23. The Connection of Divine Plurality with other doctrines of the Sacred Scriptures

THE CONNECTION 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 hnks are intimately connected. If one doctrine be weakened, the whole system is affected. If one doctrine be expunged, the connection 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 connection 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 t he truth suffers; and the Christian system is marred.

Some errors are more pernicious than others. While 42 330 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 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 ignoming 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 DOCTRINES OP THE SACREJD SCRIPTURES. 331 to the transaction. The ability of each to fulfil his stipulated part, and the unity of design subsisting between them, afford ground of perfect confidence that the covenant engagements will be performed. The same Being, who, in plurality, said, “let us make man,” was equally able to say, let us redeem man. But if there be no ground of distinction in the divine Nature; if the Son of God be merely a created being; if the Holy Spirit be only the operations of the Father, the covenant of redemption appears to lose its peculiar excellencies. The parties concerned are entirely disproportionate. There is no comparison between the Creator and a creature. It appears to be a manifest incongruity, that God should enter into compact with a created being respecting any matter, in which the latter was not personally concerned. To treat with him by an interchange of correspondent obligations seems to ir^ply an exaltation of the creature to an equality with himself; or an abasement of himself to a level with the creature. In forming the covenant of redemption, did infinite Wisdom need the assistance of any created intelligence? In carrying it into operation did the Almighty need the dependent power of any created being? It is not doubted that the Supreme Being employs ministering servants as agents in the administration of his government. But which of his agents stipulates with the divine Sovereign, and produces claims upon him correspondent to his own obligations? The claims of the Son upon the Father to fulfil his part of the contract are not less valid and important than the claims of the Father upon the Son. What makes this case different from all other cases is this, what the Son did in redemption he did not for himself, but for others. He has, therefore, not only a claim upon the Father arising from promise, but he has a meritorious claim upon him to fulfil his part of the covenant. What created being can, after he has discharged his own personal obligations, produce a surplus of righteousness, which may 332 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER he accounted for the benefit of others; and then produce a claim upon heaven for remuneration for extra services? Were this the case, were this the ground of salvation, then a created being would be the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth He would be made unto us w^isdom, sanctificalion and redemption. The disparity between the Creator and a creature seems to preclude the possibility of their being contracting parties respecting the redemption of man. The disparity is infinitely greater than that existing between the highest sovereign on earth and his lowest subject. If the Son of God be merely a created being, lie does not possess one quality in his nature, which renders him competent to contract with the Father, or to fulfil covenant engagements respecting the salvation of man. His wisdom would not be sufficient to devise concerning those things, which the angels desire to look into. His own power would not be competent to the performance of his part of the compact. Every thing pertaining to him and to his work would be limited; and he would be entirely incompetent to be a party in the covenant.

If the Holy Spirit be not a party in the covenant; if he be only divine operation or influence, there appears to be an incongruity and deficiency in the scheme of redemption. It is the office of the Father to send the Son to fulfil his part of the covenant; to answer his requests; to accept what he does; and ffive him, as a recompense, what he had promised. It is part of the office of the Son to send the Holy Spirit to convince and convert sinners; to comfort believers and seal them to the day of redemption. If the Son be sent by the Father, if he be subordinate to him in his official work, it is incredible that he should have authority over the Father to control his operations and send them when and where he pleases. This would reverse the order of offices; and produce confusion in the economy of redemption. But if the Son Doctrines of the sacred scriptures. 333 and Holy Spirit be divine, as well as the Father, thev are on equality; and they are suitable parties to enter into reciprocal compact. They are adequate to the perlbrmance of their respective parts. The covenant of redemption is an instrument, formed and confirmed in all its articles by Divinity; and carries evidence with itself that it will be fulfilled.

Let the doctrine of the Trinity be next viewed in relation to the atonement. If the Son of God be divine, it was infinite condescension for him to take upon him the form of a servant. He subjected himself to the lowest degree of humiliation, when he veiled his divine glories with humanity in its lowest condition; when lie sutfered the scoffs and reproaches of his enemies; when he endured all the ignominy, which could be cast upon a crucified malefactor. The whole term of his abode on earth was a continued series of deep humiliation. The union of divinity with humanity gave the latter an extraordinary dignity and excellence. So intimate was the connection of divinity and humanity that the second man is called the Lord from heaven; and the blood of the Son of man is called the blood of God. By the union of the Son of God with the Son of man, the sufferings of the humanity of Christ acquired an unspeakable importance; and in conjunction with the abasement of the divine Son, they constituted a sacrifice, which was a propitiation for the sins of the world. Look at the cross and behold divinity and innocent humanity engaged in making an expiation for sin; the one enduring a concealment of his glories, and all the ignominy, which his enemies could cast upon him; and the other suffering the tortures of the ci’oss. In this view the atonement appears to be of infinite importance. By the worth of the sacrifice, which was made, the guilt of sin may be accurately estimated. There was no suffering needlessly expended. If the victim, which was olfcred upon the cross was of infinite 334 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER dignity and excellence, it follows that sin, which required such a sacrifice, was of infinite guilt.

Admit the divinity of Christ and the consequent value of the atonement; and God’s law appears perfectly honorable. If the sacrifice be commensurate with the guilt of sin, the divine law suffers no diminution of its requirements, or of its validity. It exhibits proof that it requires perfect satisfaction for every violation, or that, which will equally preserve its authority and efficacy. It exhibits proof that not one jot or tittle of its requirerrents is abated; and that while mercy is exercised, justice is satisfied. If the sacrifice for sin be made by the Son of God in conjunction with the Son of man, the divine law appears to be as fully honored and magnified, and God expresses as great abhorrence of sin, as if the threatened penalty were inflicted upon transgressors. But if the Son of God be merely a created being, there appears to be less condescension on the part of divinity. There appears to be less value in the atonement. Sin appears with less malignity; and the divine law appears with great abatement of its requirements. If Jesus Christ was merely human, it was no condescension in Deity that he came into the world, labored and suffered as he did; and it was no greater condescension and humiliation in himself than many others have endured. Thousands have appeared in the form of servants; and have innocently suffered the tortures and ignoming of execution as malefactors. If the Son of God was the highest of all created intelligences, his coming into the world in the form of a servant, and suffering the disgrace and tortures of the cross would be no humiliation on the part of Deity; and his own humiliation appears infinitely less than if he were divine.

If the Son of God be only a created being, whether human, or human and superangelic, he does not appear to be capable of making a propitiation for the sins of the world. It is hard to conceive that any » DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 335 creature, however exalted, can perform more than his own duty; or that he should l>ave a surplus of righteousness to appropriate for the benefit of others.

If one should volunteer his services for the assistance of another, he would be either under obligation, or not under obligation’to do it. If he were under oblir gation to tender the kind offices, he would do only what was his own duty. If he were not under obligation to offer his kindness, he would not do his own duty while he communicated assistance to others. Of course, there would be an interval, in which he was free from discharging his own personal obligations; and could perform duty in behalf of others. But not to insist on the inconsistency of such a method; the assistance, which one created being can bestow upon another, is limited in its very nature. Suppose one man dies for another, I’he sufferings of the former are only equivalent to the life of the latter. Suppose one should offer his life for the preservation of the lives of several of his equal fellow beings, the offering would be unequal to the object to be accomplished.

If he should offer his life to save one soul from everlasting death, the sacrifice would be entirely inadequate for the purpose. Should he offer his life for the salvation of the whole human race from endless destruction, what numbers could give the disproportion between the sacrifice and the object to be obtained! A sacrifice made by any created being bears no comparison m its value with the sacrifice made by Divinity in conjunction with humanitv.

If the atonement be of limited value and efficacy, sin appears to be of finite guilt. There is a just proportion, an exact correspondence between the virtue of the sacrifice and the malignity of sin, which is expiated by it. As much as any system reduces the excellence of the victim and the consequent value of his sacrifice, just so much it reduces the g«iilt and ill desert of sin. If a finite being can make atonement for sin, it follows that sin is but a finite evil.

336 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER The honor and force of the divine law is in proportion to the guili of transgression. A transgression of civil law, viewed only in relation to this law, is a finite evil. It is committed by a finite being against a limited authority; and the transgressor can make satisfaction or expiation for his crimes. He can satisfy the demands of the law which he has violated. The limitations of the gu.lt of his offences denote the limitations of the law he had transgressed, and of the authority, which he had offended.

If transorression of the divine law contain but finite o guilt, the law violated, and the Lawgiver must, of course, have those limitations, which appear to be inconsistent with the perfect authority of Jehovah. As much as the evil of sin is diminished, so much the law of God is shorn of its divine excellence, and becomes like another law. If sin be but a finite evil, the divine law cannot justly inflict, or threaten an infinite punishment. A victim of limited capacity could make an atonement; and if^ atonement were not made, a transgressor might make expiation for his own sins; and then claim exemption from further punishment.

Deny the divinity of Christ, and the covenant of redemption appears less important; the atonement appears to lose much, if not all, of its virtue; sin appears to be divested of much of its criminality; the divine law appears to be weakened; and the whole method of salvation appears to suffer a great diminution of its divine excellences. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity proves that the love of God for the human race was very great. This is argued from the greatness of the Father’s love for the Son. The Father testified of him in the most affectionate manner: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” “The Father loveth the Son; and hath given all things into his hand.” But notwithstanding the intimate union subsisting between the Father and the Son, so that the latter is said to be in the bosom of the former; notwithstanding the greatness of the Father’s love for his only begotten and DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 337 dearly beloved Son, yet he sent hirn into the world that he might redeem it. He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The greatness of God’s love for the world is inferred from his sending his Son into the world to make a propitiation for sin.

If his Son were divine; if he were in union with him in all his counsels, and in all his operations, then it was a great thing, a great expression of love for the human race, to send this partner of his throne into the world in the form of a servant; to expose him to the greatest indignity, and subject him to the deepest humiliation. Such sacrifice on the part of Deity expresses, in the strongest manner, his love for fallen humanity. The scriptures represent the love of God toward the human race to be very great. “God commendeth his love toward us,” Romans 5:8. “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God,” 1 John 3:1. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John 4:10. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his Jriends”

John 15:13. “For when we were yet without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly,’^ Romans 5:6.

If the Son of God was merely human, divine love for the human race does not appear extraordinarily great in offering him in sacrifice for their salvation.

Any sovereign, who had a sense of the interest of his kingdom, would, if occasion required, sacrifice one of his subjects, if his death would procure the preservation and highest interest of the rest. By this act he would manifest no more love for his kingdom than the value he set upon the subject he offered in their behalf. But if, instead of giving up one of his common subjects for the preservation of the rest, he should make an offering of his only son, the sole heir of all his substance and authority, his love for his kingdom would appear incomparably greater. In like manner, if the Son, whom God sent into the world 43 338 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER and offered in sacrifice upon the cross, were only human, his love for the world would not be manifested in a very high degree. It would appear only in exact proportion to the value he set upon the victim. If the Son, who was sent into the world were a superangelic being, God’s love for mankind in sending him into the world to make a sacrifice for sin, would appear greater, than if he were merely human. But upon this hypothesis his manifested love for the world Avould not answer to that high description, which is given of it in the sacred scriptures. It would appear unspeakably less, than it would appear by admitting that the Son, who made a sacrifice for sin, was not only the “second man,” but “the Ijord from heaven;” that he was not only in the “form of a servant,” but that he was “the Lord of glory.” Admit the divinity of Christ, and the love of God manifested toward the human race appears worthy of him; it appears adapted to their necessities; and correspondent to the language of scripture, which exhibits it. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity appears to be the foundation of justification by faith in his name. If he be divine, he is mighty to save. “He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” The absolute sufficiency of Jesus Christ to save, appears to be expressed by these passages of scripture. If he possess this absolute sufficiency, he is able to make an expiation for sin. He is able to be the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. If he possess this ability, people may with safety have faith in his name. They may with consistency not only believe the doctrines, which he taught; but they may DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 339 repose entire confidence in his merits, and in the fulfilment of his promises. Faith in the Lord Jesus is one of the most prominent conditions of justification and salvation. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Jailh in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” By this last text of scripture it appears that Christ designed to convey an idea that there was the same ground for believing in him, that there was for believing in God.

If Christ be divine, it is suitable that we should make him the Object of our faith, it is safe to make him the Object of our confidence and trust, it is his just due that we should view and honor him as the Author of salvation. There is no caution given, in the scriptures, lest we should love the Lord Jesus too much; repose too much confidence in his merits; or ascribe too much honor to his name. He testified that he had all authority in heaven and in earth; and he proved that it was his prerogative to forgive sins.

Such a Being is a proper object of faith. Such a being is competent to make a sacrifice for sin, and to justify rebellious subjects on his own conditions.

If Jesus Christ be merely a finite being, deputized and commissioned of God to be a priest; to make an offering for sin, to be a Mediator and Savior, he must receive his qualifications from him, who appointed him to these high and important oflices. If this be true, why does faith terminate in this dependent agent? Why 340 CONNECTION OP DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER is not intimation given that he is but an instrument, by which God operates; that faith and confidence must not be reposed absolutely in hiui; but must extend ultimately to God? Why is not the divine prerogative guarded vi’ith greater circumspection; and why is not a barrier raised with such visible discrimination, that it would naturally prevent people from giving God’s glory to another. Christ said, “ye believe in God, believe also in me.” This language naturally conveys an idea, that belief in Christ was no less important than belief in God. When Clirist was at meat in a Pharisee’s house, a certain woman, who was a sinner, came and stood behind him weeping, washed his feet with tears, kissed them, anointed and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Jesus said unto her, “Thy sins are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” In view of her conduct toward Christ there can be no doubt that her faith was in him; and it appears equally evident that it was on the ground of this faith he forgave and saved her. Jesus said unto Thomas, “because thou hast seen me thou hast believed, blessed are they, that have not seen, and yet have believed^ John the Baptist taught the necessity and importance of faith in Christ. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” Christ expressed the same sentiment when he said, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” The apostles attached the same importance to faith in the Son of God. When the keeper of the prison inquired of Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, their reply was, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” The apostles taught, that justification was by faith in the Son of God. When the scriptures attach such an importance to faith in Christ, it seems unreasonable to believe that he is only a created being. God has sent prophets, apostles, and other holy men into the world, who have died martyrs for the cause of rehgion. He hath sent angels also to minister to DOCTRINES OF THE SAGRED SCRIPTURES, 341 tiiose, who are heirs of salvation. Of what avail would it be to trust in tiiem? Or what connection would there be between faith in them and salvation? Tho same undoubtedly, that there would be between iaith in Christ and salvation, if he were not superior to one of them. If the Son be but a finite being, the ground of faith in his name appears to be greatly weakened; confidence in his merits appears to be presumption; and justification by faith in his name seems to cast the divine Sovereign into the back ground in the scheme of redemption. But admit the divinity of Christ and his union with the Father, and christian faith begins and terminates in Deity; confidence in the Savior is well founded; and justification, founded on faith in the merits of Christ, is consistent with the validitv of the divine law. The doctrine of the Trinity is intimately connected with the doctrine of saints’ perseverance. If the contracting parties in the work of redemption be divine, each is able to perform, and will faithfully perform his stipulated part. The Son agreed to come into the world to do the will of his Father. It was the Father’s will to lay upon him the iniquity of us all. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief.” In view of this suffering, he said in prayer to the Father, “not as I will, but as thou wilt.” At another time he said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” He did and suffered according to contract, which was the will of the Father. As a recomj^ense lor what he did and suffered, he was to see his seed.

He was to sec of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. He was to receive the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. Christ declared that the Father had given him some of the human race, “I have manifested thy name unto the men, which thou gavest me out of the world; thine thov were, and thou iravcst them mo. I 342 CONNECTION OP DIVINE PLURALITY AVITH OTHER pray not for the world, but for them, which thou hast given me.

Those, who are ^iven to Christ are his, not by gift only; but they will be his by faith in him, and by union with him. “All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me.” When they are renewed by the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and are brought mto his kingdou), they are truly his people; and he has then received his stipulated recompense. These constitute his kingdom; he has authority to rule over them, and he is their King. If he be divine, he is competent to this degree of sovereignty.

He is able to keep his subjects under his dominion. The same Spirit which he sent to bring them into subjection to his authority, he is able to send for the purpose of guiding and supporting them in the ways of truth and obedience. If the Holy Spirit be divine, he is able to perform this part of the work. He is able to carry on the work of sanctification in the heart, till it is perfected. He is not only able, but he will do it. “He, which hath begun a good work in you, Avill perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” With his gracious operations believers are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Christ has expressed his ability to keep his subjects from apostasy. He saith, “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall any man pluck them cut of ray hand,” John 10:28.

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy -name; those, that thou gavest me 1 have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, (i. e. but the son of perdition, not being given to me, is lost) that the scripture might be fulfilled,” John 17:12.

“Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none,”

John 18:9. “He is ahlc to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them,” Hebrews 7:25. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 343 exceeding joy?” Jude 1:24. These texts ’appear to prove that Jesus Christ is able^ and that he actually does save believers from final apostasy. It is admitted that Christ performs this work by sending the Holy Spirit, and by intercession with the Father. But what created being has authority to send the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers to comfort and to stabiish them? What created being has invariable prevalence with God in behalf of transgressors?

If Jesus Christ save his people from their sins, there appears to be evidence (hat he is divine. Those, who are renewed, are reneived by divine power.

They are born of the Spirit; they are born of God.

They are created in (or through) Christ Jesus unto good works. Jt requires no less power to preserve spiritual life in the soul, than it did at first to originate it. There is nothing in renewed humanity, which secures it from declension, li’ the parents of the human race apostatized from God, and lost their primitive dignity and purity, there is nothing in human nature, partially sanctified, which will secure it from final apostasy. As the Lord Jesus keeps his people so that none of them will be lost, there seems to be clear evidence that his power is divine. The Son of God possesses all authority over his mediatorial kingdom. He is King of saints. But what is this extent of authority, if his power be not commensurate with it? If his power be finite, his kingdom appears to be less secure, than if his power were infinite. It appears that his subjects could not have perfect confidence in him. If they look to him for that divine influence, which is necessary to keep them from declension, what assurance can a finite being give, that he can command the operations of God’s Spirit to guide and support them? Should he attempt to sustain them by his own power, the work would be disproportionate to his ability. Other power might be as great as his, and counteract all his operations. Or it might be greater than his, and subvert his whole 344 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER kingdom. But could not power be imparted to him from the infinite Being, which would enable him to secure all the subjects of his kingdom? It is admitted that power was communicated to the man Christ Jesus in the same manner as it was communicated to prophets and apostles; but in a higher degree. If, by the reception of this power, he was able to support spiritual life in believers, then prophets and apostles might do the same in proportion to the strength given them. But the scriptures aiford no evidence that believers are, in any degree, kept from apostasy, by prophets, or apostles. Were it possible that a finite being should be qualified, by power imparted to him, to stablish his subjects unto the end, and to bring his kingdom to consummation, it seems improper to call him a king.

It seems to be a perversion of language to call one a king or savior, who depends on a higher being for all his power arid authority. An idea of absolute dependence does not correspond with our ideas of perfect sovereignty. If Moses could, with strict propriety, be called the savior of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage; if he could be called, in the true sense of the word, the author of the miracles, which God wrought by his hand, then might a created being, if competently endued with power from on high, be called the Savior of the world; or the Author of salvation. But it is evident that such is not the natural use of the words, author and savior. If Christ be not divine, it follows that the head of the church is not essentially different from one of the members of his body; that the head-stone of the corner is not essentially different from any stone of the building; that the Redeemer and redeemed are almost upon an equality. It seems that believers could not repose absolute confidence in his merits and efficiency. It seems that his subjects might be plucked out of his hand, and be finally lost.

It seems that he could not assure the subjects of his kingdom below, that they would be subjects of his kingdom above. Limit the power of the Savior, and DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 345 the perseverance of saints appears to be uncertain; and there appears to be a possibility that he may lose a part, or all of his recompense. The divinity of Jesus Christ appears to be intimately connected with the final judgment of the human race. The scriptures abundantly assert that he will officiate as Judge on that important occasion; and administer reward and punishment according to characters. “The Father judgeth no man, but bath committed all judgment unto the Son. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go aAvay into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.”

If Christ be divine, as well as human, he is worthy of the judgment seat; and he is competent to perform the duties of his office. If his knowledge be not circumscribed, he knows all the windings of the human heart. He knows all the thoughts, all the desires, all the words, all the actions of every individual of the human race, from Adam down to his latest offspring.

If his wisdom be unlimited, he is able to compare every exercise of the human heart, and every action of human life with divine requirements, and discern their coincidence, or disagreement. He is able to weigh the guilt of every offence, and apportion punishment according to its desert. He is able also to 44 346 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER assign reward agreeably to the divine promises. If no power be greater than his, he can carry his decisions into execution. He can banish the wicked from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; and consign them to everlasting punishment; and he can receive the righteous to life eternal. If the Judge of the earth be divine as well as human, the scenes of the last day appear with the most awful solemnity. The human race, waked from their long slee() of death, and those who are alive on the earth are summoned to attend. He who created and redeemed the world appears on the judgment seat. With one look he distinguishes characters. With one word he separates them to the right and left. There is no deception. There is no error of judgment. The sentence is pronounced. There is no appeal. The work is done. The business of this all eventful day is closed for eternity. The object, the transactions, the issues of this daj^ are worthy of a divine Judge.

If Christ be merely a created being, the judgment seat appears with less majesty; and the whole scene appears with less grandeur. It is presumed that no finite being can, by the efforts of his own mind, discern the whole character of every individual of the human race. It seems incredible that such an amazing extent of knowledge should be infused, at once, into any finite capacity. It appears incredible that any created being should be vested with authority to judge and pronounce sentence, in a case infinitely momentous, in his own name, and with all the majesty of divinity.

If the judge be an unconscious organ, through which the Deity speaks and acts; or if he be prompted in every word and action by the divine Being, he appears with only borrowed excellence, borrowed authority, and with only a semblance of the majesty of a Judge.

It is admitted that the divine Sovereign has a perfect right to administer his laws and to award retribution as he pleases. But at the same time it is expected that his method of government and of final decision DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 347 will be worthy of himself, and will manifest the perfections of his nature. Should the judiciary department of a civil government be naturally unqualified to perform the functions of their office; but were taught and dictated in every step of their proceedings by the chief magistrate of the state or nation, would not the bench labor under a burden of indignity, unbecoming the judgment seat.-^ If we may reason from small things to great, it must be inferred, that, if Jesus Christ be not competent in his own nature to perform the duties of Judge of the world, he appears with infinitely less dignity; and the whole scene and all the transactions of the judgment day appear with much less grandeur, than if the Judge were divine, and of himself performed the duties of his office. If it be admitted that the Judge of the world unites in himself human and divine nature, he is not only touched with a feeling of human infirmities; but he has also a consciousness of divine claims. While he feels a lively interest in the restoration and happiness of humanity, he feels a holy jealousy for the rights of the divine throne. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity is intimately connected with the doctrine of future retribution. If Jesus Christ be both human and divine, he is able to make an expiation for sin; to satisfy the demands of the divine law; to work out a complete righteousness for the justification of the disobedient through faith in his name. Though sin be of infinite guilt, yet the victim offisred upon the cross was sufficient to make an adequate expiation. Having magnified and honored the divine law, he was able to treat with rebellious subjects. He was able to propose his own conditions for their reconciliation and pardon. He was able to confer the promised reward upon those who should comply with the terms proposed; and he was equally able to inflict the punishment, which stood against impenitent transgressors.

348 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER

If Christ be but a finite being, and still made a propitiation for sin, it follows that sin is of limited guilt; otherwise he could not have made a complete expiation. Admit the finitude of the Savior, and he appears inadequate to make provision for the everlasting blessedness of the human race. What can a finite being offer, which is equivalent to that eternal weight of glory, which is promised to the righteous. Should he plead all the finite qualities of his sacrifice, it would appear entirely disproportionate to a salvation from an infinite, an endless punishment. If the reward conferred on believers were only commensui’ate with his limited righteousness, the time would come, when they had received all that was purchased for them.

It is natural to inquire, what will be their condition afterward?

If the sacrifice, offered upon the cross, was made by merely a created being, and the value of it was, of course, limited; if sin be but a finite evil, those, who die in their sins and receive the sentence of condemnation, are not in a desperate condition. As a limited ransom has once made satisfaction for iniquity, it may do the same again. As sin contains but finite guilt, finite punishment will make expiation for it. Of course, a point in duration will arrive, when transgressors, who died in impenitence, will have suffered all the punishment incurred by their offences during their probationary state. They will then have a claim to Idc liberated from their sufferings. As they had satisfied the demands of the law, they would be no longer under its curse. As they had not complied with the conditions of the Gospel, they could not receive its promises. It is hard to conceive what would be their situation. Admit the divinity of Christ and the righteous have assurance that they shall, in another state of existence, enjoy everlasting blessedness; and the finally impenitent have the same evidence that they shall suffer an equal duration of punishment. Deny the divinity of Christ, and there appears to be no DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 349 proof that the glory and blessedness of the righteous will be immortal; and there appears to be equal want of proof that the punishment of the wicked will be endless. By this hypothesis the encouragement and hope of the righteous are greatly abated; and the fears of the wicked are almost destroyed. Reward and punishment lose almost all their effect. A correct belief of the Son is intimately connected with a correct belief of the Father; and a denial, or dishonor of the former implies a denial or dishonor of the latter. The relative names, Father and Son, express an affinity subsisting between them. If these names, which represent the distinctions of the divine Nature, are used figuratively, there is, undoubtedly, ground in the subject for this figurative language. When the names, father and son are used to expiess the relationship, subsisting between a parent and his male offspring, the first ideas, conveyed by these relative names, are their affinity and the sameness of their nature. If these names are correctly applied to the divine nature, they naturally convey the same ideas.

If a parent be human, it follows, of course, that his son is human. If figurative language be drawn from this relationship, and applied to the divine Nature, it is expected that it will express some striking analogy between the relationship of the Father and the Son, and the relationship of a human parent and his child.

If the Son be divine, this name expresses the analogy in the clearest manner; it expresses their intimate connection, and the sameness of their nature. If the Son be not divine, the analogy is greatly weakened, and their relative names are much less expressive.

It is admitted that God is called the Father of the human family. In a more special sense he is called the Father of believers; and they are called his sons.

It appears that Christ claimed a relationship with the Father much nearer than this. The Jews understood him to call God his Father in a peculiar sense, in a sense, which implied that he himself was divioe.

350 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER

After Christ had healed an impotent man on the Sabbath, the Jews accused hira of profanation of holy time. He replied, “My Father worketh hitherto and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, (^urt^a iliQv) making himself equal with God. /J/ov is expressive and definite in its meaning; it signifies, peculiaris sui generis, suus. Hed. Lex.; (peculiar, of its own kind, his own.) Sohleusner, under his first definition of the word gives the following significations; proprius, suus, et deomni, quod quis jure suum vocare potest, €t ullo aliquo modo adalequem pertinet. (Special, proper; his own, in respect to every thing, which one can justly call his own, and belongs, in any way, to him.) At another time, when Christ called God his Father, the Jews accused him of blasphemy, because he being a man made himself God. It appears evident that the Jews believed that the Son of God was divine, and that he was the promised Messiah. But they believed that Jesus was not that personage; that he was merely a man, and that he made pretensions to divinity. In this view of the subject they imagined that he blasphemed by claiming a relationship with God, which implied equality. They believed, that by calling himself the Son of God, he blasphemed; and that, according to their law he ought to die as a blasphemer. If the Jews formed wrong ideas of the language of Christ, when he called God his Father, it seems not a little extraordinary that he did not correct their mistake; and shew them plainly that his relationship to God was to be understood in a reduced sense; that it was no more than the relationship of a creature to his Creator.

It is in vain to attempt to maintain that the Jews knowingly perverted the language of Christ; and made him say what he did not design to say. For â- the same word, which they connected with Father, to DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRfPTURES. 351 express the near connection of the Son with him and their sameness of nature, the apostle Paul connects with Son, to shew the special relationship of the b’ather to him, Romans 8:32. The same meaning, which the unbelievinfiy Jews attached to the word (/5;ov) the apostle undoubtedly attached to it. If their application of it were preposterous, the apostle’s application of it will stand with all its force.

If the connection of the Father and Son imply the divinity of the latter, it follows that a denial of the Son implies a denial of the Father, as such; and the dishonor, which is cast upon the Son is cast also upon the Father. The scriptures represent the connection of the Father and Son, to be so intimate that what is predicated of one is predicated of the other. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Sou likewise. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, eveii so the Son quickeneth whom he will. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not m£, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Fatlier is in me and I in him. The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” I’hese texts afford evidence that there is such a union of the Father and Son, that there is a joint operation in all their works. Neither of them doeth any thing o/’ himself; i. e. separately and distinctly; but what one doth the other doth also.

If there be this intimate connection of the Father and Son, it is evident that what honors one, honors the other; that the Father may be glorified in the Son; and that whosoever had seen the Son had also seen the Father. This sentiment is clearly expressed in scripture. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. It appears that St. John considered a denial of the Son a denial of the Father.

352 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER This is evidently true in view of their relationship.

If there be no Son, there is no Father; and if there be no Father, there is no Son. If relationship be denied on one side, it is, of course, denied on the other.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same doth not acknowledge the Father. He does not acknowledge his relationship. He does not acknowledge the testimony, which the Father bore concerning him at his baptism, at his transfiguration, and by raising him from the dead.

It will be better understood what St. John meant by a denial of the Son, if the occasion and object of writing his epistle be considered. At that time, there were some, who denied the divinity, and others, who denied the humanity, of Christ. One great object of this epistle was to correct these errors. In this epistle he calls Jesus Christ “that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” He calls him the Son of God. He set it down as a test of true and inspired teachers that they confessed Jesus Christ was come in the flesh; and a denial of this truth, he considered a characteristic mark of antichrist. It is evident that by a denial of the Son, the apostle meant a rejection of his divinity or humanity; either of which would be a refusal to acknowledge hiui to be the Christ of God. When St. John speaks of the denial of the Son in connection with a denial of the Father, he undoubtedly means, by Son, the divinity, not the humanity of Christ. On this ground it is manifest that he, who denieth the Son, doth not believe in the Father. The apostle James appears to have the same opinion of the connection of the Father and the Son, when he speaks of false teachers, who denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

If the Son be not divine, a denial of his divinity is not a denial of the Father. If the Son be merely human, the connection between his humanity and the DOCTRINES OF THE SACKED SCRIPTURES. 353 Father is not so near that a denial of the former iniphes a denial of the latter. So intimate is the connection ot” the Father and the Son, that denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor of one imply denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor of the other, “He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” Jesus said to the Jews, “Ye neither know me, nor my Father; if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” When Philip asked Christ to shew him the Father, he replied, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hatli seen me, hath seen the Father. He that hateth me hatetk my Father also. — Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, which hath sent him.”

If Christ be not divine, a denial of him is not a denial of the Father. People might deny him divine perfections, divine authority, and divine works, and at the same time acknowledge the divine authority of the Father. If the Son be not divine, people might see and know him, and, at the same time, they might neither see nor know the Father. They might hate him for his pretensions to divinity, and at the same time, not hate Divinity itself They might honor him excessively, and, by that mean, they might dishonor the Father. But if the Son be divine, consequences follow agreeably to the Scriptures. He is not alone, but the Father is with him. What belongs to one belongs also to the other. Christ said, “All things that the Father hath are mine. All mine are thine, and thine are mine.” Such is their union of nature and of operations, that what honors or dishonors the Son, honors or dishonors the Father.

It may be argued with some degree of plausibility, that if God send a messenger into the world to treat Avith the human race, though he be a created being, they ought to receive him in his delegated capacity, that they ought to honor him; and that an acknowl45 354 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER edgement of hlra and respect shewn him would be an acknowledgment ot” the sovereignty of heaven, and would reflect honor on the Divine Majesty. If the sovereign of a nation send a minister to negotiate with a foreign power, if that power receive him as a legitimate ambassador, this act is not only an acknowledgment oi his authority, but it is an acknowledgment of the authority of his sovereign, and an expression of respect toward him. AH this is undoubtedly true. But whom does he send to perform this important business? He sends one of his own species; a man like himself; equal in nature and capacity with his own. He is entitled by his nature and qualifications to as much honor as his sovereign; and being commissioned, he has the same authority to transact the business contemplated, as he, who sent him. It is expected that he will be honored, and the respect shewn him will extend to his sovereign. But suppose the sovereign sends a minister, who has not one natural qualification for the duties of his office, but is instructed, and dictated, and prompted in every word, and in every step of his proceedings, would he not be disrespected; and would not the disrespect be extended to him that sent hiai? The application is easy. If God has sent a messenger into the world to treat with the human race, who is not naturally qualified for the duties of his office, but is a mere instrument, or organ, through which the divine Being acts, it might be expected that people would respect him less than if he possessed natural qualifications for the duties of his office. It might be expected that they would deny him in his official capacity; and if they honored him even as they honored the Father, it would be by dishonoring both. But suppose the Son to be divine, and he is worthy of honor; and the glory, which is given him is given to the Father also. The doctrine of the Trinity appears to be the main pillar of Christianity; the key stone of the arch, which supports the whole fabric; the basis of man’s salvation.

If this doctrine be expunged from the Bible, there DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 355 nppears to be a chasm through the whole system. The most prominent doctrines of the gospel appear to stand or fall with it. If the divine plurality be denied, one mystery, it is true, is removed from the sacred scriptures; but in its place there appear to be left absurdity and contradiction. The Christian religion, without this doctrine, without this vinculum of other scripture doctrines, appears like a scheme of human invention, designed to reconcile contrarieties, and to elTectuaie impossibilities. This, more than any other doctrine, distinguishes our holy religion from human systems; and gives it an impression of its divine Author, which philosophy could never invent, nor ever efface. The light of nature never disclosed a method, by which sin could be forgiven, and transgressors be reconciled to God.

If the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been exhibited, be a scriptural doctrine, those, who deny it arc in great error. They deny the divine excellences of the Son of God. They deny the virtue of his atoning sacrifice. They deny his absolute ability to save.

They deny him divine honor. Do they not, of course, deny the Lord, who bought them? They disbelieve the distinction of the Holy Spirit. They disbelieve his office and his peculiar work. If they do not speak a word against him, they withhold from him that distinct respect, which is his just due. But we need to use the greatest caution in this view of the subject.

There is danger of drawing wrong inferences from others’ premises; and if our conclusions from their positions are legitimate, they may, notwithstanding, heartily disown them.

If there be simple unity in the divine Nature, and divine plurality be not a scriptural doctrine, those, who embrace it are in great error. They place that confidence in a creature, which they ought to place only in the Creator. They make a creature equal with God; they make him God, they make him the “true God.” They honor a creature “even as they honor the Father.”

356 CONNECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY, &:C.

It is important to form correct sentiments of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot form adequate conceptions of the ground of distinction in the divine Nature, nor of the ground of unity in the divine plurahtj, it is important that we should have such a behef in each, that we may apply to each respectively for the blessings, which it is their peculiar office to communicate.

There is an intimate connection between belief and practice. It is not maintained that every one, who has a correct creed, possesses a good heart and exhibits a Christian character. The devils believe. But a belief of the truth has a natural tendency toward virtue and piety; and it would produce these effects, if there were no counteracting principle in human nature. The gift of revelation implies the necessity of believing it; and of believing it agreeably to its divine import. When Christianity is corrupted, it loses proportionably its good effect. When the Churches, which the apostle Paul planted, became disorderly and immoral, we find they had departed from sound doctrine. It is of no use to attempt to estimate the quantum of religion among different religious denominations; and compare their respective values. This is not the province of human reason. Were the attempt made, it is presumed that every one would find, or would seem to find most among those of his own name. But without boasting on the one hand, or unjustly criminating on the other, it may be safely said, that in proportion as people depart from the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, they decline in vital religion and in Christian character.

If there must be contest for preeminence among Christians of different names, let it be a holy emulation to excel in promoting the interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom, and in manifesting the spirit of the gospel. Let it be admitted that he knows most oJ’God, who walks nearest to him. THE END.