SECTION VII.

TITLES AND CHARACTERS ATTRIBUTED TO CHRIST, OR THOUGHT TO BE SO ATTRIBUTED, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO IMPLY SUPERIORITY OF NATURE.

THIS

I. Jehovah.

HIS word, the appropriate name of God, is esteemed so sacred by the Jews, that wherever it occurs in the Old Testament they forbear to pronounce it, and substitute the word 'Lord' in its place. The versions, ancient and modern, have mostly followed this example. That Christ is called 'Lord' in the New Testament is sufficiently obvious: but the present question is, whether this title is ever applied to him in the sense of Jehovah.' The supporters of the divinity of Christ maintain the affirmative, viz. I. John xii. 39-41. "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said, He hath blinded their eyes, &c. These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

The quotation is from Isaiah vi. 10, where the prophet speaks of himself as having had a vision of Jehovah upon a throne. And the glory which Isaiah saw being the glory of Jehovah, it is concluded that Jesus is Jehovah.

This is the argument of bishop Pearce and bishop Lowth, and of Trinitarians in general. Archbishop Newcome explains the text of Christ as the representative of Jehovah, or, as Henry Taylor, of the visible or subordinate Jehovah; with whom many Arians agree. But Dr. Clarke, after Grotius, and with him all the Unitarians, understand the evangelist as affirming, That the prophet saw,

that

that is, foresaw, the glory of Christ, as Abraham saw, i. e. foresaw, his day. John viii. 561.

II. Heb. i. 10. "And thou, Lord, in the begin. ning hast laid the foundation of the earth," &c.

A quotation from Psalm cii. 25; where it is an address to Jehovah, as it is likewise in this place. The author here confirms his doctrine of the permanent establishment of the throne of Christ, from the consideration of the immutability of God by whom it is supported, and whom he thus solemnly addresses in the language of the Psalmist 2.

II. God.

It is generally believed that God' is a title not unfrequently applied to Christ in the New Testament. This is held by many to be a strong argument in favour of his true and proper deity. But as it is undeniable that the word is used in different senses in the sacred writings, the Arians explain it, when applied to Christ, as expressive of his delegated dominion over the world and church. This also is the sense in which the word was understood by the old Socinian writers. The Unitarians plead that Christ is called God, as being a prophet invested with miraculous powers; in the same sense in which, Exod. vii. 1, Moses is said to be a god to Pharaoh. But Mr. Lindsey, Seq. p. 198, and some modern advocates for the Unitarian doctrine, deny that Jesus is ever styled God in the New Tes

tament.

It is very remarkable that some of those lofty titles and characters which are attributed to Christ, and which are

1 See Clarke's Scrip. Doct. No. 597. Ben Mordecai's Letters, vol. i. p. 291. Lowth and Dodson on Isaiah, v. 1. Lindsey's Seq. p. 354. 3 Some argue from Rom. x. 13, "Whosoever shall call upon

the name of the Lord shall be saved:" from Joel ii. 32. But the words may be rendered "Whosoever shall call himself by the name of the Lord." Others understand the words as a phrase expressing the professors of religion, the worshippers of the true God.

thought

thought by many to indicate his superior nature and dig. nity, are also used of christians in general, who are said "to be one with him and with the Father," "assessors with him in heavenly places," and "to be filled with all the fulness of God." But there is one expression, viz. "partakers of a divine nature," applied by the apostle Peter, 2 Pet. i. 4, to all believers, which is stronger than any which are used of Christ, and which, if it had been applied to him, would have been held forth as an irrefragable proof of his proper deity: to such an argument it would have been very difficult to have given a satisfactory reply. That explanation of the words which all are now constrained to admit, would then have been treated as a forced and languid interpretation, and an attempt, hardly consistent with honesty, to wrest plain words from their natural and obvious meaning, in order to bend them to a preconceived hypothesis. This instance shows how little stress is to be laid on such phraseology, and how cautious we ought to be of interpreting these strong expressions in a literal sense.

I. Matt. i. 23. "-that it migh tbe fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which, being interpreted, is, God with us."

Answer. Not to insist upon the evidence produced, Sect. II., of the spuriousness of the first two chapters of the gospel of Matthew, the prophecy here cited, from Isaiah vii. 14, has no relation to the birth of the Messiah. The design of the prophet is, to announce that before a young woman, shortly to be married, should have a son grown up to years of discretion, the two kingdoms of Syria and Israel should be overthrown. The name Immanuel, given in prophetic vision to this child, was a symbol that God would be with and deliver his chosen people. And had that name been given to Christ in prophecy, or other

wise, it would have meant nothing more3. It was common among the Jews to give significant names, and in those names to introduce the name of God; viz. Adonijah, My Lord is Jehovah,-Eliezer, God is my helper. And, Jer. xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem is called The Lord our righteousness.

II. Luke i. 16, 17. "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he (John) shall go before him, i. e. the Lord their God, in the spirit and power of Elias."

This is the language of the angel to Zecharias: but the doubtful authenticity of this story has been already noticed, Sect. II.

And though strictness of construction warrants the application of the pronoun him to the antecedent God, yet as the phrase 'Lord our God' is never applied to Christ in the New Testament, no Jew would ever think of such an application of the words. John was the forerunner of the Lord their God, by being the forerunner of Jesus, the great messenger of God to mankind 4.

.

III. John i. 1. "—and the Word was God," or, "a god."

i. e. An inferior God derived from the Supreme, and delegated by him,-or, God was Wisdom;'-or the Word, i. e. the Teacher, was a prophet endued with miraculous powers;'-or, if the conjecture of Crellius and others be allowed, 8 for ɛos, the Word was God's ;' 'the teacher was sent from God.'

See Sect. III. 1.

3" God was with us in Christ, by his wisdom and power communicated to him for the instruction and benefit of men." Lindsey's Seq. p. 184.-See Lowth and Dodson on Isaiah vii. 14.

"He will lead the way in the sight of God." Wakefield, with whom archbishop Newcome agrees.-Dr. Clarke (Scr. Doct 534,) admits that the construction of the sentence is tavourable to the orthodox interpretation, but that this is contrary to the style of Luke, and to the whole analogy of Scripture. Calvin, Castalio, and Waterland (Serm. p. 203) lay great stress upon this text.

IV. John

IV. John x. 33. "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Our Lord had just declared, ver. 31, "I and my Father are one."

But he peremptorily denies the conclusion which the Jews drew from his language. He even maintains, ver. 34, 35, that if he had given himself the appellation of God, he should have been fully justified by the Jewish Scriptures, in which this name is given to prophets and magisBut that as to himself, though possessed of powers superior to those of any former prophet, he had never affected to call himself by a higher title than the Son of God.

trates.

V. John xx. 28. " And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

This is a sudden exclamation of astonisment and joy. d. My Lord! and my God! How great is thy power! Or, My Lord, and my God, has done this 5!-It is however objected that the words are expressly said to be addressed to Christ, and are an acknowledgement of his proper deity, for which the apostle would have been severely reproved if he had been wrong 6.

But who can believe that this sceptical apostle, who immediately before had been doubting whether his Master was a living man, would, from the sensible and satisfactory evidence he had now obtained of his resurrection, directly infer that he was the living and eternal God? What an infinite distance between the premises and the conclusion! If, then, the words are not to be taken as a mere exclamation, but as an address to Christ, the apostle's meaning

* Whitby's Last Thoughts, p. 77. Lindsey's Apol. p. 29; Sequel, p. 200. Archbishop Newcome in loc.

Erasmus, Grotius, and Beza in loc. Dr. Doddridge calls these words" an irrefragable argument of the deity of our blessed Lord."

seems