« AnteriorContinuar »
ing that “he was with God,” for the attributes of all beings are with them. There never, perhaps, was any one, who held that the “ power” of God was not with him. But mark-John does not only say that the 56
Logos” was with God, but that he was God. But, to use the words of another, in part, it is difficult for us to divine how he could say, that any attribute, (power or wisdom,) was God, understanding the word “God” in any sense whatever. If it means supreme God, then it reduces itself to this; either that one attribute is the supreme God, or there as many Gods as attributes.
If it mean an inferior God, then the wisdom of God, being an inferior God, implies that the other attributes are superior Gods; or else that his wisdom holds the place of quasi God,* while his other attributes occupy a lower place. Again: if it is said that the Logos or Wisdom does not signify an attribute of God, but his essence, how could it be called · Theos,” for the divine essence is called, Theiotes. Theos, (God,) implies an agent or person, and not the essence of a person. Now, is an express revelation necessary to teach us that the attributes of God are with God? or what can be thought of the assertion, that the wisdom or power of God is God himself. But “ the Logos was with God”_all agree with God the Father. Was not, then, the Logos, who was with God, diverse from that God with whom he was, at least in some sense? the same being who became incarnate, and was in * Almost, near upon.
some respect diverse from the Father, and there. fore not to be confounded with him, consequently he was not an essence, nor yet an attribute of God. “ And the Logos was God." If, as some aver, the Logos is the wisdom of God, and not in anywise distinct from the Father, it involves the depths of mystecism to say that he was God. What would be thought, should a man gravely assert that the wisdom of a man was the man himself? John plainly informs us that while the Logos was God, (Theo8,) at the same time there was a sense in which he was with God. In order, then, that the words of John can have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead, must, we think, unavoidably be admitted; that is, that the Father in all respects, is not the same as the Son. But what could be the object of John in asserting that the Logos was with God? We answer, to indicate conjunction, familiarity, and society.
Thus far, we see that the evidence of the supreme divinity of our Lord is conclusive. Christ is called the Lord of Hosts. “Sanctify the Lord 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,” &c. Isa. 8; 13, 14. This prophecy was fulfilled and applied by the spirit of inspiration to Christ our Savior. 1 Pet. 2:4. It is altogether unnecessary to swell the number of quotations; for, if the texts brought are relevant to the subject of discussion, they are enough to sustain the proposition, that Christ in his divine
nature is the supreme God. We will only add a few more. “ To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.” Jude, 21 verse. • Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over ALL, God blessed forever.” Rom. 9:5. " As concerning the flesh,” to kata sarka. This has respect to his human nature, as may be readily proved by consulting corresponding passages. Rom. 1:3. Acts 2:30. " Who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.” Ho on epi panton Theos eulogetos eis tous aionas. Amen. This is properly translated, “Who is supreme God blessed forever.” Nor is there different sense conveyed when we say, supreme God,” and when we read more literally, ALL God.” Is there any God infinitely above him wbo is styled, epi panton Theos? Certainly this phrase means nothing but supreme God. It is clear from this text that Christ, in some sense, descended from the Father, (that is, in respect to his human nature,) and that at the same time he was in some sense, (that is, in his divine nature,) over all God, or supreme God. Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” This the apostle affirms was said to the SON. " But unto the Son he saith." Heb. 1:8. 6. And 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.” 1 John 5:20. There can be no doubt that John refers to Christ when he
says, « This is the true God and eternal life." He frequently applies the appellation, LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE, to Christ. “ In him, (Christ,) was LIFE, the LIFE was the light of men --giving LIFE to the world." " For the Life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." 1 John 1:2. John nowhere calls the Father, " the lise,” ETERNAL life, and so we must conclude that he calls Jesus Christ the “ True God," and indeed why should he not, when he had previously said “ the Word was GOD." But, without multiplying proof on this point, we refer this proposition to the candid reader, and inquire: Is not Jesus Christ called God in the New Testament, in such a sense, that there can be no doubt that the supreme God is certainly intended? If Jesus Christ is what HE and the holy apostles say he is, he should be revered as such. It is not safe to trifle with his holy character, or try to drag him down among created beings and things. We shall " See the Eternal Judge descending,” and hear his awful voice, and stand before his dread tribunal.
God grant that we may be prepared for that solemn scene.
There is a Plurality of Persons in the God.
We use the words “persons in the Godhead," only to convey an idea directly opposite to that doctrine which asserts that the Son is a being, created or produced by the Father, infinitely distinct, (being only a creature,) and that the Holy Spirit is only an emanation, attribute, or power, of the Father, and in no sense distinct from him. We do not use the term “persons," when applied to God, to denote separate and distinct existence in the being of God; but we apply it to the term Godhead, in order to convey the idea that the essence of God is known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son is not a creature, but truly God, and the Holy Spirit is not a “power," or energy," the Father, but that he, also, is truly God. It is evident that a distinction in the Godhead exists, but it is equally evident that we cannot define that distinction by the term persons, so as to convey the idea we intend, without giving the sense in which we use the term. By person, then, we mean “that which can design.” It is not denied by Unitarians, that in this, or any sense of this term, the Son is a person. This is admitted on all hands. Then it only remains for us to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person, and not an attribute of another person. The reader will bear in mind, that this proposition,