66

Coloss. iii. 17, "Do all in the name of the Lord JESUS, giving thanks to GOD and the FATHER by him." In the original, to God EVEN the Father. 1 Thess. iii. 11, Now God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way. Even our Father, or 66 our GOD and FATHER himself." Coloss. ii. 2, "The acknowledgement of the mystery of GoD, and of the FATHER, and of Christ." "Of God even the Father:" or "of the God and Father." Galat. i. 4, "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of GoD and our Father." "The will of our GOD-and FATHER.' James i. 27, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this." "Even the Father." Rev. i. 6, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his FATHER." "Unto his God and Father."

In some few instances the translators have complied with the obvious idiom. James iii. 9, "Bless we GOD, even the FATHER." Where the words and their arrangement are precisely the same. JOHN v. 20. 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.

Him is referred to the Son of God as the antecedent, and it is concluded that Christ is himself the true God.

66

That he who is true" should be the same with his own Son, can present no difficulty to them, who believe the Son to be his own Father. But in the original, his Son Jesus," is not put in apposition with "him that is true;" the word even having been inserted for the purpose of connecting and identifying them. The words should be rendered, "We are in HIM that is true through his Son Jesus Christ;" for such is the meaning of εν in this place and elsewhere. "This" plainly refers to THE GOD whom we are to know by his

Son as the true God. This, whom we know in or by Christ, is the TRUE GOD: and this our knowledge of him, as so declared, is eternal life." The Apostle seems to be making allusion to a passage in his own Gospel, which absolutely excludes Christ from being himself "he that is true," or the "true God." John xvii. 3, "And this is life eternal, that they may knowW THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom THOU hast sent;" or "that they may know thee to be the only true God, and Jesus, whom thou hast sent, to be the Christ."

COLOSS. ii. 9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.

The superstitious inference drawn from this passage, of the whole Trinity, or whole essential Deity, being incarnate or embodied in Jesus, is only reconcilable with the modal or Sabellian scheme of the Trinity, or patripassianism. It is totally inconsistent with the proper tripersonality of the Godhead, and the scheme of the second person only being incarnate in Christ. The fulness of the Godhead is the full measure of God's spirit, which was given to Jesus, and the abundance of his grace or favour: and the figure is applied also to the Apostles of JESUS. Ephes. iii. 19, "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." John i. 16, "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.'

The trite objection therefore to the simple humanity of Jesus, that it is incredible for the Godhead to have dwelt in a peccable man, moulders away. If it be pretended that no portion of divinity can rest upon a peccable man, then Moses and Elisha must have been impeccable. If the holy Jesus, to whom "the spirit was not given by measure," were impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning, Moses and Elisha, in so far as they were obedient,

exceeded the merit of Christ, who could not sin; and to whom therefore it cannot be imputed as merit that he did not sin. The temptation of

Christ in the desert cannot be reconciled with his impeccability, any more than "his learning obedience," or "being made perfect by suffering;' or being "exalted for his obedience unto death:" as God could neither, consistently with his wisdom, reward the obedience of one who could not disobey; nor would he tempt, nor suffer to be tempted, one who could not yield to temptation; nor could one who was GoD admit of being exalted. If Christ was tempted, it follows that he was peccable; and if peccable, he was not GOD.

MATT. xxi. 12, 13. Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple; and said unto them It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

It is said that Jesus speaks of the temple of God as "my house;" and that Jesus is therefore the God whose temple it is: but here, as in the temptation, Jesus is quoting the scriptures: Deut. vi. 16, and Isaiah Ivi. 7. That the original texts applied to him, will not by sophistry itself be contended: that he meant to apply them to himself by accommodation is yet to be proved.

JOHN Xvii. 24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am.

This proof of original equality with God and independent volition and power, is drawn from a mistranslation: the original word is, "I would," or "I wish."

MARK ii. 5, 6, 7. He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be [are] forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but GOD only?

It is therefore concluded that Jesus was God. Diseases were thought by the Jews to be visitations on account of sin; and the declaration of

Jesus, "thy sins are, or have been, forgiven," implies no more than " thy disease is leaving, or has left thee.' John ix. 2, "Master! who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" That the Scribes connected the forgiveness of sin with the cure of disease appears probable, from the method taken by JESUS to prove that he possessed this authority of absolving men from their sins. "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith unto the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise:" Mark ii. 10, 11. The natural inference is not that Jesus was God, but that he had authority from God. In fact, the original word implies derived power; a license, or commission, Ežeriav. Viewing the forgiveness of sins absolutely, without relation to the healing of diseases, no argument can be grounded on it in support of a divinity of nature. If Jesus had "all judgment COM MITTED to him" in his office of Messiah or Son of God, the forgiveness of sins might also be committed to him. They who saw the miracle did not infer that Jesus was God; but in Mark ii. 12, "They were all amazed, and glorified GOD;" and in Matthew ix. 8, where the same miracle is recorded, "the multitude marvelled, and glorified GOD, which HAD GIVEN such power unto men.” MATT. xxv, 31. When the Son of Mun shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.8

That the Son of Man is not therefore God, might have seemed manifest from the succeeding verse: "Then shall the King [the Christ] say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of MY FATHER! inherit the kingdom prepared for you."

That the Apostles themselves did not argue his supreme divinity, appears from Paul: Acts xvii. 31, "He [God] hath appointed a day, in which

he will judge the world in righteousness BY THAT MAN whom HE hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurances unto all men, in that HE hath RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD;" and from John v. 26, 27, "For as the FATHER hath life in himself, so HATH HE GIVEN to the Son to have life in himself, and hath GIVEN HIM authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man;" and Acts x. 40, 42, " Him GOD RAISED UP the third day, and showed him openly; and he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he WHICH WAS ORDAINED OF GOD to be THE JUDGE of quick and dead."

They who think it incredible that "one made" in all respects like his brethren," and "born of a woman," but "declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by his resurrection from the dead, " should be exalted to the high office of Judge of the living and the dead, must equally doubt the words of Jesus to . his Apostles, Matt. xix. 28, "Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, JUDGING the twelve tribes of Israel." The same seems intimated in 1 Cor. vi. 2, "Do ye not know that the Saints shall JUDGE the world?" and ver. 3, " Know ye not that we shall JUDGE Angels?" [Powers or Authorities.]

A great stumbling-block is made out of the exaltation of a peccable man to the dignity of Judge of mankind. When God is supposed to punish "the man by whom sin entered into the world," by im-. puting his sin to all his posterity, though their will had not consented to it, every thing is thought easy. When God is supposed to reward the man who was "without sin," by raising him to a state of suprahuman dignity and glory, the orthodox startle at the incredibility. Jesus was exalted because, being peccable, he was sinless: for, if he could

D