Page images
[merged small][ocr errors]



Messiah the Son of God, according to the promise of the God of Abraham. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” John i. 18. Let us therefore consult the Son in the first place respecting God.

According to the testimony of the Son, delivered in the clearest terms, the Father is that one true God, by whom are all things. Being asked by one of the scribes, Mark xị. 28, 29, 32, which was the first commandment of all, he answered from Deut. vi. 4, “ the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;'

or as it is in the Hebrew, “ Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” The scribe assented; “there is one God, and there is none other one but he ;” and in the following verse Christ approves

this answer. Nothing can be more clear than that it was the opinion of the scribe, as well as of the other Jews, that by the unity of God is intended his oneness of person.

That this God was no other than God the Father, is proved from John viii. 41, 54, “ we have one Father, even God.... it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God.” iv. 21, “neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.” Christ therefore

agrees with the whole people of God, that the Father is that one and only God. For who can believe it possible for the very

first of the commandments to have been so obscure, and so ill understood by the Church through such a succession of ages, that two other persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day ? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, forewarns them that they would have for their God the one Jehovah whom they had always served, and David, that is, Christ, for their King and Lord. Jer. xxx. 9. “they shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them.” In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or worshipped by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and every where clearly asserts him to

[ocr errors]

when thou hast sent.">3

[ocr errors]

it be his Father. Jolin xvii. 3. “ this is life eternal, that they es might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom

xx. 17. “ I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God :" if therefore dit and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God Paul

, the apostle and interpreter of Christ, teaches the same in so clear and perspicuous a manner, that one might almost imagine the inculcation of this truth to have been his

hai beside the Father.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

have spoken

more plainly and expressly of the one God, according to the sense in which the universal consent of mankind has agreed to understand unity of number. 1 Cor. viii

. 4—6. “We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and to

that there is none other God but one: for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many), 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.” Here the expression there is none other God but one, excludes not only all other essences, but all other persons whatever; for it is expressly said in the sixth verse," that the Father is that one God;" wherefore there is no other

person but one ; at least in that sense which is intended by predivines, when they argue from John xiv. 16.* that there is be another, for the sake of asserting the personality of the die

: Milton makes the following remarkable comment on this text, in his treatise on Logic. Exclusiva quidam est vel subjecti vel prædicati ; subjecti

, quæ, nota exclusiva præposita, excludit omnia subjecta alia a prædicato. Sed frustra hanc regulam ratio dictarit, si logicis quibusdam modernis, et nominatim Kickermanno licebit, eam statim, conflato ad id ipsum canone, penditus evertere. Exclusiva, inquit, ' subjecti non excludit concornitantia ; ut solus pater est verus Deus. Hic,' inquit, 'non ex

cluditur concomitans, filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.' At quis non videt subor. hes

natum hunc canonem ad locum illum luculentissimum, Joan, xvii. 3. Jould's ludificandum ?' -Prose Works, Symmons' Ed. VI. 294 * The allusion may be, amongst others, to Diodati

, the friend of Milton, and whose annotations on Scripture were doubtless well known to him. His remark on this verse is, “That the Holy Ghost is distinct from the

Sonne in his personall subsistence, and in the manner of working in hayo believers.' --Diodati's Annotations on the Holy Bible, 3d Edit., London,

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


Holy Spirit. Again, to those who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, God the Father of whom are all things is opposed singly; he who is numerically one God, to many gods. Though the Son be another God, yet in this passage he is called merely Lord ; he of whom are all things is clearly distinguished from him by whom are all things, and if a difference of causation prove a difference of essence, he is distinguished also in essence. Besides, since a numerical difference originates in difference of essence, those who are two numerically, must be also two essentially. There is one Lord, namely he whom “God the Father hath made,” Acts ï. 36. much more therefore is the Father Lord, who made him, though he be not here called Lord. For he who calls the Father one God, also calls him one Lord above all, as Psal. cx. 1. “ the Lord saith unto my Lord,”—a passage which will be more fully discussed hereafter. He who calls

Jesus Christ one Lord, does not call him one God, for this reason among others, that “God the Father hath made him both Lord and Christ,” Acts ii. 36. Elsewhere therefore he calls the Father both God and Lord of him whom he here calls Jesus Christ.” Eph. i. 17. “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. xi. 3. " the head of Christ is God.” Son also himself shall be subject unto him.” If in truth the Father be called the Father of Christ, if he be called the God of Christ, if he be called the head of Christ, if he be called the God to whom Christ described as the Lord, nay, even as the Son himself, is subject, and shall be subjected, why should not the Father be also the Lord of the same Lord Christ, and the God of the same God Christ ; since Christ

[ocr errors]

one Lord

XV. 28. “ the


5. Res etiam singulæ, sive individua, quæ vulgo vocant, singulas sibique proprias formas habent; differunt quippe numero inter se, quod nemo non fatetur. Quid autem est aliud numero inter se, nisi singulis formis differre ? Numerus enim, ut recte Scaliger, est affectio essentiam Quæ igitur numero, essentia quoque differunt; et nequaquam numero, nisi essentia, differrent. Evigilent hic theologi. Quod si quæcunque numero, essentia quoque differunt, nec tamen materia, necesse est formis inter se differant; non autem communibus, ergo propriis. Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio. Prose Works, Symmons' Ed., Vi. 214. The hint thrown out to the theologians in this passage is very remarkable ; but I am not aware that it has ever been noticed as affording a clue to the opinion of Milton on the important subject alluded to, which could scarcely have been expected to be found in a treatise on Logic. See below, p. 132.

must also be God in the same relative manner that he is Lord and Son ? Lastly, the Father is he of whom, and from whom, and by whom, and for whom are all things; Rom. xi. 36. Heb. i. 10. The Son is not he of whom, but only by whom; and that not without an exception, viz. all things which were made,” John i. 3.

“All things, except him which did put all things under him," 1 Cor. xv. 27. It is evident therefore that when it is said "all things were by him," it must be understood of a secondary and delegated power; and that when the particle by is used in reference to the Father, it denotes the primary cause, as John vi. 57. "I live by the Father ;" when in reference to the Son, the secondary and a future occasion.

Again, Eph. iv. 4–6. " there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith,

one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and throngh all

, and

in you all.” Here there is one Spirit, and one Lord; but the Father is one, and therefore God is one in the same sense as the remaining objects of which unity is predicated, that is, numerically one, and therefore one also

1 Tinn.

ii. 5. " there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Here the mediator, though not purely human, is purposely named man, by the title derived from his inferior nature, lest he should be thought equal to the Father, or the same God, the argument distinctly and expressly referring to one God. Besides

; it cannot be explained how any one can be a mediator toe dimaelf on his own behalf ; according to Gal

. iii. 20.

“a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.How then can God be a mediator of God ? Not to mention that he himself uniformly testifies of himself, John viii. 28. “I do nothing of myself and v. 42. “neither came I of myself.” Undoubtedly therefore he does not act as a mediator to hima mediator to himself.

in person.

Rom. v.

10. 6 we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” TU whatever God we were reconciled, if he be one God, he cannot be the God by whom we are reconciled, inasmuch as that must be a mediator /between himself and us, and reconcile God is another person ; for if he be one and the same, he

self; nor return as

us to himself by himself; which is an insurmountable diffi. culty.

Though all this be so self-evident as to require no explanation,-namely, that the Father alone is a self-existent God, and that a being which is not self-existent cannot be God,-it is wonderful with what futile subtleties, or rather with what juggling artifices, certain individuals have endeavoured to elude or obscure the plain meaning of these passages ; leaving no stone unturned, recurring to every shift, attempting every means, as if their object were not to preach the pure and unadulterated truth of the gospel to the poor and simple, but rather by dint of vehemence and obstinacy to sustain some absurd paradox from falling, by the treacherous aid of sophisms and verbal distinctions, borrowed from the barbarous ignorance of the schools.

They defend their conduct, however, on the ground, that though these opinions may seem inconsistent with reason, they are to be received for the sake of other passages of Scripture, and that otherwise Scripture will not be consistent with itself. Setting aside reason therefore, let us have recourse again to the language of Scripture.

The passages in question are two only. The first is John x. 30. “I and my Father are one,'

”-that is, one in essence, as it is commonly interpreted. But God forbid that we should decide rashly on any point relative to the Deity. Two things may be called one in more than one way. Scripture saith, and the Son saith, I and my Father are one,- I bow to their authority. Certain commentators conjecture that they are one in essence,-I reject what is merely man's invention. For the Son has not left us to conjecture in what manner he is one with the Father, (whatever member of the Church may have first arrogated to himself the merit of the discovery,) but explains the doctrine himself most fully, so far as we are concerned to know it. The Father and the Son are one, not indeed in essence, for he had himself said the contrary in the preceding verse, "my Father, which gave them me, is greater than all,” (see also xiv. 28. “my Father is greater than 1,”) and in the following verses he distinctly denies that he made himself God in saying, “I and my Father are one ;" he insists that he had only said as follows, which implies far less, v.36,

say ye of him wbom the Father hath sanctified, and sent

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »