanctification.

In things so deep, we know nothing but what the Bible clearly reveals. We are led to inquire, then,-Does the Bible teach, that one of the persons of the Godhead is more peculiarly the Creator ? If so; which? To decide this, let the reader take his Bible, and turn to the following passages; John i. 1: 8, 10. Col. i. 16, 17. Eph. iii; 9. Heb. i; 2, 8, 9, 10. Here, in six passages, the work of

creation is expressly ascribed to Christ. In one of them, God the Father says to Christ-" thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands!" Is it not clear, then, that the infinite Godhead saw fit to operate, in the work of creation, through the immediate agency of the second person? It is so decided. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Have we any sacred texts, which, as clearly, ascribe creation to the Father? I believe we have not one? We read, 1. Cor. viii, 6; "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." But this passage is so far from ascribing creation more especially to the Father, than to Christ; that just the reverse is true! all things are of the Father, and by Christ. The Father, then, is the official Superintendent in the universe; and Christ the infinite Agent. Here is a lively view of the economy of the Godhead. The hu man mind has queried, if Christ is the Creator, and "by him all things consist," what is there left for the Father to do? Where is he He is excluded from nothing. He superintends creation, providence, and grace; and is to be adored in all: while yet Christ is the acting Agent, officially, under him; and the Holy Spirit a joint Agent officially acting under both. We will joyfully abide by the expressions of it given by inspiration: All things are of the Father, and by Christ. All things are done under the eye and direction of the Father, but not by his immediate personal agency. Questions may arise: but man should object nothing to a point so decided.

Christ is presented to us, as the foundation of the new Heavens and new Earth. They are noted as built both upon him, and by him.

Is it not, then, consentaneous with this, that the Father should say to Christ, Go and prepare your materials, and all your accommodations of the natural earth and heavens. I will preside over the whole; but go thou and create them.

Another inference of our writer, is, "Then it was the Father of Christ, who appeared and spake to men under the Old Testament." The writer enumerates various of those appearances, and adds, "and every other appearance under the Old Testament." These he infers, were all made by the person of the Father. If this correctly follows from our author's doctrine, it seems not to accord with the word of God.

In these things, human wisdom knows nothing, but what is decided by inspiration, The Essence, and the distinction of persons, in the infinite Three in One, are infinitely beyond man's comprehension. Revelation then, is his only polar star.

Which person of the Trinity, then, does the Bible present as the Revealer of the Godhead to man? Is it the Father? Which is called

« AnteriorContinuar »