make it what it is, totally unanswerable. And how does he get over the other part of the difficulty, that Jesus Christ is represented, even in his state of exaltation, as not omniscient, but dependent on another for his knowledge of futurity? Let us hear him.

"Most fully does Paul exhibit his belief in the sentiment of mediatorial dependence in 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. By this last passage it appears, that Christ remains in the state of Vicegerent merely, until the consummation of all things, when his delegated dominion will be given up. The texts in Mark xiii. 32 and in Acts i. 7 (compare Luke ii. 52) show, that Christ as to his human nature was progressive in knowledge, and of course there were some things not yet known to him in this nature before his ascension to glory; and among these was the particular and exact time of his coming. The "gave" of our text would seem, however, to imply, that even after his exaltation, the Mediator received those disclosures from the Father which are made in the Apocalypse. This is perfectly congruous with the view given by Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, which necessarily implies the dependent state of the Mediator until the consummation of all things, and that his dominion as Mediator is only a delegated one. I may add, that the sentiment of our text is truly Johannean, whoever the author of it may be."— Vol. II. p. 3.

But to our minds, this is getting rid of one difficulty by plunging into others of still greater magnitude. This explanation asserts, if it asserts anything, that Jesus Christ is not now exalted to full Divinity, that he is Mediator in his human nature, he is Vicegerent without omniscience, and will not possess omniscience till the consummation of all things. Trinitarianism will be only prospectively true, till after the end of the world! The whole Presbyterian Church throughout the world is wrong, then, when it says, in its Shorter Catechism, "The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man, in two distinct natures and one person forever." This shifting from Christ's Divine nature to his human nature, and from the human to the Divine, in order to avoid the force of certain passages of Scripture, which without such a convenient ambiguity would be utterly fatal to the doctrine of the Trinity, may be tolerated, by great indulgence, when it is confined to the ministry of

1846.]

Difficulties in way of Trinitarian.

177

Christ on earth, but when this distinction is carried to the spiritual world, to a state of exaltation and glory, it becomes monstrous and incredible.

The other difficulty, in which Professor Stuart involves himself, is his appeal to Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians. The passage to which he refers is this: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Is this "the end" of dependence on the part of the Mediator, when it says, " then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that did put all things under him." If "subjection" means anything, then he will be more dependent than ever, instead of less so, and if he needed omniscience and full divinity, it must have been while he was acting as Vicegerent, instead of after he gave his authority up and was reduced to a state of subjection. But there is a feature in this passage presenting a still greater difficulty to the advocates of the Trinity. Christ is said to deliver up the kingdom "to God, even the Father." If Christ was God, he could not deliver up the kingdom to God. Such a delivery as is here described, could only take place between a being who was not God and one who was. "God" and "Father" are here used as terms synonymous and coextensive, and "Father" means not a person of a Trinity, but the whole Deity. This view is confirmed and rendered certain by the last clause of the quotation; "Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." No language could be more explicit, to affirm that he who delivers up the kingdom is not God, and he who receives it is God, and the only God. Another circumstance, which increases the difficulty to the Trinitarian, is, that Christ is here called "the Son," his highest appellation, his name in the form of baptism-"in the

name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' — his appellation as a person of the Trinity, if that form proves a Trinity. Under that appellation he delivers up the kingdom to another, "that God may be all in all.”

We say then, that Professor Stuart totally fails to clear up the difficulty which is presented to the doctrine of the Trinity in the very first sentence of the Apocalypse, and that it remains just where he found it, one of the most unanswerable arguments that that doctrine is not true, if John was the author of the Apocalypse, and that it was not believed when the book was written, if he was not the author.

On the next passage which relates to this subject - the salutation, we are glad to see Professor Stuart taking strong Unitarian ground. "Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is and which was and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." He makes the phrase, "Him which is and which was and which is to come," to be, as it is, a circumlocution for Jehovah, the essential meaning of the name. "The seven spirits, which are before his throne," he considers to mean, not the Holy Spirit, but "the seven angels of God's presence," which are alluded to in the book of Tobit, — "I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in and out before the presence of the Holy One." But having come to this conclusion, a difficulty arises. How happens it, that these angels are associated with God and Christ in the salutation? The explanation is very satisfactory, but will lead somewhat further, we apprehend, than the author intended.

"If now it be said, that such an interpretation leads to angel-worship, or at least to the invocation of angels;' the answer is, that the Apocalyptist has expressly, and perhaps purposely, guarded us against such a practice in Revelation xix. 10; xxii. 9:-'See thou do it not.' Or if it should be said, that there is no analogy and no example elsewhere of such an invocation as that before us, in case the text should be thus explained;' it would be well for the objector to consult 1 Tim. v. 21 'I charge thee before God, and Jesus Christ, and the elect angels.' How comes Paul to class these angels with God and Jesus Christ? Plainly because they, with God and Christ,

1846.]

Overthrow of Proof Texts.

1-79

constitute (so to speak) the supreme court of heaven, or that awful judicatory which will take cognizance of all the actions of men. Here now, the Holy Spirit is either omitted by Paul, or else impliedly comprised in the word 'God;' and 'the elect angels' are appealed to as witnesses of the solemn charge which Paul is about to give. And why? Because they are 'ministering spirits; they watch over and report all which is done by the professed disciples of Christ. Compare also Rev. iii. 5; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; xii. 8; where a similar idea is found. In a light somewhat different indeed, the Apocalyptist presents them as the dispensers of divine blessings to the churches. What he says is this; - It is his fervent desire that the blessings of grace and peace may be bestowed on the seven churches of Asia, blessings which Jehovah dispenses, by his presence angels, and by the Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. The definite and specific part which each is to perform in this dispensation of blessings, the writer does not designate; nor is it his purpose to do so. Enough that this was already understood by his readers; and surely he addressed them as if he supposed them to be acquainted with the subject in general. In fact, an act of direct homage or worship is not necessarily involved in such wishes as the Apocalyptist here expresses. They amount simply to this, that he fervently hopes for and desires the bestowment of important blessings on the seven churches of Asia, on the part of those superior guardians of the churches, who are primarily and principally concerned with the bestowment of them. If any one should say to an ambassador, appointed to a foreign court-I heartily wish you a favorable reception from the King and his Counsellors,' this would not assert, nor even imply, an equality between the two parties named. Neither does the inclusion of guardian angels in the wish which accompanies the salutation of the author before us, imply, that he makes them equal to God and Christ, or the proper objects of religious worship."- Vol. II. p. 22.

This is very well said. But the author was not aware, perhaps, that he was destroying one of the strongest arguments for the Trinity. All the salutations and benedictions in the New Testament are swept away at once, as proof texts of the Trinity, or of the Deity of Christ. If it is not necessary that the seven presence angels should be equal to God, and Christ, because they are included in the salutation, neither is it necessary that Christ should be equal to God, or be God in any sense, because he is associated with God in the same salutation. All those texts, then, are nullified as arguments for the Deity of

"The

Christ, which run in this way: "Grace, mercy and peace, from God, our Father," (or "God, the Father,") "and the Lord Jesus Christ." And above all, the grand proof-text is lost as an argument for the Trinity, contained in the last verse of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." In fact, only one of these subjects of discourse is God, by the very terms of the sentence-"and the love of God." We have only to repeat the words of our author, “an act of direct homage or worship is not necessarily involved in such wishes" as the Apostle here expresses.

But Professor Stuart asserts, that Christ is worshipped in the Apocalypse, and therefore he must be God. This, he does not directly assert, but evidently implies, is done in the next sentence to that which we have been considering. We do not deny that Christ is worshipped in the Revelation, but we do deny that he is worshipped as God, or for the possession of Divine attributes, or for doing anything that God alone could do; and affirm that he is always worshipped in such connexion with God, as makes him a distinct being from God, and as shuts him out of Deity, instead of including him in it. We proceed with the ascription. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us a kingdom [i. e. kings], priests unto God, even his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." This is Mr. Stuart's translation, and he concludes his comment thus :—

"Here, then, is a doxology, or ascription of honor and dominion to the Saviour, through endless ages. And this sanctioned by a solemn, Amen. In what light must John have viewed the Saviour, in order to make such an ascription to him? If it be said, that John has done so through mistake, and because his feelings were overpowered by the splendor of the vision in which the Saviour appears; then why is he not corrected here, as he is in Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9, when about to direct his homage amiss? Instead of this, we find him, in this book, often repeating the same ascriptions of praise to the Lord Jesus, as are rendered to God the Father; and this even Eichhorn and Ewald confess. Plainly nothing less than spiritual homage is paid to the Redeemer here, a homage which the writer prays may ever be continued." Vol. II. p. 29.

Professor Stuart does not say, that the homage here paid