Page images
PDF
EPUB

than I." At another time he claimed a relationship to him, by which he was understood to make himself God, or equal with God; and the apostle Paul states that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

It is not supposed that divine Nature can be adequately explained, or illustrated by arguments drawn from human nature. But the foregoing observations are made to shew that if man exists in duality, there appears to be no impossibility that God should exist

Trinity; that if this duality in human nature does not involve two sets of all human properties, a Trinity in divine nature does not necessarily involve "three sets of all divine attributes;" that if the body and soul of man do not constitute him two distinct and separate beings, there appears to be no necessity of resolving the divine Nature, designated by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into three distinct and separate beings. From the mode of existence of human nature we do not infer what is the mode of divine existence. But when we admit the peculiar manner of human existence with all its difficulties, there appears to be no necessity of denying a peculiar manner of divine existence, when similar, and perhaps to our apprehension, not greater difficulties attend it.

It does not appear to be necessary to contend whether the two natures of Jesus Christ constitute one person, or not. The dispute is merely about names. When the name person is applied to Christ in both natures, it signifies something different from what it signifies when applied to any other being. Of course, objections may be raised against this complex personality, (as it is called) which would not lie either against his divinity or humanity. If it be proved by scripture that two natures are united in Jesus Christ, it is unnecessary to contend for the word person.

In examining the subject of divine Nature it is found that difficulty is not peculiar to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Those, who vindicate the simple unity of God,

believe his omnipresence. They believe he is present in different parts of the world and in heaven at the same time. They believe he exercises his attributes in different parts of creation at one and the same time; and that he is conscious of all his operations. He exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness on earth. At the same time he exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness in heaven. At the same time he is conscious of his operations in both places. We ask in our turn, must there not be as many consciousnesses, "as many sets of all divine attributes," as many distinct beings, or agents, as there are places, in which God is, and acts. God is here; and God is there. If he be wholly here, how can he be there? If he be partly here, and partly there, a part is less than the whole; and of course, must not something less than God be here; and something less than God be there; and must not the supposition imply a division of the divine nature? Let it be shewn how these difficulties. may be removed, and it will help Trinitarians to remove the difficulties, which are alleged against their system.

"it

"It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell," Col. 1:19. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. 2:9. "But if all fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the Father," it is inquired, "must not this fulness have been a derived fulness?" Does it not seem to imply that for all the attributes or excellences, which Christ possessed, he was dependent on his Father?-The fact however is, that the fulness, which dwells in Christ, is the fulness of the Father. But what is this fulness, aside from those "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" imparted to Christ by the Father for the benefit of the church? That the wisdom and power of the Father resided in him. (See Serious Inquirer, pp. 30,43.) If the fulness of the Father, i. e. his wisdom, knowledge and power, was derived from him and dwelt in Christ, and he "possessed" them, it seems that, when

Christ possessed this fulness, the Father did not possess it, unless two distinct beings could possess the same numerical properties. As this is impossible, it appears that, if Christ possessed the fulness of the Father, the Father suffered a privation of his fulness; and that he retained nothing but his name. But if this be not the consequence, we inquire, would not the fulness of the Father, added to the man Christ Jesus, be greater than the Father himself? Is it possible that divine attributes can be transferred? Is it possible that a finite being can be the recipient and possessor of infinite qualities? If the fulness of the Father dwelt in Christ, in no other sense than it dwells in heaven, or on earth, or in christians, might not divine works be attributed, with as much propriety to them, as to him? And how could Christ express that reciprocal union, which subsisted between him and the Father, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." If the Father retained all his attributes after he had imparted his fulness to Christ, would there not be an increase of divinity? Would there not be two sets of divine attributes? But where will our inquiries lead us? The fact is, it is easier to raise difficulties, than to remove them. We need to be cautious, lest we condemn that in others, which we approve in ourselves.

THE CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED

SCRIPTURES.

THE different parts of Christianity perfectly correspond with each other. Its doctrines compose one great chain, whose links are intimately connected. If one doctrine be weakened, the whole system is affected. If one doctrine be expunged, the connexion is dissolved. It is not the province of human imperfection to define the utmost extent of error, which will not make the Christian religion another gospel. But it is evident that every error in religion is of evil tendency; and an incorrect opinion of one doctrine naturally leads to an incorrect opinion of others. Our holy religion is a well connected and proportioned system. Errors also have their connexion and proportion; and it is not seldom they are marshalled into a systematic form. If an incorrect sentiment of one doctrine of the Gospel be formed, this sentiment will not coalesce with other doctrines, till they are modified, perverted, diluted and despoiled of their true meaning. It is unnatural for truth to unite with error; and for error to unite with truth. There is no fellowship; there is no bond of union between them. As far as error is incorporated with divine truth, so far the truth suffers; and the Christian system is marred. Some errors are more pernicious than others. While

some strike at the foundation and subvert the whole fabric of Christianity, others only tarnish it.

The divine plurality appears to be not only a prominent, but an important doctrine of the scriptures. Every manifestation of the divine Nature appears interesting; but none is more so, than that, which is made in the work of redemption. Here, if any where, the Trinity is disclosed; and a belief or a denial of this doctrine is intimately connected with a belief, or denial of most of the doctrines of the gospel. The doctrine of the Trinity appears to give an excellence and importance to other doctrines of Christianity, which, by a denial of it, are wholly lost.

In the covenant of redemption there are contracting parties. The Father promises to give the Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; that he shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; that he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. This was promised him in view, and as a consequence of, his taking upon him the form of a servant, of humbling himself even to the ignominy and tortures of the cross. In view of this part of the covenant transaction, and of what he had to perform, the Son replied, "Lo, I come, (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." In the prosecution of the work of redemption the Holy Spirit appears engaged in renewing human nature; in enlightening and comforting believers, and sealing them to the day of redemption. His office and work afford evidence that he was concerned in the covenant of redemption.

If there be a plurality in the divine Nature; if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constitute this plurality, they are competent to form and execute covenant engagements respecting the salvation of the human race. Each is adequate to his own peculiar work. The excellence and dignity of the high contracting parties give the greatest degree of importance

« PreviousContinue »