No. 199.]

For the Christian Observer. CURSORY REMARKS ON UNITA RIANISM, AND THE ARGU

ON

(Continued from p. 350.)

No. VII.

N 1 John v. 20, Mr. Wright thus comments: "By him that is true, is meant the only true God. The Apostle seems to refer to the words of Jesus, John xvii. 3. He distinguishes Christ from God, from him that is true, by calling him his Son."- On the contrary, I contend, that oulos, this, must refer to the last antecedent, Jesus Christ; and if there be any reference to the text mentioned by Mr. Wright, there would seem to be a reference equally direct to John i. 1, 4, 9, where the " Word" is said, as the Son is here, to be "God," and to be "life.'

Lastly, we have the following remarks on Rev. i. 8, 11, 17, and xxi. 6, and xxii. 13. "These passages are placed together because some part of their language is similar. A glance at the context, especially the fourth and fifth verses, in which Jesus Christ is distinguished from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come,' will enable the reader to see that Rev. i. 8, is not the language of Jesus Christ, but of God his Father. The words, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,' in ver. 11, are admitted by Trinitarians to be spurious. [See Parkhurst's Gr. Lex. p. 1.] Ver. 17, Jesus says, I am the first and the last,' but he adds, 'I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold, CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 199.

dead, it must be the man Jesus who is the first and the last; but no one supposes the man Jesus had an eternal existence, therefore his being the first cannot relate to his hav ing always existed. He is first and last in the Divine counsel, and in the glorious dispensation which God hath introduced by him. These remarks equally apply to chap. xxi. 6, and xxii. 13. As Alpha is the first, and Omega the last letter in the Greek alphabet, so the Gospel dispensation begins with Christ, and will be conducted by him to its full completion.— Hence, it is easy to see how he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, without supposing him to have existed from eternity, otherwise than in the Divine purpose and counsel."-The text here stated by Mr. Wright to be spurious, will make little difference in the decision of the question, for the same words occur in Rev. xxii. 13, where they evidently belong to our Saviour, as appears from ver. 16. I must also consider them as his words, in chap. i. ver. 8. But one clear text, such as chap. xxii. ver. 13, is sufficient to shew that the titles are applicable indiscriminately, and therefore in the same sense, to the Father and the Son. In another place, indeed, the author speaks thus of the high titles ascribed to our blessed Lord in the Apocalypse: "He is declared to be the first begotten from the dead; which seems like a direction to regard him throughout the

31

Christ: and here, also, we may be contented to follow the track of our author, though with some hopes that we shall not be detained so long in this part of our inquiry as in the preceding.

whole book as the man whom the Jews hanged on a tree, whom God raised from the dead. Amid the most splendid imagery he is introduced as the Son of man (ver. 13); and when he announces himself to his astonished disciples, he declares himself the same person who was once dead (ver. 18); when he calls himself the first and the last, meaning, perhaps, the author and finisher of the Gospel dispensation, it is still as a person who was once dead (chap. ii. 8); when he is described in the midst of the throne, it is as a person who had been slain (chap. v. 6.) In the most grand and glorious scenes, when Christ appears, it is still the crucified man we behold, he is the person God hath so highly honoured." The deductions in this passage are defective, but not inaccurate. To the interpretation, indeed, of the expression "first and last," as meaning only the "author and finisher" of the Gospel dispensation, I cannot but object, because it is an expression peculiarly appropriate to Deity, and never, so far as I can perceive, applied to any who is not God. The only places where it occurs in Scripture, are Isa. xli. 4; xliv. 6; xlviii. 12; Rev. i. 11, 17; ii. 8; xxii. 13; and the reader may judge, whether such a description can be applied, after such a use of it, to any who is not Almighty. A consecutive perusal of the five verses in Rev. i. 5 to 9 inclusive, will make it appear whether it is used so here. These, I believe, are all the passages which the author adduces as being erroneously construed by Trinitarians, in order to ascribe proper deity to Jesus Christ. They, of course, are more numerous than those which apply to any other part of this vital question, because on the point of Christ's essential Deity the whole difference between Unitarians and Trinitarians turns.

The next point to which I shall advert, is that of the incommunicable offices and attributes of Deity, which the Scriptures ascribe to

First, on Matt. xviii. 20, Mr. Wright thus comments: "This is stated by Jesus as the reason why God will sanction the proceedings, and answer the prayers of his disciples; but it is not ne cessary he should be with them in person, in order to their receiving the Divine sanction, and the blessings they ask; only, that he should be in the midst of them by his word, authority, and spirit. Whatever is done in his name, that is, by his authority, according to his word, in his spirit, will be acceptable. If Paul's being present with the Corinthians and Colossians in spirit, when personally absent (1 Cor. v. 3; Col. ii. 5), proves not his omnipresence, neither does Christ's being in the midst of his disciples, when personally absent, proves his omnipresence." - To this I would reply that Christ is with his disciples not in his human presence, but by the Holy Spirit, which is one with him, as he is with the Father. When St. Paul says, that his spirit is with the Corinthians, even when he is absent in body, he means, that the same Spirit which rests on him is with them, especially on such occasions, to qualify them to act in his name and by his authority. So, then, Jesus Christ and St. Paul are both said to be present by the Spirit; but the former by the Spirit which is in him, and the latter by the Spirit which was upon him.

The preceding extract was designed to confute an inference which establishes the omnipresence of Christ. The next disputes his infinite goodness. "When one called Christ good, he said, 'Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God.' (Matt. xix. 17.) This shews that he did not pretend to be good in

the same absolute sense as God is, that he set up no claim to underived, infinite goodness."- From this question, I believe, no conclusion can be drawn as to the claims of Jesus Christ. My own persuasion, in common with that of many of the best commentators, is, that he chose to put the inquirer to a trial, and to ascertain by this mode of interrogation whether he was prepared to acknowledge his Deity; and till Mr. Wright has disproved the correctness of this interpretation, he can have no right to infer that Jesus Christ did not pretend to be good in the same absolute sense as God is; that he set up no claim to underived, infinite goodness.

The force and import of John iii. 13 is thus evaded: "It is only in the figurative sense in which the word heaven' is used in Scripture, that the Son of man could be in heaven while he was on earth; as he was in the bosom of the Father (John i. 18), he had an intimate knowledge of his designs and holy will." -Why so? Where is the author's proof? We say, that the Divine name,, is here assumed by Christ, to shew that in his Divine nature he is ever with the Father. Mr. Wright, indeed, adds: " So Christians are said, in the present life, to sit together in heavenly places.' (Eph. ii. 6)." But this is not in heaven, or in the bosom of the Father, but in heavenly places, in heavenly stations, in offices belonging to the kingdom of heaven, or dispensation of the Gospel.

I must next comment upon the loose manner in which John v. 23 is interpreted in the work under consideration. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment, or the regulation of all things, to the Son, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; that is, that they should honour him as the person whom the Father hath appointed to reign over, and execute judgment among them."-Surely to honour him as

the person whom the Father hath appointed, is not to honour him as the Father; and a system which requires such dilution of scriptural phraseology may justly be suspected of inaccuracy.

The refutation of our Lord's om. nipotence and omniscience, in the following passage, is also inconclusive. "The extraordinary knowledge, and miraculous works of Christ, are no proof of his Divine nature. He received his extraordinary wisdom and knowledge from the Father, by the Holy Spirit which was given him. (Isa. xi. 2, 3; John v. 20; and viii. 28.) If this knowledge proved that Jesus had a Divine nature, the knowledge the ancient prophets had of secret things and future events, would prove that they also had a Divine nature. His miraculous works he ascribed to the Father, John xiv. 10. Had these works proved the Divine nature of Jesus, the works done by the Apostles would have proved their Divine nature; he said, He that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.' (John xiv. 12.) The knowledge of Christ was not too great for God to communicate to a man, nor his works too great for a man to perform, when God was with him and in him."-The peculiar and distinguishing character of Christ, with respect to his know ledge and works, is, that he knew all things, and performed what miracles he would, and to whom he saw fit. It is true, our author objects, that this is said of others also, as 1 John ii, 20; see likewise Phil. iv. 13;-but let the reader consider the different subjects and occasions on which these words are applied to Christ and his disciples, and he will perceive that they are used in a very different latitude and extent of meaning. Of Jesus it is said, that he needed not that any should testify of man, be cause he knew all men (John ii, 25.) His knowledge of all men is

thus assigned as a proof of his knowing this man, and must, therefore, be construed strictly. But the profession in Phil. iv. 13 follows an enumeration of particulars of which it appears to be a summing-up and conclusion. (ver. 12.) The general statement, therefore, must be restricted by the nature of the particulars out of which it grows: as thus: "I can do all the things which I have mentioned, and all the like things, through Christ, that strengtheneth me."-So, also, Jesus could do the works of the Father when and to whom he would; but, when it is written, 1 John ii. 20, "Ye know all things," there is no such deduction drawn from it. The expression is solitary, or is limited to that truth of the Gospel to which it unquestionably refers. Hence it is, that, while no one contends for the real omniscience and omnipo tence of St. Paul or the disciples, those attributes, as ascribed to Jesus Christ, no one has been or ever will be able to disprove.The following inference, moreover, is illogical: " Jesus told his disciples they should do greater works than those they had seen him do it follows, therefore, that the wisdom and power which Jesus possessed, were not too great to be communicated to a mere man." Our Lord never told his disciples that they should have greater wisdom and power than he possessed, but only that they should do greater works than they had seen him do, The two things are essentially distinct. The latter was eminently fulfilled, when the Apostles communicated the gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on their hands: the former, it would be impious to

-The dignity and glory to which Jesus Christ is exalted, are the dignity and glory of his humanity; and to this glory we dare not say that God could not raise a mere man. But it is not so with the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. This glory is incommunicable; for it is the glory of God; and he says of it, "I will not give my glory unto an other." (Isa. xlviii. 11.) Accordingly, the Saviour does not pray for any extension of the glory inhe rent in him, as he does of the glory given; but says, Now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John xvii. 5.)

Neither does the idea of the Divine fulness, in the following passage, come up to the majesty of that expression as used by the Apostles. The author states an objection, and gives his answer:

"Obj. The notion of Christ's simple humanity implies a denial of his being one with the Father, and divests him of the Divine fulness. Ans. It excludes the idea of his being God; but it implies no denial of what he said, that the Father was with him and in him, that he and his Father are one in testimony, and in their care of the church; that they are one, as he and his disciples are to become one. Christians are said to be partakers of the Divine nature; yet they do not cease to be mere men. Paul prayed that the Christians at Ephesus might be filled with all the fulness of God; but their being so filled would not transform them into gods. Those who assert that Christ is merely man, do not deny that it hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, even all the fulness of the Godhead, in the most substantial manner in which it is possible it should dwell in a man."-Christians are, indeed, said to partake, or rather it is held out to them as an attainable end that they may par

take, of the Divine nature. (2 Pet. i. 4.) But to be made partakers of one nature, is, I conceive, no necessary forfeiture of another; and it is a different thing to be a partaker, and a proprietor. It is also an object of St. Paul's prayer, that the Ephesian Christians might be filled with all the fulness of God; but it is not said of them, that the fulness of God dwells in them, as is said of Christ. Indeed, it is remarkable, that the same Apostle elsewhere varies that prayer, by substituting what would appear to be in his mind an equivalent expression," the fulness of Christ." (Eph. iii. 19; iv. 13.) To have the fulness of Godhead dwelling in him even bodily, implies a connection with Deity of which no mere man is capable. (Col. i. 19; ii. 9.)

But all the texts which attribute Divine attributes to the Son of God, are, perhaps, of still less force than those which represent him as the Creator. Of these we have already had occasion to notice one, from the proem to St. John's Gospel. It must be admitted to be an office which, if granted, would demolish the whole Unitarian scheme. Accordingly, Mr. Wright adverts to it in various parts of his work, recurring to it again and again, as if he felt it to be a stronghold of his opponents.

His first account of it is as follows. "In whatever sense creation is ascribed to Christ, it is evidently to him as man it is ascribed. The passage most relied on, as proving the universe was made by him, is Col. i. 16; but in the context he is spoken of as a man who actually died (ver. 18); consequently, it cannot be the literal creation that is spoken of; for that could not be made by a crucified man: not to say, that Jehovah, who is declared not to be a man, neither the son of man, in several places in the Old Testament, claims the literal creation as his own exclusive work. Paul speaks not of the creation of

heaven and earth; but of things in heaven, and things in earth; and when the figurative sense in which such language is used in the sacred writings is considered, it will be most natural to conclude that it is of the new figurative creation, the new order of things, of which the man Jesus is the architect, that the passage treats."-It is a concession of some value to have obe tained from our author, that creation is ascribed to Christ by the Scriptures in some sense: for that word in its literal meaning can belong to none but God; and whenever a literal meaning will suit the context of a passage, it is not correct to introduce a figurative one. In the case here cited, the author thinks the literal sense untenable. "It cannot be," says he," the literal creation that is spoken of; for that could not be made by a crucified man." But this, again, is begging the very question at issue, whether he who became a crucified man could not also have been the Author of crea tion: and when we add, that we believe this Son of God to be the very Jehovah of the Old Testament, we deny the foundation of the author's argument; to which foundation he must apply his reasonings, if he would effectually combat ours. For my own part, I am contented to take the words as they stand; and subjoining them, for the reflection of my readers, I leave them to judge whether such an august description can fairly be melted down to mean nothing more than the author of a system, instead of a Creator of worlds. "By him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible; whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." This translation of the passage seems perfectly accurate; nevertheless, Mr. Wright