Page images
PDF
EPUB

462

CHAP. 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.

If 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, 10000s pws, we have copied in the epithets godlike 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 Supreme 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 selfexistent cause, of whom are all things, can

* Psalm viii. 5. + Psalm lxxxii. 6.

alone be pro

Phil. iii. 19.

perly 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, 66 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. Randolph, 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 all-sufficiency. 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

66

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 God 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.

« PreviousContinue »