« AnteriorContinuar »
which implies much more than the title of gods in the sense in which that title is applied to kings; though no one would conclude from this expression that the saints were co-essential with God.
Let us then discard reason in sacred matters, and follow the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclusively.* Accordingly, no one need expect that I should here premise a long metaphysical discussion, and introduce all that commonly received drama of the personalities in the Godhead : since it is most evident, in the first place, from numberless passages of Scripture, that there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God it and as he is called one, (inasmuch as human reason and the common language of mankind, and the Jews, the people of God, have always considered him as one person only, that is, one in a numerical sense) let us have recourse to the sacred writings in order to know who this one true and supreme God is. This knowledge ought to be derived in the first instance from the gospel, since the clearest doctrine respecting the one God must necessarily be that copious and explanatory revelation concerning him which was delivered by Christ himself to his apostles, and by the apostles to their followers. Nor is it to be supposed that the gospel would be ambiguous or obscure on this subject ; for it was not given for the purpose of promulgating new and incredible doctrines respecting the nature of God, hith
* Down, reason, then ; at least vain reasonings, down.
Sampson Agonistes, 322. † Seem I to thee sufficiently possess’d
Of happiness or not? who am alone
erto utterly unheard of by his own people, but to announce salvation to the Gentiles through Messiah the Son of God, according to the promise of the God of Abraham. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,' John i. 18. therefore consult the Son in the first place respecting God.
According to the testimony of the Son, delivered in the clearest terms, the Father is that one true God, by whom are all things. Being asked by one of the scribes, Mark xii. 28, 29, 32, which was the first commandment of all, he answered from Deut. vi. 4. the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ;' or as it is in Hebrew, · Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.' The scribe assented; there is one God, and there is none other one but he ;' and in the following verse Christ expresses his approbation of this answer. Nothing can be more clear than that it was the opinion of the scribe, as well of the other Jews, that by the unity of God is intended his oneness of person. That this God was no other than God the Father, is proved from John viii. 41, 51. “We have one Father, even God. It is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God.' iv. 21. peither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.'
Christ therefore agrees with the whole people of God, that the Father is that one and only God. For who can believe that the very first of the commandments would have been so obscure, and so ill understood by the Church through such a succession of ages, that two other
persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, forewarns them that they would have for their God the one Jehovah whom they had always served, and David, that is Christ, for their King and Lord. Jer. xxx. 9. 'they shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them.' In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or served by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and everywhere clearly asserts him to be his Father. John xvii, 3. this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' xx. 17. •I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God : ' if therefore the Father be the God of Christ, and the same be our God, and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God beside the Father.
Paul, the apostle and interpreter of Christ, teaches the same in so clear and perspicuous a manner, that one might almost imagine the inculcation of this truth to have been his sole object. No teacher of catechumens in the Church could have spoken more plainly and expressly of the one God, according to the sense in which the universal consent of mankind has agreed to understand unity of number.
1 Cor. viii. 446. we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but
for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.' Here the expression there is none other God but one,' excludes not only all other essences, but all other persons whatever ; for it is expressly said in the sixth verse, that the Father is that one God;' wherefore there is no other
person but one ; at least in that sense which is intended by divines, when they argue from John xiv. 16. that there is another God, for the sake of asserting the personality of the Holy Spirit. Again, to those
who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, God the Father, of whom are all things' is opposed singly ; he who is numerically “one God,' to 'many Gods.' Though the Son be another God, yet in this passage he is called merely Lord ;' he of whom are all things' is clearly distinguished from him by whom are all things, and if a difference of causation prove a difference of essence, he is distinguished also in essence. Besides, since a numerical difference originates in difference of essence, those who are two numerically, must be also two essentially.* There is one Lord,' namely he whom
** Res etiam singulæ, sive individua, quæ vulgo vocant, singulas sibique proprias formas habent; differunt quippe numero inter se, quod nemo non fatetur. Quid autem est aliud numero inter se, nisi singulis forinis differre ? Numerus enim, ut recte Scaliger, est affectio essentiam consequens. Quæ igitur numero, essentia quoque differunt; et nequaquam numero, nisi essentia, differrent. Evigilent hic theologi
· God the Father hath made,' Acts ii. 36. much more therefore is the Father Lord, who made him, though he be not here called Lord. For he who calls the Father one God,' also calls him one Lord above all, as Psal. cx. 1. the Lord said unto my Lord, -a passage which will be more fully discussed hereafter. He who calls Jesus Christ. one Lord,' does not call him one God, for this reason among others, that « God the Father hath made him both Lord and Christ' Acts ii. 36. Elswhere therefore he calls the Father both God and Lord of him whom he here calls 6ope Lord Jesus Christ.' Eph. i. 17. the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Cor. xi. 3. - the head of Christ is God.' xv. 28. the Son also himself shall be subject unto him.' If in truth the Father be called the Father of Christ,' if he be called the God of Christ,' if he be called the head of Christ,' if he be called the God to whom Christ described as the Lord, nay, even as the Son himself, is subject, and shall be subjected,' why should not the Father, be also the Lord of the same Lord . Christ, and the God of the same God Christ ; since Christ must also be God in the same relative manner that he is Lord and Son ? Lastly, the Father is he • of whom,' and ' from whom,' and · by whom,' and ' for whom are all things ;' Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10. The Son is not. he." of whom,' but only ' by
Quod si quæcunque numero, essentia quoque differunt, nec tamen materia, necesse est formis inter se differant; non autem communibus, ergo propriis.' Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio. Prose Works, VI. 214. The hint thrown out to the theologians in this passage is very remarkable; but I am not aware that it has ever been noticed as affording a clew to the opinion of Milton on the important subject alluded to, which could scarcely have been expected to be found in a treatise on Logick.