We
have also been charged with denying the Son of God; or in other
words, his divinity; than which, I think, there can be no charge more
unjust. This I [59] hope to evince in the sequel of this section. The
reason why we are thus charged, seems to be, because we have differed
from what are termed the orthodox opinions on this subject. My
reasons for thus differing I feel bound to state; and then shall
endeavor to exhibit my own views as plainly as I can.
There are three general
opinions respecting the
Son of God. One is, That he is the eternal Son of God--eternally
begotten of the Father. Another is, that the Son of God never existed
until he was born of Mary 1820 years ago. The third is that the Son
of God did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor was he eternally
begotten; but that he was the first begotten of the Father, the first
born of every creature; brought forth before all worlds; and in the
fullness of time was united with a body prepared for him; and in whom
dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily. This last opinion I profess
to be mine.
In order to avoid obscurity
in the
investigation of this important subject, I will briefly notice the
two former opinions, before I particularly state my own.
The first opinion is, that
"The Son of God, the
second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one
substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time
was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential
properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being
conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, and of her substance. So that two whole, perfect and distinct
natures, the Godhead and the manhood were inseparably joined together
in one person, without conversion, composition or confusion, which
person is very God and very man, the only mediator between God and
man." Conf. Fth., [60] chap. 8, sec. 2. In the same book he is
called, "The eternal Son of God."--Lar. Cat., Q. 36, 37.
"The Son of God, who is
the Word of
the Father,
the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took
man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and
perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were
joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one
Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified,
dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us."--Meth. Dis., Art.
2.
In these articles I find
several opinions
against which I object. If I misapprehend their true meaning my
brethren, who wrote and subscribe to the articles, will readily
excuse me; for they themselves acknowledge the articles to be
mysteries, therefore beyond their own apprehension.
That the Son of God was very
and eternal God,
and yet eternally begotten, is a doctrine to which I cannot
subscribe; because the terms eternal Son--eternally begotten are not
found in the Bible. As they are human inventions, by human reason
they may be tried, without the imputation of impiety. According to
the before cited articles, the Father and Son are one eternal
substance. The voice of reason is, that the same individual substance
cannot beget itself, nor be begotten by itself. Therefore the
substance of the Son was never begotten nor born. If it be granted,
that the substance of the Son was eternal, and therefore never
begotten; but still urged that the Son was eternally begotten; then
it must follow that, what was eternally begotten had no substance,
and therefore, was not a real being. This is virtually to deny the
Son. [61]
If language conveys ideas,
it is plain that the
act of begetting implies a previous agent; and that the agent and the
act must precede the thing begotten; therefore the Son could not be
eternally begotten.
If the Son be very and
eternal God, and as
there is but one only true God; then it will follow that the Son
begat himself and was his own Father!--that he was active in
begetting, and passive in being begotten. I would humbly ask the
advocates for eternal generation, did the Son of God exist before he
was begotten? If he did, he never was begotten at all--if he did not,
he was not begotten from eternity; therefore not the very and eternal
God. Did the Father from eternity beget a real, eternal being, or
not?--If the Son was a real, eternal being, then there must have been
two real, eternal beings, the Father who begat, and the Son who was
begotten; if not two real, eternal beings, then the real being of the
Son is denied.
I again ask; Did not the
Father send a real
being, his own Son, from heaven into our world to save sinners? If a
real being was sent from heaven, this being was either eternal or
not--if eternal, it argues two eternal Gods; or that the same one God
was sending and sent at the same instant--was active in sending and
passive in being sent; which is impossible.
I am confident that the
advocates for the
doctrine, that the Son was eternally begotten, do not--cannot believe
that a real, intelligent being was begotten from eternity; nor that a
real, eternal, and intelligent being was sent into the world by the
Father. What then was begotten from eternity? What was sent by the
Father into the world? Will it be answered, that it was a personal
property--a divine perfection--a glo [62] rious effulgence?--that
this was the Son of God?--that this was very God?--To say this is
certainly a denial of the Son, as a real, being.
With the notion of the Son
being very and
eternal God, let us turn to Bethlehem, and humbly ask; Who is he that
was born of the Virgin Mary! Our brethren, in the before cited
articles, say that the second person of trinity, very and eternal God
took man's nature in the womb of the virgin, and of her was born. Is
it possible that our brethren believe that the very and only true
God, was born of Mary? And is Mary acknowledged by Protestants to be
the mother of the eternal God. Tertullian says, that he would not
believe that the sovereign God descended into the womb of a woman
though even the Scripture itself should say it.--Cardale's true doc.
page 484.
Let us turn to the cross and
ask, who is he
that suffers, bleeds and dies? The articles before quoted say, That
the second person of trinity was united with our nature, that the two
whole and entire natures, Godhead and manhood, were inseparably
united, never to be divided, very God and very man in one person, who
truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile the
Father to us. Hence we must conclude that the very God suffered, yea,
truly suffered!--that the very and only one God was crucified! yea,
was dead!--and buried too!!--and continued three days and nights
under the power of death!--for the two natures, Godhead and manhood,
are inseparably united never to be divided--therefore as the human
body was in Joseph's tomb, so must be the Godhead too!--All this was
done and suffered by the very God, say our brethren in the [63]
forecited, articles, to reconcile the Father to us! Here is certainly
the notion of two distinct Gods held forth--the one an unchangeable
God; the other a changeable one--The one a living God; the other a
dead, buried one--the one reconciling; the other reconciled! But as
all acknowledge, that there is but one only living God; therefore we
must conclude that the one that was dead was not that one only living
and true God. And as all acknowledge the one only living and true God
is without passions; therefore he that suffered such exquisite
passion on the cross, was not the only living and true God.
All must acknowledge that
the only true God
cannot suffer; for he was as happy during the suffering of Jesus, as
he had been from eternity. I ask again, Who suffered on the cross?
Our brethren say, that the Son was very and eternal God; then it
follows that the Son did not suffer nor die; for very and eternal God
cannot suffer nor die. I repeat the question, Who suffered on the
cross? The answer must be, according to these opinions, not the Son
of God who came from heaven, but a mere man, born of Mary
thirty-three years before. How then is the love of God commended in
his death? Let our brethren, who continually say that we deny Christ,
and the virtue of his blood--let them beware lest they be found, at
least in words, doing it themselves.
If the two natures, Godhead
and manhood, be
inseparably united, never to be divided, as our brethren say, Why did
the Son of God on the cross cry out, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?"--Why did he say to the thief, "To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise," and yet his body in the tomb? How can we
conceive of the Godhead lying with the manhood [64] in the grave? How
can the Son, in the end of the world, be subject to the Father? If
the natures be inseparably united, then his soul was dead and buried
with the body. This is materialism.
It is also affirmed by our
brethren, the Son of
God "took to him a reasonable soul, as well as a true body." Sar:
Cat. 2, 37--That he took a reasonable soul, is a doctrine without a
shadow of Bible proof; the contrary of which is plainly declared. "A
body hast thou prepared me--O God." Heb: x: 5. "The word was made
flesh." John. i: 14. "Christ was the seed of David according to the
flesh." Rom. i: 3. "For as much as the children were partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same"--Heb: ii: 16.
If there is one text to shew that the Son of God took to himself a
reasonable soul, I should be glad to know it.
Though the notions that the
Son, the second
person of trinity, was eternally begotten--that the very God was
united with human nature in the womb of Mary, and born of her--that
Godhead suffered, died and was buried--that the very God suffered
thus to reconcile the Father to us--though these notions appear
absurd to our limited capacities; yet I would humbly admit them, if
the Scriptures ever made such declarations. But as I find no such
declarations in the Bible, I cannot admit them as articles of my
faith. Some, better read in the divinity of the schools, than in that
of Jesus and his disciples, may be ready to call this blasphemy. Of
such I would ask: where did Jesus or his disciples ever teach or
propose such doctrines? Search the Scriptures.
I am confident that mystery
will be urged as
the great argument to refute and cover these difficulties. But shall
we cover ourselves in the mantle of mystery, [65] woven by our own
hands? Shall we cling to a mystery which strikes at the very
existence of the Son of God?--a mystery which destroys the efficacy
of his blood--the commendation of God's love to sinners, and involves
so many absurdities and contradictions? Mystery is one of the names
of the whore of Babylon, written in large letters on her forehead.
Her daughters have the same mark. Rev. 17. Charity would hold my pen
from writing this; yet truth convinces her it is expedient. Long ago
John had a vision of these things in the Isle of Patmos. He saw a
star (an angel of the church) fall from Heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit--with this key (not the key of knowledge) he opened
the dark cabinet of hell, and let out a flood of smoke (the doctrines
of devils and commandments of men) which darkened the sun (the
glorious sun of righteousness, whose existence, character and glory
have long been obscurely seen.) O Lord, with the breath of thy mouth
blow away the smoke from the air, that the Sun of righteousness may
break forth with healing in his beams! Let the King be seen once more
in his beauty, and thy truth in her white and spotless robes!
The second opinion of the
Son of God, that he
never existed before 1820 years ago, when born of Mary, I will now
consider. Though this opinion at first view appears infinitely
variant from the one I have just noticed; yet by a little attention,
we shall find them to be one and the same. I think, as I have already
stated, that they, who maintain that the Son was eternally begotten,
do not believe that a real, eternal, and distinct being from the
Father was begotten, and sent into the world; but an effulgence, or
personal property or [66] perfection, or a something without a
substance, called the Son of God.--This was united with a reasonable
soul and true body 1820 years ago; and then, and not till then, had
it a real and proper existence as a person. They, who maintain the
second opinion, will not object to this notion, but will express
their views in the strongest language, that in this man, miraculously
conceived, dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily, to enable him to
do the work for which he was sent.
My brethren who maintain
that the Son was
eternally begotten, may think I misrepresent their opinions. If I
have, it is without design. When they so unequivocally express "That
there is but one only living and true God without parts," I thence
conclude that they do not believe that another real and eternal God
was begotten from eternity, and sent down from heaven into the world.
If they do, there is a pointed contradiction. If that, which was
begotten from eternity, and sent into the world, be not a real,
intelligent being, then call it by what name you please, it does not
alter the matter, it is still not a real being. If so, the two
opinions are one, which is that the Son of God had no proper or real
existence till born of the Virgin Mary 1820 years ago. This doctrine
I shall endeavor to refute, by stating and proving my own. Thus
Trinitarians and Socinians, though always contending, are in my view,
the same on this doctrine.
My own views of the Son of
God, are, that he
did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor did he exist from
eternity; but was the first begotten of the Father before time or
creation began--that he was sent by the Father 1820 years ago into
the world, and united with a body, prepared for him; and that in him
dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily. These propositions I [67]
will endeavor to establish by arguments drawn from the oracles of
truth.
ARG. 1. The Son of God is
called the first
begotten--the first born of every creature--Heb. i: 6.--"When he
bringeth the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the
angels of God worship him." Col. i: 15. "Who is the image of the
invisible God, the first born of every creature." He is also called
the only begotten of the Father--John i: 14;. iii: 16, 18. And God is
frequently called the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ--Eph.
i: 3. 1 Pet. i: 3, etc. Now as the one only true God was never
begotten nor born--then the expressions, the first begotten--the
first born, cannot apply to the Son as very God. As to the flesh he
was not the first born, for millions were begotten and born before
him: Hence I conclude that the Son of God was begotten before 1820
years ago, and yet not from eternity; but before creation began to
be. Humbly would I suggest that Jesus is called the only begotten of
the Father, because the Father begat him of and by himself, without
the means of any other; but he begat and brought forth all other
beings by his Son.
Some have thought that these
expressions, first
born--first begotten, refer to the resurrection of Christ from the
dead, as in Rev. i: 5;. Col.i:18.
But Jesus was called the
first begotten when he
was brought into the world; and this was prior to his resurrection.
And the expression, the first born, in Col. i: 15, evidently refers
to a period anterior to creation. Should it be construed to signify
his resurrection from the dead, then the Apostle would be chargeable
with an uncommon tautology in 18th v.
ARG. 2. The Bible informs us
that "God created
all things by Jesus Christ"--Eph. iii: 9.--"God hath in [68] these
last days spoken unto us by his Son--by whom also he made the
worlds"--Heb.i: 2.--"Who is the image of the invisible God, the first
born of every creature? 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"--Col. i:15, 17. "All things were made by him, and
without him was not any thing made that was made"--John i: 3. "But 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. viii: 6. From these texts it is plain, that the one God,
whose name is the Father, is the only efficient cause of all things;
and that the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, is the
instrumental cause of all things. This proves that there are two
distinct beings; and that the Son, the first born of every creature,
existed before all worlds, angels, and men, consequently before he
was united with the body prepared for him. To say the Son was very
God, and yet that the Father created all things by him, is the same
as to say, that one God created by another God. "But to us there is
but one God, the Father."
ARG. 3. "And now, Oh!
Father, glorify thou me,
with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was," John xvii: 5. The person praying was not very God; for he
prays to God. He prays for a glory which he once had, but has not
now; for he emptied himself of it--Phil. ii: 8, therefore cannot be
very God, for God is unchangeable. The glory for which he prays, he
had with the Father before the world was; therefore he must have
existed before the [69] world was. Hence it is evident, that a
person, which was not very God, existed with the Father before the
world was: and this person was the Son of God.
ARG. 4. Prov. viii:22, 23,
24, "The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I
was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was. When there were no depths I was brought forth, etc." This by
general consent has been applied to the Son of God. But the ideas of
being set up and brought forth cannot apply to him as very God; for
God was never set up or brought forth. The period of his being set up
and brought forth was from everlasting, which is explained by the
subsequent words, from the beginning or ever the earth was. This
exactly comports with John xvii: 5; and proves the pre-existence of
the Son of God.
The learned, by a glance at
the Hebrew text,
would read it thus: The Lord possessed me, the beginning of his way;
the particle in being omitted, as not found in the original. This
more exactly agrees with the doctrine of the Son, being the first
begotten of the Father. The learned also know the Hebrew word olem,
translated from everlasting, is much more frequently used for an
indefinite than for infinite time. See Parkhurst's Heb. Lex. on the
word olem. Hence the Latin olim, which every Tyro in Latin knows,
refers, not to infinite, but to indefinite time.
Some think that the Son of
God is not intended
in the text, but wisdom, a perfection of Deity. But upon a moment's
reflection, can any affirm that the wisdom of God was ever brought
forth, and therefore not eternal. The Hebrew word helel, translated
brought forth, simply signifies a parturition or travailing in birth.
To apply this to wisdom, as a perfection, would [70] be
unintelligible; but the application to the Son of God, perfectly
accords with truth.
ARG. 5. 2d Cor. viii: 9--"Ye
know the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he
became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." The person
spoken of in the text cannot be very God, for God is unchangeable. He
cannot from being rich, become poor. The fact of Jesus being rich,
and becoming poor, never took place in this world; for in the goods
of time he never was rich, but always poor. Matt. viii: 9. "The foxes
have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man
hath not where to lay his head." Neither in this world was he rich in
grace, and became poor; for though the fullness and riches of grace
were in him, yet in grace he never became poor. If then the
circumstance of the person being rich, and becoming poor, can neither
apply to very God, nor to Jesus when in the world, then it follows
that Jesus was rich before he came into the world, and therefore
existed before he came into it. But it has been proved that this
person was not very God--and it is evident that his body did not
exist before the world was; therefore it was the Son of God, who
existed in the bosom of the Father, rich in glory; yet for our sakes
he emptied himself of it, or became poor.
ARG. 6. John i:15, 17. John
the Baptist's
testimony of Jesus. "He that cometh after me is preferred before me;
for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we received, and
grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him." John declares [71] that the Son of God was before him.
Now as a
man, he
did not exist before John; for John was the elder. He explains his
meaning of his fullness of grace have all we received. Have received
is in the past time. Then John confesses that he, and all his
contemporary brethren, and all the saints in all former ages received
their grace from the fullness of Jesus. Lest any might think they
received grace from Moses or from the law, he adds, that grace came
by Jesus Christ. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; if Enoch, Abel, and
Adam, received grace, from whom did they receive it? Surely out of
the fullness of the Son of God. If those ancient saints had the true
knowledge of God, by whom was that knowledge made known? By the Son
of God; he hath declared him. If then grace, and the knowledge of
God, came by Jesus, and this grace and knowledge came to the first
saints, then the Son of God was not only before John, but also before
Abraham, before Adam; not his body, for this was the seed of Abraham,
and that with which the Son was, 1820 years ago, united. If the old
saints did not receive their grace and salvation from the Son of God,
then, in heaven, they cannot sing the song of the redeemed, which
John heard, ascribing their salvation, grace, and glory, to the
Lamb.
In this sense the Son of God
is called the
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the
last. Between the Alpha and Omega are all the letters, by which are
formed words and sentences; and by these words and sentences are
conveyed ideas and information. He is therefore called the Alpha and
Omega, because from him we have received all the information and
revelations, which infinite wisdom saw needful. He is not only the
Alpha or beginning [72] of this revelation to Adam, Abel, and the old
saints, but he is also the Omega or ending of these revelations to
the world--the first and the last, in revealing to a lost world the
knowledge and grace of God. To apply this text, as is generally done,
to the Being of the Son of God, as the first being, and therefore
eternal God, is gloomy in the extreme. For if he is the first being
he is also the last; and if the last being there must be an end of
all other beings--therefore the life of all the redeemed must come to
a perpetual end.
ARG. 7. The Scriptures
assert that the Son of
God "ascended up where he was before." John vi: 62. But the same
Scriptures teach us that he ascended up to heaven--to the right hand
of God, where Stephen saw him--above all the principalities and
powers. Therefore we conclude that he was in heaven--at the right
hand of God--far above all principalities and powers, before he ever
descended into this world.
ARG. 8. The Scriptures speak
of the humiliation
of the Son of God. "He humbled himself," Phil. ii: 6. Humiliation is
a change from a superior to an inferior state. Now God cannot be
humbled--he cannot change. As man, we see no steps of humiliation in
Jesus--he was born in a low state--lived and died the same; therefore
as man, he never descended from a high state or condition to a low
one. But view him as the Son of God, how astonishing the stoop! The
Son of God! the first begotten of the Father--born of him in the ages
of eternity, before time was born or measured by revolving
spheres--before creation lived.--The Son of God! in the bosom of the
Father, in immeasurable bliss.--The Son of God! by whom were made the
innumerable worlds that bespangle the [73] firmament--by whom were
made all the happy orders of angels, principalities and powers, that
blaze around the throne of God--that bow and worship at the feet of
their maker, and from whose tongues roll ceaseless praise.--The Son
of God! at whose smiles his holy creation is transported, at whose
frowns his enemies tremble. The Son of God! enthroned at the right
hand of the Father--behold the Son of God! a helpless, weeping babe
in Bethlehem--wading thro' seas of distress through life, hated,
insulted, persecuted by the poor creatures of his power, and objects
of his love; view the Son of God, suffering, bleeding, dying on the
cross. All nature shuddered at the sight. It is not a mere man that
suffers and dies: it is the Son of God! Under the power of death, he
lies in Joseph's tomb. Here is humiliation! a theme of astonishment
and eternal praise.
ARG. 9. It is generally
believed that the
Father made a covenant with the Son, concerning the redemption of
sinners, before the son came into the world; in which covenant the
Father promised to hold his hand, help him in the great work, and
preserve him till the salvation was accomplished, etc. Isaiah, xlii
6; xlix: 8. We cannot see how the one only living and true God could
covenant with himself; nor how the Father could make such promises to
the Son as very God. But if we conceive the person to whom the
promises were made, to be the Son of God, the application is easy,
and natural.
ARG. 10. Heb. x:5-7.
"Wherefore, when he cometh
into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not,
but a body hast thou prepared me. Then said I, lo, I come, to do thy
will, O God." The person, for whom the body was prepared, was not
God; [74] for he came to do the will of God. So he speaks John vi:
32. "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me." Hence it appears that a person existed in
heaven previous to his union with the body prepared for him, and that
this person was not very God; therefore it must be the Son of
God.
Other arguments I might
advance to establish
the proposition of the pre-existence of the Son of God; but I think
those already adduced are sufficient. I now proceed to establish the
doctrine of his divinity, as I find it revealed in the
Scriptures.
Some have thought that the
divinity of Christ
is sufficiently established by proving as I have done, that he is the
only begotten Son of God--begotten by and of the Father himself, and
therefore he must be divine, as proceeding immediately from the
divine nature. So the son of Adam was human, as proceeding from human
nature. But waving this point, for the present, I shall come to the
unequivocal language of inspiration.
Jesus taught his disciples
the doctrine of his
divinity very particularly at the close of his ministry on earth. He
had collected his little family together--had informed them of his
exit from this world to his Father, and the persecutions and
afflictions they should endure for his name. At this intelligence
they were sorrowful--Jesus then to comfort them, drew aside the veil
of futurity, and pointed to them the glory which should follow their
suffering. In the view of this, they appeared to forget the troubles
of time; their sorrows were partially turned into joy--John xiv:8,
10. "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. Jesus answered and said unto him, [75] have I been so
long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that
hath seen me, hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, shew us
the Father? believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself;
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.--If ye had
known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth,
ye know him and have seen him"--John 10, 38. What delightful
astonishment must have seized Philip's mind! He had been always
before looking for a God out of Christ! Happy for the world, had
Philip's ignorance died that day; but it has been revived and has
floated down the current of time to our day.
Coll. ii: 9. "In him
dwelleth all the fullness
of the Godhead bodily." 2 Cor. v: 19. "God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto himself." 1 Tim. iii: 16. "God was manifest in the
flesh." From these and many other texts of the same import, the
divinity of Jesus is undeniably established. In him dwelleth, not a
part, but all the fullness of Godhead or divinity bodily. Hence is
Jesus called the mighty God--the everlasting Father--the great
God--the true God, and even Jehovah. We know, we acknowledge, we
worship no other God, but the God in Christ, for this is the true
God, and eternal life--1 John v: 20. In him centres all the glory of
God and man--of heaven and earth--all the perfections of God, for all
are included in the Father, that dwelleth in him, and in the fullness
of Godhead.
Should any ask how it is
that the Father in all
his fullness dwelleth in the Son? I reply in Paul's words "Great is
the mystery of godliness, God was manif [76] ested in the
flesh."--Matters of fact are stubborn things, and these prove the
doctrine true. Read the history of his life, and see the astonishing
works of Almighty power. With a word the diseased were instantly
restored to health--the dead raised to life--tempests calmed--the
devils subjected. All nature was obedient to his word, that very
word, which first gave nature birth. Yet he attributes these very
works to the divinity in him. "It is not I that speak, but the Father
that dwelleth in me. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me; or else believe me for the very work's sake"--John xiv:
10, 11. If the Son, as Son, was God independent, why did he attribute
these works to the Father in him, and not to his own Almighty,
independent power?
Should any ask, how can God
be seen in Christ
when the Scriptures declare that, "No man hath seen God any time?"--1
John iv: 12. I answer; We see not his being or essence, for that is
invisible; but we see his glory shining in the face of Jesus. 2 Cor.
iv: 6. Hence is Jesus called the image of God--the image of the
invisible God--the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express
image of his person, or more literally the character of his
substance.--Were I sitting before a looking glass, and a person
standing behind me, the person is invisible to me; but his image is
seen by me in the glass. I know him as well by the image as if I saw
his very person. So we behold as in a glass the glory of the
Lord--and this glass is the face of Jesus. 2 Cor. iii: 18, and iv:
6.
Some are offended with us,
inferring from these
remarks, that we deny the equality of the Son with the Father. I have
always thought this doctrine very obscure; as equality implies
plurality; and one is not [77] equal to itself. If God be one
infinite spirit without parts, and if there be but one infinite and
true God, then there cannot be another equal to him. This is the
language of consistent reason; but if revelation speaks differently,
reason must humbly submit. There are but two texts of Scripture that
I recollect, which directly speak of the equality of the Son with the
Father. These I will notice.
John v: 18.--"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 with God."
The Jews concluded, because Jesus said that God was his Father, that
he was making himself equal with God. So they at another time
concluded, that he had a devil and was mad. Their conclusions
respecting him are not to be received as true, because they were
blind and knew him not. This of his making himself equal with God was
undoubtedly wrong; for Jesus labors in the following verses to
convince them of it:--19--"Then answered Jesus and said, verily,
verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself but what he
seeth the Father do," etc. Surely if Jesus had been equal to the
Father, he would not have used such language as this, directly
calculated to mislead the people. In 20 v. Jesus speaks of the Father
shewing him all things that himself doeth--26 v. As the Father hath
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself--v. 27. And hath given him authority to execute judgment--30.
v. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge, and my
judgment is just: because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
him that sent me." These things surely do not look like equality.
[78]
The other text is Phil. ii:
6, 7. "Who being in
the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but
made himself of no reputation (emptied himself, Gr.), and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. And
being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death--even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath
highly exalted him," etc. To me it is evident, that the person spoken
of in the text cannot be the one only living and true God; for God
cannot be emptied, humbled and exalted without a change. They who are
acquainted with the Greek, are well assured that our translation of
this text is not the best. Dr. Doddridge is much better, and
certainly the most literal. "Who being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be as God." Dr. Whitby confirms this reading by
abundant quotations from the Septuagint, where the same Greek word
isa is translated as instead of equal. See Whitby in loco. That form
of God, which he had, was the glory he had with the Father before the
world was. In this glory he thought it not robbery to be as God. Yet
so great was his love to sinners that be emptied himself of this
glory, put off the form of God, and took on him the form of a
servant, and died for our redemption. But God hath highly exalted him
to that same glory, for which to be restored Jesus prayed--John xvii:
5.
But Dr. Scott says, that
"the learned bishop
Pearson has shown that isa, especially used with einai, may express
equality as well as ison, the proper Greek term for equal. Thus in
Rev. 21, 16. "The length, and the breadth, and the height of it (esti
isa) are equal." This may pass with the unlearned. But every man of
but a small degree of learning must wonder at the [79] learned
bishop, and Doctor for this remark. Every Tyro in Greek knows that
isa in Rev. 21, 16, is an adjective in the neuter plural, agreeing
with the three neuter nouns before it, and properly signifies equal.
But isa in Phil. ii: 6, is not an adjective, and has no subject with
which it can agree. Every subject in the verse is in the singular
number; but isa, as an adjective, is not found in the
singular.
There is a sense in which
Jesus may be said to
be equal with God, as in 1 Cor. xv: 24, 28--"Then cometh the end,
when be shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,
when he shall have put down all rule, authority and power. And when
all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself
be subject unto him, that put all things (God excepted, v. 7,) under
him, that God may be all in all."--If in the end, the Son is to be
subject to God, it implies that now, or till the end come, he is not
subject: but he is not superior, for God himself is not put under
him: therefore he must be equal. He is not equal in essence, being or
eternity; else he could never be subject to the Father--and such an
equality would destroy the unity of God. But he is equal in the great
work of redemption; all power in heaven and earth being delivered to
him, and all things in heaven, as principalities, powers, etc. being
put under him, to accomplish the work, for which he was sent.
The divinity of Jesus I have
before proved. If
this is what people mean by the equality of the Son with the Father,
I am satisfied with the idea, but not with the expression. We have an
abundance of Scripture to establish the divinity of Jesus, without
torturing such texts as those by which I have endeavored to [80]
prove his pre-existence as the Son of God. By pressing such texts to
prove his divinity, has greatly darkened the truth, and added many to
the number of its enemies.
We are severely beaten by
our brethren for
believing that the Son of God is the instrumental cause of creation.
If the Scriptures convey not this idea as plainly as any other in the
Bible, I must acknowledge that words cannot be the signs of ideas.
For instance, "God created all things by Jesus Christ"--"With 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." These and such like texts, have convinced my mind of the truth
contested by our brethren. Let our brethren affix some more
consistent idea to such texts, before they use such severity as they
have done. Let them inform us how God will judge the world by Jesus
Christ--how he reconciles the world by Jesus--How he justifies by
faith, etc.--then we shall understand, how he made the world by Jesus
Christ.
Our brethren also accuse us
of idolatry for
worshiping the Son of God. They surely do the same; and for this they
have the example of the primitive Christians, who "all call upon the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ"--1 Cor. i: 2. They have the example of
the redeemed in glory, for they all worship God and the Lamb. They
have also the example of angels, for said the Father concerning the
first-begotten, "Let all the angels of God worship him"--Heb. i: 6.
With such examples as these, none should blush nor refuse to worship
him. If it be idolatry in us, who is clear of it? The Scripture says,
"Thou shalt worship the [81]
Lord, thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve."
Our brethren worship the Son as the only true God; we worship the
same only true God in and through the Son. Our brethren do not
believe that the Son is another eternal, distinct God from the
Father; nor do we. When the redeemed in heaven worship God and the
Lamb, do they worship two beings, or but one? When the angels were
commanded by the Father to worship the Son, must they not worship the
Father also? For my part, I feel free to give praise and thanksgiving
to Jesus for what he has done and suffered for me--to love him for
his perfection and goodness--to ask him for the grace that is
treasured in him for sinners. But the same Jesus has taught me that
the origin and fountain of all these things, is God. "God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son--and with him freely
gave us all things." Till it can be proved that God and the Lamb are
one being, I will imitate heaven in worshiping the Lamb, without the
fear of being guilty of idolatry. But if they are two distinct
beings, they cannot be supreme Gods; let those who worship both as
supreme Gods, take heed lest they be guilty of what they so
unblushingly impute to others.
Our brethren think they
sufficiently confute us
when they prove the divinity of the Son of God by the divine names,
titles, attributes, and worship ascribed to him. In this they are
egregiously mistaken. For, these we ascribe to him as well as they.
The difference is this. They ascribe these attributes and names to
the Son, as in him from eternity. But we ascribe them to him because
the Father dwells in him. For our authority, we have already produced
the Scrip [82] tures. Let our brethren prove that the Son was eternal
and independent; then we will acknowledge that he was eternally
divine. The divinity in him we acknowledge was eternal, because all
the fullness of Godhead was in him. But we cannot acknowledge two
eternal, distinct beings, possessed of infinite power, wisdom, etc.
Nor can they without contradicting the first article of their
faith.
The common prejudice of
education may bear hard
against some of these sentiments. Some may make their own notions the
rule by which to judge them; but whether those notions may be
correct, there may be no enquiry. Others, afraid of thinking wrong,
and therefore never thinking for themselves at all, may fix upon the
opinions of their party, as the standard of judgment. But the honest
inquirer will bring these things to the bible, & judge
according
to this rule: this, dear brethren, I hope you will do.
I shall close this section
with a few remarks
in order to rectify a mistake in some, respecting my candor, and
veracity. I had casually observed in my former address, "that for
nearly twenty years past, my mind had not wavered respecting its
truth," meaning that the soul of the man Jesus Christ existed before
all worlds. This doctrine I received when a student of divinity. This
doctrine I preached soon after I came to this state, as the following
certificates will shew--certificates of men whose piety and high
respectability in society are undoubted. Some of them are ruling
elders in the presbyterian church.
We, the subscribers, certify
that we have heard
Barton W. Stone, at least twenty years ago, preach [83] the pre-existence of the
human soul of Jesus
Christ; or that the human soul of Jesus existed before the foundation
of the world. Witness our hands, this 20th day of Dec., 1818.
- John Hopkins
- Thomas Nesbil
- Moses Hall
- James Foster
|
- Robert Caldwell
- David Knox
- John Edward
- Samuel M. Waugh
|
A History of God: Karen Armstrong: Ex Nun
defines the trinity as adopted as a myth to explain that which could
not be
explained. Yet, the myth is not
accepted as fact.
The Battle for God:
Karen Armstrong
Scanned
by Mark R. Lerner, Centreville, VA
Barton W. Stone on
the Trinity As Scanned
Our
Restoration Movement Pages
Home
Page
E-Mail
Comments or Curses
11.04.11 4000
<img src="/cgi-bin/Count.cgi?df=piney/counter_Trinitybs.html.dat">
--
--
