« PreviousContinue »
persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, forewarns them that they would have for their God the one Jehovah whom they had always served, and David, that is Christ, for their King and Lord. Jer. xxx. 9. they shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them. In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or served by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and everywhere clearly asserts him to be his Father. John xvii, 3. this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' xx. 17. • I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God :' if therefore the Father be the God of Christ, and the same be our God, and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God beside the Father.
Paul, the apostle and interpreter of Christ, teaches the same in so clear and perspicuous a manner, that one might almost imagine the inculcation of this truth to have been his sole object. No teacher of catechumens in the Church could have spoken more plainly and expressly of the one God, according to the sense in which the universal consent of mankind has agreed to understand unity of number. 1 Cor. viii. 4–6. we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one: for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Here the expression there is none other God but one,' excludes not only all other essences, but all other persons whatever ; for it is expressly said in the sixth verse, that the Father is that one God ;' wherefore there is no other person but one ; at least in that sense which is intended by divines, when they argue from John xiv. 16. that there is another God, for the sake of asserting the personality of the Holy Spirit. Again, to those
who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, God the Father, of whom are all things' is opposed singly ; he who is numerically one God,' to many Gods.' Though the Son be another God, yet in this passage he is called merely · Lord ;' he of whom are all things' is clearly distinguished from him by whom are all things,' and if a difference of causation prove a difference of essence, he is distinguished also in essence. Besides, since a numerical difference originates in difference of essence, those who are two numerically, must be also two essentially.* There is one Lord,' namely he whom God the Father hath made,' Acts ii. 36. much more therefore is the Father Lord, who made him, though he be not here called Lord. For he who calls the Father one God,' also calls him one Lord above all, as Psal. cx. 1. 6 the Lord said unto my Lord,'-a passage which will be more fully discussed hereafter. He who calls Jesus Christ 'one Lord,' does not call him one God, for this reason among others, that God the Father hath made him both Lord and Christ' Acts ii. 36. Elswhere therefore he calls the Father both God and Lord of him whom he here calls one Lord Jesus Christ.' Eph. i. 17. the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. xi. 3. the head of Christ is God.' xv. 28. the Son also himself shall be subject unto him.' If in truth the Father be called the Father of Christ,' if he be called the God of Christ,' if he be called the head of Christ, if he be called the God to whom Christ described as the Lord, nay, even as “the Son himself, is subject, and shall be subjected,' why should not the Father, be also the Lord of the same Lord Christ, and the God of the same God Christ; since Christ must also be God in the same relative manner that he is Lord and Son ? Lastly, the Father is he • of whom,' and · from whom,' and · by whom,' and ' for whom are all things ;' Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10. The Son is not he' of whom, but only by
*• Res etiam singulæ, sive individua, quæ vulgo vocant, singulas sibique proprias formas habent; differunt quippe numero inter se, quod nemo non fatetur. Quid autem est aliud numero inter se, nisi singulis
Numerus enim, ut recte Scaliger, est affectio essen:
Quæ igitur numero, essentia quoque differunt; et nequaquam numero, nisi essentia, differrent. Evigilent hic theologi
formis differre ?
Quod si quæcunque numero, essentia quoque differunt, nec tamen materia, necesse est formis inter se differant; non autem communibus, ergo propriis.' Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio. Prose Works, VI. 214. The hint thrown out to the theologians in this passage is very remarkable; but I am not aware that it has ever been noticed as affording a clew to the opinion of Milton on the important subject alluded to, which could scarcely have been expected to be found in a treatise on Logick.
whom ;' and that not without exception, all things,' namely · which were made,' John i. 3. all things, except him which did put all things under him, 1 Cor. xv. 27. It is evident therefore that when it is said • all things were by him,' it must be understood of a secondary and delegated power ; and that when the particle by is used in reference to the Father, it denotes the primary cause, as John vi. 57. • I live by the Father;' when in reference to the Son, the secondary and instrumental cause ; which will be explained more clearly on a future occasion.
Again, Eph. iv. 4–6. there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.? Here there is one Spirit, and one Lord; but the Father is one, and therefore God is one in the same sense as the remaining objects of which unity is predicated, that is, numerically one, and therefore one also in person.
1 Tim. ii. 5. there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' Here the mediator, though not purely human, is purposely named man, by the title derived from his inferior nature, lest he should be thought
qual to the Father, or the same God, whereas the argument distinctly and expressly refers to one God. Besides, it cannot be explained how any one can be a mediator to himself on his own behalf; according to Gal. iii. 20. a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.' How then can God be a mediator of God ? Not to mention that he himself uniformly testifies of himself, John viii. 28. “I do nothing of myself,' and v. 42. neither came I of myself.' Un
doubtedly therefore he does not act as a mediator to himself; nor return as a mediator to himself. Rom. v. 10. we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.' To whatever God we were reconciled, if he be one God, he cannot be the God by whom we are reconciled, inasmuch as that God is another person ; for if he be one and the same, he must be a mediator between himself and us, and reconcile us to himself by himself ; which is an insurmountable difficulty.
Though all this be so self-evident as to require no explanation,-namely, that the Father alone is a selfexistent God, and that a being which is not self-existent cannot be God-it is wonderful with what futile subtleties, or rather with what juggling artifices, certain individuals have endeavoured to elude or obscure the plain meaning of these passages ; leaving no stone unturned, recurring to every shift, attempting every means, as if their object were not to preach the
pure and unadulterated truth of the gospel to the poor and simple, but rather by dint of vehemence and obstinacy to sustain some absurd paradox from falling, by the treacherous aid of sophisms and verbal distinctions, borrowed from the barbarous ignorance of the schools.
They defend their conduct, however, on the ground that though these opinions may seem inconsistent with reason, they are to be held for the sake of other passages of Scripture, and that otherwise Scripture will not be consistent with itself. Setting aside reason, therefore, let us have recourse again to the language of Scripture.