the apostles drew from these proofs, whether a belief of the divinity of Jesus accompanied their belief of his being the Messiah. The question appears to me problematical, and I do not think that the New Testament contains sufficient evidence to decide the point. But it is not of great importance. I observed, that the intimations of the divinity of our Lord, given during his life, were purposely obscure; and the apostles brought with them such prejudices, and met with such disappointment in their expectations, that it is no wonder if they did not reason from these intimations as they might have done. But there is recorded in the conclusion of the Gospel of John a declaration made by one of the apostles, after the resurrection of Jesus, of his having then attained the knowledge of that doctrine, which all these intimations seem intended to prepare them for receiving. Thomas, after his scruples were removed, answered and said to Jesus, John ΧΧ. 28, ὁ Κύριος μου, και ὁ Θεός μου ; a conjunction of words probably from Ps. xxxv. 23, "Awake to my judgment, my God, and my Lord.” The Socinians consider the words of Thomas as an exclamation of surprise upon seeing Jesus alive, or of gratitude to God who had raised him: My God and my Lord hath done this. But you will observe, it is expressly said that these words are addressed to Jesus, as an answer to what he had spoken, απεκρίθη και είπεν αυτῷ; and our Lord, in his reply, considers them as a confession of Thomas's faith; "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Either, therefore, the nominative is here as in many other places equivalent to the vocative, or the ellipsis is to be supplied by & σv. It is so natural to interpret these words as a declaration of Thomas's believing Jesus to be his God, that if our Lord had wished them not to be so understood, the ambiguity required a correction from him. But by accepting this declaration, and pronouncing his blessing upon those who, without the same evidence of sense, should make the same declaration, he approves of what Thomas had said, according to the obvious sense of the words, and teaches his followers, in succeeding ages, to acknow ledge him not only as their Master or Lord, but as their God.

CHAPTER VII.

DIRECT PROOFS THAT CHRIST IS GOD.

THE Confession made by the apostle Thomas may be considered as an introduction to those plain assertions of the divinity of Jesus, which are found in the writings of the apostles after the ascension of their Master and the words of that confession direct us to attend, in the first place, to those passages in which Jesus Christ is called God. But, before we begin to examine them particularly, it is proper to advert to a difficulty attending the argument that is founded upon them.

SECTION I.

Ir the name, God, were in Scripture appropriated exclusively to the Supreme Being, those passages of the New Testament in which it is applied to Jesus Christ, would afford an unequivocal proof that he is not a creature. But the fact is, that although God, in the strict and proper sense of that word, is the name of the Almighty, there is a loose or figurative sense, in which the use of it is very much extended. Admiration, which delights in magnifying its objects, has often prompted men to speak of their fellow-creatures in language to which no mortal is entitled. The expression in Homer,

εos pas, we have copied in the epithets god-like and divine. By frequent use and by the progress of science these epithets have come to be regarded as figures of speech. But they were originally dictated by a principle which is most observable in ruder states of society, a proneness to consider all who discover eminent qualities, or extraordinary powers, as raised above the condition of human nature. The supposed existence of many of the heathen gods may be traced to this principle. The protectors and benefactors of their country, who had been admired during their life, were adored after their death, i. e. were enrolled amongst those higher orders of being, to whom it was conceived they had always been assimilated. Nay, there were instances in which the extravagance of flattery, and the excess of vanity which that flattery nourished, conspired in ascribing to a mortal, even while he remained upon earth, the name and honours of a god. The Scriptures, which must speak according to the sentiments and usages of those who are addressed, have adopted, in numberless places, this popular extension of the name of the Su

preme Being. The first commandment is, Thou shalt have no other gods before me, as if any other could exist. The name, gods, is uniformly given in the Old Testament to those fictitious objects of worship before which the nations bowed; and the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 5, at the very time that he says, "An idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other God but one," adds, "Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many." The Hebrew word for gods is applied to the angels "who excel in strength," and who "dwell in heaven."* To rulers, because they are exalted above their subjects, it is said, "Ye are gods." The belly of the sensualists, to the service of which they are devoted, is called their god : and the Almighty himself says to Moses, Exod. vii. 1, " See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet," i. e. the king shall be astonished at the displays of thy power; and the orders which thou shalt issue to him shall be delivered by the mouth of Aaron, who shall thus be thy prophet to Pharaoh.

This extended figurative use of the name of God has suggested, to those who hold Jesus to be an exalted creature, the following system, which I give in the words of the author of the Essay on Spirit, p. 89. "As the self existent cause, of whom are all things, can alone be properly called God, when this title is given in the Scriptures to any other being but the Father, we are to understand it only as expressive of some god-like power which hath been given or communicated to that being by God the Father. In this sense the application may be attributed to the Son, because, when all power in heaven and earth was given to him, he was made a god to those beings over whom that power was given." This system is supported by a remark borrowed from Sir Isaac Newton, and adopted by Dr. Clarke. "God," says Sir Isaac, " is a relative term, which has reference to subjects; and the word deity denotes the dominion of God over subjects;" and again, "we worship and adore God on account of his dominion." In like manner, Dr. Clarke, having laid it down as the 25th proposition in his scripture-doctrine of the Trinity," The reason why the Son, in the Old Testament, is sometimes styled God, is not upon account of his metaphysical substance, how divine soever, but of his relative attributes and divine authority, communicated to him from the Father over us"-supports the proposition in the notes by the following reason-"The word God, when spoken of the Father himself, is never intended in Scripture to express philosophically his abstract metaphysical attributes, but to raise in us a notion of his attributes relative to us, his supreme dominion, authority, power, justice, goodness," &c. However profound the respect is which every one, who has imbibed the rudiments of science, must entertain for the name of Sir Isaac Newton, you will probably find reason to think, when you examine his writings upon subjects not capable of strict demonstration, that in them, according to the expression used by Bishop Horsley, the editor of his mathematical works, the great Newton went out like a common man. It has been shown by Dr. Waterland, in his Vindication of Christ's Divinity, and by Dr. Ran+ Phil. iii. 19.

* Psalm viii. 5.
•

† Psalm lxxxii. 6,

dolph, in his Vindication of the Trinity, that the name God, when applied in Scripture to the Supreme Being, involves in it the notion of the excellence of his nature, his wisdom, power, eternity, and allsufficiency. I need not mention any other Scripture-proof of this, than that decisive passage in Psalm xc.-" Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Dr. Waterland observes, that although dominion enters into the notion of God, yet it is the excellence of the divine nature manifested to us in his works, which is the object of our adoration, and the foundation of his dominion over us: so that the whole idea of God is that of an eternal, unchangeable, almighty Ruler and Protector. "If," says Dr. Randolph, p. 77, "God be only a relative term, which has reference to subjects, it follows, that when there were no subjects, there was no God; and, consequently, either the creatures must have been some of them eternal, or there must have been a time when there was no God. Again, as the creatures are none of them necessarily existent, it will follow that God himself does not exist necessarily; and if we suppose God to annihilate all creatures, he would thereby annihilate his own Deity, and cease to be God."

Although this reasoning should satisfy you that the word God is not merely a relative term, but that, in its proper sense, it implies a transcendent and independent excellence of nature, yet, at the same time, you will perceive, that as it does imply dominion founded upon this excellence of nature, it may be used relatively. My God, is that being whose infinite perfections are employed in my protection, and are an object of trust and submission to me. You will perceive, also, from this account of its true meaning, how it may be applied in a loose figurative sense to those who resemble the Supreme Being in any part of the whole idea annexed to the word; who have either attained any measure of the excellence of his nature, or who are intrusted by him with the exercise of any portion of his universal dominion.

It appears, from what has been said, that much circumspection is necessary in drawing an argument for the divinity of Jesus from those passages in which he is styled God; but it does not follow that the argument is necessarily inconclusive. There is hardly any word which is not occasionally used in a sense somewhat loose and figurative. It is one of the offices of sound criticism, to judge whether we are to interpret words and phrases more or less strictly; and every accurate composition furnishes some discriminating circumstances which guide us in making this judgment. No person can be led into so gross a mistake as to think Moses truly a god, when the Almighty says to him," See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh;" or civil magistrates truly partakers of a divine nature, when we read, "I said ye are gods; but ye shall die like men;" or the angels, however exalted above men, really like to God, when we read a command given them to worship another being; or the idols, before whom the nations bowed, worthy of trust, when the prophets, at the same time that they call them gods, say they are vanity, the work of errors, and have no power to do good or evil. It may be expected, from the analogy of these instances, that if this name be given in an improper

figurative sense to any other person, more especially if it be often so given, we shall, in some way, be effectually guarded against mistake. The preservative, indeed, it has been said, against applying the term God in the highest sense to that person who is often called God, is to be found in those general declarations of Scripture that there is but one God: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Lord is one Lord." "There is none good but one, that is God." But a little attention will satisfy you that this preservative is not sufficient; for the very person who is often called God in the New Testament, says, "I and the Father are one;" and this declaration, taken in conjunction with the expressions of the Divine unity, has appeared to many pious Christians, and to many of the most able and inquisitive men in all ages, to teach this system, that although there be but one God, the Person to whom that name is often given in the New Testament, is, in the highest sense of the word, God. The general preservative being thus insufficient to guard against mistake, if the highest sense of the word does not belong to that Person, there was much occasion for some marks of inferiority in the manner of its being applied to him which might suggest a lower sense. But if, instead of meeting with such marks we meet with circumstances in the manner of his being called God, which imply that the word, in the strict and most exalted sense. belongs to him; and if the interpretation which we are thus led to give to the name correspond with other scripture proofs of the Divinity of the Person to whom it is applied, we cannot avoid concluding, that the Scriptures, by calling Jesus Christ God, meant to teach us that he is God.

Let your examination of the texts which are commonly alleged for this purpose be scrupulous and suspicious. Every point of importance ought to be carefully examined; and it is the great advantage which accrues from diversity of opinion, that you are both guarded against that supine indolence with which assent is yielded to points in which men are generally agreed, and that you are furnished with the best means of attaining the truth, by having an opportunity of opposing to one another the arguments which very able men have adduced upon either side. I shall not, therefore, barely enumerate the texts in which Jesus is plainly called God, but I shall endeavour, in canvassing their meaning, to exhibit a specimen of that kind of scripture-criticism, without the continued exercise of which you can neither arrive at certainty, nor give a good reason of your own opinions upon any of the disputed questions of theology.

1. The first text is contained in that passage at the beginning of John's Gospel, which has already been fully explained. The whole passage was then vindicated, from the Sabellian interpretation, by showing that λoyos is a distinct person from the Father, the same who is called in the 17th verse Jesus Christ. It was observed that in the second clause of the first verse, ὁ λογος ην προς τον Θεον, the word Θεος occurs in the highest sense; and that, as the form of the apostle's expression is to make the last word of one clause the first word of the succeeding, nothing but a purpose to mislead could have induced him, without any warning, to apply the name God to Jesus Christ in the beginning of the third clause, if he had meant it to be understood there in a sense different from that in which he had used it at the end of the