THE
SUPREME GODHEAD
CHRIST
Te ~ora r-~ftoae  of ~ ristianitg.
BY
WILLIAM R. -GORDON, D.D.
SECOND  EDITION, REVISED  AND, ENLARGED.
NEW-YORK:
BOARD OF PUBLICATION
OF THE
REFORMED PROTESTANT DUTCH CHURCH,
337 BROADWAY.
1855,




ENTYR.ID, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by
REV. THOMAS C. STRONG,
On behalf of the Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch
Church in North America, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of
the United States for the Southern District of New-York.
3abn SC. Vrag,
PRINTER AND STEREOTYPER,
95 & 97 Cliff, cor. Frankfort.




PRE FACE.
THIs small volume was published six years ago. The author
has received repeated applications for another edition, and in
compliance with written and verbal requests, now reissues it,
differently arranged and somewhat enlarged. He has abridged
some arguments, omitted others for substitutes, more directly
coming under the general heads of the discussion as here presented, expanded some, and added new matter; but not seriously
to affect the original design of " multum in parvo."  In its present revised form, he thinks it will be more acceptable to his
readers, because presenting more prominently the peculiarity of
discussion he deems of importance, in this all-important controversy.
The opponents of the Divinity of Christ, are ever appealing to
REASON. The drift of their writings is to show, that the advocates of this doctrine have "most uncommon skulls;" that the
imbecility, irrationality, irrelevancy, incompatibility, inanity, absurdity, etc., of our arguments, really impeach us before the
tribunal of Reason; that our doctrine is contraband by the laws
of common-sense; and impracticable to a philosophic faith. Just
here, are we ready for defense; prepared to show, that as they
professedly admit the veracity of the writers of the Bible, their




1v                      PREFACE.
faith places them in a wilderness of dilemmas, all of vigorous
growth from the soil of Reason. And if it can be done, they can
have no reasonable objection that,
Each strong dilemma, in its turn and place,
Shall show their system in a desperate case.
At the same time, we disavow all intention to place them in
any thing like a false position. The subject is too serious, and the
interests of truth too weighty, to allow any such attempt, had we
the disposition to be unfair in this respect. Our aim is to convince by well-founded argument, by assuming the very ground
which we have often been represented as avoiding, and by pursuing a line of discussion with which they ought to be the last to
find fault, who deal in logical expedients, to overwhelm our view
of truth with an avalanche from the lofty summit of human reason. Taking our turn in this way, we sincerely hope may not be
a matter of complaint to any of our readers, who may bestow reflection upon what has here been presented.
A writer, who has given a very lucid account of the system we
oppose, informs us, that " Unitarians take the Bible in their hands,
and sit down to rend it, as plain unlettered Clhristians, and with
prayer for divine illumination." We feel quite sure such is the
most likely way of arriving at the truth; and for this very class
of minds, disposed to receive the truth, with the simplicity and
honesty of little children, from the sacred page, we write. We
wish to show that our doctrine is fairly deducible from plain statements of Revelation, and that the admission of its opposite is incompatible with the reception of the Bible, as a rule of faith and
practice; because the faith it enjoins and the practice it inculcates
require us, as we think, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ, as an




PREFACE.                        V
original Being, uniting two natures in one person, the divine and
the human, to effect the great purpose of our redemption. We
think it quite unwise, a priori, to limit God, by saying this involves an impossibility; it is assuming the very thing to be proved.
Now, if we take the Bible and "read it as plain unlettered Christians," and find two classes of didactic affirmations teaching us
that Christ is both God and man; and if it involve no intrinsic
absurdity, should God please to form such a union for a specific
purpose, why should our doctrine be "a stumbling-block" or
"foolishness " to any man, thus actuated by a sincere desire to
know what directions are given in the way of elucidating the
answer to that question, " What must I do to be saved?"
The mode of proving the divinity of Christ is the same employed to prove the divinity of the Father. It can be done in no
other way. The arguments in the one case, from the Scriptures,
are the same as in the other; and they are equally conclusive.
They are positive, and can never be answered by negative ones.
If we prove that Christ is God, that proposition is not disproved
by the evidence that he is man.
The system we oppose is Socinianism. But although we prefer to call things by their right names, lest the use of this term
should prove offensive, we have taken another as a matter of convenience, namely, Unitarianism; because it has been appropriated
by the largest Body denying the divinity of our Lord, and is now
by common consent understood to designate all who repudiate this
point of Christian faith. We use it, however, under protest; for
the writer, and all those who think with him, are in the strictest
sense Unitarians, as they most firmly believe in the unity of God,
and in the subordinate relation of Jesus Christ, as Messiah, Mediator, and Man, to the Father. Hence we yield that to which
they arc not exclusively entitled.




Vi                       PREFACE.'But there are other Bodies, besides the one referred to, who
embrace Socinian doctrine, and are not ecclesiastically known by
the term Unitarian, namely, Christians. One of their writers says in
the history of this Sect: " With very few exceptions; they are not
Trinitarians, averring that they can neither find the word nor the
doctrine in the Bible. They believe' the Lord, our Jehovah, is
one Lord and purely one.' That' Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.' That the Holy Ghost is that divine unction
with which our Saviour was anointed, the effusion that was
poured out on the day of Pentecost; and that it is a divine emanation of God by which he exerts an energy or influence on rational
minds. While they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,
they are not Socinians or Humanitarians. Their prevailing belief is, that Jesus Christ existed with the Father before all
worlds."  In other words, they are Arians.*
Friends, (Hicksites.)  One of this Body thus writes: "We
believe in the divinity of Christ-a divinity not self-existing and
independent, but derived from the Father, being the Holy Spirit,
or God in Christ.'"
Restorationists. " In relation to the trinity, atonement andfree
will, the Restorationists' views harmonize with those of the Unitarians."t
Universalists.  "Very generally, Universalists have come to
entertain, what are commonly called Unitarian views of God, of
Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of Atonement: at least there appears to be a very general similarity between us and the English
Unitarians, not only on those subjects, but also on the nature and
duration of punishment, on the subject of the devil," etc.~
* Rupp's History of Religious Denominations, (1844,) p. 169.
t Idem, p. 828.    $ Rupp's History, p. 655.    ~ Rupp, p. 730.




PREFACE.                       Vii
From these extracts, it will be seen that our system is opposed
to Arianism and Socinianism, each of which embodies the great
characteristic of Unitarianism, as thus expressed by one of their
writers: "Unitarians maintain that God is one mind, one person, one undivided being; that the Father alone is entitled to be
called God in the highest sense; that he alone possesses the
attributes of infinite, underived divinity, and is the only proper
object of supreme worship and love. They believe that Jesus
Christ is a distinct Being from him, and possesses only derived
attributes; that he is not the Supreme God himself, but his Son."
"This must be the great leading doctrine, the distinguishing,
and, properly speaking, the only distinguishing feature of Unitarianism,"* namely, the negative doctrine, that Christ is not the Supreme God. Inasmuch as we aim to specify all these Sects as
involved in the same fatal error, the term we use, must be understood to include all, though it expresses a doctrine peculiar to neither.
We use it, as has been said, for the sake of convenience, and to
save circumlocution; and respectfully ask all of them, candidly to
consider whether reason and consistency do not require them to
accept our doctrine, or reject the Bible, and thus become Deists?
Because we think they can not, will not do the latter, we hope
some at least will do the former, "that they may, find mercy of
the Lord in that day."
* Rupp's History, p. 704,








IN TR OD U  T ION.
To those who believe that the Bible contains the will of God
for the guidance of Man, the following observations, preliminary
to the argument presented, must appear self-evidently true.
Our title-pagre expresses the doctrine which we intend to demonstrate not only by direct proof, but by the consequences that
fairly flow from its denial; and we think no exception can be
taken to this manner of handling the subject. In our judgment,
the argument technically called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, is eminently fitted to convince men of the truth of this doctrine. It has
the advantage of a constant appeal to first principles, and to common-sense; and is the shortest way of screwing up the mind to a
permanent decision. The greatest respect for those who differ
from us, is perfectly compatible with our anxiety to convince
them of what we think dangerous errors; nay, the very attempt
to lead them to-what we are persuaded is the truth, if fairly interpreted, will secure for us a hearing.
Our appeal is to REAsoN, and we address our argument only
to those who can reason, who dare reason, and who will reason.
We have somewhere read: " He who can not reason, is a fool; he
who dare not reason, is a coward; and he who will not reason, is
1*




X                    INTRODUCTION.
a knave."  This is brief. It describes those to whom books are
of no use, and for whom they were never intended; and if any
such happen to get hold of this, we hope they will quietly lay it
down. It is written only for reasonable men, who are willing,
irrespective of sects and parties, to have their opinions sifted by
the FAN of Bible truth. If their opinions stand this test, it will
be to them a matter of rejoicing, a solace and source of peace.
If they do not, the sooner they are abandoned the better.
Because salvation is a matter of mere mercy, and not of justice,
God has a right to settle the grant according to his own good
pleasure. He has a right to prescribe to sinners what they must
believe, as well as what they must do. The DOCTRINES of the Gospel are therefore authoritatively given for this express purpose,
namely, to form our system of religious belief, and to regulate our
course of moral action. Were salvation to us a reward of works,
it would be connected consequentially with our course of moral
action; but because it is a gift of grace, it is suspended upon
our system of religious belief. We therefore can no more arbitrate in matters of faith, than in matters of morals; and we are
just as responsible for our faith as we are for our practice. Were
this not the case, the solemn declaration would never have been
made: " He that believeth, shall be saved: he that believeth not
shall be damned."
That salvation must be consequent upon a right faith, and independent of human merit, is obvious from God's method of estimating character. His rule is this: "' As a man THINMETH in his
heart, so is he." Now if we pursue a course of right acting in
matters of mere moral conduct, and yet a course of wrong thinking in matters of religious belief, it is of no moment how commendabte our external lives may be, we can not bear measure



INTRODUCTION.                      xi
ment by this rule; and being found wanting; we can not meet
with the mercy of our Maker for this simple reason; instead of
obeying his prescriptive will, we set up a standard of our own he
can never acknowledge, and thus become guilty of an act of the
highest rebellion.
All doctrines are not alike important. All errors of faith are
not alike prejudicial to the welfare of the soul. But some doctrines are fundamental, and some errors are fatal. This is evident
The doctrines which are the foundation-stones, supporting the
entire fabric of Christianity, must be believed; for the belief of
them is necessary to form Christian character, and consequently
necessary to salvation: and by the aforesaid rule, "as a man
thinketh in his heart," thus receiving or rejecting them, "so is he,"
in the sight of God. It becomes us, therefore, to "search the
Scriptures" diligently, that we may be able to discriminate between those doctrines which are necessary and those which are
not; " ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh
a reason of the hope that is in us." When immortal interests are
involved, our wisdom is shown in fearlessly encountering whatever
may be respectfully said in opposition to our views. To confront
statements of principles with sallies of passion, is indeed neither
prudent nor safe. We can not afford to decide the validity of our
heavenly hopes by such an unseemly contest. The man that has
supreme love for truth, will defend his principles by urging facts
and proofs, until he convinces or is convinced; and then, in the
name of truth, will either demand or yield a surrender. Or if he
be debating a point with himself, he will honestly weigh both sides
of the question; and because he does so dispassionately, though
it may be slowly yet surely shall he arrive at the truth. This is
the general issue of all investigation thus made.




Xii                 tINTRODUCTION.
Among those doctrines we consider fundamental, the Supreme
Deity of Christ is preeminent. They who believe that He is
GoD, and they who hold him to be no more than a CREATURE, embrace two doctrines upon which are built up two systems, necessarily as wide apart in their principles, statements, and general
results, as the poles of the earth. Theirs is not a simple disagreement, but a total, irreconcilable contradiction, from the beginning
to the end. The one is a positive, the other a negative; what the
one attracts, the other repels; therefore if one be right, the other is
wrong; if one be saving truth, the other is ruinous error. The
difference may be thus briefly stated. If Christ be not God, but
a mere creature, then I am an IDOLATER, and according to the
Sctipture   my faith and its results must banish me from heaven.
Ifn tle aihr'lbl eLa, t  ed pcq and not a creature, then they
who believe the contrary are involved in this calamity, because
"they glorify Him not as God;" and because they "change the
glory of the incorruptible-God" by degrading him to the level of
a creature. If Christ be not God, then is it impossible for me to
be saved, for I depend upon his infinite atonement and imputed
righteousness for salvation, which no creature can make; but if
Christ be God, then they who reject his divinity, in rejecting his
atonement and righteousness for their personal justification, because he is but a creature, are consistent with themselves; but
by that means they put themselves out of the pale of Gospel hope,
"for without the shedding of blood there is no remission."
These things are so, or they are not. If they are so, it would
be very unfair to decry this statement on the score of "uncharitableness," because charity itself, which means love to men, naturally urges the investigation here commended. If they are not so,
then charity is equally concerned in exposing the fallacy of the




INTRODUCTION,                      Xiii
subsequent argument. Principles, systems, and their practical
results, so far as they relate to the best interests of men, charity
demands us to canvass; that truth may be brought out in all its
strength, to animate our hopes, to subdue our fears, to invigorate
our faith, and to secure our peace.  Charity, in the cant phrase
of the day, means the obsequiousness of an elastic conscience; the
ductility of religious principle; by which, out of mere compliment
to all men, we should regard their opinions, be they what they
may, with equal forbearance and outward respect. This sentiment, however, which the word never did and never can convey,
is as false in theory as it is mischievous in practice. According
to. this, Christ and his apostles were the most uncharitable denouncers that ever lived; and all efforts to recover men from the
dangers of error, are the mere outbreakings of an uncharitable
spirit!
But we have not so learned the Gospel. " Charity rejoiceth
not in iniquity, but rejoiceth-in the TRUTH."  Because she loves
the souls of men, she is faithful in exposing error; and while she
holds up the true Gospel, she is bound, at the same time, to rebuke
such as " hold the truth in unrighteousness;" and warn men against
all that is vitiating to a saving faith, and all that is fatal to a
solid hope. If, for instance, the supreme Deity of Christ be a
truth, it must be a fundamental truth, for out of it grow other
truths which the Scriptures teach are necessary to salvation.
Therefore we are bound, by every Christian sentiment, to bring
this matter to the test of Scripture, pushing opinions to their legitimate consequences, regardless of what cavillers may think or
say. From  the lovers of truth, sincere, it may be, in an error,
there is every thing to hope; from the indifferentist and pseudoliberal, there is nothing to fear. We know of no other way




xiv                 INTRODUCTION.
whereby we may obey the apostolic injunctions: " Earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints."  "Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good."  "Whatsoever things are
true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if
there be any praise, THINK on these things."
The great question to be settled is this-Do TRE SCRIPTURES
TEACH THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SUPREME GOD? We believe
they do most clearly establish this doctrine, and we think it can
be shown to the satisfaction of every considerate and candid mind,
unshackled by prejudice, and unpledged to a system right or
wrong, that this belief necessarily flows from, and consequently is
enjoined by the Bible. We, therefore, invite our readers to look
at the proof we offer, and which convinces us, on a point we must
consider vital to Christianity; and we especially invite them that
differ from us, to get rid of the DIEMMAS, into which, we think,
they are placed, without impeaching the Scriptures. Whatever
system of faith reduces us to an absurdity, must be abandoned.
We intend to show that such is the effect of the denial of the Supreme Godhead of Christ, and if we succeed in any point out of the
many we attempt, in that point we ask for a surrender; not to us,
but to TRUTH, for its own sake: if we succeed in but half of our
attempt, we ask for the surrender of a faith upon which reliance is
thus proved unsafe. We seek nothing but the SALVATION of those
who have been misled, as we think; and who are generous enough
to renounce ill-formed opinions, whenever they are shown to
be so.




C O N T E N T ENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PACU
INSPIRATION: Proofs-Extracts from  a Unitarian WriterConsequences of his view-Lowest Inspiration,... 19
CHAPTER II.
I. DILEMMA: Either Christ is the Supreme God, or there is no
name by which God can be distinguished from His creatures.
Collation of Scripture-Qualifications of Paul-Proofs from New
Testament-Consequences-Verification of Dilemma,.. 26
CHAPTER  III.
II. DILEMMA.-Either Christ is God, or Mohammed has given
more correct ideas of God, and is therefore a safer guide than
Jesus of Nazareth,
Christ's conduct- Asserts his claim before the Jews- Explains his Nature to Philip-Quotations from the Koran —
Dilemma verified —Unitarian explanation...  5




XiV                       CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
PAGE
III. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or the Supreme Being has
no incommunicable attribute peculiar to His nature, whereby he
can be distinguished from His creatures.
Eternity-Immutability-Omnipresence-Omnipotence- Omniscience-Immensity-Dilemma verified,. 86
CHAPTER V.
IV. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or, the truth of Scripture
admitted, there is no proof that there is a God at all.
Proof of the Divine existence appealed to by God himself-Collation of Scripture-An Absurd Consequence-Dilemma verifled.                                                      92
CHAPTER  VI.
V. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or there is no peculiar worship by which God can be distinguished from His creatures.
Quotation from Channing commented upon —Examples of Worship- Scripture Proofs - Consequence - Quotations from
Priestley and Channing-Dilemma Verified,..             99
CHAPTER VIL
VI. DILEMMA: Either Christ is the Supreme God, if he was,
when on earth, a good man; or if he was only a man, only a
creature, he must have been a very bal man.




CONTENTS.                      XVii
PAGE
Quotations from Dr. Channing and the Koran-Christ understood his own Nature-His Trials-Christ before the Sanhedrim-Their conduct-Christ put under Oath-His Condemnation-Meaning of the phrase, " Son of God" —How the
Jews understood it-The Character He had acquired-He
confirmed them in their Interpretation of his Words-Consequences-Can not get rid of them-Another Court SessionTheir Civil Accusation-Christ before Pilate-His Honesty
in Explanation-His Acquittal-Pilate's infamous ConductConsequences-Dilemma verified,.. 108
CHAPTER  VIII.
VII. DILEMnrA. —Either Christ is God, or he is not the Messiah.
His Offices proved-Divinity of the Messiah-What the Messiah
was to d —Consequences if he be not Divine-Dilemma
verified-An inconsistency,..                       129
CHAPTER IX.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AND REASON ANSWERED.
The value of objections-Shifting ground-The fallacy of objections-Why we can not accept Unitarian faith-Our arguments not yet answered-Unitarian ratiocination-Our position not touched-Their proof-texts harmonize with our
view-" Son of God " a title in harmony with our view of His
Nature-Quotations from Dr. Channing-Shown to be futileQuotation from Dr. Dick-Dr. Channing's rule of exegesisIts operation-Other vital doctrines denied-Personal salvation put in jeopardy,....131




XV1ii                   CONTENTS.
CHAPTER X.
CONCLUSION.
PAGB
Socinianism dangerous-Our view of atonement proved rightGrand means of salvation-" What must I do to be saved?"
unanswered-Brief address to those who deny the Divinity of
our Lord,.157
APPrN.                                                 173




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
INSPIRATION: Proofs-Extracts from a Unitarian Writer —Consequences of his view-Lowest Inspiration.
As the Bible is our ultimate standard, by which
we are to determine all questions of doctrine, we
must know to what extent we may rely upon its
statements. Is it in whole or in part, " the word of
God, and not the word of man"? Are its contents
inspired by God, or are they the productions of
minds, divinely taught, in the writing of which their
authors were kept simply from making mistakes?
Is Inspiration plenary or partial? All questions of
this sort, must be answered by the Bible itself.
On this subject its statements are not made with
hesitancy, but in clear and cogent language. We
are told that "'God, who at sundry times, and in
divers manners, spake in time past by the prophets,
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."*
* Heb. 1: 1, 2.




20       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
We are told that " prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost;"* and that
these men "prophesied of the grace that should
come unto you; searching what, or what manner of
time, the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did
signify, when it.testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ."t  Our Saviour indorsed the canon of the
Old Testament, when he said: " All things must be
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
me. Then opened he their understanding, that they
might understand the Scriptures."t These are the," Holy Scriptures" in which Timothy was educated,
and respecting which Paul/says: 6" All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, far instruction
in righteousness."~ Paul says that he " neither received the Gospel of man, neither was taught it, but
by the revelation of Jesus Christ;"ll and again, speaking in behalf of all the apostles he says: " Which
things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."~[ And that this inspiration accompanied their
pens as well as their tongues, appears from this
assurance: " The' things that I write unto you are
the commandments of the Lord."** "' By revelation
* 2 Pet. 1: 21.    t 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12.
$ Luke 24: 44, 45.  ~ 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16.  1 Gal. 1: 12,
~ 1 Cor. 2: 13.    ** 1 Cor. 14: 37.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        21
he made known unto me the mystery; as I wrote
afore in few words; whereby, when ye read, ye may
understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,
which in other ages was not made known unto the
sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."*
This direct and unmistakable language teaches us
to rely with all confidence upon the facts, statements, assertions, doctrines, etc., of holy Scripture;
respecting which there is no misstatement by the
writers, no mistake made; the thing was impossible,
since the Holy Ghost "taught them all things; and
led them into all truth." Because inspired by infallible wisdom, they wrote infallible writings, and
gave an infallible rule of faith and practice.
However plain and positive the apostles write on
this subject, Unitarians have gone so far as to say:
"Indeed, we sometimes find St. Paul committing
mistakes, or uttering contradictory counsels, that
are far more serious than these slight expressions of
uninspired minds."  This surprising sentiment is
laid down in a work entitled, "How I became a
Unitarian, by a Clergyman of the Episcopal Church,
1852." The anonymous author further states, (p. 33):
"I sayitwasunder this solemn and ominous impression," (namely, that the world was to come to an end,
and the day of final judgment to appear, before the
generation then living should pass away,) "that the
Gospels and Epistles were written; and written there* Eph. 3: 3-5.




22       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
fore, as we may safely affirm, but to meet the demands
of a present occasion, without the remotest reference
in the minds of the writers to the wants and capacities
of a distant era, as ours. And further, neither is it
irrelevant nor in any degree hazardous t6 say, that
they would necessarily, therefore, be written in
haste; and in a haste that would naturally betray
the writers int6 inaccuracy of statement, in regard
to many unimportant facts, as well as give occasion
for the expression of individual opinions, which
were rather the reflection of the age than the dictate
of supernal wisdom. The influence of these facts
upon their productions, it would be difficult to estimate. That it was great, we have the evidence
before us. So also was it a cooperating influence
shown in their zeal, their sufferings, their labors,
their patience, their faith, their courage; and above
all in their honest simplicity, their truthfulness, their
candor. And thus while they win ur entire confidence in their veracity, they unconsciously guard us
against the error of looking upon them as infallible
counsellors, in regard to matters of which we are
fully as competent to form a correct judgment as
they were I" As an evidence of this, he refers* to
"what St. Peter says, when scoffers in his day, observing the language of the preachers of Christianity who predicted the speedy dissolution of the
earth, called for the evidence of the approaching
catastrophe, and remarked that' all things continue
* Pp. 86, 37.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         23
as they were from the beginning of the creation.'
Upon this the Apostle takes occasion to warn them
that the day of the Lord' cometh as a thief in the
night;' and as possibly distrusting his own interpretation of the event, ingeniously qualifies the prediction by saying, that'a day with the Lord is as a
thousand years."' This is just saying that Peter
wrote with duplicity; that he gave forth a sibylline
oracle!
Speaking of the way in which we should receive the
word of God, he further says, (p. 37:) " Shallwe be permitted to make no allowance for human error? for
personal failings and prejudices in the writers? for
circumscribed views of physical, no less than moral
truth?  This would be most unreasonable and
absurd. Neither is it necessary to a devout and
profitable use of the sacred oracles. These errors,
however zealously denied, can not be hid. They
must be acknowledged and accounted for; and when
the keen edge of philosophical criticism is applied
to them, they must yield to its painful surgery."
We have made this extended quotation to show,
from their own principles, how easy it is for Unitarians to get rid of perplexing texts, which prove the
divinity of Christ, and any other doctrine they may
see fit to discard. Comparing this view of inspiration
with the Apostles' declarations, we must see they are
irreconcilable. If the New Testament is made up of
the truths of the Holy Ghost, interlarded with the
errors and mistakes of the individual writers, how




24       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
are we to know what is the genuine word of God,
and what is not?     no  his        e  the way
for. theJa<t hold ~.np of  Deism?  What security
have we that any of the Scriptures are genuine, or
that the apostles and prophets were inspired at all?
Besure, they say so; but then, they may have been
mistaken, and thus be false guides. Admit the principle of this quotation, and our rule of faith is a rope
of sand, unworthy of the high claims set up for it
by the writers of the same. If Peter might "distrust his own interpretation" in one case, so may
we distrust him in others, and thus it is easy to
escape the force of any proof derived from the Bible,
for any doctrine of Christianity.
It is a significant fact, that necessity is thus felt
for depreciating the word of God. The doctrine for
which we contend, can not be reached without this
preliminary work. Igr ade-.word-of eod-;then
it is easy to degrade the Son of God. Let it be subjected to the "keen edge of philosophical criticism,"
such as is in favor with Unitarians, and it may be
made subservient to all the purposes of erroneous
speculation that the most discordant religionists can
entertain. This involves an absurdity whose vastness makes it harmless in the view of every rightminded man. If the Scriptures are a revelation from
God to us, teaching us what we must believe
and do, in order to salvation, to answer the purpose,
they must have been secured from all the perversions of prejudice, and from all admixture of error;




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.          25
otherwise, they could not be a revelation at all. We,
therefore, shall assume that in regard to fact and
doctrine, and the various statements they contain,
they are "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth."
The lowest kind of inspiration, that can be well
thought of, is that called the " Inspiration of Superintendence," which means the care God took of the
writers, that what they stated should be free from
the possibility of error. The Scriptures must have
been inspired at least in this sense, or they were inspired not at all. We think there can be no debate
here among reasonable men, and upon this ground
we hope to show, that the deniers of our Lord's
divinity are entangled in dilemmas, out of which
they can not get.




26         SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER II.
I. DILEMMA: Either jhrist is the Supreme God, or there is no name
by which God can be distinguished from His creatures.
Collation of Scripture-Qualifications of Paul-Proofs from New Testament-Consequences-Verification of Dilemma.
WE proceed now to prove, that every name, single or complicate, by which we recognize the Supreme God as distinctly pointed out in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, beyond dispute is applied
by inspiration to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures of the New Testament by way of commentary
and explication.
The first class of passages we present, embraces
Old-Testament texts quoted and referred to by NewTestament writers.  We substitute the word "Jehovah" for "Lord," because it is acknowledged to be the
true rendering wherever the latter is printed in small
capitals, and is the incommunicable name of the Supreme Being.
(1.) Ps. 16: 8.-1I have set JEHOVAH always before me; because he is always at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Acts 2: 25.-For David speaketh concerning him, (CHRIST,) I
foresaw the LORD always before my face; he is on my right hand,
that I should not be moved.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              27
It is quite clear from the discourse of Peter in this
chapter, that he argumentatively applies his quotation from David directly to CHRIST, as the one meant;
but David speaks of Jehovah; therefore CHRIST is
JEHOVAH, or Peter was utterly  mistaken, and
although inspired, imposed upon his hearers a false
argument, designing to mislead them, if not mislead
himself.
(2.) Is. 40: 3.-The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH, make straight in the desert a
highway for OUR GoD.
Mat. 3: 3.-For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet
Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare
ye the way of the LORD, make his paths straight.
The Evangelist says, argumentatively,: that John
the Baptist was the person meant by the prophet;
but John's voice was heard in the wilderness, in preparation of the way for CHRIST; therefore CHRIST is
JEHOVAH, or Matthew deceives us, either through
ignorance or by design.
(3.) Is. 6: 3-5.-And one cried unto another, and said, Holy,
holy, holy is JEHOVAH OF HOSTS; the whole earth is full of His
GLORY......  mine eyes have seen the KING, JEHOVAH OF
HOSTS.
John 12: 41.-These things said Esaias when he SAW HIS
GLORY, AND SPAKE OF HImI.
This is peculiarly strong. We ask the reader to
peruse the context of each passage. It will be seen
that the prophet is favored with a magnificent vision,
and dreads the consequence of having seen the King,
Jehovah of Hosts. At the same time he is sent to




28        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the people with this message: "H ear ye indeed, but
understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with
their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand
with their hearts, and convert and be healed."
Now John, in describing the labors of CHRnST,
said that the people did not believe, and accounted
for it by quoting, argumentatively, the aforesaid
message; and declared that what the prophet in
vision then saw, was the glory of CHRIST, and that
he spoke of HIM when he said: " Mine eyes have seen
the King, Jehovah of Hosts."  The inference is unavoidable, either John, by inspiration, deceives his
readers, or CHRIST is the KING, JEHOVAH of HOSTS.
There is no escape.
(4.) Ex. 17: 2.-And AMoses said unto them, Wherefore do ye
tempt JEHOVAH.
Ps. 28: 56.-They tempted and provoked the MOST HIGH GOD.
i Cor. 10: 9.-Neither let ns tempt CHRIST, as some of them
also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
There is no doubt that Moses, David, and Paul
referred to the same historical fact.
According to Moses, the Israelites tempted Jehovah; and according to David, they tempted the most
high God. But Paul says they tempted Christ; therefore Christ is both Jehovah and the Most High God,
otherwise Paul deceives us.
(5.) Ps. 68: 17, 18. —The chariots of God are twenty thousand,
even thousands of angels. JEHOVAH is among them as in Sinai, in




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.                 29
the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, tho.t hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for' men.
Eph. 4: 7, 8.-But unto every one of us is grace given accordiDg to the measure of the gift of CHrIIsT. Wherefore he saith,
when HE ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gitfts unto men.
In the first of these quotations, the Psalmist addresses Jehovah  as the one who ascended on high,
leading captivity captive.  In the second, Paul argumentatively applies these words to Christ as the one
whom  David meant.  Therefore Christ is Jehovah,
or Paul deceives again.
(6.) Is. 8: 13, 14. —Sanctify JEHOVAII OF HOSTS HIMSELF, and
let HIIi be your fear, and let Hlin be your dread. And HE shall be
for a sanctuary: but for a STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF
OFFENSE, to both houses of Israel.
1 Pet. 2: 7, 8.-Unto you therefore which believe, he (Christ)
is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which
the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
and A STONE OF STUMBLING, AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, to them
which stumble at the word, being disobedient.
According to the Prophet, Jehovah of Hosts himself is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,
but according to the Apostle, CHRIST is this stone
and rock.  Therefore he is Jehovah of Hosts himself: otherwise Peter deceives us.
(7.) Is. 43: 3.-For I am JEHovAH THY GOD, THE HOLY ONE
OF ISRAEL, THY SAVIOUR:
2 Pet. 3: 18.-OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
YWe must remember that the epithets descriptive
of Christ in the New Testament are borrowed from the




30        SUPREMIE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
Old.  He who is our Saviour, according to the prophet, is Jehovah God, the Holy One; but he who is
our Saviour, according to the Apostle, is Jesus Christ.
Therefore Christ is Jehovah God, and the toly One;
or Peter deceives worse than he did, when he said,
"I know not the man i"
(8.) Zech. 12: 10.-And I (Jehovah) will pour upon the house
of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of
grace and of supplication: and they shall look upon ME whom
they have PIERCED, and they shall mourn.
John 19: 38. —And again another Scripture saith, They shall
look on HlIM (Christ) whom they PIERCED.
According to the Prophet, the one who is pierced
is Jehovah; but according to the Apostle's inspired
explanation, Christ is the one meant; for to him he
applies this prophecy. Therefore Christ is JEHOVAH,
or John either ignorantly or deceitfully perverts the
prophecy!
(9.) Micah 5: 2.-But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come
forth unto me that is to be RULER in Israel: whose goings forth
have been from of old, from EVERLASTING.
Mat. 2: 6.-And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not
least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a
governor that shall RULE my people Israel.
According to the Prophet, this Ruler has been from
eternity, and the eternity of the past can never be
predicated of a created being: therefore he must mean
the uncreated God. But the Evangelist says this
prophecy was pointed out by the Jews as to be fulfilled. in Christ, who, consequently, must have exist



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               31
ed from the eternity of the past, and is therefore the
EVERLASTING RULER. Matthew evidently approves
the reference.
(10.) Is. 43: 11. —I, even I, am JEIovAH: and besides me there
is NO SAVIOUR.
Acts 4: 12.-For there is none other NAME under heaven given
among men whereby we must be SAVED.
The Prophet declares there is no Saviour but HE
whose name is JEHOVAH, and the Apostle declares
there is no Saviour but HE whose' name is CHRIST.
Therefore Christ is Jehovah, or else an inspired
evangelist irreconcilably contradicts an inspired
prophet.
(11.) Jer. 23 ~24.-Do not I FILL heaven and earth, saith
JEHOVAHI.
Eph. 1.: 23.-The fullness of him (CHRIST) that FILLETII all in
all.
The Prophet declares Jehovah fills heaven and
earth, which means universal space. The Apostle
affirms that Christ fills all in all, which must mean
the same thing. Therefore Christ is the Omnipresent Jehovah, or else Paul asserts what can noibe
true!
(12.) Ps. 89: 8, 9.-O  JEHOvrAH GOD OF HOSTS, who is a
STRONG JEHOVAH like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about
thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof
arise, TIOU stillest them.
Mark 4 - 39: 40.-And HE arose, and rebuked the wind, and
said unto tle sea, Peace, be still. And there was a great calm.
And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, what manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?




82)       SIUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
That Jehovah God of Hosts is the strong Jehovah,
like unto whom there is no other, David argues from
thel fact of its being his prerogative to quell the commotion of the sea.  But Christ in his own name did
precisely the same thing: and the exclamation of his
disciples, "What manner of man is this!" showed
that independent exercise of divine power, in the
way of which David speaks, was to them  the first
proof of the Godhead of Christ, a doctrine they more
fully understood afterwards, and most clearly unfolded. Now, if the Psalmist reasoned rightly, then
C(lirist must be the STRONG JEHOVAH; but if he be
only a creature, then his argument is good for nothing,
and he was himself deceived.
(13.) Prov. 16: 4.-JEHOVAH made all things FOR HIMSELF.
Col. 1:16.-All things were created BY HIM, and FOR HIM,
that is, for Christ.
Therefore Christ is Jehovah, or Paul has misstated
the great end of creation.
(14.) Is. 9: 6.-FoR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN, unto us a son is
given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his
name shall be called WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, THE MIGHTY GOD,
T'IE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.
Luke 2  11. —For UNTO YOU IS BORN THIS DAY, in the city of
David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Rev. 19: 12.-And he (Christ) had a name written that no man
Iznew but he himself.
Rev. 3: 18.-I (Jesus) COUNSEL thee, etc.
Rev. 1: 8.-I (Jesus) am-the ALMIGHTY.
John 8: 58.-Before Abraham was I AM.
Acts. 3: 15.-The PRINCE of life.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.             33
Here it will be seen, that the several descriptions
given of the child born, by tfhe Prophet, are given of
the child born of Mary, by the Apostles.
(15.) Ps. 45: 6.-Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the
sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Heb. 1: 8.-But unto the SON he saith, Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom.
In the first of these passages David addresses none
but the Great God; for whose throne besides his, is for
ever and ever? But Paul declares that he addresses
Christ. Therefore Christ is God, whose throne endures
for ever; or the argument is deceptive by design of inspiration! The Apostle quotes the Psalmist beyond
all doubt, word for word, as it is in the Hebrew. To
get rid of this overwhelming passage, Unitarians resort to the miserable expedient of altering the words
of Paul to make him say: c" God is thy throne" I To
support their denial of the divinity of Christ, they find
it necessary to practise unfairly with Paul, by making him misquote a passage he adduces in argument!
One of their writers, however, says: " It is possible,
and even probable, in reference to Hebrews 1: 8,' Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever,' that the
writer of an epistle addressed to Hebrews, abounding
as it does in Jewish phraseology, should have spoken
of Christ as a God, or mighty prince, whose throne
of righteousness was to be perpetual and immovable,
in imitation of his illustrious forefathers, who, as instanced, both in the Psalms, from which the passage
c)*




34          SUPREME GODHEAD  OF CHRIST.
is quoted, and in other places of the Old Testament,
were wont to use the appellation  God in a lower
sense, with far greater frequency than the writers of
the New  Testament."!!*   Such a defense we claim
as a virtual surrender.  Its implication is monstrous.
(17.) Ps. 102: 24 —27.-I said, O my God, take me not away
in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all genera* SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF UNITARIANISM.-A foreign work, republished by The Unitarian Association of the State of New York, whose
author is a Humanitarian, that is, one who believes that Christ was
nothing more than a mere man.
In their preface to that performance, they have this caveat: "We
think it proper to remark that, the author's Humanitarianism would
be objected to by many Unitarians in this country, and we do not
intend, therefore, to indorse his sentiments respecting the nature of
Christ, any further than they deny or disprove his supreme Deity." Wre
respectfully suggest, that the Association might enlarge the number of
its rare publications by the addition of several works forcibly written
by respectable Deists, who are cordial towards the upholders of Unitarian sentiments. If judged important, a caveat similar to the above,
might be put in a preface. A tract or two from the Koran of Moharnmed, with suitable observations, might not be amiss. Any thing to
disprove the Supreme Deity of Christ! Any thing to help in the
great labor to prove a negative I
But why this caveat? What is "the nature of Christ"? Had he
preexistence? If so, then either he existed in a " nature" superior, or
equal, or inferior to that of angels. If superior, then in his union
with the rational soul and organized body of Jesus, we have the Unitarian objection, that there were two persons in the same individual. If
his "nature" was equal, then he was an angel, and therefore the same
difficulty occurs; Christ was not man at all, but had only the
outer shell of humanity. If he was inferior, then Paul was greatly
mistaken; then his human soul preexisted, and if all souls do not
preixist in the same way, he had not the nature of man; if they do,
then the doctrine of metempsychosis is true.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.                 35
tions. Of old hast THOU laid the foundations of the earth: and
the heavens are the work of THY hands. They shall perish, but
thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment;
as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Heb. I: 10, 11, 12.-But unto the SON he saith-And TIIOU,
LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and
the heavens are the works of THY hands. They shall perish, but
thou remainest: and they shall wax old as doth a garment; and
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed:
but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
David here addressed the self-existent God, who
is the  First Cause of all things, and who  shall
change all things; but Paul, for the purpose of argument, says David used these words as descriptive of
the nature and works of Christ. Therefore, Christ is
the self-existent God; otherwise, Paul is guilty of
blasphemy.
(18.) Ps. 31: 5.-Into thy hands I commit my spirit; thou
hast redeemed mne, O JEHOVAH, GOD OF TRUTH.
Acts 7: 59-And they stoned Stephen, calling upon, and saying, LORD JESUS receive my spirit.
This devout prayer of David, the martyr adopts
in his last moments, addressing our Saviour. Therefore, the Lord Jesus is Jehovah God of truth; or
Stephen was guilty of blasphemy, and rightly put
to death, according to the law of God, by stoning.
He deceived himself and deceived others, in the last
act of his life!
(19.) Gen. 17: 1. —And when Abram was ninety years old
and nine, JEIIovAII appeared to Abram and said unto him, I am
the AI.aIIGrITY God.




t8 6     SUPREME GODHEAI) OF ClHRIST.
Rev. 1: 8.-I (Christ) am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, -the ALMIGHTY.
In the first of these quotations, Jehovah announces his name to Abram as the Almighty.  In
the second, the Alpha and the Omega, announces the
the same thing; therefore He is the Almighty.  To
determine who the speaker is, in this verse —whether
it be the Father or the Son, we ask attention to the
following observations.
(1.) The first verse opens with announcing the
object of the book-namely " The Apocalypse of Jesus
Christ."  The meaning of this is to be determined
by parallel passages. 1 Cor. 1: 7, "Waiting for
the apcocalypse or revealing, (rendered in our version
coming) of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. 1: 7,
"And to you who are troubled, rest with us, at the
apocalypse (coming) of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Pet. 1: 7. At the apocalypse (coming) of Jesus
Christ, v. 13 —"The grace that is to be brought
unto you at the' apocalypse (coming) of Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 4: 13, "When his glory shall be apoca.lypsed" (revealed) namely, at his coming. This book,
then, is no revelation of things made to Christ; but
it is the manifestation of the coming of Christ, which
Deity, as such, gave to the triumphant Messiah, as
such, to communicate to his servants by the hand
of John. The Revelation differs from the first performance of John, that is, his Gospel, which was the
manifestation of the Messiah who had come in his




SUPREME GODIIEAD OF CHRIST.       37
humiliation; this being a manifestation of the Messiah
yet to come in his exaltation, and as such, in his official capacity, he is of course distinguished from the
Deity.
(2.) Beyond a doubt, Christ is meant in v. 7,
"Behold he cometh - yea, truly (elliptically connecting with v. 8) I am Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, saith the Lord, which is,
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."  This is the great announcement. John now
stops, to supply the ellipsis between vs. 7 and 8, by
relating the circumstances under which this announcement was made; and having said it proceeded
from "a great voice," he goes on in v. 11 to repeat
the first words uttered —" I am Alpha and Omega,
the FIRST and the LAST." WVe have to determine
one thing more. WVhose voice was this? 12th v.
"And I'turned to see the voice that spake with me,
and being turned I saw —— one like unto the Son
of God -(vs. 17 and 18.) And when I saw him, I fell
at his feet as dead, and he laid his right hand upon
me, saying, Fear not; I am the FIRST and the LAST;
he that liveth, and was dead." Therefore CHRIST is
the speaker in v. 8.
(3.) This is placed beyond reasonable dispute by
Rev. 22: 12, 13, "And behold I come quickly-I
am Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, the FIRST and the LAST." Mark the grouping
of the epithets in Chap. 1, vs. 8 and 11. Now who
is the "I" here?  See Rev. 22: 16. "IJesus."




38        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
(4.) But Unitarians say, the amended text of v. 8th
reads thus-SAITH THE LORD GOD —hich is never
applied to Christ. Let us see. We accept the amendment, and refer to Rev. 22: 6: "And TIIE LORD GOD
of the holy prophets, sent HIs angel to show unto his
servant the things which must shortly be done."
Who is he?  v. 16: "I JESUS have sent MINE angel
to testify unto you these things." Can any thing be
plainer?
(5.) It is further said, the phrase, "Who is, and
who was, and who is to come," is a Jewish formula,
significant of the eternal God, and is never applied
to Christ. Admitting this for a moment, we present
another Jewish formula, significant of the same
thing, about which there can be no mistake. Heb.
13: 8, " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day
andfor ever." The one formula expresses eternity as
much and as intensely as the other.
(20.) 1 Ch. 28: 6.-JEHOVAH searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts.
Rev. 2: 23.-I am HE which seareheth the reins and hearts.
According to David, Jehovah searcheth.the heart,
and this is his prerogative alone. 1 Kings 8: 39.
But according to John, JESUS exercises the. same
prerogative.  Therefore He is Jehovah, or John
deceives us.
(21.) Prov. 3: 12.-For whom JEHOVAH loveth, he correcteth.
Rev. 8: 19.-As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.
CHRIST adopts these words as applicable to himself, which are descriptive of the mercy and dealings




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               39
of Jehovah with his children. Therefore HE is
Jehovah.
(22.) Is. 40: l0.-Behold the LORD GOD will come with strong
hand, and his arms shall rule for him: behold his reward is with
HI-M and His work before him.
Rev. 22: 12. —Behold I (Jesus) come quickly; and my
reward is with ME to give every man according as his work shall
be.
What the Prophet declares of the Lord God who
will come, Christ declares of himself as about to
come quickly.  Therefore HE is the LORD GOD, or
else he uses the language of the Bible deceitfully!
(23.) Is. 44: 6.-Thus saith JEHOVAH, THE KING OF ISRAEL
and his Redeemer, JEHOVAH OF HOSTS, I AM THE FIRST AND THE
LAST: AND BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD.
Rev. 22.13. —I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end, THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
According to the Prophet, he who is the first and
the last, is Jehovah of Hosts, besides whom there is
no God. But according to the Apostle, Christ is the
first and the last; therefore He is Jehovah of Hosts,
besides whom there is no God. If this be not so,
then the Saviour of the world inspired John to
deceive the world!!
(24.) Deut. 10: 17.-JEHOVAH your God, is God of gods, and
LORD Of LORDS.
Jer. 10: 10. —But JEHOVAH is an EVERLASTING KING.
1 Tim. 6: 15, 16.-The blessed and only Potentate, THE KING
OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man
hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting.
Amen.




40        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
Rev. 17: 14.-The Lamb shall overcome them; for HE IS
ICING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS
Rev. 19: 16.-He hath on his vesture, and on his thigh a
name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
These texts speak for themselves. They show
that the high and glorious title of Jehovah, embodied in one of the most magnificent descriptions of
Deity to be found in the Bible, is not only said to
belong to Christ, but to be written upon him, describing what he is and ever shall be.  He to whom  the
doxology is rendered, (1 Tim. 1: 17,) "Now unto
the King, eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise
God, be honor and glory for ever," is "the King of
kings and Lord of lords;" but this gloriius divine
title belongs to CIIRIST, who showed himself unto
John in Patmos, in awful majesty, having this title
written upon his thigh.  How is it possible to
escape the conclusion that Christ is God? If he is
not, how is it possible to escape the conviction that
John has deceived us; and if he spoke by the Spirit,
was inspired by God himself to deceive his creatures!
(25.) Jer. 10: 10. — JEHOVAH IS THE TRUE GOD, HE IS THE
LIVING GOD.
1 John 5: 20.- Ve are in him that is true, even in his Son,
Jesus Christ. TIiis IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE.
Comment is unnecessary, but an anecdote is in
point.
"Two gentlemen were once disputing on  the
divinity of Christ. One of them who argued against
it said:' If it were true, it certainly would have been




SUPREIME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        41
expressed in more clear and unequivocal terms.'' Well,' said the other,'admitting that you believed
it, were you authorized to teach it, and allowed to
use your own language, how would you express the
doctrine to make it indubitable?''I would say,'
replied he,' that Jesus Christ is the true God.''You
are very happy,' rejoined the other,'in the choice
of your words; for you have happened to hit upon
the words of inspiration. St. John, slpeaking of the
Son, says, " This is the true God and eternal life.' "'
We now give from the apostolic writings, a second
class of passages, which were evidently meant to be
didactic; and consequently, formative of Christian
faith. Paul declared, that God had " called him by
his grace, to reveal his Son in him that he might
preach Him among the heathen." WTe must therefore
conclude that he had very definite ideas of the nature
of Christ, and was well able so to speak, that his language should be free from ambiguity; and should convey nothing, even by implication, that might lead to
gross mistake. We must believe, that with the twofold advantage of inspiration and education, he would
be able so to instruct the heathen, that they should
clearly apprehend his meaning; that he would be
particularly careful, on vital points, that they should
have no excuse in his phraseology for misunderstanding him; and especially in his statement of facts,
that they should know exactly what he meant. God
chose him for this purpose, and he was faithful in the
* Anecdotes on Catechism.




42        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
discharge of his duty. Let us therefore see what he
has to say about his exalted Lord.
(1.) Rom. 9: 5.-Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, GOD BLESSED FOR
EVER.
This text certainly is very clear. The heathen
could understand it. They would know, that Christ
was a Jew; but if he were no more than a man,
they would have had some little merriment over the
solemn assurance that a man came, "as concerning
the flesh;" or if he were the highest of the various
orders of God's creatures, they would have had great
trouble with the implication so intensely absurd, that
one creature united to another creature is the Creator! But the antithetical form of this verse, so plainly
teaches that he was man according to the flesh, and
something else not according to the flesh; which something else, is defined to be, "who is over all, God
blessed for ever," they could not have had any doubt
as to the intention and language of Paul. The plain
statement of what Christ is, as to his human nature,
in the first part of the text, implies that the statement in the last part declares what he is, otherwise
than according to the flesh: that is, it is a plain statement of his divine nature, God blessed for ever.
Manuscripts, versions, and various readings do
not help Unitarians here. They are obliged to acknowledge the integrity of the received original, and
are forced to the admission, that as the common
translation does no violence either to grammar or




SUPREME GODHEA.D OF CHRIST.        43
idiom, it may be the true one. But in order to show
that this is not a decisive passage, they tell us it may
be differently pointed. Thus by altering the punctuation, and by thrusting the word " God" out of its
natural place, and between the relative and its proper
antecedent, and by changing the participle into a pass.
ive verb, they present this version: " Of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ came. God, who is over all,
be blessed for ever."  By this begging of the question,
they hope to invalidate this powerful proof-text. But
it is all in vain. Their interpretation is inconsistent
with the construction of the original, and decides
nothing but their ingenuity at torture, by which the
enemies of Christ's divinity endeavor to pervert the
Scriptures.  This text, moreover, is strongly confirmed by Rom. 1: 3, 4, where Christ is shown to be
Son of man according to the flesh, that is, human nature;
and the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness,
that is, divine nature. The antithesis in both cases
is equally strong. (See Acts 2: 30.) Now, if Christ
is only a man, how comes it that no other distinguished man mentioned in the Scriptures is represented as
coming, according to the flesh.? If he is more than man,
according to this text, he must be the Supreme God;
but if he is only man, Paul wrote unintelligibly, and
was not fit to preach the Gospel to the heathen.
Both his learning and his inspiration did not keep
him from penning a good grammatical and idiomatic
sentence, whose obvious sense taught them simply to
change their form of IDOLATRY, by dropping their old




44:       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
idols, and taking a new and a worse one in their
stead!
Miserable indeed, must be that system  that can
thus abuse the word of God, rather than yield to its
plain statement of a vital truth.
(2.) 1 Cor. 2: 7, 8.-But we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the
world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world
knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of Glory.
This is a iebraism for Glorious Lord-a title applied to the Deity in the Old Testament. (Is. 33: 21.
Ps. 24: 8, 10. See also Acts 7: 2.) Thus it appears
Paul borrowed a phrase used in the Old Testament
to describe the Supreme God, and thereby described
Christ.  If he were an honest man, then we must
thus argue: He who was crucified as to his manhood,
is the Lord of Glory, that is, JEHOVAH, or the passage is unmeaning. If Unitarianism be true, Paul's
character suffers.
(3.) Phil. 2: 6, 8.-Christ, who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and
was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a
man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even
the death of the cross.
This passage proves one of two things, either
Christ is God, or the very worst man that ever existed!
Let us examine it.
(1.) Christ is God. He is said to have subsisted




SUPREIME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        45
in the "form of God." But as God has no outward
form, this expression must refer to his nature, and
must be interpreted by the parallel phrase-" the form
of a servant." Now, was our Saviour a real servant?
Certainly, He says himself: " I am among you as one
that serveth." He did the work of a servant in washing his disciples' feet when girded with a towel. He
is expressly called a servant by prophecy: "Behold
my servant whom I uphold." When our Lord therefore took the form of a servant, he became a real servant. Therefore his being in the form of God, must
mean he was really God. This is put beyond dispute by the very next sentence.  If he thought it
not robbery to be equal with God, then he was God.
And if he was made "in the likeness of men," then
he was man. Surely, here is the most explicit declaration of the two-fold nature of Christ, He was God and
man in one person; language can not be plainer.
But the Apostle elsewhere explains it.  "Ye. know
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though HE
WAS rich, yet for your sakes HE BECAME poor, that
ye through his poverty, might be rich." Now, we
think it quite pertinent to ask-when, where, and
how was Christ rich? If his riches were intellectual
power, moral greatness, etc., as Unitarians assert,
then we ask, when did he become poor?  Did he
ever cease to be rich in these respects? No. But
the contrast must be preserved, and if these were
the riches referred to, he must at some time have
been divested of his virtue, and shorn of his power,




46       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
when he became poor.  If his poverty, however,
referred to his lowly state in the formn of a servant,
then his riches referred to his exalted nature in the
form of God.
(2.) If he was not God, but a man or some other
creature, this passage makes him out the very worst
creature; for what greater act of horrid impiety and
blasphemy is there than this, that a finite creature
should arrogate to himself an equality with the infinite
Creator? Besides, this passage thus interpreted, makes
out, not only that he was not God, but that he was
not man; for if he only bore a resemblance to God,
he only bore a resemblance to a servant, he was not
a man, but only the likeness of a man! Again, this
interpretation destroys the whole force of the passage. The Apostle is urging the practice of humility
and condescension by the example of Christ. But
if he was only a creature, he was bound to obey the
will of his Creator, and it was neither humility nor
condescension in him to do his duty. If he had disobeyed, he would have been a rebel-as much so as a
fallen angel. Where, then, is the exalted honor for
which he is lauded by raptured prophets and apostles? Duty, although commendable, is not meritorious. And after all that he had done, he could
claim no reward, more than Gabriel or Paul. Thus
it is evident that Christ must be God, or the worst
specimen of arrogance and pride the universe can
exhibit. He must be God, or he was not man. He
must be God, or he exhibited neither humility nor




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         47
condescension. He must be God, or the Apostle's
inspired argument is pointless, weak, and worthless!
Unitarians have another way of disposing of this
text, which we take to be an implication of their
inability to manage it. It is this: "Jesus being,
before his incarnation, existent in a godlike form,
thought it not therefore robbery to aspire to a godlike preeminence above other celestial creatures, by
the work of redemption he now contemplated since
the creation and fall of man; and which he foresaw
God would so reward."*  We need only say, that
this is any thing but explaining the words of the
Apostle; it is, in fact, an admission that they can
not be made to harmonize with Unitarian faith.
There is another important consideration offered,
to take off the edge from this and similar texts
which Paul wrote. We quote the author just referred to, (pp. 56, 57, 58:) "That Paul was a man of
warm temperament, lively imagination, and great
activity of mind and body, is quite apparent in what
he has written, as well as in what is said of him in
the book of the Acts of the Apostles. His zeal, his
eloquence, his learning, his courage, his faith, his
deep, fervent piety-all these mark him for a man
as great as he was good. But he had his faults, notwithstanding; and he is not ashamed to confess
them. He was not always equal. He was sometimes overborne by a consciousness of his own feebleness, of the unprepossessing style of his appearance,
*" How I became a Unitarian," p. 73.




48       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
by his stammering speech —and he appeared before
his audiences'in fear and much trembling.' He was
also at times exceedingly timid. He took Timothy
and circumcised him contrary to his own convictions,'for fear of the Jews.' He was superstitious;
he shaved his head, and went up to the temple,
after he had said repeatedly and expressly, that' Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believed,' and that the temple services were not only obsolete, but nugatory, and
therefore virtually forbidden the Christian.  He
preached baptism for the dead."  "He was, likewise, as we should naturally expect, in a man of
his enthusiasm, given occasionally to exaggeration.
Take, as an instance, his declaration that he could
wish himself' accursed from Christ,' for his brethren
and kinsmen according to the flesh. A most extraordinary expression, were it even confined to a person making no claims to inspiration. Extravagant
is the term we should apply to it, whatever might
be the state of excited feeling under which it was
spoken. Least of all would we refer it to the dictation of the Holy Spirit."
" Regarded as a man of this character, was St. Paul
a person likely to remain unaffected by the current
opinions and belief of his day? It seems to me that
he was not."-" The very atmosphere in which he
moved had been peopled with imaginary deities;
the rivers, the woods, the grottos, the fountains, the
hills, all had their divinities; and the constellations




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         49
in the heavens were parcelled out among those
superior beings who controlled the destinies of men
and nations. St. Paul was not only aware of these
facts, but they had formed part of that mental nutriment by which his mind grew to maturity. And
now, in his manhood, though converted to Christianity, though no longer reverencing idle superstitions,
he might not have been an entire unbeliever in
the existence of those fabulous deities." To prove
this point, this writer refers us to 1 Cor. 8: 5, 6,
and remarks: " What I say in relation to this passage
is simply this-that it does not impeach the soundness
of Paul's Christianity; it only militates against the
idea of his being infallibly inspired." "But I can not
say as much for him, when I find him in Col. 2: 18,
inculcating the worshipping of angels"! (P. 62.)
"And so St. Paul himself made a God of Jesus in
subordination to the Father; and Christians in our
day would have us worship him." (P. 64.) " As to
what he says, leb. 1: 6, about God commanding
the angels to worship him, all I desire to say is, that it
is one of those unfortunate quotations which labor
underthat first of all necessities, the want of an author.
AVe have no reason t6 suppose that God ever said
any such thing. God never commanded the worshipping of a creature. St. Paul may have thought
so, because he adopted the practice"!
We are here informed that Paul was a very good
man, but withal, was ardent, impetuous, irresolute,
inconsistent, superstitious, naturally prone to stretch..




50       SUPREMRE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the truth, and, notwithstanding his Christianity, a
little given to idolatry. Hence he made Christ a
God, and in order to sustain his position, made a quotation which really had no author!  We remind
our readers of a former remark, that Unitarians find
themselves necessitated to degrade the word of God,
before they can degrade the Son of God. I-Iere we
find one, who was once an Episcopal clergyman,
anonymously degrading the character of the great
Apostle, in order to disparage his writings, and
bring them into disrepute, simply because he can no
otherwise dispose of his clearly-stated doctrine of
the divinity of Christ. We say this is a very significant fact. An avowed Deist could not have done
more; certainly, an honest one would not have
done as much. Behold the work of Unitarianism!
"The tree is known by its fruit."
(4.) Col. 2: 9. —For in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness
of the Godhead bodily.
This phraseology is as strong as strength can
make it. If it does not declare the supreme Godhead of Christ, it is the announcement of a solemn
nothing. It is vexatiously unintelligible, and mischievously worded. Godhead means the nature of
God. Fullness means the contents of a measure, or
that with which it is filled up to the brim.  "The
fullness of the Godhead," then, must mean all that
which the Divine Nature contains; as, self-existence,
eternity, immensity, independence, immutability,
omniscience,  omnipresence,  omnipotence,  and




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         51
every other, attribute essential to Godhead.  To
go the whole length of the capability of language,
the Apostle adds, "All the fullness of Deity," or the
total sum of what God is. This he affirms, dwelleth
in Christ, using the present tense, to show that this
fullness is not transient, but ever abides in him.
Moreover, it dw ells in him bodily, that is, really, not
figuratively; as body means substance, or essence,
so bodily means substantially, or essentially. And
because the fullness of the Godhead is said to dwell,
that necessarily supposes a habitation for indwelling;
consequently the pronoun HEImr, must mean Christ's
human nature, in which the whole of Deity permanently resides.
Nothing else can be made out of this text without
the grossest violation of language. It is much
stronger than any simple affirmation of Christ's
Deity could be, for Paul purposely chose his language to suit his two principal classes of opponents,
namely, the Jews and the Gnostics, a sect of philosophers who incorporated heathen notions with the
Gospel. The Jews believed that in the Shekina, or
visible cloud in the Temple over the mercy-seat,
the Godhead really and substantially dwelt; hence
Paul uses the term bodily, to convey to the mind of
the Jew, the idea that God just as really and substantially dwelt in the man Christ Jesus. The Gnostics,
on the other hand, made a distinction between the
essence and the attributes of Godhead. They considered the Infinite One, as to his Being, to be with



52       SUPREME GODHIEAD OF CHRIST.
drawn into the profoundest depth of concealment;
and hence they called him the Abyss: but the emanations of his essence, that is, his attributes, they personified, each of which they supposed to have a separate
but subordinate divine existence. When they spoke
of the Eternal Being and his attributes, all taken
together as one whole, they used the word FULLNESS,
meaning thereby every thing that could be comprehended in Godhead. Now it is evident, that the
Apostle uses this same word designedly, so as to
avoid all mistake on their part. He meant to affirm
what ought never to have been misunderstood, namely, that what they considered the FULLNESS OF GOD,
dwelleth in Christ.
It is clear, then, that the descriptive phraseology
of this text, is much more forcible than the bare
assertion that Christ is God; for the Jews sometimes called their magistrates gods, though not so as
to make this term ambiguous in its reference, and
the Gnostics called the personified attributes of the
Supreme Essence, gods; and this word had been so
commonly applied to a vast variety of superior intelligences, that it could not answer the Apostle's evident
intention. Ile therefore formed a sentence, to express in the most emphatic manner, THE SUPREME
GODHEAD OF CHRIST; SO that both Jew and Gnostic
might be sure of his intention and his meaning.
It is a poor effort to try to emasculate this text,
by quoting Eph. 3: 19, as is sometimes done: "And
to know the love of Christ, which passeth know



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.           53
ledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of
God." The Apostle, in the context of this verse,
had said that Jews and Gentiles were built up
together into a holy Tenzple, and upon this metaphor he grafts his prayer, that this temple might
be filled with all the fullness of God; that they
might be a "holy temple for an habitation of
God through the Spirit." This does not convey
any idea like that in Col. 2: 9, where the "fullness of
the GodHEAD" (divine nature) really, not metaphorically,. is said to dwell in Christ. The original is
ofwa —rluci, substantively, v. 17, " They are a shadow
(aitad) of things to come, but the substance (a(3,a) is
Christ."
Now, if Christ be not God, Paul is convicted of a
deliberate intention, and of wicked craft, to lead
men to regard Him as the Supreme. He is a promoter of idolatry, while he professes to detest it, and
actually lampoons men for this stupid practice. We
see no chance of escape from one or other of these
alternatives.  He has evidently so contrived his
sentences, that they are suggestive, as well as expressive; and if this text does not teach the doctrine for
which we contend, there is no meaning in language;
and there is no possibility of telling the difference
betwe. on tb crature andX thW e ~Crnptor 
(5.) 1 Cor. 15: 47. —The first man (Adam) is of the earth,
earthy: the second man (CHRIST) is the Lord from heaven.
In this text, the contrast is perfect. The second
man, as to his manhood, must be earthy as well as




54       SUPRE3fE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the first, else he could not be man at all. Now, if
the first be earthy, the second man is heavenly;
but as this might be interpreted to mean a holy disposition, the term would not express tfe Apostle's
idea, and he therefore said, that Christ was the Lord
from heaven-a phrase wholly incompatible with the
supposition that he is only a man or a creature. He
is, indeed, expressly called a man. But if he be
only a man, the contrast is ridiculous; for where is
there a mere human being not of the earth? If he
be an arch-angel, then there is just as much difficulty
in admitting the union of the human and the angelic
as there is in admitting the union of the human and -
the divine natures. Besides, how could any creature be called the "Lord from heaven"?  This
phrase is descriptive of the Supreme God. (Genesis
19: 24; 2 Chron. 20: 6.)'0 iciptos, The Lord, both
in the Sept. and N. T. is the translation of " Jehovah."  With the article, it generally means the
Supreme God; (Matt. 1: 22; 2: 15; 5: 33; Luke
1: 6, 29; Mark 5: 19; James 4: 15;) but often it is
without the article, being defined by something else
in the sentence, (Acts 7: 31;) and in this respect, it
has the license of a proper name, either taking or
rejecting the article at the pleasure of the writer.
It smeaning here is put beyond dispute, because defined both by the article, and by the words, from
heaven.  Our Saviour said of himself; "He that
cometh from above, is above all: he that is of the
earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth: he that




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.                  55
cometh from heaven is above all." Doubtless, Paul
had this in his mind, when he penned this verse;
and must be understood as referring to the Divinity
of our Lord, who, he says, is " over all, God blessed
for ever." If this be not so, if the union between
the human and divine natures in the person of our
Redeemer is not here taught, then we despair of
finding any sense in the passage.
(6.) 1 Tim. 1: 1.-Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, our
hope.
If this verse mean any thing, it must mean that
our hope rests on Jesus Christ, not only as man, but
as God and.Lord.
(a7.) 1 Tim. 3: 16.-Without controversy, great is the mystery
of godliness. Godwas manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory.*
* We here subjoin a note on this passage by the Rev. Dr.
Brownlee:
"The Alexandrian MS., and all known manuscripts, except two
of the Palestine, and one of the Egyptian edition, read Oeor, God, in
1 Tim. 3: 16. The Latin Vulgate reads'quod''which,' in opposition to every known manuscript but the Clermont.-See Nolan's
Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, and received text
of the New Testament, p. 285.
" Nolan reveals a fact of importance, in reference to the reading of
the text. In the very ancient Alexandrian MS., the words have
been much worn out; and hence, some critics, as Wetstein and
Griesbach, following certain prejudices, declared that they read'Or,
which, and not Of, which is the contraction of Oeor, God.'On the
other side, Junius, who first examined it, and Huish, and Bishops




5(         cSU['REAME GODIIEAD  OF CIRIST.
We request the reader to turn back, and compare
with this text, IRom. 9: 5.  The exposition there,
sheds light upon 1 Tim. 3: 16, for the same author
penned both, and clearly conveys the same fundaWalton and Fell, with Drs. Mill, Grabe, and Woide, declare that they
read Of, and not'Of; that is, they road'GOD,' and not which. But
Dr. Berriman has settled the point. In the presence of his two
friends, Ridley and Gibson, he examined this ancient MS. in the sunshine, by the aid of a microscope. And he, and they, and two other
persons standing by, saw distinctly the transverse line in the letter
0; and therefore found it to be Of, God; and not'Of, which. And
a certificate was drawn up by Dr. B,, and published in the following
words:'And therefore, if at any time, hereafter, the old line should
become indiscernible, there never will be just cause to doubt, but
that the genuine and original reading of this MS. is Of, that is, OEeo,
God.'
"And in reference to Wetstein, whose single testimony is now supposed to turn the scale against the above host of witnesses, Dr.
Berriman publicly charged him with the fact of having admitted to a
friend that he saw the transverse line, and so read 0f. But he afterwards disputed it. And Griesbach has followed in the same track.
To this charge Wetstein replied, that in examining the MS., he mistook the transverse line of an E on the other side of the vellum, which.
appeared through, and so deceived him into the idea, at first, that it was
0f. This gross prevarication of Wetstein was promptly detected by
Dr. Berriman, who again examined the MS., and found the letter E
so entirely distant from the word on the other side, that it could not
have been mistaken, by any one, for the genuine transverse line in Of!
Having thus settled the case with Wetstein, the learned Nolan proceeds to show the duplicity and unfairness of Griesbach in this
matter. —See Nolan's Inquiry, etc., pp. 282, 285, 512, 513."
" See also his criticism on the ungrammatical phrase, /var7Qtiov, or,
etc.; and then the transition from or into 6, in the neuter gender, to
agree with the neuter noun. (Nolan pp. 281, 282.)"'
Also, Dr. Henderson's volume cn this text.




SUPREME GODHEAD  OF CHRIST.                   57
mental idea of two-fold nature in both. It appears
to us, to require some courage to deny this; and it
would appear our opponents think so too, if we may
judge from the manner by which, in both instances,
they try to support their denial. On the common
interpretation, this text is plain, but if only a man
was thus manifested, where is the mystery?  How
great the nonsense-" A  man was manifested in the
flesh;" if only a creature, how vast the confusion!
By substituting "which," or "he who," for God, as
is done by the Unitarians, the sense of the passage
is completely destroyed.*
* The external evidence for Oeoe, as given by Dr. Henderson, is
overwhelming. The internal evidence is clearly in its favor. Nei-'ther ogf, nor o so well agrees with the context. Not to speak of
unusual construction, they exceedingly embarass the sense. What
can be the meaning of -6o tavep6J7 Ev aapci?  Granting that,
although unusual, it may be allowed on the ground of anomaly, what does it make Paul say, according to Unitarian faith?
This: " Great is the mystery —a man was manifest in the flesh "I If
Christ were only a man, there was no mystery in his appearance as
such. He could appear no otherwise. If we may be allowed to
judge from the writings of this Apostle, we must say, it was next to
impossible that he should pen such a sentence. It is nowhere said,
that " Christ was manifested in the flesh."  The effort to make
XptaroS the antecedent of 8c, understood, is not only harsh and
unnatural, but incapable of defense, either from parallel passages, or
from Pauline usage, or from probability. Nor can it be said that rT7f E6aejetca yva7c7-ptlov is the antecedent, nor ElK2ctla &eoi, for
neither of them was manifested in the flesh. The nearest masculine
antecedent is &eo6 4dvrof, but this will not suit the Unitarian at all;
besides, it is too far from the relative. If the reading be'0, then,
although agreeing in gender with the nearest'antecedent, it makes
rank nonsense. The plea, therefore, that this passage is disputed, can
3*




08         STUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
(8.) John 1: 1, 2, 3, 14.-In the beginning was the WORD, and
the WORD was with God, and the WORD was GOD. The same
was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him,
and without him was not any thing made that was made. In
him was life: and the life was the light of men. And the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
The term Word is evidently so applied in this
passage, that it must mean either a creature or the
Creator. If it be the latter, then the passage is intelligible'; but if it mean the former, it is absurd. Supposing it means a creature, by substituting terms, we
have the following instruction: "In the beginning
was a creature, and a creature was with God, and a
creature was God (!) The same (creature) was in the
beginning with God. All things were made by a
creature, and without a creature was not any thing
made that was made." Of course, this creature acted
before he existed; for his first act was to make himself!
"And a creature was made flesh, and dwelt among
us."  If this creature was more than man, a subordinate God, then there are at least two Gods, contrary
to 1 Cor. 8: 5, 6: " Though there be that are called
gods, whether in heaven or in earth, to us there is
but one God;" and Christianity is but a modified
form of Polytheism; and if this creature was only
a man, then it was deemed necessary for inspiration
not avail to drive it out of the discussion. In defense of the common
reading, we refer to John 1: 1, Oes6 9v 6 Xoyor; 14 v. KaZ 6;06yof
Cap EyEvero' 2 Cor. 5: 19, Oee',v tv Xptar, C6oa/ov ca ra2aaawv
eavern. These illustrate Oet oavep0VOi &v CacPKi. See also, 1 John
1:2; Rom. 1:3; 8:3; 9: 5.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHtRIST.        59
to tell us, lest we should mistake, that a man was
made flesh! These absurdities are truths, if Unitarianism be true.
In speaking of this passage, the author of the
book entitled, "How I became a Unitarian," thus
discourses, -(p. 82:) "Now, if the Apostle means us
to understand by the Word, or Logos, being made
flesh, that God, the incomprehensible, the infinite and
glorious Jeliovah, was made flesh," etc., etc., "then
upon the responsibility of my own judgment, and in
the light of my own reason, and by virtue of that
reverence for God" (rebellion against God?) " which
is in me, I withdraw my credence entirely and unqualifiedly from this part of the narrative." This is a
summary way of getting rid of strong proofs, but not
very creditable either to the head or the heart of the
writer. How much better to treat the whole Bible in
the same way as the Deist does. He is as much at
liberty to reject the whole, as Unitarians are to cut out
a part, and certainly more consistent. We can not
imagine greater inconsistency than to hold the Bible
to be the word of God, and at the same time to avow
such sentiments as the following, (pp. 159,160:) " The
w riters of the New Testament were certainly in error
respecting the approaching dissolution of the world.
This is undeniable. Well, if they were mistaken in
this instance, might they not have been in another?
(namely, the doctrine of endless punishment.)  If
they were fallible men, laboring under the disadvantages of want of education, strong prejudices, and




60       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
narrow Jewish sympathies, were they not likely to
be bigoted in their notions, severe in their judgments
of unbelievers, and rather free in their denunciations?
This, from their own showing, was their character;
and their writings confirm it. They were the very
men to fulminate this dreadful doctrine. It was but
the expression of their own tortured and exasperated
feelings, wrung from them  by the contempt, the
hatred, the persecutions of their enemies. How could
they think otherwise of those bloody-minded and
ruthless men, who hunted, manacled, and slew them,
than that they themselves would yet be devoured
by an unquenchable flame? This was exceedingly
natural."
Now we appeal to the common-sense of the world,
to decide whether it be at all rational to treat the
New Testament with any degree of respect as the
word of God, if such traits of character may be fairly
ascribed to the writers, and such motives assigned
for the enunciation of their doctrines? This is, indeed, a sorry exhibit of "rational Christianity." But
we take it as we find it in the language of a convert
from "orthodoxy," rendering an account of himself:
"How I became a Unitarian."
But lest we may be charged with doing this author
injustice, we shall give what we understand to be
his exposition of our passage, (p. 82:) C"Like St.
Paul, St. John had in view the preexistent glory of
Christ, as the first-born of every creature; or the
Logos or Reason by which God had created the




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        61
world." Again do we appeal to the common-sense
of mankind, to decide whether it be more rational
to accept the doctrine of Christ's two-fold nature, or
to believe that the infinite Reason of Jehovah, John
had in view as the first-born of every creature. We
take it upon ourselves to say, it was impossible that
John could have had any such view, because Christ
said that the Spirit would guide him into all truth.
(John 16: 13.) Now, nothing can be more absurd
that the supposition, that the Reason of the uncreated
God, by which He made the world, was itself the
first of the creation; and to present John as writing
under this impression, is to present him as a fool,
and his Master as at least forgetful of His promise.
Dr. Priestley, in hopes of augmenting his sect,
addressed a publication to the Jews, telling them
that, as he and those who thought with him had
abandoned the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus
Christ, regarding him only as a mere man, there was
nothing to prevent the Jews from becoming Christians upon the basis of Unitarianism. To this he received an answer, that it was impossible for the Jews
ever to become Unitarians, since, if they were to
receive the New Testament, they would have to
acknowledge the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ,
as plainly inculcated therein. The Jewish author of
this answer, moreover, took the occasion to express
his surprise, that Dr. P. could deny this doctrine,
while he professed to acknowledge the authority of
the New Testament. We think the Jew had a nicer




62       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
perception of consistency than his celebrated correspondent. But the Musselman, Ameth Ben Ameth,
ambassador from Morocco to the court of Charles II.,
treated the English Unitarians more unceremoniously, when they offered to unite with the Mohammedans, and tendered him their humble services in
expurgating their Koran.  He returned their communication without a reply. The Jewr and the Mohammedan could appreciate this absurdity of Unitarianism-receiving the New Testament as the word
of God, and at the same time denying one of its
plainest and most important doctrines, with which
its entire credit must stand or fall.*
(9.) Ieb. 1, 2, 3.-God hath in theselast days spoken unto us by
his SON, who is the brightness of his glory and the express image
of his person.
The original is much stronger than our translation.
Here we have a definition of the nature of Christ,
and the phraseology bears evidence of laboring
thought.  God's attributes are his glory, and his
person means his nature. Now, he can not stamp
his nature upon any creature, nor give his incommunicable attributes to another; yet Christ is here called
the effulgence or lustre of God's glory. The "express image" means a stamp, as of a seal. The word
translated "person" means an independent essence
or being.  Then the passage reads as follows: "God
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his SON,
* See their proposed negotiation, in the Appendix.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              63
who is the brightness of the divine glory, the stamp
or correspondence of God's essence." Can this be said
of any creature? IT CAN NOT. In order to show the
infinite love of our Maker, in sending us the Messiah,
Paul directs us to his higher nature, which is the
radiation of God's own attributes, and the engraving
of his very being; and his language clearly implies
its own inadequacy to define Christ. It is utterly and
especially inconsistent in a prosaic, didactic essay,
upon the supposition that He is only a creature.
(10.) Rev. 22: 6, 16.-And he said unto me, These sayings are
faithful and true: and THE LORD GOD OF THE HOLY PROPHETS
sent HIs angel to show unto his servants the things which must
shortly be done.... I, JEsus, have sent MINE angel to testify
unto you these things in the churches. I am the ROOT and
OFFSPRING of David.
In both of these passages, the senders denote the
same person; in both, the one sent is the same; and
the language of both, by mutual illustration, clearly
decide that Jesus is the LORD GOD. On any other
interpretation than that which harmonizes these passages, by the doctrine of the two-fold nature in Christ,
we should be glad to know how the metaphor can
be justified, which makes both the ROOT and SHOOT
of David representatives of Christ.
(11.) Tit. 2: 13.-Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the GREAT GOD AND (EVEN) OUR SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST.
IIpoadeX6uevoz r')v fuaKapiav t?~ri'a, Kal  wrcqavetav as b6oas rl
uiey42~ov ROeV Kcat or7pof eCvY'I'7ov Xprc~TV.




64          SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
According to the usual idiom of the Greek language, referred to in the note below,* the article
* TIIE GREEK ARTICLE.-Learned men have submitted to patient
labor and wearisome research, to ascertain the precise force of the
Greek article, which is always definite. Middleton and Sharp have
stated the general rule; and thinking they had materials enough to
warrant it, they dogmatized in very positive language: but others
have discovered a multitude of exceptions, which compel us to be
cautious in its application.
The Rule which applies to the construction of these and similar
texts in the original Greek is this:
" When two or more personal nouns, of the same gender, number
and case, are coupled together by the conjunction Kae, and the article
is prefixed to the first, but not to the second, third, etc., those two or
more nouns, whether they be substantives or adjectives, denote one
and the same person. This is the case also when two participles are
thus coupled together."
In support of this rule are cited many passages from the Scriptures,
the fathers, and profane writers, in which it is impossible, it is said,
to mistake its application.
Examples. Matt. 12: 22.  arCe rbv Trv02;bv Sat' Ktcobv Kac?uaXeiv
icati PXrTELv.
Acts 3: 14.'Teesf &, rov &aytov ica 6ditcaLov  pvscaaa8e.
John 11: 26. Kal irdu 6 5' v cal rtareteVov elf tus, ov uea diro6adv,
ef rObv alSva.
2 Cor. 1: 3. Eb2,oyr7rbc o  eOf KSat' rar'  rto  Kv~iov,Icjv'IiaoD
XQearoO, o brarnd rev OlCrt/1SWv, Kal OeOg 7raatl  n-raqa/Xeaewo, (two
examples in this verse.)
See original of 2Cor. 11: 31; Heb. 3: 1; Phil. 4: 20; Col. 2: 2;
2 Pet. 2: 20; Rev. 16: 15; Eph. 6: 21; James 1: 27.
Though it be true that a noun without the article is subjected to
that of the preceding noun connected with it, yet this is not always
the case. Sometimes a genitive, following the second noun, contains
definition enough in itself, to warrept the omission of repeating the
article.




SUPREME GODIIEAD  OF CHRIST.                65
expressed  before the first and omitted before the
second of two nouns of the same case, connected by
the copulative Icai, defines both alike.  To this general.rule there are many exceptions; but when any
other defining word occurs in the sentence applicable
to both nouns thus connected, the force of the article
over the second can not be questioned. Now, to
prove our text safe from any argument founded on
exceptions to this rule, we have two remarks to
make:
1. The pronoun OUR, may belong to and define
both nouns, God and Saviour; thus the literal
rendering is: "Looking for the blessed hope, even
the appearing of the glory of the Great God and
Saviour OF US, Jesus Christ."
2. What renders this application of the pronoun
certain, is the word appearing, which further defines
both nouns alike. There can be no mistake here.
Again: When two nouns are coupled after the article, they may
denote things closely related, but not absolutely identical. See original
of Mark 11: 15; 15: 1; Eph. 2: 20.
Hence, in appealing to the original, in this discussion, for an argument, we must not rely, in the first instance, so much on the general
rule per se, as upon other qualifying and defining words, whose precision shall show our texts must be construed in accordance with it.
There are two ways in which a noun may be made definite. First,
by the article, designating some kind of definiteness. Second, by
the addition of some qualifying term or circumstance, serving to make
it definite, in which case the article may or may not be employed.
But when the article is helped, by the defining power of other words
in a sentence, we can then build an argument of some value upon the
idiom we discuss, such as the one designated in the aforesaid canon.




66       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
But where, in all the Scriptures, is the Great God
said to appear? Nowhere. The contrary is the affirmation. "No man hath seen God at any time."  "He
dwelleth in light which no man can approach unto,
whom no man hath seen or can see." No created
eye can penetrate the enveloping glory of his awful
majesty, and gaze upon him. When Moses made the
bold request: "I beseech thee, show me thy glory,"
the response for ever settled the matter.  "Thou
canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me
and live." Yet in our text, the blessed hope is said
to be, the appearing of the Great God. Paul well knew
that He is invisible as well as immortal, andc therefore
expounded his meaning by the additional clause,
"and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ."  Now this important word, appearing, is used in various passages
to denote the second coming of our Lord. 2 Thes.
2: 8, "Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit (breath) of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness (appearance) of his coming." 1 Tim.
6:14, "Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ." 2 Tim. 1: 10, "By the, appearing of our
Saviour Jesus Christ;" v. 8, " Unto all that love his
appearing." Here, then, we have the force of this
noun, giving certainty to our application of the pronoun, and both showing that our text must be interpreted by the general rule aforesaid. Thus we read,
"Looking for the blessed hope, even the appearing
of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST."
Nothing need be more satisfactory. We exhibit it




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              67
as the keen blade that severs every sinew of the
Socinian heresy. It can not be managed- by Unitarians in any other way than that of torture by means
of Dr. Channing's rule of exegesis; by which they
"do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from
their most obvious sense," all texts like this.
It is perfectly plain that Paul here meant to describe
Christ as the Great God, for he so constructed his
sentence, that by an article, pronoun, and noun, he
should prevent all mistake, since their combined
force clearly shows that the nouns God and Saviour,
are shut up to the operation of the general rule.
Hence it is clear that he meant to say, Christ is the
Great God; or he meant to use a Greek idiom pointedly, for the purpose of deception. There is no
avoiding this, because Paul was a scholar, and well
knew the force of his own words.
(12.) 2 Pet. 1: 1. To them that have obtained like precious faith
with us through (in) the righteousness of God and (even) our Saviour Jesus Christ.
ro70f iaortUov   iv ZiaXoVat Tiriartv tv 6Ktatoauvv rov OeoV R/Uv xai
a7oripof'IJaov Xptaroi'
The second noun (oawTrpos) being without the article, is defined by that of the first of the two united
by Icat, according to usage. To show this text safe
from all arguments from exceptions to the rule referred to, we remark that qy/fiv defines both nouns.
Thus, literally "faith in the righteousness of the
God of us and Saviour Jesus Christ." Precisely
the same construction occurs in 2 Pet. 3: 18.  "The




68        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
knowledge of the Lord of us and Saviour Jesus
Christ."  That the word " Saviour" here is explicative of "Lord," both belonging to Christ, will not be
questioned. The same order of words occurs in
2 Pet. 1: 11, and in other places.  So that the influence of the genitive, as seen in these examples which
might easily be multiplied, brings our text under the
general rule, and we read, " faith in the righteousness of OUR GOD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST."
The word righteousness belongs to both nouns.
Christ is the procuring cause of righteousness to us.
(Jer. 23: 5, 6; Dan. 9: 24; Rom. 5: 17, 18; 1 Cor.
1: 30.) This is called the righteousness offaith, (Rom.
10: 4-10;) and does not refer to the personal quality of rectitude in Deity, (Phil. 3: 9,) but to the method of justification of the soul by Christ. But
Peter writes to those who " have obtained like precious faith in the righteousness of our God and
Saviour." It is therefore clear that this text is shut
up to the operation of the general rule which makes
the words "Saviour Jesus Christ" an explanation
of our God. That which is the great object of precious faith, is the method'of justification of which
our God and Saviour is the author.
(13.) Jude 4.-Denying the ONLY LORD GOD, AND (even) OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST.
cKat rov uyovov decarwr7  Oebv ica IKvptLov iejv'IlaOsv XptacTv
dpvovuevot.
(Literally) —" Denying the only Master God and
Lord of us, Jesus Christ." Here also the general




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         69
rule applies, but other considerations help to prove
that the Apostle referred the three appellatives to
Christ: 1. deuorw6Wr is a term applied both to the Father and the Son. 2 Pet. 2: 1, d6eT'6rrov dpvoiFvoeo
(same word used here,) without doubt applies to
Christ. (2 Tim. 2: 21.) In Acts 4: 24; Rev. 6: 10,
it is applied to God the Father.
Again. Denying Christ=rejecting him, is a NewTestament idiom. (Mat. 26: 34, 35; Mark 14: 30,
31, 72; Luke 12: 9; John 13: 18; Acts 3: 13, 14;
2 Tim. 2: 12; 1 John 2: 22, 23.) Hence it appears,
that the application of the. article here is in accordance with the idiom of the Greek language, which
makes GOD AND LORD JESUS CHRIST explanatory of
OUR MASTER: and this is put beyond a reasonable
doubt, by the use of the same words in other passages where their application is clearly made to
Christ. Therefore " the only Master of us is Jesus
Christ our GOD AND LORD."
We may now appeal to any unprejudiced mind
whether there be any truth in the following statements.
* " In the New Testament there are a considerable
number of titles and epithets and attributes applied
or ascribed to the Supreme Being which can not be
clearly shown to have been used in any passage,
respecting our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
"There is not one clear instance in which Jehovah,
* "Scripture Proofs of Unitarianism," pp. 178, 179.




70       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the hallowed name of the self-existent Deity, is applied in Holy WVrit to Jesus of Nazareth."  "It is
highly probable that there are not more than four
instances of the application of the term God to
Christ, in the whole compass of the sacred volume."
These four, we presume) are thought to be nicely
disposed of by the operation of Dr. Channing's rule
of exegesis, "In no instann  did. the Lord Jesus
ever assume a higher title than that of the Son of
God."  "The titles and appellations by which Jesus
generally distinguished himself or was distinguished
by his primitive disciples and others, do not indicate
a truly divine nature." " On no occasion did our
Lord claim any of the incommunicable attributes of
Deity."
We think, it will appear, from our proofs, that
this author has been excessively rash in making
these assertions. We have shown that Kvpiog is the
translation of Jehovah; and when  Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God," he either applied
the title Jehovah to Christ in its usual Old-Testament combination, or he was guilty of swearing.
We have given an "instance" of Christ's assuming
the high title of "King of kings and Lord of lords,"
and also, an instance where he claimed omniscience,
as "the Searcher of hearts."  The aforesaid assertions are not therefore trustworthy, and it was indeed a bold presumption to venture such language.
We believe it entirely unwarranted, and if we mis



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.    71
take not, the most of men, who will weigh our arguments, will pass the same judgment.
We have now given twenty-five instances of in.
spired commentary, in some of which the commentators distinctly tell us they apply their quotations
from the Old Testament, according to the original
intention of the prophets; and thirteen didactic passages taken out of the NTew Testament, descriptive
of Christ. Now let us look at them in their collective strength, and then determine whether they can
be applied to Christ at all, if he be but a creature.
JEHOVAH-THE MOST HIGHI GOD —TIE
SEARCHER OF HEARTS-GOD-LORD-JEHIOVAIH GOD OF TRUTHI - -THE KING JEHOVAH OF HOSTS -JEHOVAH OF HOSTS
HIMSELF - OUR GOD -JEHOVAH  GOD
THE  FIRST AND  THE  LAST- BESIDES
WHOM  NO  GOD —THE  STRONG JEHOVAEH-ALMIGHTY-EVERLASTING RULER
- WONDERFUL- COUNSELLOR - THE
MIGHTY GOD'-THE EVERLASTING FATHER - THE  PRINCE  OF PEACE - THE
WORD WHO WAS GOD-GOD OVER ALLTHE EQUAL WITHE GOD —THE REAL FULLNESS OF THE  GODHEAD -THE  LORD
FROM HEAVEN -GOD MANIFEST IN THE
FLESH - THE GREAT GOD -THE STAMP
OF GOD'S ESSENCE - GOD AND LORD
GOD OUR SAVIOUR-THE TRUE GOD
ETERNAL LIFE-THE ONLY WISE GOD



72       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS
- THE  LORD  GOD  OF  THE  HOLY  PROPHETS.
Here are thirty-five appellatives in all varieties of
combination, expressive of the existence, and explanatory of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, applied to Christ; and it would seem, so as to
prevent any mistake.  Had the intention of the
sacred writers been to present the doctrine of the
Divinity of Christ, as the only prominent doctrine of
the Gospel, they might have used these terms more
frequently, but we are sure they could not have used
stronger language. Now we may ask, will any man
in his senses, after a fair view of the subject, suppose that these sublime and divine titles, by any
possibility can be applied as descriptive of a CREATURE? We are sure they can not, without the grossest blasphemy. Thus did the Eternal announce
himself to Isaiah: " I am Jehovah, that is my name,
and my glory will I not give unto another." Yet
with this familiar text upon their hearts as Jews,
did the New-Testament writers not only ascribe the
peculiar name of Jehovah to Christ, but also that
name in every form and combination that can convey the idea of Supreme Godhead! What, then, is
the consequence? THIS. Either Christ is God, or
the whole Bible is a delusion!  Either Christ is
God, or the Apostles are gross deceivers! If they
have interpreted the sacred oracles rightly, then the
Prophets have been the most wicked men that ever




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.                 73
lived; and if the prophets are to be believed, then
God is the AUTHOR OF SIN!! *
This is an awful conclusion, but from it there is
no escacpe. If Christ be God, all the animated, glowing descriptions of prophecy, all these divine titles
are his by right; and the writers very properly go
the whole length of language in the very combination of words that must necessarily express supreme
Godhead.  But if Christ be not God, the Apostles
apply terms and phrases to him which can never be
given to any created being without blasphemy. No
creature in heaven or earth, was ever honored with
such divine titles. If they correctly quote the prophets, these also are involved in the same condemnation; and if the prophets "spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost," then God, who most
severely punished men for idolatry, himself inspired
the writer of the entire Bible to lead men into that
abominable sin which he hates!!!  Such are the consequences that flow from the denial of the doctrine
* Unitarian writers sometimes come very near charging moral evil
upon their Maker. The author of "l How I became a Unitarian,"
goes so far as to say that the existence of it " implicates him in so far as
to authorize us to look to him for something by which it shall be finally
extinguished, and its consequences averted from those who now suffer from it. It is a sound maxim in law, that he who does a particular action by means of another, does it himself, qui facit per alium,
facit per se. He does not do it personally, but is morally and legally
responsible for it." " I believe that God is bound by every moral attribute of his character to rescue himself from the cruel suspicion the
presence of this evil seems to imply." I I!
4




74       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
in question. And that what we have just stated as
logical conclusions, by fair deduction is not misstated, we are willing to leave to the judgment of
our candid readers.
Between God and the super-archangel of Arian
conception, there must be an infinite distance; yet
every word used to describe the Supreme God, is
also used to describe Christ. They, then, who affirm
that man or angel or any creature may receive even
a tithe of these distinctive names of the Infinite
Being are reduced to this dilemmaEither they must deny that the Supreme God has any
peculiar name at all, by which he can be distinguished
from his creatures, or they must admit that Christ is the
SUPREME GOD.
They must take their choice in view of whdt
Christ himself says: "If ye believe not that I AMr
HE, ye shall die in your sins-and whither I go ye
can not come." All men must admit that the proposition-God has no peculiar name to distinguish
him from his creatures-is sufficiently absurd, but
every name by which our Maker is known is directly
applied to Christ. Therefore he is THE SUPREME
GOD.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               75
CHAPTER III.
II. DILEMMA.-Either Christ is God, or Mohammed has given more
correct ideas of God, and is therefore a safer guide than Jesus oj
Nazareth.
Christ's conduct-Asserts his claim before the Jews-Explains his
nature to Philip-Quotations from the Koran-Dilemma verifiedUnitarian explanation.
PAUL has represented God, as having, last of all,
spoken to us by his Son. In order, then to ascertain the claims of Christ, and how he has taught us
to regard the Deity, we must examine his own
words on these subjects.
All readers of the New  Testament must have
observed that our Saviour was sparing of open
declarations as to his person and his claims.  He
preferred to leave the people to their own reflections.
They had the Scriptures which "testified of him,"
and they needed no help to draw inferences from
his character, his instructions, and his mighty works.
There was an obvious propriety in this course.
Taking the advantage of prevalent opinion as to the
fulfillment of prophecy, many false Messiahs already
had appeared; and  each did precisely what we
should expect impostors to do, namely, issue pro



76       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
clamation of His coming, "to whom the gathering
of the nations should be;" and with outspoken
asseverations, lay claim to the Messianic character,
and to an acknowledgment of the same by the people. But when the true Christ came, the way was
prepared for him by his forerunner; and he preferred to justify the high expectations raised by John,
by more than meeting them; so that their own
inferences should lead the people to the conviction,
that he was "the consolation of Israel;" and to seek
from himself a decision upon this point, then agitating
the whole Jewish world.
Many were forced into the belief that he was the
Messiah from his words, and works; and accordinglyso declared for him; public opinion was fast forming
in his favor, and the leaders of the Jews, having from
the first, contracted strong prejudices against him,
found it necessary to turn the current, which if unchecked, might cause them  to lose, " both their
place and nation." Hence they sought earnestly to
make our Lord commit himself in controversy, that
they might have some pretext for the execution of
their base design. Let us now see what Christ says
of himself.
We open the New Testament at the place where
the Jews quarreled with him, and sought to kill
him mainly for this crime, that he made himself equalI
with God.  In his controversy with them on this
occasion, he used the following words:




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         77
John 5: 23. —All men should honor the Son, EVEN AS they honor
the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the
Father, which hath sent him.
Such is the declaration of Jesus Christ, in reference to the character he claimed. What is this
character? The Jews understood him to make himself equal with God, and he knew it; but did not
correct them for misapprehension of his words. How
then are we to honor him? Are we to consider him
equal with, or inferior to the Father? Must we pay
him divine homage, or only honor him with a less
esteem? These are important questions, and we believe there need be no difficulty in settling this point.
Upon the supposition that Christ meant to claim
Supreme Godhead, the rule of duty could not be
more explicitly laid down. We are to honor the
Son EVEN As, or in the same way, to the same extent, as the Father; "%aO's, in the manner that they
honor the Father."  Now we all agree that no one
honors the Father at all, unless he worship him as
the Supreme God. To him we owe the highest act
of divine honor, and if we must honor the Son
"even as" the Father, it appears to us that the matter is decided. We must worship Christ even as
the Supreme God. But he that pays the highest act
of divine worship to a being inferior to God, breaks
the first command, and he that breaks the first command, violates the whole law, and he that violates
the law, is worthy of death. Christ came to " magnify the law and make it honorable," but if He be




78       SUPREMIE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
not the Supreme God, then he taught all men how
to defeat the very end, for which he himself came into
the world! iHe that worshippeth not the Father,
worshippeth not God; he that worshippeth not the
Son, worshippeth not the Father, therefore, whoever
worshippeth not the Son, worshippeth not God. If
we would worship HIM  aright, according to this
text, we must render equal honor to the Father and
the Son; but equal honor supposes equal dignity,
and in order to render the one, we must believe the
other. We can not, therefore, see how the conclusion is to be avoided, that whoever does not worship
the Son, as profoundly as he wQrships the Father,
does not worship God at all.
It becomes us, then, to count the cost of living
without an intimate acquaintance with the truth as it
is in Jesus. Now, there are various kinds of truth,
all of which are important; but there is only one
which has a direct practical bearing upon our future
condition. Christ said, " I am THE TRUTH;" and it
is for our highest interest to know what is meant by
"the truth as it Is in Jesus."  We think it means,
not only the system of facts and doctrines in the
Bible, but also the wonderful constitution of our
Mediator, in his two-fold nature, which presents the
most stupendous fact, and the most glorious doctrine
of THE TRUTH.  In this matter, above all others,
indifference is criminality.
Now, it can not be pretended that our Saviour
claimed simply, that honor " which according to the




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        79
custom of the age and of the eastern world, was
paid to men invested with great authority, whether
in civil oi religious concerns;' for he was invested
with nothing of this kind by the dignitaries of either
Church or State. His authority was that of Gold,
and he so strongly asserted it, that he was adjudged
a blasphemer for making himself equal with God;
and instead of preventing or removing this impression which he had made, he actually confirmed it by
claiming such an honor as is equal to, or the same as,
Divine adoration. Yet we are told, by an author
already referred to, "that Christ never spoke of
himself as an object of worship"!
John 10: 30-33. On a subsequent occasion when
"the Jews came round about him, and said unto
him, How long dost thou make us to doubt'?"
Christ said in his reply: "I AND IY FATHER ARI:e
ONE." For this assertion they again attempted to
stone him, and when he remonstrated, they thus
justified themselves: "For a good work we stone
thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou,
being a man, makest thyself God." Now, if Christ
were only a man, if he were only a creature, the
Jews acted perfectly right; and he knew they were
acting according to the requirement of their law; but
because he did not disclaim, because he did not correct their mistake, it follows that Christ is God, and
as such, must claim divine worship. TWe agree with
Dr. Channing in the belief, that "'it is impossible
that a teacher of infinite wisdom should expose




80         SUPREME GODHEAD OF CIIRIST.
those whom he would teach to infinite error."
Therefore we argue that Christ must be God. No
man can get rid of the fact that he made an tnmpression upon the Jews, which led them to suppose him
guilty of the very crime for which they sought to
kill him.  Did not Christ, then, "expose them to
infinite error," by making, and then confirming this
impression?  And on the supposition of his being
but a man, can he be acquitted of dishonesty, and
the most enormous wickedness? Never. Now let
us retire with him and his disciples, and hear what
he has to say of himself in private.
John 14: 7-10.-Christ made this reply to enlighten his disciples on the very matter now in dispute: " If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye
know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord,
show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him:
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 unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the work."
Without entering into a critical analysis of this
passage, it is perfectly plain that the language conveys something essentially different from, and infinitely beyond, mere unity of purpose and will. There
is no question as to the meaning of the term Father:
all agree that the Supreme God is the great subject
of discourse.  It can not be denied.  Let us then
substitute one term for the other, and read the lumi



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        81
nous declaration: " If ye had known me, ye should
have known God also, and (but) from henceforth ye
know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto
him: Lord, show us God, and it sufficeth us. Jesus
saith unto him: Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that
has seen me, hath seen God; and how sayest thou
show us God? Believest thou not that I am in God
and God in me? The words that I speak unto you,
I speak not of myself, but God that dwelleth in me,
he doeth the work." Can this language, under any
circumstances, be affirmed of himself by any creature?  Never; the brightest seraph dare not say:
"He that hath seen me, hath seen the Supreme God."
It would be a blasphemous falsehood, it would be
identifying the creature with the Creator.
Besides, Philip was making the same request that
Moses made in Ex. 33: 18, and our Lord proceeded
to enlighten him on the subject of that request. But
if Christ be simply a creature, what confusion couldt
be more confounding than this: "He that hath seen
me the creature, hath seen God the Creator. Believest thou not that I, the creature, am in God the
Creator, and God the Creator, in me the creature?"
Such language in the mouth of Him who was Philip's instructor, on the supposition that he is not the
Supreme God, is, to say the least, the language of
evasion and deception! He affirmed an essential
untruth, and was guilty of the most horrid impiety,
in arrogating to himself a divine nature, divine attri4*




82       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
butes, and divine honors, only to deceive the confidence of a simple inquirer after truth. He affirmed
that to know Christ, and to know God; to see
Christ, and to see God, was one and the same thing,
because Christ was in God, and God was in Christ.
Can language be stronger than this? Could any
creature use it and be guiltless? No. What, then, is
the conclusion to which we must come?  If Christ
be not God, if he be only a creature, he was dishonest with his poor disciple, he imposed upon his
credulity an argument for his enlightenment, that
could only perplex and mislead him. He taught
him to regard a creature worthy of equal honor with
the Almighty Father, after whom he was inquiring, and consequently presented himself as entitled to divine worship! How different the good
Mohammed! What a perfect contrast between the
prophet of Mecca, and the impostor of Galilee! The
former declared that, "There is one God, and Mohammed is his prophet," but the latter, the more
impious of the two, affirmed that he, a creature, was
in the Creator, and the Creator in him, the creature!
How much more truthful the representation given
by Mohammed]  "Verily, the likeness of Jesus in
the sight of GoD is as the likeness of Adam; He
created him out of the dust, and then said unto him,
Be; and he was." " Christ the son of Mary is no
more than an Apostle, other Apostles have preceded
him."  " Jesus is no other than a servant, whom we




SUPREME GOLDHEAD OF CHRIST.         83
favored with the gift of prophecy.'*X  This language is
intelligible, precise, and can not be mistaken. Now,
if Christ be not God, then it follows that the Prophet
of Mecca was muchb better qualified to use language
correctly than Christ, and was not guilty of making
such perplexing explanations. Mohammed has more
accurately described his nature than Christ's own
inspired witnesses.  In evidence of this, again we
quote the Koran: " They are infidels who declare
that God is Christ: Christ the son of Mary is no
more than God's envoy. Christians say Christ.is the
Son of God; how are they infatuated! far be it from
God that he should have a Son. Jesus is no other
than a servant. O Jesus, son of Mary, dost thou persuade mankind to put thee in the place of God?"
It follows, therefore, that Miohammed was more successful than Christ in giving right ideas of the great God,
and of course is a safer guide than Jesus of Nazareth.
It follows, that the disciples of the Crescent are the
"'true worshippers," and the children of wisdom;
whilst those of the Cross are gross idolaters, and
under the ban of their Maker! Escape this, who
can.
Let us see how they succeed, who try to escape.
The anonymous clergyman aforesaid, in his book
entitled, " How I became a Unitarian," proceeds to say,
(page 77,) that this passage, (John 14:: 7-10:) "Literally interpreted, forms the basis of a very strong
argument on the Trinitarian side. It would be un* Sale's Koran, pp. 4a3, 92, 400.




84       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
fair to pass it." After perusing sundry observations
preliminary to his "remarking upon these words,"
we were preparing ourselves for nothing less than an
attempt at exposition; but how great was our astonishment when we had ended the following paragraph,
(p. 80:) "We must take into consideration the undeniable fact, that the writer of this gospel was very
much of a mystic, and that in him the spirit of exaggeration was large. He says at the close of his narrative:'And there are also many other things which
Jesus.did, the which, if they should be written every
one, I suppose that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written.' So he
delights in making (!) Jesus say:' My flesh is meat
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,' etc. Hence
if we accept the words first quoted-' He that hath
seen me, hath seen the Father'-as a literal report of
the conversation of Jesus, we should be doing that
man of humble manners, meek and lowly at heart,
a great wrong, to suppose that he meant to draw to
himself the worship and adoration that were due to
the Father alone. We must regard the passage as
presenting us with something like a myth, in which
the lower sense is made to assume the character of
the higher: as when we speak 6f nature doing that
which God alone can do, and thus by a change of
terms, put nature in the place of God." In other
words, courteous reader, John, the Beloved Disciple,
penned a falsehood! No such conversation as he reports, literally took place! This is Unitarian expo



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        85
sition! Christ must have surely made a great mistake in selecting John and Paul for his " witnesses,"
and this, by the way, is an additional weight to their
argument against his divinity!




86        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTERP IV.
III. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or the Supreme Being has no
incommunicable attribute peculiar to His nature, whereby he can be
distinguished from His creatures.
Eternity- Immutability — Omnipresence - Omnipotence - Omniscience-Immensity-Dilemma verified.
THE NATURE of the Creator must be essentially
different from  all the natures he has made.  But
wherein does this difference consist? Not only
in his being, but in his attributes. These are communicable and incommunicable. The former he can
give, the latter he can not giv'e to his creatures. Reason, wisdom, and power;, are attributes of God with
which he has invested both the angelic and the human natures.  But there is another class of perfections which, with reverence be it stated, he can not
communicate. In making this assertion, we do not
conceive ourselves as limiting the Holy One of Israel.
T1here must be distinguishing properties that belong
to God alone, such as man nor angel under any circumstances can receive. God, for instance, is everlasting, and necessarily independent; but Omnipotence himself can not make any creature possessing




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               87
the attributes of eternity and independence, nor give
necessity to his existence.  A  contrary supposition
implies a contradiction. God is an Omnipotent,
Omniscient, and Omnipresent Being, but he can not
communicate these attributes to any creature. A
contrary supposition involves an absurdity.
Now if it be found that Christ has all these attributes
ascribed to him by the Records of Inspiration, then
it must follow that he is the Supreme God. Let us
see.
"Search the Scriptures," said our Redeemer, "they
are they which testify of me." Here we shall make
another collation from their contents, which will, we
think, satisfactorily prove that the incommunicable
attributes of Deity are ascribed to Christ.
1. Eternity.  Micah 5: 2.-But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of
thee shall He come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.
~ Matt. 2: 4-6.-He (Herod) demanded of them (the Jews)
where Christ should be born, and they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is:written by the prophet, And thou
Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the
princes, for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my
people Israel.
They evidently quoted from memory, but were
stifficiently accurate to answer the question of Herod.
That the prophecy referred to Christ, is clear enough
from  the fact that Christ was born in Bethlehem.
Now the prophet says of him who was to be born at
that place, that his goings forth have been of old,




88         SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST
(from the beginning,) from everlasting. Christ is
therefore possessed of this attribute of the Deity
which can not possibly belong to the most exalted
creature that God ever made.
Ex. 3: 14.-And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AMl: and
he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath
sent me unto you.
John 8: 58.-Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto
you, before Abraham was, I AM.
The Jews took up stones to stone him, for blasphemy, for the reas9n assigned by them on another
occasion: "Because thou being a man, makest thyself God."  He did not correct them, as he doubtless
would have done, had they misunderstood his words.
John 17: 5.-Glorify me with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was.
Col. 1: 17.-He is before all things.
The words of Christ are put beyond dispute by
the words of the Apostle. See the last example in
our first collation.  Moreover, Paul makes Melchisideck the type, and Christ the antitype. Heb. 7: 3.
Now a type must answer to its antitype in some
prominent points of resemblance.  Of Melchisideck,
he says: "He had neither beginning of days nor
-end of life." What these words mean, it is not our
business now to inquire, but the point of resemblance
must be, the eternity of the antitype.
2. Immutability. Ps. 2: 27.-But thou art the same, and thy
years shall have no end.
Heb. 13: 8.-Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for
ever.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               89
In Heb. 1: 12, Paul uses the words of David in the
psalm just named, and descriptive of Jehovah, to
describe Christ; but these words set forth the divine
attribute of immutability; therefore, in Heb. 13: 8,
immutability is ascribed to Christ.
3. Omnipresence. Ex. 20: 24. —In all places where I record my
name I will come unto thee and will bless thee.
Matt. 18: 20. —Vhere two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The first of these passages is spoken of Jehovah,
and refers to his omnipresence; the second, as to
meaning, is identical with the first, and this attribute
was therefore claimed by Christ.
John 3: 13.-No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven.
But when Christ said this, he was on earth conversing with Nicodemus.  How, then, could he be
at the same time in heaven, unless omnipresence were
an attribute of his person? How could he otherwise
fulfill his own promise: "Lo, I am with you alway,
even to the end of the world"?
4. Omnipotence. Jeremiah 27: 5.-I have made the earth,
the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great
power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto
whom it seemed meet unto me.
John 5:19.-Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise.
The same extent of power is claimed in both quotations.  Now, if the works of God prove  him




90         SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
omnipotent, must not the same works prove Christ
omnipotent? Surely. Therefore Paul argues, He
"is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that
we ask or THINK." (Eph. 3: 20.)
5. Omniscience. 1 Kings 8: 39.-Thou, even thou ONLY,
knowest the hearts of the children of men.
John 2: 24, 25.-But Jesus did not commit himself unto them,
because he KNEW ALL MEN; and needed not-that any should testify to him of man: for he KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN.
Rev. 2: 23.-Christ declares: "All the churches shall know
that I AM HE WHO SEARCHETH the reins and hearts."
Nothing can be clearer than this. If omniscience
belong not to Christ, then these passages can not be
reconciled; if it do, then  he is God.  Therefore
Paul's affirmation is true: " In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
6. Immensity. Jer. 23: 24.-Do not I fill heaven and earth
saith the Lord? (Jehovah.)
Eph. 1: 23.-Christ "filleth all in all."
What is claimed  for Jehovah  in  the first quotation is claimed for Christ in the second; but that
is immensity: therefore this divine attribute belongs
to our Redeemer God.
Now, let us collect together these incommunicable
attributes of Deity. It can not but be plain, that
they are all appropriated to Christ. He is, then, the
possessor of
ETERNITY-IMMUTABILITY-INDEPENDENCE-IMMENSITY- OMNIPOTENCE —O.MNISCIENCE-OMNIPRESENCE.
Beyond a doubt these can never be communicated




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        91
to any mere creature, and, if the Scriptures are true,
beyond a reasonable doubt they all belong to CHRIST.
He therefore must be the SUPREME GOD. They who
deny it, are reduced to this dilemma:
Either the Supreme God has NO incommunicable attribute to distinguish the Divinefrom the human or angelic
vature-or Christ is that Being!




92        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER V.
IV. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or, the truth of Scripture admitted, there is no proof that there is a God at alt.
Proof of the Divine existence appealed to by God himself-Collation
of Scripture-an absurd consequence-Dilemma verified.
THE works of God, which, by his own authority,
are the preeminent proofs of his existence and fupremacy, are CREATION and PROVIDENCE. These are
appealed to by himselfas the most direct and positive
evidence of both.  "I am Jehovah that maketh all
things." "To whom thren will ye liken me, or shall
I be equal?  saith the Holy One.  Lift up your
eyes on high, and behold who hath created these
things, that bringeth out their hosts by number: he
calleth them  all by names, by the greatness of his
might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth."
(Is. 40: 25, 26.)  " Hast thou not known, hast thou
not heard, that the everlasting God, Jehovah the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not., neither is
weary?" (28th v.) Thus the great argument which
God uses in behalf of himself constantly points us
to his works of creation and providence; and thus
instructed, Paul urges the inexcusableness of the
heathen on this ground: "The invisible things of




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.           93
Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without -excuse." (Rom. 1: 20.) The works of creation and providence therefore afford the GREATEST
PROOF in natural and revealed religion of God's existence.  Now, we think we can show that the same
proof is available for the establishment of the
Divinity of Christ. If we succeed in this, then
the alternatives are, faith in the Supreme Godhead
of our Redeemer, and BLANK ATHEISM.  On the
principles of right reason, there is no intermediate
resting place, provided we admit the truth of Scripture, in which a consistent mind can find refuge. And
as the latter alternative implies the final rejection of
the Scriptures, the difficulties present themselves in
this form. If Christ is not God, then the Scriptures
afford no proof that there is a God at all, because the
very proof to which the Deity himself appeals, is
valid for the establishment of the Godhead of Christ;
and if the peculiar proofs of the Divine existence are
thus emasculated, there is no evidence for it in nature,
as the Scriptures say. But this is seen to be absurd,
hence the Scriptures must be cast away, together with
their Author! Our proofs are the following:
1. Gen. 1:l.-In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens
and the earth.
John 1: 1, 3.-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was GOD-all things WERE MADE by him.
It can not be doubted that the Word of which John
speaks, is Christ; for " the Word was made flesh and




94         SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
dwelt among us." Christ, then, by his testimony, was
in the beginning, and made all things; but Moses
says, that He who in the beginning created the heavens and earth is God, therefore Christ is God.
2. Ps. 102: 25.-Of old hast THOU (Jehovah) laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Heb. 1: 8, 10.-But unto the Son, he saith-THou Lord, in
the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hand.
The very words that David uses to describe the
works of God, Paul borrows to describe the works
of Christ.  God himself appeals to his own works
as the proof of His own Supreme Godhead; therefore, with reverence be it spoken, if the Divine argument be worth any thing, the same works must be
appealed to in proof of the SUPREME GODHEAD OF
CHRIST.  If not, the argument can not prove the
existence of God at all!
3. Jer. 10: 10-12.-But JEHOVAH is the TRUE GOD, he is the
LIVING GOD, and an EVERLASTING KING; at his wrath the earth
shall tremble, and.the nations shall not be able to endure his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them. The gods that have
not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from
the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth
by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and
hath stretched out the heavens by his direction.
1 John 5: 20. 1 Cor. 8: 6. Rev. 19: 16.-Christ is TImE
TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE, BY WHIOM ARE ALL THINGS, THE
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
The first of these quotations pronounces a threat.
ening upon those gods that men worship, whose
nothingness shall be made manifest when they shall




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              95
perish from the earth, from under heaven, by the
hand of Him who made both, and whom both declare
to be the Supreme God, Jehovah, the true God, and
the everlasting King.  The other three declare that
EIe by whom all things are, is the true God, eternal
Life and everlasting King.  But this is the description of Christ; Christ is therefore proved by creation,
to be the Supreme God.
4. Is. 44: 24.-Thus saith JEHOVAX, thy Redeemer, and he
that formed thee. from the womb, I am JEHOVAH that maketh
all things: that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE, that spreadeth
abroad the earth by MYSELF.
Col. 1: 16, 17.-By him (Christ) were ALL THINGS CREATED,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE,
whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers:
all things were created by him and for him, and he is BEFORE all
things, and by him all things CONSIST.
In the one passage, Jehovah is said to be the
maker of all things, alone by himself.  In the other
Christ is said to be the maker of all things in heaven
and earth-all that is visible in earth, all that is invisible in heaven, and by him all things consist; so
that creation and providence are both ascribed to
Christ.  The 14th, 15th, and 16th verses of this
chapter are parenthetically thrown in, to exhibit the
Almighty power of our Redeemer, that the Colossians might have confidence in his supremacy, and
see the folly of those seducers who sought to induce
them  to worship angels.  Very pertinent, therefore,
to his design was this magnificent description of our
exalted Lord.




96       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
But what words can make it plainer that Christ is
the Supreme God? The Apostle is really verbose
in bringing this peculiar proof of Deity to bear upon
our doctrine with all possible power. Not only the
generality of things visible, but the totality of things
invisible were made by Him. Paul seems also to
guard us against supposing Christ to be a mere instrument; he tells us that he is before all things, and
by him all things consist; which latter sentence
proves the preposition to refer to time, and not to digfnity. Paul says, all things were made by him, and
John says no one thing was made without him, thus
making him the God of providence as well as of creation. Now compare this with what the Prophet
says: "Jehovah alone by himself made all things;"
and conviction, it appears to us, must flash -like
lightning, blasting all doubt in the heart of every
man who has ever had a doubt on this subject.
But if this be not satisfactory, what can be? If
Christ be not God, he must be a creature: and then
the monstrous absurdity follows, that he made himse7f! For if "without him nothing was made that
was made," then surely this creature was his own
Creator!! And if he could make, he can unmake
himself -at pleasure! More than this, he can be and
not be at the same moment!!
Reason and Revelation unite in producing belief,
that it is by his works, the being and attributes of God
are proved. Without an appeal to these, we never
could prove his existence. Now, if Christ be only a




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.          97
creature, we are utterly deprived of this source of
proof, and of all others besides; because there is no
work of God that is not performed by Him. Paul says
he made all things, visible and invisible, but these embody every possible existence out of God. And if creation and providence prove the eternal power and
Godhead of the Deity, must not the same works prove
the eternal power and Godhead of Christ? They
who deny the doctrine for which we contend are
therefore reduced to this dilemma:
Either they must admit the Supreme GODHEAD OF
CHRIST, or say that God has no peculiar work by which
he is distinguished from his creatures!  They must admit that we have no proof that there is a God at all!!!
And this is BLANK ATHEISM.'We know that none who deny our doctrine, admit the conclusions which we assert, flow from their
creed. It is for them to examine whether they are
fairly drawn, and they are deeply interested; for if
any hold a belief from which they necessarily flow
as consequences, the question is, will not God hold
them  responsible for these consequences?  Will not
the general principle upon which God treats his
creatures apply in their case, as in that of the Jews
to whom Christ announced it: " If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but
now they have no cloak for their sin."  The evidences of the divinity of Christ, given in the sacred
Scriptures, are as strong as the evidences for
the divinity of God the Father; if not, we should
5




98       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
be glad to know in what respects the latter are
stronger than the former. If men are condemned,
as being " without excuse," for not believing the thing
proved by the light of nature, in respect to God,
will they not be held to a strict account, for not be:
lieving the same thing proved by the, combined light
of nature and of revelation in respect to Christ?
" He that rejecteth me," says our Lord, "and recieveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him,
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge
him at the last day."  "He that believeth not God,
hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the
record that God gave of his Son. And this is the
record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and
this life is IN his Son." We really can see no difference between denying that Christ is THE ONIY
LORD GOD, and " denying THE ONLY LORD GOD, and
(even) OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST." (Jude 4th v.) They
appear to us to be identically the same proposition,
and if so, this denial must be the rejection of the
record, the consequence of which is, " making God
a liar"!  And for this consequence of belief, or
rather disbelief, men must answer.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              99
CHAPTER VI.
V. DILEMMA: Either Christ is God, or there is,no peculiar worship
by which Goc can be distinguished from his creatures.
Quotation from Channing commented upon —Examples of WorshipScripture Proofs-Consequence-Quotations from Priestley and
Channing —Dilemma Verified.
BY Worship we mean adoration, the highest act
of divine honor. They who esteem Christ as inferior to God allow that he is to be worshipped, but
not in the sense of the duty we owe the Supreme
Being. Dr. Channing, in attempting to reply to the
objection, " that we read in the New Testament that
Jesus was again and again worshipped, and that in
admitting this he manifested himself to be the object
of religious adoration," thus discourses:  "It is
wonderful that this fallacy, so often exposed, should
be still repeated. Jesus indeed received worship or
homage, but this was not.offered as adoration to the
infinite God; it was the homage which, according to
the custom of the age and of the eastern world, was
paid to men invested with great authority, whether
in civil or religious concerns."
Mere assertion avails but little in exposing a fal



100      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
lacy, and we think that the wonder which excited
the astonishment of the Doctor, will continue to the
end of the world, if such be the way in which this
fallacy is "so often exposed." To our comprehension, the expose is altogether on the other side. This
alleged fallacy, is met wifh a confidence which
always betrays the weakness of a bald assertion.
Where any position is thus assailed, without presenting any thing better for an expose than a dashing ipse dixit, pitted against high authority, and stzubborn facts glossed over by a general appeal to explanatory circumstances, the imbecility of the attack only exposes the strength of that position.
With equal confidence do we say, that the "custom
of the age," allowing it all the strength and influenc e
that any custom may obtain, can not account for the
language of the New Testament in reference to the
worship due and paid our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have shown that all the names that are used
to designate the object of supreme worship, are applied to Christ. We have shown that God can not
appear in any form; and by the precision of Paul's
language, that the fature appearing of Christ will be
the appearing of the great God, that is, the personality
of the invisible God united with the visible Christ
at his coming. Why, then, should we for a moment
hesitate to render divine homage to our Redeemer?
When we turn to the Old Testament, we meet
with the mention of numerous appearances of God.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.              101
Gen. 12: 7, 8; 26: 24, 25; 35:1-7.-And God said unto
Jacob, Arise, go unto Bethel, and dwell there; and make there
an altar unto God that appeared unto thee, etc.
Now, all are agreed that God the Father did not
appear to the patriarchs and prophets. Who then
did?  Let a divinely-inspired expositor answer.
John 12: 41.-These things said Esaias when he SAW his
glory and spake of him," (CHRIST.) Compare Is. 6: 3-5.
Christ then appeared under the Old Testament;
but the direction given to Jacob was to make an
altar unto  God that appeared; and as John has
shown that this was Christ spoken of by Isaiah,
"Mine eyes have seen the King Jehovah of hosts,"
and as erecting aitars was for the performance of the
highest acts of divine worship, the matter would
seem to be settled.
It was this glorious appearance, that filled the
temple, and the Angel of the Covenant in whom
was the name Jehovah, was enthroned upon the
mercy-seat.  "I will appear in  the cloud on the
mercy-seat."  And to him was the prayer directed:
"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest
Joseph like a flock, thou that dwellest between the
cherubim, shine forth."
Is. 40: 10, 11.-Behold, the Lord God will come with strong
hand, and his arm shall rule for him. Behold, his reward is with
him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a
shepherd,
Rev. 22: 12.-Behold, (said Christ,) I come quickly, and my
reward is with me.




102      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CIHRIST.
He who shall come with this reward to bestow
upon his people, declared of himself thus:
John 10: 11.-I am the good shepherd.
Christ was therefore the object of worship under
the old economy. But when we peruse the gospel
narrative, and the letters of instruction to the NewTestament Church, we find that Christ was worshipped from the first of his appearance as man on
earth until his assumption into heaven.
When the Scriptures therefore represent the eastern Magi falling down and worshipping Christ; when
they declare that those who were in the ship, at the
time he caused Peter to walk on the water, worshipped him; when they tell us of a leper, of a ruler, of
the Syro-Phoenician woman, of Mary Magdalene, of
the other Mary, of his disciples, all worshipping him,
without a single hint that this worship was not exactly that which he claimed as honor equal to the honor
rendered to the Father, we must decline the belief
that all this was nothing more than the observance
of a prevalent custom of the east; we must believe
it was something more than the expression of profound respect, or an exhibition of good manners:
nay, considering the extent of Christ's claims, we
must believe it to have been divine worship. Because Christ was _perfectly good, we can come to no
other conclusion; we can not suppose that a good
man, even were he superior to angels, would allow
such homage to be rendered to himself. When
John, overcome by what he saw and heard, fell




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.       103
down to worship before the feet of the angel, (Rev.
22: 8, 9,) he said: "See thou do it not; for I am
thy fellow-servant;" but when others took the same
attitude for the same purpose before Christ, he did
not in like manner forbid it. However exalted as
God's ambassador to our guilty world, if he were
but a creature, Christ was a fellow-servant with
other good men, and would have prevented such
idolatry. He would have said: "See thou do it not
-worship God."
Our position is demonstrated by the last act of
Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, when
he kneeled down and said: "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit." Was this prayer merely in conformity with
an eastern custom by which Christ was wont to be
honored, or was it an act of the highest worship?
Let it be remarked that the Man Christ Jesus made
the same prayer when he hung upon the cross. Now,
if Stephen addressed to a creature the same prayer
that creature addressed to the Creator, notwithstanding he was "full of the Holy Ghost," his last was
the grossest act of idolatry.
Again. Just after the Ascension, the Apostle,
together with a hundred and twenty disciples, worshipped Christ. "And they prayed and said, Thou,
Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show
whether of these two are chosen."
Paul, too, by example and by precept teaches us
to worship Christ.




104i       SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
2 Cor. 12: 8, 9.-For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.
that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace
is sufficient for thee; for my strength (power) is made perfect in
weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of CHRIST may rest upon me.
1 Thessalonians 3:11. —Now God himself, even our Father,
and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.
2 Thess. 2: 16, 17.-Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and
God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us
everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort
your hearts.
In the last two texts, prayer is addressed to God
and Christ without respect to order of names, so that
both are equally invoked.
Rom. 10: i3.-Whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved.
The context shows that Christ is meant.
Rom. 14:11, compared with Phil. 2:10,11. —" As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall coafess to God." " That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
Phil. 2: 19.-" I TRUST in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus
unto you."
Now, trust, as an act of dependence and pious
devotion, is always spoken of in Scripture as the
duty of men towards God alone.'"Cursed is he
that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm."
If then Christ be but a man, by trusting in him
Paul fell under the execration of God.
Baptism is certainly an act of the highest religious




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CIfRIST.              105
worship.  Ministers are commanded to "baptize in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;"
but if the Son be a creature, and the Spirit an influence, what an absurdity follows?
Calling on the name of Jesus, is a phrase used to
designate Christians as the worshippers of Christ.
1 Cor. 1: 2.-Paul salutes "all that in evenry place call upon
the name of Jesus Christ our Lord," that is, all who INVOKE Him.
Acts 9:14.-Here he hath authority from the chief-priests to
bind all that call upon, or invoke thy name.
Rev. 5: 8, 14.-John in Patmos had the glorious
sight of " the four beasts, (creatures,) and four and
twenty elders falling down before the Lamb, having
every one of them harps, and golden vials full of
odors which are the prayers of the saints."
"And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round,
about the throne, and the beasts and the elders: and the number
of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands; saying, with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in
heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in
the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and
honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb for ever. And the four beasts said
Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever."
Comment here is useless.  If Christ, the Lamb, do
not receive the highest act of divine homage, then it
is impossible to tell what that homage is.
Again.  God commands the worship of his Son.
6*




106      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
ieb. 1: 6.-And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship
him.
If all angels, then surely all men must worship
our glorious Redeemer.
Here, then, we have numerous examples and express declarations, sufficiently clear. Angels, apostles, martyrs, and all the redeemed render Him divine
homage. But if Christ be not the Supreme God,
then the horrid conclusion is inevitable, that the
writers of the Bible have conspired to lead men into
that sin which shall exclude them from heaven! A
still more blasphemous consequence follows: God
himself has adopted every expedient to lead his creatures
into that abominable sin which he hates!! How can we
escape this revolting Consequence? Every inducement is offered us. The most glorious names, attributes, works, and worship are ascribed to Him; and
upon the supposition that our Maker means to have
us regard him as the Supreme God, no arguments
more effective could possibly be presented. There
is, therefore, no possibility of reconciling the two
systems of faith which differ so widely on this subject;
they are as opposite as light and darkness.
Hence Dr. Priestley says: " I do not wonder that
you Calvinists entertain and express a strongly unfavorable opinion of us Unitarians. The truth is,
there neither can, nor ought to be, any compromise
between us. If you are right, WE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS AT ALL; and if we are right, YOU ARE GROSS




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        107
II)OLATERS." And Dr. Channing says: " That Jesus
Christ, if exalted into the Infinite. Divinity, should
be more interesting than the Father, is precisely what
might be expected from history, and from the principles of human -nature.   en want an object of
worship like themselves, and the great secret of
IDOLATRY lies in this propensity."  Although the
last quotation gives a very unfair turn to what the
author knew to be the faith of his opponents, it
serves to show that, like the former, he regarded the
system based upon the Supreme Godhead of Christ,
at perfect war with that which is mainly characterized by the, denial of this VITAL POINT.
We like this outspoken honesty, but we deplore
the faith in whose behalf it is enlisted. Their appeal
is to Reason; so is ours; and as we think that we
have proved our point from Scripture, reasonably
interpreted, we have no hesitancy in saying, consisttency demands that they who deny our faith be reduced to this dilemma:
Either they must deny that the Supreme God has any
peculiar worship by which he can be distinguished from
his creatures, or they must admit that Christ is the
Supreme God.




108        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER VII.
VI. DILEMMA: Either Christ is the Supreme God, if he was, when on
earth, a good man; or if he was only a man, only a creature, he must
have been a very bad man.
Quotations from Dr. Channing and the Koran-Christ understood his
own Nature-His Trials-Christ before the Sanhedrim-Their conduct-Christ put under Oath-His Condemnation-Meaning of the
phrase, " Son of God" —How the Jews understood it-The Character he had acquired-He confirmed them in their Interpretation of
his Words-Consequences-Can not get rid of them-Another Court
Session-Their Civil Accusation-Christ before Pilate-His Honesty in Explanation-Iis Acquittal-Pilate's infamous ConductConsequences-Dilemma verified.
THE honor and glory of our blessed Redeemer are
dear to us.  It is indeed revolting and heart-sickening to dwell upon the terrible consequences that
seem to flow from the denial of his Divinity, yet we
believe a plain statement of these must have more
weight with readers in general, than all the critical
display that the profoundest philogist can make.
Some maintain that our Saviour preexisted before
he came in the flesh., that he is the most glorious
creature of God, and appeared-in human form. But
this opinion can not rationally be entertained for a
moment, because it denies the human nature of




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.       109
Christ; it substitutes a glorious spiritual existencein the place of the human soul of our Redeemer, and
invests him merely with the shell of our humanity.
But the most of those who are opposed to the doctrine we contend for, maintain that he was nothing
more nor less than a perfectly good man, around
whose character cluster all the fascinations of unequalled virtue.
With both of these views we think the Scriptures
wholly irreconcilable. Dr. Channing says, (vol. 4:
168:) "You will easily understand what I esteem the
ground of love to Christ. It is his spotless purity,
his moral perfection, and his unsullied goodness." " I
can direct you to nothing in Christ more important
than his tried and victorious and perfect goodness.
Others may love Christ for mysterious attributes. I
love him for the rectitude of his soul and life." " I love
him, I have said, for his moral excellence: I know nothing else." The Koran speaks in terlQs equally honorable to our Saviour: "0  Mary I verily God sendeth
thee good tidings, thou shalt hear the word proceeding from himself: his name shall be CHRIST JESUS,
the son of Mary, honorable in this world and in the
world to come, and one of those who approach near
to the presence of God; and he shall speak unto men
in the cradle, and when he is grown up; and he shall
be one of the righteous."
Now, on the supposition that Christ was only a
man, such compliments may seem very pretty, but
we think them unmerited and absurd; compliments




110      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST
both ill-judged and misplaced simply for this reason,
that he was in reality a bad man. This is a painful
statement; our pen falters, and nothing but an earnest desire to convince men of the falsity of the system that aims to pluck the diadem from the King
of kings and Lord of lords, our Divine Redeemer,
prompts us to go on.
All who acknowledge the Bible to have come from
God, believe in the divine origin of Christianity, and
think their faith corroborated from its history in the
moral renovation of men and nations. This religion
teaches us that Jesus Christ came to establish it upon
the ruins of false systems, and soul-destroying delusions. From the time its glorious Founder left the
world, it has made progress, has been perpetuated,
and is preserved -by means wholly unknown in the
history of any other religion. As it was novel, so
it was seemingly inadequate to realize the expectations of its early adherents; yet four centuries only'had elapsed, when it was established upon the throne
of the Caesars. It has accomplished a revolution in
the world that has secured the most valuable benefits to its population, and its successes already gained,
are sure pledges that its final results will be in accordance with the doctrines and predictions of Jesus.
These must convince us that he perfectly understood
his own nature, offices, and works. To admit the
divine origin of his religion and that he came from
God, is to admit that he was wholly incapable of
deceiving or being deceived, and that on no occasion




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        111
could he either designedly or undesignedly make
false impressions, much less publish false facts for
deception, or the accomplishment of his purposes.
This admitted, the whole of the inquiry as to his
divinity is narrowed down to the meaning of the
simple declarations he made of himself, when under
a formal process of trial before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and in Pilate's court. Let us, then, review in
their mutual bearing, for the sake of -the best of
evidence,
CHRIST'S TRIALS.
Respecting this interesting portion of our Saviour's
history, many do not see the main points of the plot,
owing perhaps partly to the brevity of each of the
historians, who wrote according to the respective
impressions the facts in the case made upon their
minds; and partly to their own method of reading
the sacred narrative in detached portions. A little
attention to collating the four accounts which the
Evangelists give of the last hours of ourLord's eventful life, will serve to present the whole in satisfactory
view. When we compare these, we find that He was
tried before two tribunals, on two separate and distinct charges. The one was the Jewish Sanhedrim,
where he was tried on the charge of BLASPHEMY,
and condemned; the other was the Roman Governor's court, where he was tried for the crime of
HIGH TREASON, and acquitted. Let us look at the
parties in both these trials.




112      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
I. CHRIST BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.
"The'time at which courts were held among the
Jews, and causes were brought before them for trial
was in the morning. According to the Talmudists,
it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in
the night, and it was equally unlawful to examine a
cause, pass sentence, and put it in execution the
same day. This last particular was very strenuously
insisted upon. It is worthy of remark, that all of
these practices, which were observed in other trials,
were neglected in the tumultuous trial of Jesus."*
By a stratagem to which the principal men of this
court were a party, our Lord was taken and brought
for trial before it in the night. It was hurriedly
assembled at the house of the High-Priest. Thither
Christ was taken by a lawless midnight rabble, with
torches, staves, and clubs, whose conduct can be
more easily conceived than described. In a sumhmary way, this mockery of a trial was got up, and
the High-Priest, who was the president of the court,
"asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine."
Jesus thus answered him: "I spake openly to the
world: I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the
temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in
secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me?
ask them which heard me, what I have said unto
them: behold, they know what I said." —IEere was
our Saviour manacled in the night, and arraigned
* Jahn's Archeology.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.       113
contrary to the law which prescribed the time and
way of trial for the worst of criminals. But he did
not.complain, he openly and honestly answered the
High-Priest, respectfully referring to those who
knew him best, and by his answer he foiled them.
Bound as he was, he had a double claim to protection from insult, yet an officer of this court, a heartless wretch, struck him a blow unrebuked. False.
witnesses then appeared to swear his life away, but
their contradictory evidence promised ill-success.
Now that these malicious bargainers for his blood
had him in their power, they determined that they
should not be disappointed.
Mortified at failure by the clashing of their own
evidence, they thought to make him convict himself; and contrary to all righteousness and law,
withholding that magnanimity, to which a helpless
criminal is by his very position entitled, they did
their best to lead him into an altercation, in hopes
of perverting his words to his own destruction. But.
Christ " opened not his mouth." He calmly listened
to the disgraceful proceedings of this bitterly grave
tribunal, without saying a word. Pretending that
their dignity was highly insulted by his silence, the
High-Priest made a direct assault upon him for not
putting in a plea against a charge which, upon the
testimony offered, ought to have been instantly
quashed; buts till he held his peace, until it was
manifest their efforts were abortive.
As a last resort, enraged at failure, the High



114      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
Priest said: " I adjure thee, by the living God, that
thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the.Son of
God." In capital cases it was lawful to swear the
person accused. God had ordained, that when it
was difficult to come at the truth, "an oath of the
Lord," should be administered to the party accused;
and the greatest guilt rested upon him who in such
circumstances, did not unequivocally tell the truth.
(Ex'22: 11, Lev. 5: 1.) Therefore, Jesus calmly
replied: "Thou hast said; nevertheless, I say unto
you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in- the
clouds of heaven." Then the High-Priest, pretending to be horror-stricken, rent his clothes and said:
" He hath spoken blasphemy, what further need have
we of -witness? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said,
He is guilty of death." And they spit in his face,
and struck him with violence!!
This is the whole offense, and these last, are the
words upon which he was sentenced, according to
the law. (Lev. 24: 16.) The question demanded
whether Jesus was the Messiah — the Son of God.
The answer affirmed that he was both the Son of
God, and the Son of man, and the final Judge! It is
doubtful whether the Jews, in the time of Christ,
believed that their Messiah was to be Divine. That
their fathers thought so, appears from the Targums,
and the question was put in such a way that the
answer should be explicit on this point. And Christ




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHIRIST       115
was explicit. lie asserted that he was the Son of
man, that is, literally man; and that he was the Son
of God, that is, literally God, as they understood it;
and that he would be the Judge of the world. That
he was the Son of man, no one disputed; but the
blasphemy consisted in the phrase, Son of God. To
put his meaning beyond a doubt, he added, that he
would be the final Judge.
Now, the phrase, Son of God, is susceptible of
three meanings, namely: simple origin, general likeness, and identity of nature. In which of these did
he use it? It clearly could not have been in the
sense of simple origin, for the last prophet said:
"Have we not all one Father, hath not one God created us?" Nor could it have been in the sense of
general likeness, since Adam was called a son of
God, and magistrates also.  These uses of this
phrase were well known, and it would have been
infinitely absurd in the Jewish Court, to have pronounced the expression blasphemous in either of
these significations. They therefore must have understood him to mean, identity of nature; and in this
sense,- for a man to call himself the Son of God,
would, of course, be gross blasphemy. As Christ,
therefore, could only be a blasphemer in this last
sense, and as by the additional explanatory words,
he confirmed them in the belief that he claimed
identity of nature with God, it is perfectly evident
that he meant to assert his own Supreme Godhead.
Whenever there is any dispute about a phrase,




116      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
our shortest and best method is, to find out what
they understand by it,. to wihom it is addressed.
This charge of blasphemy, was not now made for the
first time against Christ; it had been frequently
brought in his controversies with the Jews. On one
occasion he said: "I and mry Father are one." The
question respecting this assertion, is not what it really
means, or what it may be made to mean, but what
was the i'mpression it made upon the hearers, what
idea did it convey to them? Their indignation, we
find, was so aroused, that they "took up stones to
stone him."  Now, Christ well knew what was
meant by this action; for the blasphemer, by the
Mosaic law, was to be stoned; yet he inquired the
reason. "Because," said they, mark the answer,
"Because thou being a man, makest thyself God."
Did Christ correct them?  He did not.  He confirmed them in their interpretation of his words.
(John 5: 18.) "The Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath,
but said also that God was his (own, Zt&ov) Father,
making himself equal with God." Did he deny this?
See v. 23: "All men should honor the Son, even
as they honor the Father.  He that honoreth not
the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent
him." Now, these last words are not exegetical of
the former sentence, for no Messenger is ever honored
in the manner that the Sender is honored. If they
had misunderstood him, would not common honesty,
as well as common prudence, and common piety,




SUPREME GOD IEAD OF CHRIST.     117
have led him to correct the mistake? Doubtless.
But he did not do it. Re left upon their minds the
burning impression, that he claimed to be the ETERNAL GOD. He was virtually invited to remove it.
It was distinctly announced to him, that he should
be stoned for a blasphemous claim which he, a man,
had the audacity and the impiety to make.
Now, were he only a man, is it possible to consider him in any degree a good man? 1ow can we
escape the conclusion that all his apparent goodness
was only successful artifice by which he sought to
elevate himself to the rank of those deified heroes
that were worshipped by the blind devotees of
Greece and Rome?
On another occasion, he appropriated to himself
the peculiar name of Jehovah - I AM; and they
attempted to stone him, but instead of waiting to
explain, he escaped.
Again. At another time, he brought them into
confusion by a dilemma.  "The Pharisees had
heard that he had put to silence the Sadducees," and
they thought they would try their wits upon himi
but, to their surprise, in a very summary way, he
thus brought them  to their wits' end.  "What
think ye of Christ? whose son is he?  They say
unto him the Son of David. He saith unto them:
How then doth David in spirit call him LORD? saying, The LORD said unto my LORD, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
If David then called hmhn LORD, how is he- his Son?




118      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST
And no man was able to answer him a word." The
Psalm referred to is the 110th, where Jehovah is
represented as saying to him whom David calls
LORD, "Be thou (aivivpovog) with me-a partner of
my throne." Now, if Christ is the Son of David,
"How then," said Jesus, "doth David call him
Lord?-If David called him Lord, how is he, his
Son?" Among the Hebrews, children were never
entitled to, and could not claim such deference
from a parent of more exalted rank.  This was
well understood; therefore the question was confounding. They had not a word to say. They
were not half so cunning as Dr. Channing. What a
pity they did not think of his solution. "It was
the homage which according to the age was paid to
men invested with great authority"!* They knew
that he claimed to be the Messiah. On the supposition that the Messiah is divine, the question is easily
answered; but if he be a mere man, as the Pharisees
held, it is impossible to solve it. They saw his
drift, they knew his meaning, and were enraged the
more, because they could not successfully meet him.
From these instances it is perfectly plain, that
Christ had actually acquired the character of a bold
blasphemer among the Jews, long before his arrest.
And when arrested, UNDER OATH he confirmed the
impression that he " made himself God" by declaring,
not only that he was the Son of man, but the Son of
God, and also the final Judge. His condemnation
* Channing's Works, v. 4, p. 315.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.      119
was therefore pronounced, on the ground that he
was guilty of blasphemy, and sought to lead the
people to pay divine homage to himself. No candid
man, it appears to us, can resist the conclusion that
they understood the expression " Son of God," in the
last sense we have mentioned, namely, identity of
nature. Nor can it be doubted that Christ was fully
aware they thus understood him: and that they understood him rightly, is evident from the fact, that
Jesus, who on all other occasions was quick to point
out their mistakes, did not say that they apprehended him in a wrong sense. He did not upbraid
them with putting any forced construction upon his
words.'As none knew better than he, the meaning
of language, and as " He knew what was in man,
and needed not that any should teach him," he designedly used an expression to denote his own
Supreme Godhead, which the Jewish Court, in view
of his already acquired character, and in view of all
the circumstantial details of his controversies with
the Jews on this very point, could not misunderstand.  How could they?  His assertions were
plain. No equivocation, no explanation, no apology
escaped him, but he meant to make the impression
he did make. They knew what he said, and he
knew what they understood. There was, therefore,
no mistake.
Now, if Christ thus affirming, and thus well understood, be not truly and properly God, co'qual
with the Father, it follows that the Jews were right




120      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
when they denounced him as a "wretch not fit to
live," for he bore false witness against himself, and
thus was a perjured man! In consequence of this,
his blood was upon his own head; because, in virtue
of his own testimony he was condemned, when a
simple declaration of the truth might have saved his
life: therefore he was in fact a suicide I Inasmuch
as he refused to disabuse the court of wrong impressions which he himself had made and confirmed,
and must have known it, he was superlatively dishonest/ Because he set himself up as an IDOL, and is
the author of the most stupendous system of idolatry the world ever saw, the most righteous act the
Jewish court ever did, was to condemn him I
We do not see how it is possible to get rid of
these horrid consequences which make us tremble
as we write. Deny his Divinity, and you must say,
that when Christianity was triumphant, various forms
of idolatry gave way, only to make room for another more monstrous than either, or all of them
put together; and we poor deluded idolaters, are
spending our exertions and exhausting our zeal, to
convert certain other poor deluded idolaters to a
system of error, more fraught with death than their
own!! Deny his Divinity, and you brand him at
once with infamy, provided these conclusions are
fairly drawn. How any, in view of his failure to
disabuse the court of wrong impressions, when
such tremendous consequences follow, how any can




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        121
regard him either as good, moral, or virtuous, is beyond our ken.
It is clearly a quibble to say, that our Lord was
not obliged to exiplain the phraseology he used, by
which he had acquired a character so detestable in
the eyes of his nation; it is the very poorest evasion
to say, he was not obliged to explain before the Jewish court, nor to correct any of their misconceptions;
for who does not see that in point of veracity, a man
betrays the very worst moral obliquity, when he
uses designedly an expression in one sense, and
knows, at the same time, that they to whom it is
addressed, must understand it in another? Would
not this conduct reflect upon our Saviour just as
much as the most palpable falsehood?.Certainly.
He who is truth itself, never could have acted thus.
This is proved by his demeanor before Pilate on his
second trial, where he was as honest in preventing
misconceptions of the truth, as he had before been
candid in enforcing its claims.
After the disgraceful proceedings of the night,
when the Sanhedrim passed sentence of death upon
our Lord, and maltreated him in the most brutal
manner, they thought it expedient to have another
meeting. Accordingly, " very early. in the morning,
all the chief-priests and elders of the people with the
scribes and the whole council, held an assembly to
consult liow they might put Jesus to death." They
had condemned him, but it was a question whether
they could secure his execution; for the Romans
6




122     SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
had taken away from them the power to inflict calpi.
tal punishment.  It was necessary, therefore, to
have him condemned by the Roman power, if they
would have him executed by Roman authority, and
by Roman means of punishment.
The expedient they next hit upon was, to accuse
Christ of HIGH TREASON. The Romans very well
knew what was their expectation, in reference to the
Messiah, and that the time had elapsed by their calculation, for the appearance of a great military
chieftain who should free them from their vassalage
to that empire. That great solicitude was felt on
this subject, is evident from the horrid act of Herod,
by whose bloody decree the babes of Bethlehem
were slain, in hopes of cutting off their expected
Messiah.  It was very natural, therefore, that this
assembly should think it an admirable plan to take
advantage of this feeling of jealousy on the part of
the government; for they rightly judged that any
one advancing the claims of a king, as Christ had
done, would stand a poor chance of escape.'o
make sure of better testimony than that of the un.
lucky blunderers whom they had suborned, they led
Christ into their council a second time, black with
bruises, and disfigured by barbarous violence. Although he had been condemned, they determined to
put him upon another, and a more public trial; and
they began by going over the same ground, with
the view, however, of mainly pressing him upon his
claim of being the Messiah. "Art thou the Mes



SUPREM3E GODHEAD OF CHRIST.      123
siah?  Tell us. And he said unto them: If I tell
you, ye will not believe; and if I also interrogate
you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of
the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou the
Son of God? and he said unto them, I am. And
they said, What need we any further witness? for
we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."
They now had again a full confession that he
claimed to be both God and man, and by consequence the lfessiah. "And the whole multitude of
them led him away to Pilate."
II. CHRIST BEFORE PILATE.
It was important for the Sanhedrim to obtain the
death of Christ if they could, on the sentence of
their own court, to sustain their reputation with the
people; for the very fact of their being obliged to
go to the Roman governor in this matter, reminded
them of their abject existence as a nation. Arrived
at the door of the Prsetorium, for fear of contracting
defilement from Gentiles, these sanctimonious hypocrites would not go in.  Pilate, aware of their
scruples, came out into the paved court, and seeing
a prisoner bound, said to them: " What accusation
bring ye against this man?" By this, their dignity
was much affronted, as if it were an insult to suspect
them of asking the death of an innocent man; and
they replied: "If he were not a malefactor, we




124      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
would not have delivered him up unto thee." Pilate
knew their character too well to be deceived by
their pretensions, and as they made no accusation,
he gave them to understand that if they had so
adjudged, so they might deal with him according to
their law. This was bitter irony, and they had to
state the reason why they came to him: "It is not
lawful for us to put any man to death." Pilate having insisted upon an indictment, and knowing that
the Roman law would not regard the penalties of
the Jewish, they concluded to prefer against him the
crime of HIGH TREASON. "W e found this fellow
perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute
to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, (the Messiah,) a King."
This ground apparently was the most promising
that could be taken, for should he deny that he ever
proclaimed himself a King, there would be an end
to his career, as he would have been branded by a
hundred oaths with palpable falsehood; and if, on
the other hand, he should make the assertion that
he was a Kinlg, it tnust be taken as a plea of guilt: so
they thought themselves sure of their suit.
Here, then,vwas some need of explanation upon the
part of Christ; for although the naked assertion, that
he was a King, was true, in Pilate's court it would
have conveyed a false impression. Did our Saviour
either refuse to explain or deny his claims? He did
not. He plainly did the one, and boldly maintained
the other. "Then Pilate called Jesus, and said unto




SUPREMJE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.     125
him, Art thou the king of the Jews? And he
answering, said unto him, Thou sayest." Now if he
had stopped here, a false impression might have
procured his condemnation. Truth demanded that
Pilate should know the exact sense in which he used
that word. Therefore our Lord informed him: " My
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered-to the Jews: but-now is my
kingdom not from hence." This at once served to
quiet the apprehensions of the governor, if he had
any; but he proceeded to reiterate the question,
and Christ varied his explanation. "Art thou a
king then?" "Thpu sayest that I am a king. To
this end was I born. and for this cause came I into
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice."
Pilate was satisfied with the explanation. He saw
clearly that Christ laid no claim to temporal power,
to the prejudice of the Roman Government; and
since he had no ambition for the royal purple, he
was convinced he harbored no treasonable designs
against his monarch. Then Pilate went out to th~
Jews, who were waitinfg th6 issue in anxious expectatidn of the condemnation of Christ, and announced
his ACQUITTAL.
After Pilate had made repeated attempts to
release him, exasperated beyond measure, they
clamored for the worst of punishments, and said:
"We have a law, and by our law he ought to




126     SUPREME GODhIEAD OF CIHRIST.
die, because he made himself the SON OF GOD." Can
any man fail to see they interpreted this phrase
in the sense of identity of natzire with God? Did
they not say so? and did not Christ know that
such was their understanding? Beyond a doubt,
he knew it. Could he not have easily met and, vanquished them on this point, in Pilate's court, had
they misinterpreted his words, or misunderstood his
meaning? Inasmuch as Pilate had acquitted him
before them all, could he not have shown that their
law did not reach him at all, by simply exposing
their mistake, had they made one? Under the circumstances, and in view of the consequences, let any
good man ask himself what he would have done,
and what Christ ought to have done, had he been
placed in a false position before the Roman court.
We think no man of common-sense can help seeing,
that if Christ was a good man, he could not have
allowed his enemies to misrepresent his claims, when
he was in a court not under their sway; that if he
were God as well as man, there is consistency in his
conduct; that if he were not God, there was not
only inconsistency, but great wickedness shown by
him, to his utter disgrace as a man of truth.
We need not enlarge upon the way in which this
unjust judge was intimidated by the disappointed
and furious mob. Since Pilate had acquitted him
of the crime they brought, they insanely called
upon him to execute the sentence of their court;
threatening him, if he did not, with an accusation




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST        127
before C'esar for disloyalty and breach of trust, in
refusing to punish a criminal condemned by his own
nation, and accused of high treason. "If thou let
this man go, thou art not C(Jesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar."
His cowardice prompted him to act in direct violation of his own convictions, for "he knew that the
chief-priests had delivered him for envy;" yet for
the sake of policy, and dreading the execution of
their threat, regardless of the life of an innocent
man, deaf to the remonstrance of conscience, he
yielded to their will. Thus, Christ died a martyr
to the doctrine of his own SUPREME GODHEAD.
No candid man will say, that our Lord was not
equally honest before the Jewish tribunal and the
Roman court. In the former, he was understood to
assert his own proper divinity, and was adjudged
guilty of blasphemy, "because being a man, he
made himself God."  This was the exposition all
along put upon his words, and on this account he
had acquired the character of a blasphemer, and
finally was condemned for blasphemy; and by a
strange combination of circumstances, for this sin
against the Jewish law, he was made to suffer a
Roman punishment. Now, if he were not God, but
only a very good man, why did he not explain, as
he did before Pilate? Why did he not reject with
disdain an imputation so foul, that failure to disavow.
ought for ever to extinguish the pretensions ofJ' the best
man that ever lived? Here is a corner from which




128      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
there is no getting out.  If Christ were really a
good man, he must also be God; but if he be not
God, if he be but a creature, then to us the consequence seems inevitable, he must have been the
very worst of bad men I a deceiver, a perjured man, a
suicide, and a fool for dying in support of a false
fact!! H! is disciples are idolaters! every Christian
misled by the Bible to believe in his divinity, is
divinely misled; and the most pious are the most
impious; and their cherished system of religion, the
worst that ever cursed the world!! — Thus, the opposers of our doctrine must meet another dilemma,
if they would be consistent, as " rational Christians"
ought to be:
Either they must admit that Christ, if only a man,
was A VERY BAD MAN, or if a good man, that he is the
SUPREME GOD.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.           129
CHAPTER VIII.
VII. DILEMMA. —Either Christ is God, or he is not the Messiah.
His Offices proved-Divinity of the Messiah —What the Messiah was
to do-Consequences if he be not Divine-Dilemma verified-An
inconsistency.
THE word!Messiah means the "anointed."  It was
a custom among the Hebrews to anoint with oil
their High-Priests, (Ex. 30: 25-30,) and their Prophets and Kings. (1 Kings 19: 16.) The Prophets
proclaimed the appearance of a great Prophet, an everlasting Priest, and a glorious King, who, combining
these thriee offices in himself, was anointed by God to
execute all their duties in teaching, redeeming, and
reigning over his own chosen people.  (Is. 45: 7;
61: 1; Dan. 9: 24, 25, 26.)  " Messiah the Prince,"
thus foretold in the Old Testament, is CHRIST, or the
" anointed" of the New.  He is called " the Prophet
of the highest." (Luke 1: 76.)  "The High-Priest
of our profession," (Heb. 3:1,) and "King  of
kings." (Rev. 19:16.)'
By proving the divinity of Christ, we of course
prove the divinity of the Messiah. —That He was
expected'to be a divine person is abundantly evident
6*




130      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
from the Scriptures, and from writings of the ancient
Hebrews; though it is with great probability supposed, that in the time of our Saviour the Jews lost
the faith of their fathers, and believed their Messiah
was to be but a man, raised up to restore their nation to superior greatness and renown. With their
belief so secularized and perverted, we have nothing
to do. We simply and briefly will show that if
Christ be not God, he was not the Messiah.
The Messiah is a proper name applied to the expected Deliverer, whose advent into the world, for
ages past, has been the hope and consolation of Israel.
The nature and work descriptive of him in the Old
Testament, when ascertained, will show us what
Christ is, if he be the Messiah. Here we shall be as
brief as possible, inasmuch- as the reader, by recurring to passages already quoted, can easily make his
own comment.
I. As to his nature-he was to be a HMan. As all
are agreed on this matter, we need not quote the various offices he should discharge, all implying his
strict and proper manhood. But he is more than
man. How much more, must be ascertained from
the declarations of the Old Testament.
The 45th Psalm was always understood by the
Jews to refer to their Messiah. In the 6th v. the
king spoken of is called God.  Its application to
Christ, by Paul, in Heb. 1, is beyond question. The
Messiah.is called a Branch of Jehovah, (Is. 4: 2;
comp. Is. 11: 1; Zech. 3: 8; 6: 12.) Jehovah our




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         131
righteousness, is the name of this Branch. (Jer. 23: 5,
6; Jer. 33: 16.)  "This is he who shall call to her,
Jehovah our Righteousness."
The Messiah is called by name, Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace. (Is. 9: 6, 7.)
The Messiah is called Jehovah, God. (Is. 40: 3-5,
9-11.)
The One known as the Angel of Jehovah, and
the Angel of the Covenant, under the Patriarchal
and Mosaic dispensations, was their future Messiah.
Rabbinical authors frequently refer these names to
him; but the appellations, attributes, and worship of
the Deity are given to this august person, and acts
of distinct personality are ascribed to the Angel of
Jehovah. He is represented as the proper object of
assured confidence and of religious worship; therefore he was to be God as well as man.
Now, all Christians admit that Christ is the Messiah; but if Unitarianism be true, he can not be that
Deliverer, because he is not entitled to the appellatives and the honors ascribed to the Messiah in the
Old Testament.
II. As to his work, it is said:
Is. 2: 18.-And the IDOLS he shall utterly abolish.
The chapter containing this prediction, speaks of
what was to happen in the last days: " Out of Zion
shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord
from Jerusalem"  This was signally fulfilled when




132      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the Messiah commissioned his Apostles to preach
the gospel to every -creature. The Messiah, then,
is to abolish idols utterly; but if Christ be not
God, he is not Messiah, for he has done nothing
towards abolishing idolatry. So far from this, he
has been exalted as the greatest and most dangerous
of all idols, Christians have been and are the grossest
idolaters, and Christianity is the worst system of idolatry that has ever appeared!
The Koran says: "The temptation to idolatry is
more, grievous than to kill in the sacred months."
"Where are the idols which ye called upon besides God? —God shall say unto them at the resurrection, Enter ye with the nations which have preceded you, of genii and of men, into hell-fire." Mohammedanism is therefore a better system than
Christianity, which exalts a man into an idol! Mohammed is better than Christ, who receives divine
homage as God, when he is but a man; and the prophet of Mecca has better claims to the Messiahship
than Jesus of Nazareth, because he succeeded better
in abolishing idols! And the Koran is better than
the Bible, which is full of temptation to idolatry!!
Consistency, then, would seem to demand, that they
who deny the divinity of our Saviour, should prefer
Mohammedanism to Christianity.
If Christ be only a creature, for eighteen hundred
years he has been the object of idolatrous worship,
and all the idols his system of religion ever abolished,
simply yielded their place to another and a worse




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         133
idol in his own person. Therefore, consistency demands that the opponents of our doctrine should
choose one of these alternatives:
Either. they must admit that Christ is God, or deny
that he is the Miessiah.
So long as they call the worshippers of three Gods
" fellow-Christians," and "' brethren," they acknowledge their system to be Christianity; but nothing can
be plainer than this, the same system can not teach
Theism and Tritheism. There is no difference between a Tritheist and a Polytheist. We can not be
Christians and Idolaters too. We therefore prefer
from our opponents the name which precisely delineates our religious belief, as they think, to the
heartless compliment which says one thing and
means another.




134        SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER IX.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AND REASON ANSWERED.
The value of objections-Shifting ground-The fallacy of objectionsWhy we can not accept Unitarian faith-Our arguments not yet
answered-Unitarian ratiocination-Our position not touchedTheir proof-texts harmonize with our view-" Son of God" a title
in harmony with our view of his nature-Quotations from Dr.
Channing-Shown to be futile-Quotation from Dr. Dick-Dr.
Channing's rule of exegesis-Its operation-Other vital doctrines
denied-Personal salvation put in jeopardy.
IT becomes us to notice the principal objections.which have been made to the doctrine advocated in
these pages.  We believe that Ien may be just as
sincere in an error as in the truth, but sincerity can
not blot out the eternal distinction between them,
nor annul the differences they make in human character.  Were it otherwise the mission of our Saviour would have been in vain; and the only conceivable preference of truth to error would be in the
advantages that might accrue to the structure of
human society; one system being the better, because
the more favorable to the enjoyment of a greater
amount of social happiness.  Were it otherwise, the
Hindoo would receive nothing better from Christian



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        135
ity as a religious system than emancipation from one
routine of ceremonies to embrace another, or none at
all, as might best suit him. Sincerity, however, is to
be respected, while indifference is to be condemned.
The objections to the former are entitled to consideration, the heartlessness of the latter can only claim
pity, while it deserves contempt.
The only question which concerns us is this: Is
the doctrine of Christ's Supreme Godhead fairly
proved from Scripture, and from the absurdities that
seem to to follow its denial, upon the supposition
that the Bible is the inspired word of God? If so,
objections can not destroy that proof. " Objections,"
says an ingenious writer, "against a thing fairly
proved, are of no weight. The proof rests upon our
knowledge, and the objections upon our ignorance.
It is true that moral demonstrations, and religious
doctrines may be attacked in a very ingenious and
plausible manner, because they involve questions on
which our ignorance is greater than our knowledge:
but still our knowledge is knowledge; or, in other
words, our certainty is certainty. When you have
proved that the. three angles of any -triangle are
equal to two right angles, there is an end of doubt;
because there are no materials for ignorance to work
up into phantoms." But there is a wider field for
gathering such materials in moral and religious subjoects, and their use is just to bring up such phantoms
as shall delude us by their iunsubstantial forms.
Now, in regard to the objections made to our doc



136      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
trine from Scripture, they involve what is technically
called "I gnoratio elenchi," a mistake of the question,
and the fallacy of shifting ground. The question is
this: Is Christ the Supreme God? The argument
brought to prove that he is man, shifts ground, because it does not maintain the negative of the real
question; it only proves another proposition about
which there is no dispute.'We are all agreed that
Christ is really and truly man; therefore, to bring
proofs'for this, instead of answering the proofs of
the affirmative of the real question, is utterly irrelevant and evasive, for the conclusion that " Christ is
not God," by no means follows.
We maintain it is egregious trifling to manage the
controversy by imposing sophisms upon our readers,
and certainly not creditable to "rational Christianity." Take the case of an astronomer, who proves
the sun to be an opaque body. Surely his position
can not be controverted, by showing that the sun is
the source of light to our world. The affirmative of
any proposition is not to be answered by supporting
the affirmative of a different proposition. We complain therefore of our opponents that when we prove
Christ to be God, they meet us by proving that tIe is
man, about which there is no dispute. Why do they
not meet the only question between us on the subject of his nature?
The " fallacy of objections" fs this: " Showing that
there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected;




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        137
when that which ought to have been proved is, that
there are more or stronger objections against the re,
ceiving than the rejecting of it." Jesus Christ is the
Supreme God. Our objections to rejecting this as the
truth, have been informally stated; but for the sake
of contrasting their relative strength with that of
those presented in opposition, we may be allowed to
show them in a formal order.
1st. All the most glorious names of the Supreme
God are given to Christ, and we can not therefore
abandon our doctrine, without indorsing blasphemy,
and without involving ourselves in the absurdity
that God has no name by which he can be distinguished from his creatures. To meet this, we think
it incumbent on our opponents to show, by the definition of blasphemy, that our objection does not lie,
and that there is no absurdity as we state.
2d. The most glorious attributes of God are predicated of Christ, and we therefore can not reject his
Divinity without involving ourselves in the absurdity, that God has no attribute by which he may be
distinguished from his creatures; and we think our
opponents can not ask us in fairness to adopt their
belief, without showing that this is no absurdity at
all.
3d. The most glorious works of God are ascribed
to Christ, and we can not therefore give up the doctrine of his Godhead; without nullifying the divine
argument by which the existence of the Almighty is
proved; without involving ourselves in the absurd



138      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CIItIST.
ity that a creature is his own Creator, and that this
creature-creator maay be and not be, at the same time;
and without involving ourselves in another no less,
namely, that God has performed no work by which
he may be distinguished from his creatures. We
think that these must be met by arguments to prove
them no absurdities at all.
4th. The worship of God by angels and men, by
the inhabitants of heaven and earth, is represented
as given to Christ; and we can not therefore but believe he is God, without involving ourselves in the
absurdity, that God has no peculiar worship by which
he may be distinguished from his creatures. This
too must be shown to be no absurdity at all.
5th. We must believe that Christ is God as well
as man, because if only man, he is the worst man that
ever lived. We think this must be met, by showing
that he being only a man, did not dissemble when
on oath; that he made no false impressions upon the
Jews; that he did not, by his omissions of statement,
by his representations and inducements, lead men to
worship him, and that he is not the object of the
highest religious worship by the representation of
the Revelation.
Now, we ask, have these arguments, presented in
various forms a thousand times, ever been met? We
have reason to believe they never have; certainly
nothing has come within the range of our own observation but irrelevant texts, which only prove what
we most fully admit. We most distinctly believe our




SUPRPEIE  GODHEAD OF CHRIST.     139
Saviour is man, having a human body and a human
soul, both of which are necessary to form human
nature; that as a man, he was sent into the world to
" magnify the law and make it honorable," by suffering the punishment that law pronounced against
transgressors, in behalf of those who were given him
before the foundation of the world; by which sufferings he magnified the law, in declaring its righteousness and immutability, and made it honorable by
rendering a full satisfaction to its righteous demands
in the room of his people. This is a distinctive feature of our belief, which Dr. Channing calls the
" heart-withering faith of the Genevan school I" But
we also. believe that Christ is the Supreme God; and
we have given our reasons for it according to the
direction in 1 Pet. 3: 15.
An author already quoted says:* "Unitarians take
the Bible in their hands, as they say, and sitting down
to read it, as plain unlettered Christians, and with
prayer for Divine illumination, they find that the
general tenor of its language either distinctly asserts
or necessarily implies the Supremacy of the Father,
and teaches the inferior and derived nature of the
Son. In proof of this, they appeal to such passages
as the following:'This is life eternal, that they
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent.' (John 17: 3.)'For
there is one God and one Mediator between God and
man, the man Christ Jesus.'  (1 Tim. 2: 5.)'My
* Rupp's History, p. 705.




140      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
Father is greater than I.' (John 14: 28.)' My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (Ibid. 7: 16.)'I speak not of myself.' (Ibid. 14: 10.)'I can of
mine own self do nothiing.' (Ibid. 5: 30.)' The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works.' (Ibid.
14: 10.)'God hath made that same Jesus, whom
you crucified, both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2: 36.)' Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a
Prince and a Saviour.' (Ibid. 5: 31.)"
Now, we solemnly believe that all these texts, and
many more, " distinctly assert, or necessarily imply
the Supremacy of the Father, and teach the inferior
and derived nature of the Son,' as to his humanity.'rhis, therefore, forms no difference between us. To
present that upon which we are agreed, as an argument in the matter upon which we disagree, is egregious trifling. These texts are in perfect harmony
with those we have quoted in proof of the Supreme
Godhead of Christ, upon the admission of his two
natures; but upon the supposition that he is a mere
creature, they are perfectly irreconcilable, the whole
Bible becomes an enigma that must baffle every attempt at producing an agreement between these two
classes of texts. We can show their harmony upon
our doctrine; but without it, no such harmony, in
our opinion, can be made to appear. To present
these texts, then, being wholly irrelevant, is to no
purpose. Why not take the texts which we think
prove the Deity of Christ, from both the Old and New
Testament, and cope with them?  Why not "take




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.       141
the Bible in their hands, and sitting down to read it,
as plain and unlettered Christians, and with prayer
for Divine illuminations" strive to show how Christ
can be called Jehovah, the Most High God, the True
God, the only WVise God, the Everlasting Fatlter, the
Great God, God over all, blessed for ever, Omniscient,
Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Eternal, Immutable, Our
Creator, Preserver, and final Judge; and yet, with
all these most glorious perfections, be only a CREA~TURE? This would be achieving something to the
purpose, it would be a rare piece of work, which the
world as yet has never seen. ~Until this be done,
there is no fair argument and no meeting of the real
question in dispute at all.
But lest we might be thought reluctant to touch
these texts, we will briefly consider them. Christ
says in his prayer: " This is life eternal, that they
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent." Christ as man prays
to God in the behalf of his chosen. As such he is
manifestly distinguished from the Father. He was.the "sent of God," who came to do his will. But
does this text prove that Christ was not God? No,
it only distinguishes the manhood of our Redeemer
from the Godhead. If it prove that Christ is not the
only true God, by the same reasoning the Father can
be proved not to be the only wise God. Jude thus
prays to Christ: "; Now unto Him that is able to keep
you from falling, and to present you faultless before
the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the




142      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
only wise God, our Saviour, etc."  If the one text
excludes the Son from Deity, the other must exclude the Father from Deity. But this writer exclaims: "Does a Being pray to himself?"  We
might answer this by asking: Does a Being present to himself? How can Christ present " us to himself, or before the presence of his glory?"  If He
be but a man, the last text involves the very absurdity complained of; but if he be God as well as man,
the objection is answered: as man, like other men,
he prayed to God, whose nature is as distinct from
Christ's human nature, as from ours, but yet united
with it in a way ours never can be. In some places
the Scriptures speak of Christ as God, in others as
man, and in others as God and manr  In all this
there is no contradiction.
1 Tim. 2: 5.-For there is one God, and one Mediator between
God and man, the man Jesus Christ."
Mediation implies satisfaction, and for this purpose
it was necessary that our Saviour should be God
and man, for how could a mere man satisfy God for
his fellows? Besides, if Christ was only a man why
is the statement to that effect made? Why the assurance, that that man, was a man?  It must have
been for one of two reasons, either to guard us from
supposing he might be God or an angel, or to intimate
that he was both God and man, the man being the
mediator, because the sufferer by whom satisfaction
was made. It could not have been to guard us
against this supposition; for, in the next preceding




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         143
verse but one, our Saviour is denominated God;
therefore the intention of the Apostle must have
been to point us to the specific nature in which mediation was made "by God our Saviour."  This
text therefore in its connection, is plump against the
system in whose behalf it has been pressed.
John 14: 28. —My Father is greater than I.
By urging this text our opponents not only make
oult that our Saviour was a man, but also, by consequence, that he was a blasphemer!  These words
contain a comparison, and for any creature to compare himself with his Creator, is arrogance, presumption, and blasphemy. Besides, it makes our Saviour
talk nonsense I What would be said of the best man
that ever lived, should he stand up among his fellows and say: "My Creator is greater than I am I"
A perusal of this chapter will show conclusively
that Christ's comparison had no respect to nature,
but to work. He describes himself as the great ambassador sent to our fallen world, and in this respect
"the Father that dwelt in him doeth the works,"
and is therefore greater than Hie. So Christ as an
ambassador, said: " I speak not of myself." —" I can
of mine own self do nothing." Such language was
perfectly suited to him in his official capacity. Thus
we can clearly explain every passage of this nature
in perfect consistency with our doctrine, and we are
confident that a multitude of passages, some of
which we have quoted, can not be tortured into consistency with the scheme of our opponents.  We




144      SUPREMIE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
have given a sample of Unitarian exposition which
speaks for itself. Let it be also observed, that the
spirit of inspiration in John, by this scheme, is
made inconsistent with itself; for in the first chapter
of this gospel the Word that was made flesh, is asserted'to be GOD; but if this text prove Christ to be
nothing more than man, it also proves that John in
the first chapter penned a falsehood I
The great objection made to our doctrine is this,
Christ is everywhere styled the Son of God, and he
calls God his Father. Now, as the Scriptures were
given to us that we might understand them, as they
speak to us in terms that we can comprehend, terms
familiar to us, terms descriptive of human things
and relations, when these are applied to divine
things, it is argued, that the human relation of Father and Son, must necessarily suggest the inferiority
of the Son to the Father when speaking of a divine
relation.
As we have already considered this phrase, we
must be very brief. Either it denotes identity of
nature with God, or it does not. If it does, there is.
an end of the argument; if it does not, then it remains with our opponents to show how they can
vindicate our blessed Saviour from prevarication.
The Jews understood this phrase to denote equality
with God, and Christ knew it; and without correcting their mistake, he died in the support of an untruth! Besides, the Apostle says: He " thought it
not robbery to be equal with God." Now, when we




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.        145
compare this with the interpretation the Jews put
upon his words, when we consider that the reason
why they stoned him was-" that he being a mal,
made himself equal with God; because he said, I amr
the Son of God," we can see no way of escape from
the belief that Christ is God. But why did he call
himself the SON, using a term that conveys to us the
idea of posteriority and inferiority? WVe reply, that
we are bound so to interpret the phrase, that it will
not contradict the explicit declarations of Scripture.
This term expresses a distinction in the Godhead
which we can not understand. The terms, Father and
-Son, with us denote identity of nature; but when applied to the Godhead it does not therefore follow,
that the relation must be in all respects the same.
When men, worms of the dust, begin to explain the
mode of the divine subsistence, and erect their deductions of reason into a standard of faith, they act
like the men who assert there is no bottom to the
ocean, because their lines are too short to fathom it.
"W' ho by searching can find out God?"  We must
be content with revealed facts, when they are above
our finite capacities; but when we transcend this obvious duty, "our foolish hearts are darkened."
Thus we show how the texts Unitarians appeal
to, are altogether wide of the matter in controversy.
They do not prove their negative. They are entirely
in harmony with our faith. But the proof-texts we
offer, they -can not make to harmonize with their
system, without the torturing irons of a proudly




146 i    SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
pretending criticism, and without shameful reflections upon the sacred penmen, when their words are
too obstinate for Unitarian management.
But we must not forget that our opponents are
philosophers, and reasoners; for they often have
"had great reasonings among themselves:" and
they are metaphysicians, tob; and they upbraid us
because we are neither. Thus writes Dr. Channing:
"WVe believe Jesus is one mind, one soul, one
being as truly one as we are, and equally distinct
from the one God. WTe complain of the doctrine of
the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three
beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and this
introduces i. fnt nfsion into our conceptions
ofi  A     d    This corruption of Christianity,
alike repugnant to common-sense and to the general
strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the
power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the truth
as it is in Jesus."
Again he says: "According to this doctrine,
Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one
divine, the other human; the one weak, the other
Almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient.
Now we maintain that this is to make two beings."
"Can you conceive of two beings in the universe
more distinct? We have always thought that one
person was constituted and distinguished by one
consciousness. The doctrine that one and the same




SUPREME GOI)HEAD OF CHRIST.       147
person should have two distinct consciousnesses,
two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each
other, this we think an enormous tax on human
credulity."
Here the Doctor professes to give our exact sentiments on this subject. Has he done so?  NOT AT
ALL. Who ever maintained the absurdity. he has
presented? No BODY. Who ever so taxed human
credulity as to demand such a belief in Christ?
No BODY. WVhy then is this statement made? WVe
know not, unless to display the skill of certain sporting gentlemen who set up Nine Pins to knock them
down agfain. Now we believe as fully as any could
wish, that the representation Dr. Channing has given
is both unphilosophical and irrational.  He either
understood our views, or he did not. If he did not,
this representation of them, charges him with ignorance with which a man of his acknowledged abilities can not be taxed. If he did, then it charges
upon him something else.
Our view of the person of Christ, can not be more
lucidly stated than in the language of Dr. Dick.
" Christ is as truly man as he is God. This peculiar
relation was indispensably necessary to the unity of
the Mediator. Had the two natures, however intimately connected, not been personally united, their
actions would not have been referable to one agent;
there would have been two agents perfectly distinct,
whereas, now, the person of Christ, if I may so ex



148      SUPREME GOI)-IEAD OF CHRIST.
press myself, is one principle of operation in the
accomplishment of our redemption."
"To illustrate this point more fully, I remark,
that it was not a humran person which our Saviour
assumed, but a human nature.  The distinction
between these is important, and should be carefully
considered. By a person, we understand an intelligent being subsisting by himself, and not dependent
upon any other. This is the meaning of the word
when it is used in reference to men; when applied
to the Trinity, it expresses a distinction which we
can not explain.  To say that the Son of God
assumed a human person, would be an express contradiction, because there is an idea imported in the
word assumed, with which the personality of his
human nature is absolutely inconsistent; for it imports that he made it his own; and besides, on this
supposition, as we have already remarked, the acts
of the man would not have been the acts of the Son
of God, and consequently, would not have been
available for our salvation. He assumed a human
nature, or, in other words, made it his own nature,
by giving it a subsistence in his divine person. The
term personality merely imports, that the nature of
which we are speaking, subsists by itself. To deny,
therefore, the personality of the human nature of
Christ, takes nothing froni it that is essential; it
simply represents it as standing in a peculiar relation to another nature. It would have been a person, if it had not been united to the Son of God;




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.               149
but, being united to hlim, it can not be called a
person, because it does not subsist by itself, as other
men do; each of whom  has an independent existence."
"When in speaking upon this subject, we use the
phrase, the constitution of the person of Christ, it is
necessary to guard against a misapprehension of the
meaning. It is not that his person is made up of
two constituent parts, the divine and the human
nature; for this would imply that the Son of God
was not a person before the union or that he became
a different person after it."*::
We have been lengtlhy in our quotation, to show
the utter unfairness of Dr. Channing's representation,
and we can not avoid believing, that he very well
knew the exact sentiment of this quotation, to be
the faith of orthodox Christians.  How far then he
is to be trusted in his statements of the creed of
others, is quite obvious.  We believe that Christ
was a perfect man, but as he was born unlike other
men, so he subsisted unlike other men; and all this
is perfectly compatible with reason and revelation.
It avails nothing to cry down, as theory, what Dr.
Dick has expressed so well, because it is irrational.
* This view is not peculiar to Dr. Dick. Long before his day, it
was presented, and has been often and ably advocated, as the true
state of the case respecting the constitution of our Mediator; argued
out, from the necessity of presenting the basis, upon which the two
classes of texts teaching a two-fold nature, are clearly harmonized.
(Mark's Medulla, p. 186. De Moor, vol. iii., pp. 759, 760. Fisher's
Catechism, p. 102. Calvin's Institutes, vol. i., p. 436.)




150      SUPREME GODHEAD OF C'IHRIST.
If we believe it to be true, because no other will
harmonize the Scriptures on this question, it can
only be expurgated from our faith, by showing that
Unitaria'n faith harmonizes them  as well, without
impeaching the veracity and qualifications of the
inspired writers.
Dr. Channing further states: there are " comparatively few passages, which are thought to make him
(Christ) the Supreme God." WA;hether this be true,
we leave to the judgment of the candid reader. But
perhaps it may be a matter of curiosity to know
how these few are managed by the most distinguished and able man who has appeared in this country,
against the Deity of our Lord.
He says: " It is our duty to explain such texts by
the rule which we apply to other texts, in which
human beings are called gods, and are said to be
partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess
all things, and to be filled with all God's fullness.
These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify
and restrain and turn from their most obvious sense,
because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we
maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and
use no greater latitude, in explaining as we do, the
passages which are brought to support the Godhead
of Christ."
But where do. we find texts informing us that human beings are partakers of the divine nature?  Nowhere. The single text alluded to, is 2 Pet. 1: 4,




SUIPREME GODIIEAD OF CHRIST.'151.
where believers, it is said, by the promises may be
partakers of a divine nature, clearly alluding to the
new birth, the being born from  above. Is "the
most obvious sense" here the divine essence?. Where
are creatures said to " know all things"?  Nowhere.
Where are they said to "'possess" all things?  Nowhere.  Is the phrase "that ye might be filled with
all the fullness of God" in its " most-obvious sense,"
"the fullness of the Godhfead'"? Certainly not. The
former must mean the fullness of which God is the
author, and which he imparts to his people; the latter, the fullness of his own essence. The immediate
context of words and phrases is the place to look
for the "most obvious sense" of a passage. The
basis, therefore, of this rule, is simply the assumption
of a parallelism between those passages, which support the divinity of Christ, and others containing
similar words and phrases, whose context shows that
no such parallelism exists.
If the Bible be the work of inspiration, if all its
parts have the common impress of a Divine origin,
nothing can be clearer than this, we must adopt that
faith in which all its revealed facts shall harmonize.
Upon the admission of the Godhead of our Redeemer, every passage respecting his person and his
Twrork is beautifully consistent with the whole; but
if this-be denied, then before any thing like consistency can be seen, we must take all the texts specifying the most glorious names, titles, attributes,.works,
and worship of the Deity, that are applied to Christ,




W1A52    SUPIREME GODIIEAD OF CHRIST.
and subject them  to the operation of a rule, -by
which they must be MODIFIED, RESTRAINED, and
TURNED FROM THEIR MOST OBVIOUS MEANING!!!
W'hat an admission! What desolation and destruction does this carry over the whole field of divine
truth! iWVas there ever such a rule of exegesis as
thlis, by which the Holy Oracles are made to bend
to the preconceived opinions of men? What rule
could better subserve the interest of the Papacy and
of Deism? Let it be carried out, and we shall soon
get rid of the Bible altogether, for it lays the groundwork for a DENIAL OF ALL REVELATION. To systems of faith, as well as to men, the words of Christ
apply in all their force: "' Wherefore, by their fruits
shall ye know them."
The scheme that ignores the doctrine of the Supreme Godhead of Christ, denies also other vital
doctrines of the Christian system, namely, atonement
and satisfaction by Christ, the total' depravity of
our nature, regeneration, and justification by grace.
On the other hand, it apologizes for human depravity, it makes good works the ground of deliver-,ance from wrath, and'of the enjoyment of heaven.
It exhibits Christ as a man who came only to set us an
example of virtue, by the imitation of which, we worh
our passage to a happy immortality. It denies the
doctrine of endless punishment, holding that "no
act of a finite being, a frail, sinning child of dust can
possess a character of infinity, or merit an infinite
punishment." According to it, the moral quality




SUPREMEl GODHEAI) OF CHRIST.       153
of sin can not lead to infinitely disastrous results,
notwithstanding the Bible says: "M{any of them that
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt."  The wicked "shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal."  "Is not thy wickedness great? and thy iniquities infinite?"
Unitarians deride the sentiment, that the finite act
of finite man, can originate infinite evil; but this
question (see Job. 22: 3) strongly implies the affirmative. The history of our race proves that such is
the fact. If God should please, there is nothing in
the nature of things to prevent the continuance of
our world and our race as they now are, ad infiniturn. He made man pure and perfect.  "By one
man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so
death has passed upon all, FOR that all have sinned."
Whatever may be the explanation, here is taught
(Rom. 5: 12) a causal connection between the first
sin and all human depravity;- but this depravity,
undeviating in its tendency, has run on for nearly
six thousand years, and at this day its resultant evils
are more numerous than ever. Hence sin is an infinite evil, because it has a self-perpetuating power.
And as change of location can not produce change
of character, the sinner, dying impenitent, goes on
to sin for ever; and if the operation of the law of
our being be the same in the next world as in this,
and for aught we know it is, then and there it will
7*




151      SUPRE)ME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
beget progressive intensity of woe. Neither God,
nor himself, nor any hallowing influence, will ever
change his moral character; for Christ said to the
Jews, " Ye shall die in your sins, and where I am
ye can not come."  Hence as the evil, per se, perpetuates itself, it must also perpetuate the moral relations of the lost in "everlasting punishment," and is
therefore an infinite evil.
Unitarianism repudiates these doctrines, but if
we are able to understand the meaning of language, all these doctrines denied, are the very ones
to which the greatest prominence is given. The
doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ pervades the whole Bible, and if this be stricken out,
its value to us as sinners is nothing; for then
the sentence stands out in horrible distinctness:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."  " Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things that is
written in the book of the law, to do them." The
question, then, must for ever remain unanswered,
"How shall man be just with God?" and the appalling assurance must be to us the pledge of unutterable despair, "Except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall, in NO CASE, enter the kingdom of heaven."
If the righteousness of our exalted Redeemer can
not avail for the covering of human guilt, who dare,
after a life of the fairest earthly fame is spent, and
the applause of the world be the tablet of his epitaph, who dare stand upon his own merits before




SUPREAIE GODHEAD OF CHRIST.       155
his final Judge? Talk not of repentance, tears of
blood can never obliterate the stains of moral guilt.
Sorrow for sin can never purchase exemption from
suffering for sin. Mercy can never be shown until
justice be satisfied. Therefore, the death of Christ
must avail in reconciling these attributes of an immutable God, for the extension of relief. Because
Christ was " made sin for us, who knew no sin, that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him,"
Paul could argue with a" therefore," that there is
no condemnation to the believer. If this be not the
scheme of divine love, whose convergent focal rays
consumed every doubt in his heart, and lighted a
flame of rapturous joy within him, under the influence of whose glow he indited his eighth chapter to
the Romans, he reasoned most absurdly.  "Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?  It
is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?
It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again,
who is even at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession FOR us." These are passages
that fill us with all the animations of hope, but if
there be no positive connection between the "blood
of the Lamb" and the redemption of the soul, our
hope is extinguished, our despair is begun. If we
must turn away from the doctrine of Christ's righteousness as the procuring cause of salvation, to the
cheerless hope of an unassured acceptance in the
face of a broken law unredressed, what can that promise us but the bitterness of disappointment?  No,




15G,SUPRIIEMIE GODHIEAD OF CIIRIST.
reader, if we are ever saved, it must be by the embrace of this truth, " The blood of Jesus C/hrist cleanseth from all sin."  (1 John 1: 1.)  And when all
earthly ties are broken, and we are launched away
from time, our characters must have been moulded
by the operation of this truth, if when on tile billows
of Jordan, our hope, like Noah's dove sent forth,
shall bring us back the olive-branch of peace.
Our personal salvation depends upon our reliance,
on Christ, as the God-Man Mediator.  " Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him."  " Ie gave himself FOR us that he
might redeem  us from  all iniquity."   "We are
redeemed, not with corruptible things, but with the
precious blood of Christ." The song of heaven is
this, " Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood."
Now, if the means of our acceptance with God, be
the merits of Christ, and if his people be bought by
his'blood, it is perfectly plain that if we reject him
as he is set forth in these quotations, we must be
undone for ever.'" Therefore, we ought to give the
more earnest heed to the things which we have
heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and
every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we
neglect so great salvation."




SUPIREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         157
CHAPTER X.
CONCLUSION.
Socinianism dangerous-Our view of atonement proved right-Grand
means of salvation-"' What must I do to be saved? " unansweredBrief address to those who deny the Divinity of our Lord.
IN the foregoing pages, we have not said all that
might be said to prove the Divinity of our glorious
Redeemer; but we think we have said enough to
show, that the denial of this doctrine is attended
with serious difficulties, and followed by alarming
consequences.  We hope nothing has escaped our
pen harshly written, for while we do hold Socinianism to be a most dangerous perversion of the Gospel,
we are conscious of nought but an earnest desire that
they who are misled by it, may be brought to weigh
it in the balance of Bible-truth. We think the Deity
and atonement of Christ are so explicitly laid down
in Scripture, that nothing but a desire to maintain a
party, could determine -any mind to do violence to
the word of God, in order to evade their admission.
If it be necessary, in the interpretation of those passages that clearly prove these doctrines, to "modify,
and restrain, and turn from  their obvious sense,"




158      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
the words of the Holy Ghost, what reliance can be
placed upon the Bible at all? If the licentiousness
of criticism be allowed to change the meaning of
words and phrases, does not this at once carry ruin
to our Rule of Faith? Does not the system which
avows such a principle, betray itself as the perversion of the Gospel?
If God's love was manifested simply in the gift of
a man, whose duty was to inform us that He will
save on our repentance; and to present us an example which we must follow; what higher exhibition of love did He give in this bestowment, than in
sending that " cloud of witnesses" Paul mentions,
whose virtues and patience in suffering, taught precisely the same lesson, and were designed for the
same effect? By such a view of the transcendent
love of God, we think this text, and others of like
import, denuded of their peculiar preciousness, and
made to convey an impoverished sense, wholly unworthy of their language, and far below their obvious import. The sufferings of Christ, are held up
as the great attractions of the Cross; and the atonement for sin which they effected, thus delivering
from a righteous condemnation all those who by
faith repose in Him for victory over sin, death, and
hell, is made the great theme of the New Testament.
" He appeared to'put away sin by the sacrifice of him:self."  " Who his own self bare our sins in his own
body on the tree."  "For Christ also hath, once suffered
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to




SUPREME GODIItAD OF CHRIST.        159
God."  "Blotting ozut the handwriting of ordinances
which was against us, nailing it to his cross."  These
texts, beyond a doubt, teach the doctrine of vicarious
suffering. If not, what do they teach? If they do,
then what can engage my soul more than a view of
Christ sustaining the pains of death, that my salvation might be attainable?  What can so melt down
my hardness as a view of the Royal Sufferer laying
down his life to save me from the curse of the law?
But if he died as the mere victim of human violence,
if there were no more virtue in his blood than in the
blood of a martyr, how are these texts to be vindicated frmn falsehood and deception?
The Gospel presents the atonement of Christ as the
broad basis of our hope, and the grand means of salvation. Hence Paul says: " I endure all things for
the elect's sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal life."  But
if Jesus did nothing for our salvation, but preach a
future state, establish right principles of conduct,
and present a holy example for our imitation, we
ask how is salvation in him more than in any other
man who did the same things?
By the scheme which strips Christ of his Godhead, the whole Bible, we think, is stripped of its
interest to us as sinners; for, if he be only a creature, it is impossible to receive the doctrine of
atonement by satisfaction.  The declaration that
God will by no means clear the guilty, stands out in
fearful prominence, and when we turn to the fruits




160      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
Of our own defective obedience, as the reasons for
our acceptance with God, we are met with the assurance, " By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
j-sthfied in his sight."  This text, and many others,
imply that we MUST BE JUSTIFIED from the guilt of
sin, that is, constituted just before God. But if this
can not be done, either by the righteousness of Christ
imputed to us, or by our own works, then the question remains unsolved by Unitarian Christianity,
" VWhat must I do to be saved?" If we be told, we
must " believe on Christ," we ask what is there peculiar in him upon which our faith can fasten? WHY
is this direction given? What connection is there
between an act of simple intelligence, and the salvation of the soul?  We can see none. But viewing
Christ as our "Passover slain for us," we have an
important reason to offer, why he is to us " the chief
among ten thousand," and worthy of all our love.
We regard him as our "SURETY," " Wlzom God hat]h
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his bloodthat He might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." Without this Suretyship of Christ,
we believe we CAN NOT BE SAVED, and we
think this is strongly made out by Divine argument.
We hope it may be taken kindly, by those of our
readers who deny the doctrine advocated in the foregoing pages, if we briefly lay before them the consequences, which we think inevitably follow the adoption of Socinian sentiments. We think this our
duty, and it is difficult to discharge it faithfully, be



SUPREME GODI-EAD OF CIIRIST.       161
cause it is no easy matter to convince an opponent
of honest purpose and sincere friendship manifested
in  an attempt to  overthrow  his principles, to
expose to himself his errors, and delineate their
results. He thinks thereby either his intellect or
his heart, or both, are really impeached by such an attempt, and therefore is apt to retire within the strongest fortress of prejudice. WVe therefore protest in the
outset, against any imputation of this kind; we profess and possess honesty of purpose, and sincerity of
friendship, in our most earnest entreaty to be impartially and candidly heard. Men of great minds and
generous impulses, have professed the distinguishing
doctrine of Unitarianism; but he has much yet to
learn of human nature, who supposes that in the
matter of religion, especially, greatness of intellect
or amiableness of disposition, will guard the soul from
delusion, or save from the fatal effect of deplorable
mistake.
Confessedly, you who deny and we who hold to
the divinity of Christ may be equally sincere, and
therefore may debate this question without calling
down fire from heaven on each other. WVe have
staked our all upon the respective systems herein
presented, each claiming to be the truth relative to
the most important point in Christian theology —
most important, not only in itself, but because of
the vital doctrines which stand or fall with it-most
important because our characters in the estimation
of our Judge are good or bad in his sight, according




162       SUPREIME GODHEAD OF CIIRIST.
to the fitith that forms them. Social virtues can
never take the place of religious ones in this or any
other respect. The morality prescribed in the second
table of the law can not compensate for the want of
the morality prescribed by the first. Jilan looketh
upon the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon
thie heart.  As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Ile that believethl on the Son hath everlasting life; and
he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him.  These words of Scripture show the falsity of a favorite sentiment often in
the mouths of men: " He can not be wrong, whose
life is in the right.".Were the mere interests of sect or theory alone
involved in the previous discussion, we should not
have taxed your attention with what we have written. But far beyond this, the SALVATION OF THE
SOUL is the great matter involved. Upon no question ought we to expend more serious and anxious
thought than this, WThat shall it profit a man, if lihe
gain the whole world and lose his own soul?  What is
meant by losing the soul, is plain from the words
of Scripture, or there is nothing plain under the sun.
Thle wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations
thatforget God. This is a clear threatening of banishment from  Him.  To make "Hell" here, to mean
the grave or the invisible state of the dead, is absurd; because the good shall be turned into both.
Christ has given us the meaning awe must attach to
this phrase.




SUPREME GODIIEAD OF CHRIST.              163
Mat. 10: 33.-Fear not them which KILL the BODY, but are not
able to kidll the soul; but rather fear him who is able to DESTROY
both/ SOUL and body n. IIELL. 25 46.- These shall go away intoEVERLASTING PUNISHMENT, but the righteous into LIFE ETERNAL.
Now, supposing we are mistaken as to the meaning
of these and similar passages, and that in the end, it
shall turn out that we have been providing against
dangers that have no existence.  What then?  Shall
we be worse off for this? Upon your own principles, we shall not.  It shall be well with us, and
it shall appear even in the case of perfidious Judas,
that it is belter for him that he was born, notwithstanding the high authority that decided otherwise.
But upon the supposition that you are mistaken,
in the interpretation of these passages in your denial of endless banishment from  God, what then?
Christ said: If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die
its your sins, and where I am  ye can not come.  This
is plain.  He who dies in his sins, dies unforgiven,
unredeemed, unpurified, and enters the future world
precisely in the same character with which he left
this. What then?
Rev. 21: 27.-And there shall in no wise enter into it (heaven)
any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or
makceth a lie.
Now, if we do not resort to Dr. Channing's rule
for twisting texts, it certainly appears that the bulk
of probabilities is in favor of our interpretation, and
that the mass of argument is against that of the Universalist and the Unitarian.  If we are mistaken, it is




164      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
of little consequence; but if you are mistaken, the
consequences are awful. If Christ be God, those who
reject his divinity and expiatory sacrifice, can never
come where he is, and this consideration is our apology for our plain speaking.  We have studied both
sides of this controversy, and we think it our imperative duty to state, what we think we have proved, the
trztth. Faith has a controlling agency in the formation of Christian character; for the want of a certain
kind of faith, is THE reason for the assurance given,'where I am ye can not come. If our premises and
conclusions be incorrect, it is of little'consequence;
but if they are, as we hold them, true-then we
think the whole matter is summed up in this syllogism:
Whoever finally rejects any of the claims of
Christ, can never be where he is.
But Supreme Divinity is a claim of Christ; therefore
Whoever finally rejects the Supreme Divinity of
Christ, can never be where he is.
This is the great claim He made, and in the support
of which he died. If Christ be not God, it is impossible to accept the doctrines of " Orthodoxy;" therefore, the distinctive formative faith just spoken of,
depends upon this leading' claim of our Redeemer.
WVe wish to state painful truth, without exciting prejudice, and without giving offense.  The interest
involved is too great to allow us to be deterred, by
any apprehension of what they may say, whose first




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         165
interest is to uphold a system. And we can not
apologize for the solemn truth stated by Christ
himself.
The possibility of any ground for this argument,
commends it to earnest attention. The proofs of
Christ's divine nature we have given. We think
they can not be met by proofs of his human nature,
about which there is no dispute. It appears evident,
that Unitarians must fairly get rid of the dilemmas in
which they are placed, before they can consistently
denounce us as uncharitable, for framing the syllogism we present for your consideration.  The major
is based upon the strong declaration of Christ; the
mninor is based upon the general argument of this
book, whose particulars, with their consequences, we
have carefully studied, and confidently submit. The
conclusion is based upon reason, of which it has often
been said we are sadly deficient.
This tremendous consequence, therefore, should
lead us to banish every extraneous question, every
"side-issue," and settle it with ourselves whether it
be wise, safe, or even generous towards our own
souls, to neglect or reject this doctrine for which we
contend, on the ground of alleged " intrinsic impossibility"-an a priori assertion, which may be confronted with the declaration of Paul: ~/Je wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God.
Now, then, to what does the denial of the Divinity
of Christ lead?
1. It leads to a degradation of the Scriptures. S~re




166      SUPREME GO1EiEAD OF CHRIST.
have given extracts from the book of a convert from
"Orthodoxy," entitled, "How I became a Unitarian."
They are sufficiently startling, and show How. IHe
began by degrading the word of God, before he
could extort its aid in degrading the Son of God.
IIe says, (p. 36:) " That the apostles were not men
of an infallible judgment," (referring to what he is
pleased to suppose their mistake as to the Lord's
second coming,) " and that they could be mistaken
upon a subject of the most engrossing interest to
themselves and to the age in which they lived."
And to show this, he exhibits Peter, "as possibly
distrusting his own interpretation of the event,
ingeniously qualifying the prediction, by saying that'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years!'"
Speaking of the character of Jesus, he says, (p. 104:)
"It is only in a moral aspect that this character
preserves, to our view of it, its beautiful consistency
and striking heroism. And yet would this be sadly
broken and disfigured, if we admitted much to be
true that the Evangelists said of him. But this we
can not do" i! i Once men get to this point, it is easy
for them to answer every hard argument by denying
the capacity or the inspiration of the sacred writers,
or by adopting Dr. Channing's rule of " turning texts
from their most obvious meaning." WVhen we follow
such guides, it is a great kindness if Providence
send a voice to whisper in our ears, i Beware of the
ditch!"
2. It leads to a denial of vicarious atonement by




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.            167
the blood of Christ. WVe have quoted i few passages
which corroborate that emphatic one, " Who his own
sef/ bare our sins in his own, body on the tree;" and we
might fill pages with extracts from the Scriptures to
the same purpose. Now, if Christ be not God,
Unitarians are quite consistent in rejecting the atonement, because it is absurd to suppose, that the most
perfect man that ever lived could " by any means
redeem his brother" from the power of sin, or from.
the curse of the law.  But we are told, without the
shedding of blood there is no remission.  T/le blood of
Jesus Christ cleanseth from  all sin.  Ie made peace
through the blood of his cross.  The blood of Christ shall
purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the livingy God.  The song of the redeemed is: Unto him,
that loved uts, and washed us friom our sins in his owEn
blood.  Thou art worthy to take the book, etd.-for thou
woast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood
oust Of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.
These and many more texts make the doctrine of
vicarious suffering as plain as words can make it.
There is salvation in no other way to any man who
rejects it. (Acts 4: 12; 1 Cor. 15: 3; Eph. 2: 141I; 1 Pet. 4: 1; IIeb. 2: 2, 3.) This is clear, from
what Paul says, (Rora. 5: 8, 9, 11:) But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet
sinners Christ died foir'ts.  Mfuch more then being now
justified by his blood, we shall be saved friom wrath
through him-by whom we have received the atonement.
In opposition to this, the author last quoted says,




168      SUPREME GODIIHEAD OF CHRIST.
(p. 116:) " No theological fiction can save him (the
sinner) from the moral stain with which his sin taints
him, and the only atonement" (italics our own) "he
can make to the moral law, is to wash it out with
his tears (!) Then God can forgive as well without
as with the merits of another."  We really believe
that no fiction can save any body from any thing;
certainly not from being tainted with a moral stain!
Nor do we think that any such washing is required
by God, or competent to man, because impossible in
the nature of things. Further, we think that "the
only atonement" here allowed, upon which God can
forgive, is no atonement at all, nor can all the tears
ever shed, cancel moral guilt. Man can make no
atonement for his sin of any kind. Hie may receive
atonement by Christ, but nowhere in the New Testament is he required to make atonement, simply
because it is out of his power. (Jer. 2: 22.) For
though'thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much
soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the
Lord God.
Seeking salvation by the merit of Christ, he says,
(p. 117,) "would indict the believer as seeking the
appropriation to himself of another's virtues under' false pretenses.'" A very extraordinary indictment,
indeed! We can very well understand how one may
appropriate to himself the benefits of another's virtue,
as in the case of suretyship; but " to seek to appropriate another's virtue under false pretenses," is a
most remarkable seeking! While these rare speci



SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.         169
mens, not of "English pure and undefiled," but of
the author's strong views of things in a new light, are
impartially compared with the Apostle's words, it
seems to us, conviction must flash upon the candid
mind, that Unitarianism, as it is called, is a perversion
of the Gospel, which goes to subvert a man in the
cause of his own salvation. If the Bible be true, it
can not be otherwise; for our tears and our doings,
it is asserted, will gain more for us than the blood and
righteousness of Christ! But He has taught in language that admits of no mistake, and which should
make Unitarians tremble, because, by their own
showing, it was spoken of Unitarians: Except your
righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in NO CASE enter thbe kizngdo20m J'
heaven.
We are frequently  reminded  that the Jews
were all Unitarians. The men alluded to by our
Saviour in the last quotation, stoned him because he
made himself equal with God, saying that God was
his own Father.  They were therefore zealous Unitarians, rejecting the sacrifice of Christ as the procuring cause of reconciliation with God, and contending
for salvation by works. Indeed, aside from their
national customs, they were, as to faith, very little
different from Unitarians of the present day, than
whom, however, they were far more consistent;
because, rejecting the claim to divinity which Christ
made, they took him to be a very bad man, on that
account; and the more dangerous, because of unim8




170      SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.
peachable character, thereby beguiling the common
people, who, not seeing his ulterior aim, took him to
be a good man, and, if we may judge from numerous
examples, regarded and worshipped him as divine.
Now, if Christ could thus affirm of the zealous Unitarians who crucified him, what shall be said differently of those of the present day, whose religious
faith and dependence were in all respects the same
as theirs, but without the advantage of their consistelcy? It seems very plain, then, that Unitarian righteousness shall in NO CASE procure admission into
heaven. Unless Christ be made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, there
is nothing left to us but a fearful looking for of wrath.
God hath mnade him sin for us, who knew no sin; that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Because your salvation entirely depends upon the
satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, which the
Unitarian system repudiates, we say to you, Beware
of Unitarianism. It will wrap your soul in the
winding-sheet of the second death. Say not, this is
uncharitable. It is the very reverse. For if it be an
act of kindness to drag a man in sweet repose, from
his bed, around which the flame is curling; if it be
kindness to probe the agonizing victim of disease, to
save his life; then it is kindness to cry aloud and
spare not, lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect,
in the estimation of men taught to regard Him, simply
for example's sake, as the sublime hero of a tragic
tale.




SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST.                   171
It is our hope, dear reader, that our company has
not been unprofitable. If you have been benefited,
we are satisfied; but before we part, in view of what
Christ has done for us, let us join in saying:
" TO THE ONLY WISE GOD OUR SAVIOUR
BE GLORY AND MAJESTY, DOMINION AND
POWER, BOTH NOW AND EVER. AMEN."
DEAR dying Lamb, thy precious blood
Shall never lose its power,
Till all the ransomed Church of God
Be saved to sin no more.
E'er since by faith, I saw the stream
Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.
Then in a nobler, sweeter song,
I'll sing thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue
Lies silent in the grave.
Lord, I believe thou hast prepared,
Unworthy though I be,
For me a blood-bought free reward,
A golden harp for me t




172         SUPREME GODHEAD  OF CHRIST.'Tis strung, and tuned, for endless years,
And formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father's ears
No other name but thine.
COWPER.




A P P E N D I X.
IN his controversy with Dr. Priestley, Bishop Ijorsley gave
the substance of the following letter, to show how easily Mohammedanism and the scheme of Dr. P. might be made to amalgamate. This letter was written more than a century before, and
although by his own showing its sentiments were his own, Dr. P.
roundly denied its authenticity; whereupon the Bishop had recourse to the original document, which he found in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, written in a very fair hand, with
two other papers on the same subject; and'he thus writes: "I
do most solemnly aver that I have this day, Jan. 15, 1789, compared the letter to Ameth Ben Ameth, as published by Dr. Leslie
in his Socinian Controversy Discussed, with the manuscript in the
Archbishop's Library, and find that the printed copy, with the
exception of some trivial typographical errors, is exactly conformable to the manuscript, without the omission or addition of
a single word."*
This letter was rejected by the Mussulman without examination; thus it came to be preserved in the said Library. We
transfer it from Leslie's. works, now scarce, as a theological curi* Horsley's Tracts, p,. 2T0.




174                     APPENDIX.
osity, mainly interesting oh account of the practical tendencies
and exegetical manifestation of the system it advocates-a system in no respects altered since the fraternal overture was made
to the followers of the False Prophet.
AN EPISMLE DEDICATORY TO HIS ILLUSTRIOUS EXCELLENCY
AMETH BEN AMETH,
Embassador of the mighty Emlperor of Fez and Morocco, to Charles II.,
king of Great Britain.
Amongst the many splendid entertainments and receptions, amidst
the several congratulatory encomiums and presents, that were offered
unto your excellency, as public testimonies of the esteem and admir-!
ation the inhabitants of this Western Empire do justly conceive of
the mighty and glorious Emperor of Morocco, your master, and of
your own peculiar virtues, there hath been no such address or present made unto your excellency, none, as we presume, that was of
a weightier importance (though slenderer appearance) than this
which we now submit to your liking and acceptance at your departure. For the contents thereof, being about the mysteries of that
all-sufficient and invisible one Deity, its own intrinsic value needs no
words, nor the usual adornments that might be expected from us, to
set it out with an outward splendor to so discerning a person in
spiritual and sublime matters as your excellency is known to be,
even in the judgment of learned universities. Besides, truth in these
countries is fain to go sometimes, like princes, in a disguise, who,
being out of their own kingdoms, are driven to put by their royal
habiliments, for to converse with more safety and freedom with a
few wise and faithful worthies they can best trust. Religion, then,
excellent sir, the religion of an one only Godhead, (as also of many
Ather great verities wherein ye agree with our sect, and disagree




APPENDIX.                        175
from other Christians,) is the veiled princess, whereof we are now
become the venturesome ushers into your excellency's presence; I
said venturesome, not by reason of any affront we need fear at your
hands, but rather from the rash severity of some of our own fellowChristians here, for venting those verities we shall declare to hold in
common with you, (which are contrary to them;) yet Christ's and our
spirit is otherwise, to essay by gentle persuasions and union with all
mankind, as far as may be.
Know, therefore, noble sir, that we are of that sect of Christians
that are called Unitarians, who, first of all, do, both in our own
names and in that of a multitude of our persuasion, (a wise and religious sort of people,) heartily salute and congratulate your excellency, and all that are with you, as votaries and fellow-worshippers
of that sole supreme Deity of the Almighty Father and Creator. And
we greatly rejoice, and thank his divine bounty, that hath preserved
your Emperor and his people in the excellent knowledge of that
truth, touching the belief of an only Sovereign God, (who hath no
distinction or plurality of persons,) and in many other wholesome
doctrines wherein ye persevere, about which this, our western port
of the world, are declined into several errors, from the integrity of
their predecessors. But besides this much in the general, our attendanoe on your excellency at this time hath a more special prospect,
as you shall perceive by the sequel. For about thirty or more years,
there came an embassador, as your excellency is, from the Emperor
of Morocco, into Europe, with whom Count Maurice, of Nassau,
Prince of Orange, (a Protestant Christian,) and the Prince of Portugal, (a Papal Christian,) held a conference about the Christian and
Mohammedan religion. The embassador deferred then to speak fully
his mind on the matter till after his return home; and when he had
there consulted with the learned in the Alcoran, he sends his answer
in a letter which not only sets forth the tenets of his own religion,
but also refutes some errors held among the Protestant and Romanist




1lG7                     APPENDIX.
Christians. in some of which, as in other points, we presume, that
embassador was mistaken and misinstructed. Now we herewith
present unto your excellency a faithful transcript of that letter, that's
with difficulty to be seen, only in the cabinets of those princes to
whom it was directed in Latin; not that we' account the contents
thereof to be a novelty to you that are of that religion, but because
it is a piece of rarity and learning; and chiefly for that it is the foundation on which we build another small piece or two in the same language; the which we here dedicate likewise unto your Emperor, to
your excellency, and to his M1auritanian subjects, the wlhich comprehends the main design of our waiting on you at present. Now, forasmuch as that noble embassador doth in this letter write some
things which to us seem very ungrounded, and therein charges without sufficient distinction the whole body of Christians with such
errors which we Unitarians do abher as well as the Mohammedans,
with whom we znust agree in such, even against our other fellowChristians; therefore we that are fain to be more exercised soldiers
in such controverted points of religion, and should best know the
differences in Europe about the same, shall undertake in this, our
second and third treatise, (which are but as observations on that
letter,) first, to set forth, (for your better information,) briefly and
distinctly, in what points all Christians do generally agree with the
1fohammedans in matters of religion; secondly, in what things
Christians universally disagree from you, with the reasons for the
same; thirdly, in what cases you do justly dissent from the Roman
Catholics; fourthly, that Protestant Christians do join with you in
your condemning of those Romish errors, and theirs and our reasons
for the same; fifthly, we intend there to lay down in what articles
we, the Unitarian Christians, (of all others,) do solely concur with you
2iohammedans, (to which we draw nigher in those important points
than all other Protestant or Papal Christians.) With our additional
arguments to yours, to prove that both we and you have unavoidable




APPENDIX.                        177
grounds, from Scripture and reason, to dissent from other Christians
in such verities, (though -we do count them otherwise,) our brethren
in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, in the sixth place, we, as your nearest fellow-champions
for those truths; we, who, with our Unitarian brethren, were in all
ages exercised to defend with our pens the faith of one Supreme God,
(without personalities or pluralities,) as he hath raise&dyour Mohammed
to do the same with the sword, as a scourge on those idolizing Christians; we, I say, in this, our peculiar lot in religious controversies,
shall, in our duty of love, undertake to discover unto you, in these
our books, those weak places that are found in the platform of your
religion, and shall herein (with your favor) offer to your consideration
some materials to repair them; for we do (for the vindication of your
Law-Maker's glory) strive to prove that such faults and irregularities,
not coheriny with the fashion of the rest of the Alcoran building, nor
with the undoubted sayings of your prophet, nor with the Gospel of
Christ, (whereof Mohammed would have himself to be but a preacher,)
that therefore (I say) those contradictions were foisted into the scattered papers found after Mohaummed's death, of which, in truth, the
Akcoran was made up, it being otherwise impossible that a man of
that judgment, that hath proved itself in other things so conspicuously, should be guilty of so many and frequent repugnancies as are
to be seen in those writings and laws that are now a days given
out under his name. We do, then, in these our papers endeavor to
clear by whom, and in what time, such alterations were made in the
first setting-out of the Alcoran; and though we have ten times more
to urge on the same subject than we present, yet by a few summary
touches that we have here in a few days made up for your view, we
suppose there may be enough to satisfy any unprejudiced and thinking persons. Such as it is, we beseech you to accept thereof as
friendly advices left to your reason and conscience to judge of with
yourselves, seeing we offer not the same as to defame or upbraid
8*




178                     APPENDIX.
you, but out of humanity and a loving spirit, to the end that, if you
think fit to examine and redress those errors, we may by your proceedings stop the mouths of your adversaries, against whom we are
often fain to stand for you in such points wherein we may well and
reasonably do it. Lest, after all, your excellency should judge of
this our undertaking and present in a narrow and contracted idea,
suitable to the slenderness of our persons, parts, or retinue, who are
but two single philosophers,* and yet come as orators of those Unitarians whom we proclaimed to be so great and considerable a people, it is necessary we should give a short view of the antiquity and
extent of this noble sect, and hint to you the reasons that make
them in these European parts use such cautiousness, and as to their
sentiments to carry themselves, as those princes I mentioned, to go
incognito.
As to their antiquity, I need but call it to your mind that not only
all the patriarchs down from Adam till Moses, not only all the Jews
under the written Law and the Old Testament, to this very day,
were still worshippers of an one only God, (without a trinity of persons,) but that also all the primitive Christians, in and after Christ
and his apostles' time, never owned any other besides that single and
Supreme Deity; and all the true and purest Christians, their lawful
disciples, do to this very day worship no other but the sole Sovereign
God, the Father and Maker of all things. And therefore are we
called Unitarians, as worshippers of that one only Godhead in essence and person, that we may be distinguished from those backsliding Christians named Trinitarians, who own three coequal and
self-subsisting Persons, whereof every one is an absolute and infinite
God, (as they pretend;) and yet they'll have all these three to be
* The agent of the Socinians who bore this letter was Monsieur Verze. As
they would have expurgated the Koran, so they have the New Testament; and
all traces of the divinity of our Saviour are expunged in their Improved Version.
This was easily done by the aid of Criticism, and of Dr. Channing's rule.




APPENDIX.                        179
but one God, which is such a contradicting absurdity, that certainly
our wise Maker and Lawgiver would never impose it to be believed
upon that harmonious and relative rectitude he hath placed in the
reason of man. But of the first who opposed this rising error in old
times was Paul of Samosate, a zealous and learned Bishop of Antioch,
with his people and adherents; he lived sixty years before the Council of Nice, that was held on this subject about three hundred years
after the ascension of Christ #our Lord. There was also Marcellus,
Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, with his friends and followers; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, and Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, with
many more that lived in the time of that Council, did openly withstand and refute the Trinitarian schism, as we see in the chronicles
of that age. I omit Photinus, Bishop of Syrmium, and the famous
Nestorius, with many more persecuted persons for the same truth,
who, though they had some nominal differency about the two curious
expositions of those mysteries, yet they agreed in that main point
of the undistinguished sovereign unity. And from the reign of the
Emperor Constantine, both the oriental and occidental Empire generally persisted for some hundred years in that same faith, resisting'those contradictory opinions of the Trinitarians. Even in the declinling times of Christianity, occasioned by the growth, or the tyrannical
usurpation, of the popes and clerg~, who would force their private
notions and human inventions on men's consciences; that is, in the
reign of the Emperor Charles the Great, about the year 800, Bonosius
and Elipandus, with other bishops and Christians in Spain, unanimously opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. And of late years, in
Europe, stood up the pious and noble personage Faustus Socinus,
and his Polonian association of learned personages, that writ many
volumes against that and other sprung-up errors among Christians.
But now, to lay before your excellency the extent of this orthodox
faith of the Unitarian Christians, in what nations is it held, be pleased
to observe that all the Christians throughout Persia, Armenia, Meso



180                      APPE-N:DIX.
potamia, those called of St. Thomas, and some Hollanders, and Portugese in Asia, those that live among the Greeks in Europe, even your
neighboring Christians in Nubia-all those together (which far exceed the Trinity-asserting Christians) do maintain with us that faith
of one Sovereign God, one only in person and essence.* And why
should I forget to add you lMohammedans, who also consent with us in
the belief and worship of an one only Supreme Deity? To whom be
glory for ever. Amen.
But in the west and north of Europe we are not so numerous, by
reason of the inhumanity of the clergy, who, contrary to the gentle
ways of Christ, would convince us and others, but by fire, and thunder, and gaols, and swords of princes, though our patient carriage
and brotherly love towards them for their precious truths we still
hold in common, might evidence to them of what sort of spirit both
they and we are. Yet our people are numerous in Poland, in Hungary, Holland as well as England; but being under the threats of
such un-Christian persecutors, (which hath been, in the wisdom of
God, the lot of all true Christians from the beginning, for to try, exercise, and fortify their knowledge and virtue by the opposition of
their adversaries,) we can not open ourselves, nor argue touching our
faith, but that even our nearest friends that are Trinitarians, out of
a mistaken zeal, would be the first to deliver us up to bishops' courts,
prisons, and inquisitions, to the endangering both ourlives and fortunes.
That is the sad reason that we have not hitherto waited in greater
numbers to congratulate and welcome your excellency, nor can at this
present in such a manner as we well judge to be suitable to your
grandeur, and the respect we bear to your prince and people, for any
share of divine truth you or any other do hold entire with us from
our God and from our Saviour Christ.
Countenance, therefore, this philosophical plainness and freedom,
(that's part of our profession,) which embolden us two to be more
* Bishop Horsley bas sufficiently invalidated these claims.




APPENDIX.                       181
forward than others of our persuasion to offer to you, rather than
fail, even a mess of our own trade, such slight presents in appearance as those little books are, whose contents, nevertheless, we think
so important for the good of your souls that we would be ready (if
acceptable) to go and assert the'contents thereof to the learned of
your country, had we any prospect of success, while we are uncertain
what entertainment attends such as would object any thing against
your Alcoran, be it never so modestly and lovingly proposed.
Therefore, since we can not now in person, be pleased, noble sir,
to communicate the import of these manuscripts to the consideration
of the fittest persons of your countrymen, only as a scantling of what
the more learned of our Unitarian brethren could say, far beyond any
thing that's here on these subjects of our differences. And lest you
might think it too mean an office to be instrumental in spreading any
such divine verity, consider, if it be so great a matter to perform the
part of an embassador among earthly princes, (which your excellency
hath so laudably done of late,) how far more glorious is it to undertake the least embassy in the cause and religion of the Supreme
Monarch of the world?  To whom be glory and dominion for ever.
Amen.








I N D E X.
PAGE
Absurdum, Reductio ad,.....  9
Absurdities,..       58, 72, 96, 81, 83, 106, 109, 120
Abyss, the name of,...... 52
Acquittal of Christ, Pilate's,....    125
Alexandrine MS.,..... 55
Alternative as to Christ,....    39, 46, 132
t"     "  Matthew,....         27
"      "  Mark,.....     32
4"  "  John,.                                28, 30, 38, 40
"  Paul,...      28, 29, 31, 35, 53
"  Stephen,....    35, 103
"  Peter,....  27, 29, 30, 31
Ameth Ben Ameth, who,....    62, 173
Anecdote,.....                    40
Apocalypse,....... 36
Appearances of God, 0. T., what,...            101
Appellatives, divine, grouped,..                             1..
Arguments, recapitulation of,...       137, 138
"     not answered,..... 138
".    Unitarian,.....    139
"   "    irrelevant,..      140, 141, 145
Article Greek, regimen of the,....      64
with " Lord," meaning of,... 54




184                         INDEX.
PAGE
Assertipns, rash,....70, 100
Atonement, Unitarian views of, false,                     168, 169
Attributes of God, incommunicable,..                86
Baptism,.. 105
Blasphemy, Christ condemned for,.                             114
Blasphemous consequence, a,..... 105
Calling on the name of Jesus, what,....    105
Channing, Dr., quoted,.                         99, 107, 156, 150
unfairness of...   147, 149, 151
his rule of Exegesis,..       67, 150, 152
Charge upon God, a Unitarian,.                         73
Charity, its meaning,.. 13
Christ, death of, cause of salvation,....    155
Christ, prudence of,.....      75, 76
"   trials of,......    111
"     "  what they prove,...   127, 128
t  before Pilate,....        123-127
"     " i the Sanhedrim,....   112-123:;  put under oath,.....    114
Christians, sect of, faith of the,.....   6
Christianity, what it teaches,....    110
Collations of Scripture,..     26-46, 87, 88, 93-95, 101-106
Consistency, requirement of,....    151
Criticism, Unitarian, on N. T. writirigs,..      21-23, 59, 166
"        "        Paul,....  47-49
Dick, Dr., quoted,....   148, 149
Dilemma, First,......  26, 74
Second,.....      75, 83
"    Third,......  86, 91
Fourth,.....      92, 97
"    Fifth,...... 99,107
"    Sixth,.....   108, 128
"    Seventh,.                                      129, 133




INDEX.                             185
PAGE
Doctrines, effect of;..... 10
"    fundamental,.....  11, 12
"    denied,...                           152-154
Epistle, Unitarian,...         174-181
Eternity, attribute of;......  87
Existence, divine, proofs of;.....  92, 93
Exposition of Rev. 1: 8,....      31, 38
t"       Rom. 9: 5....      42
c"      Phil. 2: 6-8,....      45, 46
so      Col. 2: 9,.....  48, 52
"'   1 Cor. 15: 4,..... 53
"l' 1 lTim. 3: 16,....      55
"~' John 1: 1-3, 14,.....  58
"       tIeb. 1: 1, 2,....      62
"'   Rev. 22: 6, 16,.....63
i"      Tit. 2: 13,.....      63
"       2 Pet. 1: 1,....67
c"      Jude 4,.....       68
r"      John 6: 23,...              77, 78
",        cc 10: 30-33,....       79
"  "  14: T-10,....       80, 81
"'      1 Tim.2:5,.....     142
"       John 14: 28,..... 143
"       Unitarian, of Heb. 1: 8,...      33
"4          "....  43-47, 81
I"          "      absurdity of,...     143
Formula, Jewish,....                  38
Friends, sect of,                                                    6
Fullness, what,.....50, 52
Godhead, meaning of;...                       50
Gnostics, who,.....  51
Greek Article,                                                      64




186                        INDEX.
PAGE
Hebraism, a,....      44
High Treason, charge of,.....    122
Immensity,...... 90
Immutability,...      88
Inconsistency, an,...                       59
Infinite evil of sin,.....       153, 154
Inspiration,..             19-21
I    Unitarian view of;...     23
"    of Superintendence,..... 25
Jews, Unitarians,.                                       169
Jewish Courts, when held,. 112
Koran quoted,.....   82, 109, 132
"Lord," Sept. and N. T. use of,...         64
Mediation, what it implies,...       142, 143
Messiah, meaning of;.. 129
"    divinity of,....       130, 131
"    work of;.                                    132
Method of Escape, Unitarian,....      59
Names divine, applied to Christ,                          26-40
Nature of Christ, what, (Note,).34
Objections noticed,....   134, 135
"    fallacy of; what,..                      137
Omnipotence, predicated of Christ,. 89
Omnipresence,    "         "...         89
Omniscience,     "         "..                       90
Paul, qualifications of;....      41
Pharisees silenced,.. 117
Pilate intimidated,                                         127




INDEX.                            187
PAGE
Priestly's, Dr., address to the News,...      61
t"        quoted,.....     106
Question, the great,... 162
Quibble, a,......     121
Rash assertions,......       0, 100
"Rational Christianity," an exhibit of,...      60
Reductio ad absurdum, advantage of..                   9
Responsibility for consequences,....  97, 98
Revelation, infallibility of;.....  24
Shifting ground,......     136
Sin, an infinite evil, how,....   153, 154
Socinianism, what,......        6
dangerous,...... 167
"4      perversion of the Gospel,..       159, 160
It      consequences of,....   160, 170
Socinian belief, disadvantage of;...        163, 164
" Son of God," three meanings of,...   1145-145
how the Jews understood it,.   119, 123, 126
Sophism,... 136
Superintendence, Inspiration of;....      25
Suretyship of Christ, indispensable,. 160
Syllogism, a,...                     164
Treason, charge of,. 122
Trials of Christ,.....        111-127
Trust, the dependence of, what,.. 104
Uncharitableness,......    165
Unitarianism,....... 7
Universalism,.....        6
Unitarianism degrades the Scriptures,....  50
"      leads to Deism,....      24




188                           INDEX.
PAGE
Unitarianism fatal,..                                170
Unitarian righteousness,....     176
Vicarious sufferings, proved atoning,..167
Word of God, degraded,...                 50
Worship divine, given to Christ....      99-107