Thirdly. What evidence have we that the Father was united to the Messiah and dwelt in him? In reply to this question, I shall regard the testimony of the Messiah himself as sufficient. During the memorable interview between Jesus and his Apostles, in the evening prior to his crucifixion, he made a remark which led Philip to say, "Show us the Father and it sufficeth us." Jesus replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake." John xiv. 9, 10, 11. - No further testimony seems necessary to convince the impartial Christian that the Father dwelt in the Messiah in a most intimate and efficacious manner, so that the words uttered by Jesus were the words of the Father, and the miraculous works of Jesus were works which the Father "did by him." For what important purpose, then, could it have been needful that one or two other divine persons should dwell in the Messiah? So far as either sufficiency or dignity was concerned, no addition would have been made by the indwelling of more than one infinite person. If the Father dwelt in Jesus by his own all-sufficient Spirit or Word, will not this account for all that is said of the union of the Word and Spirit with the Messiah? And does not this accord with Paul's testimony that "it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell?" 13. Having some further inquiries to make, I shall mention two rules, which to me seem of importance to be observed in our attempts to ascertain the meaning of difficult passages of Scripture. First. When a text seems to present two or more meanings, we should inquire which of the different meanings appears less to accord with the unquestionable and general meaning of other passages of Scripture relating to the same question or subject. Secondly. To ascertain the meaning of a particular text, or of particular words and passages, as used in relation to God or the Messiah, we should consider what would have been their meaning had they been used in regard to Moses or any other eminent person. With these rules in view, the following inquiry may be proposed: Was not the Messiah a person properly distinct from any other person who is represented as dwelling in him? Moses said to the Israelites, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me. The Spirit and the Word doubtless dwelt in Moses, for "the Law came by Moses," and God spoke by Moses. But was not Moses a person distinct from the Spirit or the Word? This will be answered in the affirmative. If then, the Messiah was like unto Moses, we may believe that he was truly a person distinct from the Word or the Spirit of God. But while I believe that Jesus was a person distinct from any person who dwelt in him, I think he was not the Messiah independent of God's anointing him with the Holy Spirit. By this anointing he became the Messiah, and was consecrated to that office. But as Moses was a person prior to his being endowed with miraculous powers, so I suppose it was with the Messiah. When we read that the Father, the Word, or the Spirit dwelt in Jesus, the forms of speech clearly convey the idea that Jesus was a person distinct from any divine person, or divine attribute, which became united to him. When Jesus said, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,' the me and he are evidently different persons. When a parent speaks of himself and his son, or a son speaks of himself and his father, two persons are always presented to our mind. So when any one person speaks of himself and another person as united with him, two different persons are ever brought to view. We have, to say the least, as much evidence that the Father and the Spirit dwelt in Jesus, and were united to him, as we have that it was so in regard to the Word. If then, like the Father, the Word and the Spirit are divine persons, will it not follow that in the Messiah there were four different persons, Jesus as one, and a Trinity of divine persons? 14. In view of the two rules of interpretation which have been mentioned, the following queries may be proposed with some confidence: What appears to be the general meaning of the Bible in regard to the personality of the Word and the Spirit of God, and the number of persons in the Deity? As the Word and Spirit are nouns of the neuter gender, and have neuter pronouns, except in a few cases of personification, and as the thousands of pronouns for God are of the singular number, except a very few doubtful cases, in which us is introduced; it seems to me that all candid and well-informed persons must admit that the Word and Spirit are generally spoken of in the Bible as not persons, and God is generally represented as one person only. Such being the Scriptural facts, a creed which denies or contradicts the general meaning of Scripture language, needs such clear and direct proof in its support to render it credible, as I am unable to find in the instructions of the Scriptures, or in any of the dictates of reason. 15. Another query is this, Is it not an undeniable truth, that what John said in a very few verses respecting the Word which was in the beginning with God, is nearly the whole ground on which the hypothesis was formed, that by the Word is meant a distinct person equal with the Father? And is it not also true, that what John recorded of our Saviour's figurative discourse relating to the Comforter, is the principal ground on which it has been imagined that by the Spirit of God is meant a distinct person of the Godhead? It is believed that these queries will be answered in the affirmative by all candid Christians who have carefully examined the subject. Let it then be remarked, that John is supposed to be the last of the inspired men whose writings. have found a place in the Bible. Is it then probable or credible, that John advanced doctrines relating to the personality of God which contradict what had been written on the same subject by Moses and the prophets? Is it not much more probable, that a few figurative expressions, or a few personifications, in his writings, have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by fallible and uninspired Christians? If John taught that the Word and the Spirit of God are two persons equal with the Father, and that God is in fact the Holy Three instead of the Holy One, he has not only taught what was not taught by any of his predecessors, but has contradicted what they taught for truth. If he has done so, have we not good reason to doubt his inspiration, or the inspiration of Moses, and all the prophets who represent Jehovah as the Holy One? Both parts of such a condition cannot be true. If the learned Jews are made to believe, that John so contradicted VOL. XXI. -3D S. VOL. III. NO. I. 13 their lawgiver as to teach that there are three divine persons in the one God, equally worthy of supreme worship, can we wonder that they deny the inspiration of John? and if they believe, that John obtained his doctrine from the testimony of Jesus, have they not a better excuse for rejecting his Messiahship than any which they have been supposed to possess? 16. An error in regard to the number of persons to be worshipped as the true God, is surely an error of a very serious nature. It is, indeed, pleaded by those who profess to worship three distinct persons, that they have but one object of supreme worship, because all the three persons are supposed to be but the one God. Is it not, however, equally true, that they profess to regard each of the three persons as the true God, and possessed of all divine perfections? Is it not also true, that one such person is one object of supreme worship? If so, does it not clearly follow that two such persons are two objects, and three distinct persons three distinct objects? I freely confess, that I have not discernment enough to perceive any incorrectness in these conclusions, except it may be on this ground, that the worshipper has no definite idea of what is meant in this case by persons, and of course worships the Father as but one intelligent being. But of what advantage can it be to profess to worship three persons, if we know not what is meant by the term? If any of us thus worship, may it not be truly said of us, "They worship they know not what." I hope I shall never cease to praise God for his goodness in freeing my mind from what I now believe to be great errors respecting his personality. But, having known by experience the confusion and embarrassment of mind, which the triune views are adapted to produce, I wish ever to cultivate in my heart candid feelings towards those who still retain such views. While I regarded myself as a worshipper of one God in three persons, I am conscious that in general my worship was addressed to the Father only, as it now is, and to him as the only living and true God. So far as I am able to judge by the language I hear used in prayer by Trinitarians of the present day, I cannot doubt that in general their worship is paid to the Father as mine formerly was, and as it is now. I therefore do not and cannot impute to them idolatry, or the worship of more Gods than one. God looketh on the heart, and I believe that honest Christians, of every sect, mean to worship one God only. Happy would it be for men, if they were more like God in judging one another. N. W. - ART. VII. A Discourse on Miracles, preliminary to the Argument for a Revelation: Being the Dudleian Lecture, delivered before Harvard University, May 14th, 1836. By the Rev. ORVILLE DEWEY.* MARK iv. 40, 41. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? THE power of Jesus on the occasion here referred to, was undoubtedly miraculous. Without dwelling on the circumstances, which are familiar to you, I wish to call your attention to two points in the narrative, as fairly presenting the subject of my present discourse. One is the natural astonishment of the disciples, amounting almost to a reluctance to believe what their eyes beheld. "What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? The other point, to which I wish to draw your attention, is the language of rebuke with which our Saviour addresses this feeling of incredulity. "How is it that ye have no faith?" And I may add that he frequently reproaches, in similar terms, the want of faith in his miraculous powers. Now it is this presumption against miracles,-in other words it is the preliminary ground of the argument for Christianity, that I propose in this discourse to examine. And of such importance do I hold this preliminary view of the subject, that I think it will make all the difference, with many minds, between believing in Christianity, and not believing. That is to say, the evidences of revelation are strong enough to produce belief, if it were not for this presumption against them. Let there be no prejudice against miracles; let it appear, in any man's account, perfectly reasonable and philosophical to admit them; let him regard it as extremely probable that the Supreme Being would interpose for our spiritual relief; and then * We gladly avail ourselves of the author's permission to lay the entire discourse before our readers. — ED. |
