« PreviousContinue »
easily be put to the torture of a rasla and shall give an account of himself to unchastised criticism. The opposers of God." The argument is incontrothe great mysteries of Christianity can vertible in establishing the proof of seldom explain them away with their usual
the divinity of our Lord. pretences of Jewish idiom, fignrative lan
In producing the indirect arguguage, and oriental pliraseology. The evidence of such arguments may be de ments for the divinity of our Saviour, nied, and so may the clearest deductions Mr. Holden does not insist upon of reason, but it can scarcely fail of the proofs of a plurality of persons making a forcible impression upon an- in the Divine Essence, which are biassed understandings. When we dis- discoverable in the Jewish Scripcover indirect allusions to a particular
tures, but confines himself to the doctrine, and continual implications of it throughout the Sacred Writings, it is im
consideration of one clear and conpossible to account for its being thus in- vincing argument, arisiug from 2 terwoven with their very texture, except comparison of the Old with the New upon the supposition of its truth." P. 81. Testament. • The sacred writers have expressly “ If it can be evinced, in a satisfactory and without any hesitation, asserted manner, that Christ was the divine King upon various occasions the divinity who reigned over Israel, or in other of Christ : but they have not en- words, the Jeboval of the Jewish church, tered into any systematic proof of his divinity will be clearly demonstrated. its truth. They have assumed it as
Though this opinion has been espoused by
the most learned and able writers of aua doctrine which could not be dis.
cient and modern times, we must not rest puted or denied, with which the so important a doctrine upon their anthon persons wbom they addressed, were rity. It is necessary to inquire whether it well acquainted, and from which have any foundation in the Jewish and they were free to draw their infer. Christian Scriptures, and the result of such ences at their own pleasure and dis an investigation is, that our Lord was the
Jehovah who appeared in a corporeal form cretion. Thus the incarnation and
under the Patriarchal and Levitical disdivinity of Christ are inextricably pensations, and was adored as the God of involved in the apostolic writings, Israel. and if all the express testimony “ The truth of this position will be eould be perverted and evaded, the acknowledged, if the following proposidoctrines would be raised above
tions can be substantiated: First, That an controversy, on the authority of
Angel or divine Person appeared to the their indirect assertion. The divi.
patriarchs and prophets. Secondly, That
this divine Person who appeared to the nity of Christ might stand on the
Hebrews was no created being, but truly Apostle's reasoning with the Ro and essentially God. Thirdly, That this mans xiv. 10, 11, 12, where be af- divine Person was not God the Father, firms, “ We shall all stand before Fourthly, That therefore it was God the the judgment seat of Christ." The Son. As the first proposition is too evigrandeur of the theme, leads him to
dent to be denied, it may be proper to
proceed to the proof of the second, upon recite and to apply to our Lord, a
which the main stress of the argument text delivered in the name of the rests." P. 83. Lord Jehovah, and thus to appropriate that incommunicable name to . In proof of this second proposi. Christ: “ For it is written, As I live, tion, that this divine Person was saith the Lord, every knee shall truly God, it is shewn, 1. that he bow to me, and every knee shall bears the incommunicable name of confess to God :" but the Apostle's Jehovah ; 2. that the divine attriinference from his original assertion, butes are assumed or ascribed to supported by the application of the him; and, 3. that he is called God. prophecy, is most remarkable and and that he is worshipped, important; " So then," (as we w Tlie third proposition is, That this shall all stand before the judgment divine Person was not God the Father, seat of CHRIST) “every one of us This follows from bis being called an
Angel, which name is given him as we naturally signify that the angels' were the have seen, in many of the above cited agents in the delivery of the law. But as passages. God the Father cannot be the Scripture affirms that it was Jehovah called an Angel, for this appellation im- who spake to Moses from Mount Sinai, plies a ministerial office; but ministration the angels' spoken of must denote the is never applied to the Father in the Scrip. same person, viz. the Angel-Jehovali, the tures, and is incompatible with that prio. King and God of Israel." P. 93. rity of order which belongs to him. The Father is universally represented as the
The last proposition, that the person who sends, the Son as the person Divine Person who appeared to the sent.
Hebrews, was God the Son, might “ We have the express authority of appear to follow as a necessary conScripture for affirming that God the Fa
a- sequence from the premises, but is ther was never visible to men. "No man hath seen God at any time.' " Ye have
nevertheless established on distinct neither heard his voice at any time por
and independent arguments, and the seen his shape.' "Not that any man liath author concludes with noticing an seen the Father.' 'God is a spirit,' ipha- important objection to his doctrine. biting light inaccessible,' whom no man hath seen or can see.' God, however, is
« Thongh I have collected several other reported in the Old Testament to bave
arguments bearing upon the same point, frequently appeared under the Patriarchal
it is unnecessary to prosecute this branch and Levitical dispensations, and therefore
of the subject any farther, and I shall we must conclude that the God who ap
therefore conclude with briefly noticing an peared was God the Son.
objection, which is certainly the most “ In this conclusion we have a solution plausible that
plausible that has been advanced. It is of two difficulties, which are apt to make
drawn from Heb. i. 1, 2. "God who at an impression upon the attentive reader.
sundry times and in divers manners spake The first is that in Exod. xxiv. 9. we read,
in time past unto the fathers by the prothat · Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu,
phets, hath in these last days spoken unto and the seventy elders of Israel, went up,
us by his Son;' from which it is argued, and saw the God of Israel ;' while in Exod. that God did not speak to mankind by the xxxiii. 20, the Lord said to Moses,' Thou
Son, till the time of the Messiah, called by canst not see my face, for there shall no
the Apostle, the last days. This appeared man see me and live. By the face of
of such weight to the excellent Mackuight, the Lord' is meant God himself, as Gen.
that he hesitates not to declare, that it xix. 3. 1 Sam. .xxvi. 20. 1 Kings xiii, 6.
overthrows the opinion of the Anti-Nicepe Psalm xxxiv. 16, &c. In the former pas
Fathers, that the law was spoken to the sages, then, Moses, Aaron, &c. saw the
Jews by the Son. But the plain and obLogos, the Son of God, who was the God
vious sense of the words seems to be this; of the Hebrew church, but in the latter, it
God formerly spake to the Jews by the is said, that Moses could not behold the ministration of the prophets, but hath now inscrutable essence and the invisible ma. spoken to them by the Son in person. jesty of the divine nature. The other dif. The manner of communication under the ficulty alluded to is, that Jehovah is said Old dispensation, is contrasted with the to have delivered the law to Moses. (Exod. manner of communication under the New. xix. 9. xx. 1.) and yet we read in Acts
Formerly, the Divine Logos, the God of vii. 53. that the law was received by the
the Hebrews, revealed the truths of religion disposition of angels ;' in Gal. ii. 19. that
unto the Fathers through the mediation of the law was ' ordained by angels,' and in Moses and the prophets, but in these last Heb. ii, 2. that it was spoken by angels.' times liath assumed our nature and dwelt Now, if angels' be put in the plural, in
among us, teaching in person the sublime stead of the singular number, to denote
doctrines of Christianity. This is no argueminence and dignity, a phraseology con
ment then against the opinion, that Christ mon among the Hebrews, these passages from was the visible Jehovah, the angel Jen the New Testament will only affirm that
hovah, who delivered the law from Mount the law was given by the Angel, who, as
Sinai, the God of the Old Testament." has been proved, and as is asserted in
P. 102. Exodus, was Jehovah. This solution of
The pre-existence of Christ, anothe difficulty appears to be confirmed by Acts vii. 38. where we find mention made ther important branch of the indirect of the ANGEL who spake to him in Sinai,' evidence, is excellently, sustained on apd by Gal. iii, 19. and Heb. ii, 2. which the authority of those impressions,
in which our Saviour said of him. to a mere man, which amounts to an as
P. 125. self, or in which it is said by the sumption of Divinity." Apostles and Evangelists, that he The argument is prosecuted came from heaven and from God, through a large collection of tests, in arguing upon wbich, the doctrine in which the deity of Christ is inof a literal descent from above, is directly asserted, in which Divine completely vindicated from the fan- works and offices are assumed or ciful sophistry of the Socinians. ascribed to him, in which the names The just and natural inferences are of the Father and of the Son, or of also drawn from the allusions, which Christ and Jehovah, are indiscrimiour Saviour himself made to a pre- nately mentioned, in which his ofvious state, in which he was pos- fices are said to exceed the power sessed of the love of the Father, of man, (as is the case of the atone. and glorified with glory before the ment, which if it fails in proving his world was, and in which he assumes divinity, at least proves him to be to himself a more elevated dignity more than man,) and in which he is than belongs to man.
represented as an object of the same “ Matt, xii. 6. "But I say unto you,
faith and the same religious affec
is also that in this place is one greater than the tions as the Father, . It lemple. The temple at Jerusalem was shewn, that in the performance of dedicated to the service of Jehovah and bis miracles he wrought them by bis sanctified by his immediate presence; how own power, at his own will, and in then could our Saviour represent himself his own name : and the force of this as greater than this temple, unless he were
argument is increased, when it is the Lord of the temple, whose coming was foretold by Malachi ii. 1. Now the Lord
recollected, that of himself, and in of any temple is the Divinity that dwells in his own name, he conferred the same
extraordinary power upon his Apos" Matt. xii. 8. For the Son of Man is tles, who in performing them, ac. Lord even of the Sabbath-day.' The Jew knowledged the power and authoishi Sabbath was of Divine appointment, rity of Christ. is In the name of consecrated and companded to be kept
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up holy by the law of Moses; hence no one could have a right to relax or annul the
“ His name, through commandment but God who Arst imposed
faith in his name, hath made this it. Yet Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, man strong.” “ By the name of i. e, can dispense with the obligation of it, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, even by and therefore God.
him doth this man stand before you “ Matt. xvii. 25, 26. What thinkest whole." Elisha did not receive this thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute? of their own children
power of Elijah. or of strangers? Peter said unto him, of “ This class of arguments is by no strangers. Jesus said unto him, then are means exhausted by the preceding secthe children free.' The occasion of this tions : some texts of Scripture which might discourse was, that those who received the be referred to it, will come under condidrachma, the hialf-shekel annually paid sideration in the following chapters, and by the Jews above twenty years of age for others might be enumerated; yet enough the service of the temple, "came to Peter have been accumulated to shew its value and said, Doth not your master pay tri- and importance. The force of these tesbute? Upon which our Saviour reasons, timonies cannot be easily eluded, by the If earthly kings do not receive tribute from dexteritiy of criticism, and as many of their children, then am I who am the Son them arise from a comparison of Scripture of God excused by their custoin from pay- with Scripture, they seem to demonstrate ing any to God. The whole force of the the beautiful consistency and harmony of argnment depends upon our Lord's being the sacred writings. The argument moretruly and properly the Son of God; i. e. over is strictly cumulative. Every addistanding in the same relation to God, as tional instance strengthens the conclusion; the children do to earthly kings. His and though some of the sections should claim of exemption rests upon his being not appear conclusive, yet when taken all the Son of God, in a sense not applicable together, they must be allowed to con
stitute a powerful, in my judgment, frre - whom are all things and we by him.' Es fragible body of evidence in support of not this an assertion, that Christians, alour Lord's essential deity." P. 168. though there are many called gods by the
Heathen, could call none by that title, but From the consideration of these the Supreme Father of all, and the Lord express and indirect testimonies to Jesus Christ, who, with the Holy Ghost, the divinity of Christ, the author are one God, in nature co-equal, in glory proceeds to illustrate the Divine co-eternal. titles, which are applied to Christ.
“ These observations are chiefly directed
against the Socinian heresy, with which It is asserted that Christ is called
the orthodox of this age are principally by the name of God; and in an ela.
called upon to contend. Arianism, it is borate comment on the several texts true, might still allege that the appellation in which that name is appropriated “God' is given to angels and superior into our Lord, the true meaning of telligences, and therefore only proves that those texts is defined and explained, our Saviour was a subordinate or inferior and the obvious and ordinary ob
God. But the allegation is not supported
by convincing reasons, as might easily be jections are anticipated and repelled.
eyinced, were it requisite, and of course It is also proved, that Christ is called the conclusion is unsound. It is unnecesGod, not in a subordinate, but in the sary, however, to enter into a professed highest sense of the term; the few refutation; it is sufficient to reply both to texts in which that name is inter. the Arian and Unitarian oppugners of our pretud of man are brought to a se Lord's essential deity, that if it could be vere examination, and it is rendered
o d proved, though I am convinced it is im
possible, that the view of the subject above at least very doubtful, whether they
hey taken was erroneous, that the term God is will ever bear that interpretation, or used in a lower sense, and that men are whether the appropriation of the denominated God, not only in the old name of the Most High to man can Testament but in the New, the argument be justified and sustained.
built upon this title would not be over
thrown; for we have discovered some in" The result of the whole is, that it is stances where it is applied to Christ, under highly probable, the title "God is not such peculiar circumstances, as leave no given to men in the Old 'l'estament; and room to doubt its implying luis absolute that it is certain the term osos, God, in divinity.” P. 206. the singular namber is never applied to men in the New, and in the plural, if at all, It is also shewn, that Christ is only once. Let me then ask any onpre- called Jehovah, which name is tranjudiced person, whether it is credible, that slated Kupios, or Lord by the Seventy, the Apostles and Evangelists would, in from whom that word is appropricontradiction to their usual practice, de ated by the writers of the New Tesnonrivate our Lord by the appellation
tament to our Lord: the name of
to God,' if they had believed him to be only a man like themselves. Nay, I will go
Jehovah also occurs in passages of yet farther, and maintain, that they conld the prophetic Scriptures, unquesnot, consistently with their principles, give tionably relating to Christ, in the this title to a mere man. As one great exposition of which, the text of Jeobject was to subvert the polytheismı of the remiah xxiii. 36, in which Christ is Heathen world, they would have counter
called the Lord our Righteousness, acted their own design had they given the
is ably vindicated from the misconpame of the Supreme Being to any of the human race. Their firm conviction of the
ceptions of Blayney, of which the Divine Unity, and their earnestness to Unitarian school have not failed to inculcate the belief of one God, would avail themselves. He is also called restrain them from the use of such language King of Israel, which was the title as might tend to countenance the notion of Jehovah under the theocracy, of a plurality of Gods. "Thongh there
Almighty, Lord of Glory, and God be,' says St. Paul, 'that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be
of Glory, First and Lasi, A and S, gods many and lords many, but to us there the Beginning and the End. is but one God of whom are all things and The argument from the assumpwe in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by tion and ascription of the Divine
titles to our Lord. is confirmed by Heb. xiji, 8. for admitting that the doo the appropriation of the Divine at.
trine of the Gospel may be called 'yester tributes to him, which are assigned,
day,' or from everlasting, as being in the
divine decree, yet how can it be said to not only generally, so that in his
be · for ever, for all eternity to come, in own language, “ all things that the the divine decree? In short, had the Father hath are mine," but severally apostle meant to assert the immutability and particularly. Thus he is eternal of the Christian religion, it is utterly inand therefore immutable.
credible that he would have expressed it
by Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, « Heb. xiii. 8. Jesus Christ the same to-day, and for ever,' whence it follows, yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. If that these words are to be referred to the this be spoken of Christ, it is an express person of Christ. --Fourthly, ở AUTOs is declaration of his eternal and immutable the very same expression that is applied nature. Several commeutators, it must personally to Christ, ch. i. 12. of this be confessed, liave understood it to refer Epistle, to describe his immutability.-to the doctrine of the Gospel, sometimes Fifthly, the fathers of the fourth and fifth called Christ or Jesus Christ; yet the fol. centuries frequently cite this text against lowing reasons seem to confirm its relation the Arians, and they are not contradicted to the person of Christ. First, This is by those before them. These reasons, in taking the words in a literal signification, my apprehension, clearly establish the ap. which is always preferable to a figurative plication of this verse personally to Christ, construction, when no necessity exists for and we need not hesitate in appealing to departing from it. Secondly, The context it, as a testimony to our Lord's eternal requires it: 'Remember them, which have and unchangeable existence," P. 243. the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God, of whose conversation,
Omniscience is another attribute considering the ending, follow their faith : Jesus Christ yesterday, and to-day is the
ascribed to Christ, and compresame, and for ever.' The verse in ques.
hends a knowledge of the thoughts tion then describes the object of the faith of of man's heart, which man does not the rulers, i.e. as Pierce parphrases it possess; snch knowledge of God, • considering the conclusion of their life even to seeing him, as hath not and behaviour, imitate their faith, for the
been given to man; knowledge of object of their faith, Jesus Christ, is the
all things, without limit or excep. same now as be was then, and will be the same for ever, to the end of time.'
tion; and knowledge of his “sheep" Thirdly, as for ever,' at the end of the in all places and ages of their dissentence, means an eternity to come, so persion throughout the world, Mr. ' yesterday,' by being opposed to it, means Holden is cautious of inferring the an eternity past. It is, in truth, almost omniscience of Christ from Col. ii. self evident, that' yesterday, to-day, and
3. because the true reading of the for ever,' denotes an eternal duration, consisting of past, present, and future. ID
text is uncertain; but if the words the Revelations, eternal, unchangeable rejected by Griesbach are not ge. existence is described by the cbaracter of nuine, and ought to be rejected,
wbirb is, and which was, and which is to the text becomes one of those in come,' The Gospel, it is true, is called which Christ is called by the name • everlasting,' Rev. xiv, 6. but this does of God: for he is the subject of the not respect the time past, but time to
Apostle's discourse, and it is to come, and denotes the unchangeable
bim that the elevated terms which constitution of the Cliristian religion, which should renain always the same in
he uses throughout the chapter are the truth of its doctrines, the certainty of appropriated. The great and leadits rewards and punishments, to everlast- ing objection to the omniscience of ing ages. In this epistle, mention is made Christ is collected from Mark xiii. of the everlasting covenant (xiii. 20.)
32. and Mr. Holden, who neither which clearly denotes a covenant, that should never be changed. It may also
evades an objection, nor suffers it further be urged, that the Gospel may be
to pass without refutation, shews called eternal, because it was from ever that our Lord either uses the word lasting in the divine decree. Perlaps it “ know” in the sense of communimay:. but this answer will not apply to cating or publishing, or that in the REMEMBRANCER, No. 39.