Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the desert a highway for our God Every vailey recorded in the sixth chapter of his prophecy before shall be exalted, and every mountain shall be made adduced; but the evangelist John expressly declares low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the that on that occasion the prophet saw the glory of rough places plain, and the glory of the Lord (JEHOVAH) Christ and spake of him. Christ therefore was the shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” Lord of Hosts whose glory filled the temple. This being spoken of him of whom John the Baptist St. Peter calls the Spirit of Jehovah, by which the was to be ihe forerunner; and the application having prophets“ prophesied of the grace that should come, been afterward expressly made by the Baptist to our the Spirit of Christ.He also informs us that “ Christ Lord, it is evident that he is the person “to whom the was put to death in the flesh but quickened by the prophet attributes the incommunicable name of Juno- Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the VAH, and styles him our God.' ”(8)

spirits in prison, which some time were disobedient “Now, all this was done that it might be fulfilled when once the long-suffering of God waited in the which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, days of Noah, while the Ark was preparing.” Now, behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a whatever may be the full meaning of this difficult pasSon, and they shall call his name EMANUEL, which sage, Christ is clearly represented as preaching by his being interpreted is God with us." Here another pre- Spirit in the days of Noah, that is, inspiring Noah to diction of Isaiah is expressly applied to Jesus. * Thou preach. Let this be collated with the declaration of shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus, Jehovah before the flood, “My Spirit shall not always and he shall be great, and the Lord God shall give to strive with man, for that he is Heshi, yet his days shall him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign be a hundred and twenty years,” during which period over the house of Jacob for ever and ever, and of his of delay and long-suffering, Noah was made by him, kingdom there shall be no end." These are the words from whom alone inspiration can corne, a preacher of of the Angel to Mary, and obviously apply to our Lord righteousness; and it is clear that Christ, and the apthe words of Isaiah, “Unto us a child is born, unto us pearing Jehovah of the antediluvian world, are supposed a son is given, and the government shall be upon his by St. Peter to have been the same person. In the llih shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, chapter of the Hebrews, Moses is said to have esteemed Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government of Egypt; a passage of easy interpretation, when it is and power there shall be no end, upon the throne of admitted that the Jehovah of the Israelites, whose name David to order and establish it for ever." It is unne- and worship Moses professed, and Christ, were tho cessary at present to quote more of those numerous same person. For this worship he was reproached by passages which speak of the future Messiah under the Egyptians, who preferred their own idolatry, and divine titles, and which are applied to Jesus as that treated, as all apostates do, the true religion, the pure Messiah actually manifested. They do not in so many worship of former ages from which they had departed, words connect the Angel of Jehovah with Jesns as the with contempt. To be reproached for the sake of Jehosame person ; but, taken with the passages above ad- vah, and to be reproached for Christ, were convertible duced, they present evidence of a very weighty cha- phrases with the Apostle, because he considered Jehoracter in favour of that position. A plurality of per- vah and Christ to be the same person. sons in the one Godhead is mentioned in the Jewish “In St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, we Scriptures; this plurality is restricted to three ; one of read, ‘Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them them appears as "the acting God” of the Patriarchal (that is, the Jews in the wilderness) also tempted, and and Mosaic age; the prophets speak of a Divine person were destroyed by serpents,' x. 9. The pronoun him, to come as the Messiah, bearing precisely the same autov, must be understood after 'tempted,' and it is titles; no one supposes this to be the Holy Ghost; it found in some MSS., though not sufficiently numerous cannot be the Father, seeing that Messiah is God's ser- to warrant its insertion in the text. It is, however, nevant and God's messenger; and the only conclusion is, cessarily implied, and refers to Christ just before menthat the Messiah predicted is he who is known under tioned. The Jews in the wilderness here are said to the titles, Angel, Son of God, Word of God, in the Old have tempted some person; and to understand by that Testament; and if Jesus be that Messiah, he is that person any other than Christ, who is just before named, Son, that Word, that Servant, that Messenger; and is against all grammar, which never allows without bearing the same divine characters as the Angel of absolute necessity any other accusative to be underJehovah, is that angel himself, and is entitled in the stood by the verb than that of some person or thing beChristian Church to all that homage and worship which fore mentioned in the same sentence. The conjunction was paid to him in the Jewish.

kal, also, establishes this interpretation beyond doubt : There are, however, a few passages which in a still Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them ALSO more distinct manner than any which have been intro- tempted--tempted whom? The answer clearly is, as duced, except that from the prophecy of Jeremiah, they also tempted Christ. If Christ then was the peridentify Jesus Christ with the Angel of Jehovah in the son whom the Israelites tempted in the wilderness, he Patriarchal and Levitical dispensations; and a brief unavoidably becomes the Jehovah of the Old Testaconsideration of them will leave this important pointment."(9) completely established.

This is rendered the more striking, when the passage Let it then be recollected, that he who dwelt in the to which the apostle resers is given at length. "le Jewish tabernacle, between the Cherubim, was the shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him Angel Jehovah. In Psalm lxviii., which was written in Massah.” Now what could lead the apostle to sunon the removal of the Ark to Mount Zion, he is ex- stitute Christ, in the place of the Lord your God ?pressly addressed. “This is the hill which God de- “Neither let us tempi Christ, as some of them also gireth to dwell in;" and again, “They have seen thy tempted" Christ, for ihat is the accusative which must goings, O God, my King, in thy sanctuary.” But the be supplied. Nothing certainly but that the idea was Apostle Paul, Eph. iv. 8, applies this Psalm to Christ, familiar to him, that Christ, and the Angel Jehovah, and considers this very ascent of the Angel Jehovah 10 who conducted and governed the Israelites, were the Mount Zion as a prophetic type of the ascent of Jesus same person. to the celestial Zion. 6 Wherefore he saithi, when he Heb. xii. 25, 26. " See that ye refuse not him that ascended on high he led captivity captive,” &c. The speaketh; for if they escaped not who refused him that conclusion, therefore, is, that the Angel Jehovah who spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we is addressed in the Psalm, and Christ, are the same turn away from him that speaketh from heaven. person. This is marked with equal strength in verse Whose voice then shook the earth, but now he hath 20. The Psalm, let it be observed, is determined by promised,” &c. apostolical authority to be a prophecy of Christ, as in- This passage also is decisive as a proof that the deed its terms intimate; and with reference to the future Angel of Jehovah, and our Lord, are the same person. conquests of Messiah, the prophet exclaims, “ Because Him that speaketh from heaven,” the context deterof thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents mines to be Christ; “him that spake on earth" is provnto thee." The future Christ is spoken of as one hav- bably Moses. The “ voice" that then “ shook the ing then a temple at Jerusalem.

It was the glory of the Angel Jehovah, the resident (9) Holden's Testimonies. See this text, so fatal God of the Temple, which Isaiah saw in the vision to the Socinian scheme, triumphantly established

against the liberty of their criticisms, in Dr. Mager's (8) Wogan.

Postscript to Appendix, p. 211, &c.

earth," was the voice of him that gave the law, at the "That our blessed Saviour did sometimes become as sound of which the mountain trembled and shook. He an angel, we may be induced to believe, if we consider who gave the law we have already proved, from the the appearances and speeches of angels, who in some authority of Scripture, to have been the Angel of Jeho- texts have said, I am God of Abraham, and the vah, and the apostle declares that the same person God of Isaac,'" &c. now speaks to us " from heaven," in the gospel, and is Theophilus of Antioch also declares, “that it was therefore the Lord Christ. Dr. MacKnight says, that the Sou of God who appeared to Adam immediately it was not the Son's voice which shook the earth, be- after the fall, who, assuming the person of the Father cause it was not the Son who gave the law. In this and the Lord of all, came in paradise under the person he is clearly contradicted by St. Stephen, and the whole of God, and conversed with Adam.” Jewish History. The proto-martyr in his defence, ex- The synod of Antioch :-“ The Son,” say they, "is pressly says, that it was “the Angel” who spake with sometimes called an Angel, and sometimes the Lord, Moses in the Mount; and here the apostle Paul de- sometimes God. For it is impious to imagine, that the clares, that it was the voice of Christ which then shook God of the universe is any where called an angel. But the earth. Nothing can more certainly prove than this the messenger of the Father is the Son, who himself is collation of Scriptures, that the Son gave the law, and Lord and God: for it is written, The Angel of the great that “the Angel” who spake to Moses, and Christ, are council.the same person.

Cyprian observes, that "the angel who appeared to The above passage, in its necessary grammatical the patriarch is Christ and God.And this he confirms construction, so certainly marks out Christ as the per- by producing a number of those passages from the Old son whosa voice shook the earth at the giving of the Testament, where it is said, that an angel of the Lord law, that the Socinians, in their New Version of the appeared and spake in the name of God. Testament, have chosen to get rid of a testimony which Hilary speaks to the same purpose:-"He who is no criticism could evade, by daringly and wilfully cor- called the angel of God, the same is Lord and God. rupting the text itself, and without any authority what- For the Son of God, according to the prophet, is the ever, thay read, instead of “See that ye not refuse Angel of the great council. That the distinction of kim that speaketh,” “See that ye refuse not God that persons might be entire, he is called the Angel of God; speaketh ;" thus, introducing a new antecedent. This or he who is God of God, the same also is the Angel instance of a wilful perversion of the very text of the (or Messenger) of God: and yet, at the same time, that word of God, has received its merited reprobation from due honour might be paid, he is also called Lord and those eminent critics who have exposed the disho- God.. nesties, the ignorance, and the licencious criticisms of St. Basil says, “Who then is it, that is called both what is called an “Improved Version” of the New Tes- an angel and God? Is it not he, whose name, we are tament.

told, is called the Angel of the great covenant? For These views are confirmed by the testimonies of the though it was in after-times that he became the angel of early Fathers, to whom the opinions of the apostles, on the great covenant, yet, even before that, he did not disthis subject, one not at all affected by the controversies dain the title of an Angel, or Messenger.” Again :of the day, would naturally descend. The opinions of “It is manifest to every one, that where the same perthe ancient Jews, which are also decidedly confirma- son is styled both an Angel and God, it must be meant tory, will be given in their proper place.

of the only-begotten, who manifests himself to mankind Justin Martyr has delivered his sentiments very in different generations, and declares the will of the freely upon the Divine appearances. Our Christ," he Father to his saints. Wherefore, he who, at his apsays, “conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the pearing to Moses, called himself I am, cannot be conappearance of fire. And Moses received great strength ceived to be any other person than God, the Word who from Christ, wio spake to him in the appearance of I was in the beginning with God.fire." Again :-“The Jews are justly reproved, for Other authorities may be seen in Waterland's Deimagining that the Father of all things spake to Moses, fence of Queries, that decidedly refutes Dr. Samuel when indeed it was the Son of God, who is called the Clarke, who pretends, in order to cover his Arianism, Angel and the Messenger of the Father. He formerly that the Fathers represent the angel as speaking in the appeared in the form of fire, and without a human person of the Father. shape, to Moses and the other prophets; but now-be- Two objections to this doctrine, taken from the ing made a man of the Virgin," &c.

Scriptures, are answered without difficulty. “God, Irenæus says, “The Scripture is full of the Son of who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in God's appearing; sometimes to talk and eat with Abra- time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these hamn, at other times to instruct Noah about the mea- last days spoken unto us by his Son.” To those only såres of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at who deny the manifestation and agency of the Father in another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; every case in the Old Testament, this passage presents then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to a difficulty. God the Father is certainly meant by the converse with Moses out of the bush."

apostle, and he is said to have spoken by the prophets. Tertullian says, “It was the Son who judged men But this is no difficulty to those who, though they confrom the beginning, destroying that lofty tower, and tend that the ordinary appearances of the Deity were confounding their languages, punishing the whole world those of the Son, yet allow the occasional manifestawith a food of waters, and raining fire and brimstone tion of the Father. He is the fountain of inspiration. upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down The Son is sent by the Father, but the Spirit is sent by from the Lord: for he always descended to hold con- the Father and by the Son. This is the order in tho verse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and New Testament, and also, as inany passages show, in prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in dark sen- the Old. The Spirit sent by the Father, qualified the iences, always preparing his way from the beginning: prophets to speak unto "our fathers." The apostie, neither was it possible, that the God who conversed , however, says nothing more than that there was an with men upon earth, could be any other than that agency of the Father in sending the prophets, which Word which was to be made flesh.”

does not exclude that of the Son also, for the opposiClemens Alexandrinus says, “The Pedagogus ap- tion lies in the outward visible and standing means of peared to Abraham, to Jacob, wrestled with him, and, conveying the knowledge of the will of God to men, lastly, manifested himself to Moses.” Again : “Christ which under the law was by mere men, though progave the world the law of nature, and the written law phets; under the gospel, by the incarnate Son. Comof Moses. Wherefore, the Lord deriving from one munication by prophets under the law, did not exclude fountain both the first and second precepts which he other communications by the Son in his Divine chagave, neither overlooked those who were before the racter; and communication by the Son under the goslaw, so as to leave them without law, nor suffered those pel, does not exclude other communications by aposwho minded not the philosophy of the barbarians to do tles, evangelists, and Christian prophets. The text is as they pleased. He gave to the one precepts, to the noi therefore an exclusive proposition either way. It other philosophy, and concluded them in unbelief till is not clear, indeed, that any direct opposition at all is his coming, when, whosoever believes not is without intended in the text, but a simple declaration of the excuse."

equal authority of both dispensations, and the peculiar Origen says, "My Lord Jesus Christ descended to glory of the latter, whose human minister and revealer the earth more than once. He came down to Esaias, was the Son of God in our nature. to Moses, and to every one of the prophets." Again: The second objection rests upon a passage in the same

epistle. “If the word spoken by angels was steadfast, established in the Scriptures than the personal apand every transgression and disobedience received a pearance of our Lord, during the Patriarchal and Mosaic just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we dispensations, under a Divine character; but this arguneglect so great salvation, which at first began to be ment, so far from having exhausted the proof of his spoken by the Lord?” To understand this passage, it Godhead, is only another in that series of rising steps is to be noted, that the apostle refers to the judicial law by which we are, at length, conducted to the most unof Moses, which had its prescribed penalty for every equivocal and ample demonstration of this great and “transgression and disobedience.” Now, this law was fundamental doctrine. not, like the Decalogue, spoken by God himself, but by The next argument is stated at the head of this angels. For after the voice of God had spoken the ten chapter. If the titles given to Christ are such as can commandments, the people entreated that God would designate a Divine Being, and a Divine Being only, then not speak to them any more. Accordingly, Moses is he, to whom they are by inspired authority ascribed, says, Deut. v. 22, “These words," the Decalogue, “the Divine; or, otherwise, the Word of Truth must stand Lord spake unto

all your assembly in the mount, out of charged with practising a direct deception upon manthe midst of the fire, with a great voice, and he added kind, and that in a fundamental article of religion. This no more, and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and is our argument, and we proceed to the illustration. delivered them unto me." The rest, “both the judicial The first of these titles which calls for our attention and the ceremonial law, was delivered, and the cove- is that of JEHOVAH. Whether “the Angel Jehovah” nant was made, by the mediation of Moses: and there were the future Christ or not, does not affect this case. fore the apostle says, Gal. ii. 19, The law was ordained Even Socinians acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah ; by angels in the hand of a mediator: hence it is called and, if this is one of the titles of the promised Messiah, the law of Moses. And the character given of it in the it is, consequently, a title of our Lord, and must be asPentateuch is this,—these are the statutes, and judg- cribed to him by all who believe Jesus to be the Messiah. ments, and laws, which the Lord made between him So many instances of this were given, in the preand the children of Israel in Mount Sinai, by the hand ceding chapter, that it is unnecessary to repeat them; of Moses.”(1)

and indeed the fact, that the name Jehovah is applied to Nor does the apostle's argument respect the author the Messiah in many passages of the Old Testament, is of the law, for no one can suppose that angels were its admitted by the manner in which the argument deduced authors, nor the giver of the law, for angels have no from this fact is objected to by our opponents. “The such authority; but the medium through which it was Jewish Cabalists,” says Dr. Priestley, "might easily communicated, or “spoken." In the case of the Deca- admit that the Messiah might be called Jehovah, without logue, that medium was the Lord, the Angel Jehovah supposing that he was any thing more than a man, who himself in inajesty; but in the body of judicial and had no existence before his birth.”—“Several things in ceremonial laws, to which he clearly refers, angels and the Scriptures are called by the name of Jehovah; as, Moses. The visible medium by which the gospel was

Jerusalem is called Jehovah our Righteousness.”(1) communicated, was the Son of God made flesh. That They are not, however, the Jewish interpreters only word was “spoken by the Lord,” not only in his per- who give the name Jehovah to Messiah; but the inspired sonal, but in his mediatorial character; and, by that prophets themselves, in passages which, by the equally wonderful condescension, its importance, and the dan- inspired evangelists and apostles, are applied to Jesus. ger of neglecting it, were marked in the most eminent No instance can be given in which any being, acknowand impressive manner.

ledged by all to be a created being, is called Jehovah in It has now therefore been established that the Angel the Scriptures, or was so called among the Jews. The Jehovah, and Jesus Christ our Lord, are the same per- peculiar sacredness attached to this name among thein son; and this is the first great argument by which his was a sufficient guard against such an application of it Divinity is established. He not only existed before his in their common language; and as for the Scriptures, incarnation, but is seen at the head of the religious in- they explicitly represent it as peculiar to Divinity itself. stitutions of his own church, up to the earliest ages. “I am JEHOVAH, that is my name, and my glory will I We trace the manifestations of the same person from not give to another.I am JEHOVAH, and there is Adam to Abraham; from Abraham to Moses; from none else, there is no God besides me.Thou, whose Moses to the prophets; from the prophets to Jesus. NAME ALONE IS JEHOVAH, art the most high, above all Under every manifestation he has appeared in the form the earth.The peculiarity of the name is often of God, never thinking it robbery to be equal with strongly stated by Jewish commentators, which sufliGod. “ Dressed in the appropriate robes of God's ciently refutes Dr. Priestley, who affirms that they could state, wearing God's crown, and wielding God's scep- not, on that account, conclude the Messiah to be more tre,” he has ever received Divine homage and honour. than a man. Kimschi paraphrases Isaiah xliii. 8, “JeNo name is given to the Angel Jehovah, which is not HOVAH, that is my name”-that name is proper to me." given to Jehovah Jesus; no attribute is ascribed to the On Hosea xii. 5, “JEHOVAH his memorial," he says, one which is not ascribed to the other; the worship “In the name El and Elohim, he communicates with which was paid to the one by patriarchs and prophets, others; but, in this name, he communicates with none." was paid to the other by evangelists and apostles; and Aben Ezra, on Exodus iii. 14, proves, at length, that the Scriptures declare them to be the same august per- this name is proper to God.(2) son,--the image of the Invisible, whom no man can “It is, surely, a miserable pretence to allege, that this see and live ; --The Redeeming Ángel, the Redeeming name is sometimes given to places. It is so; but only Kinsman, and the Redeeming God.

in composition with some other word, and not surely as That the titles with which our Lord is invested are indicative of any quality in the places themselves, but unequivocal declarations of absolute Divinity, will be as MEMORIALs of the acts and goodness of JEHOVAH the subject of the next chapter.

himself, as manifested in those localities. So “Jeho vah-Jireh, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," or, " the Lord will see or provide,” referred to his inter

position to save Isaac, and probably to the provision CHAPTER XII.

of the future sacrifice of Christ. The same observation

may be made as to Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah Shallum, THE TITLES OF CHRIST.

&c.: they are names not descriptive of places, but of Various proofs were adduced, in the last chapter, events connected with them, which marked the interpothat the visible Jehovah of the Old Testament is to be sition and character of God himself. It is an unsettled regarded as a Being distinct from the Father, yet point among critics, whether Jah, which is sometimes having Divine titles ascribed to him, being arrayed with found in composition as a proper name of man, as Divine attributes, and performing Divine works equal Abijah, Jehovah is my father, Adonijah, Jehovah my to his. That this august Being was the same who ar- lord, be an abbreviation of Jehovah'or not, so that the terward appeared as “THE CHRIST,” in the person of case will afford no ground of argument. But, if it Jesus of Nazareth, was also proved; and the conclu- were, it would avail nothing, for it is found only in & sion of that branch of the argument was, that Jesus combined form, and evidently relates, not to the persons Christ is, in an absolute sense, a Divine Person, and, as who bore these names, as a descriptive appellation, but such, is to be received and adored.

'to some connexion which existed, or was supposed to It is difficult to conceive any point more satisfactorily

(1) History of Early Opinions. (1) RANDOLPA, Præl. Theolog.

(2) HOORNBECK, Socin. Confut.

exist, between them and the JEHOVAH they acknow that “it is not probable that the LXX. should think ledged as their God. The cases would have been pa- Kuolos to be the proper interpretation of 17%, and yet rallel, had our Lord been called Abijah, “Jehovah is my give it to Jehovah, only in the place of Adonai ; for, if father,” or Jedediah, the beloved of Jehovah.” No

they bad, it would have followed, that when Adonai thing, in that case, would have been furnished, so far and Jehovah had met in one sentence, they would not as mere name was concerned, to distinguish him from have put another word for Adonai, and placed Kupios his countrymen bearing the same appellatives; but he for Jehovah, to which, of itself, according to their obis called Jehovah himself, a name which the Scriptures servation, it did not belong."-" The reason also of the give to no person whatever except to each of the sacred assertion is most uncertain ; for, though it be confessed THREE who stand forth, in the pages of the Old and that the Masoreths did read Adonai when they found New Testaments, crowned with this supreme and ex- Jehovah, and Josephus before them expresses the sense clusive honour and eminence.

of the Jews of his age, that the Tetpayajuato was not Nor is it true, that, in Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem to be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much, is called “Jehovah our Righteousness.” The parallel yet it followeth not from thence that the Jews were so passage in the same book, chap. xxiii. 5, 6, sufficiently superstitious above three hundred years before, which shows that this is not the name of Jerusalem, but the must be proved before we can be assured that the LXX. name of “Tae Branca." Much criticism has been read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reason translated bestowed upon these passages to establish the point, it Kupios.”(4) The supposition is, however, wholly whether the clause ought to be rendered, “And this is overturned by several passages, in which such an interthe name by which the Lord shall call him, our Right change of the names could not be made in the original, eousness;" or, “this is the name by which he shall be without manifestly depriving them of all meaning, and called, the Lord our Righteousness ;" which last has, I which absurdity could not, therefore, take place in a think, been decisively established; but he would be a translation, and be thus made permanent. It is suffivery exceptionable critic who should conclude either of cient to instance Exodus vi. 2, 3, “I am the Lord (Jethem to be an appellative, not of Messiah, but of Jeru. hovah): I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto salem, contrary both to the scope of the passage and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name the literal rendering of the words, --words capable of Jehovah was I not known unto them.” This, it is true, somewhat different constructions, but in no case capable is rather an obscure passage; but, whatever may be its of being applied either to the people of Judah, or to the interpretation, this is clear, that a substitution of Adonai city of Jerusalem.

for Jehovah would deprive it of all meaning whatever, The force of the argument from the application of the and yet here the LXX. translate Jehovah by Kvpios. name Jehovah to Messialı may be thus stated :

Kupios, Lord, is, then, the word into which the Greek Whatever belongs to Messiah, that may and must be of the Septuagint renders the name Jehovah; and, in all attributed to Jesus, as being the true and only Christ; passages in which Messias is called by that peculiar and accordingly we have seen, that the evangelists and title of Divinity, we have the authority of this version apostles apply those passages to our Lord, in which the to apply it, in its full and highest signification, to Jesus Messiah is unequivocally called Jehovah. But this is Christ, who is himself that Messias. For this reason, the peculiar and appropriate name of God; that name and also because, as men inspired, they were directed by which he is distinguished from all other beings, and to fit and proper terms, the writers of the New Testawhich imports perfections so high and appropriate to ment apply this appellation to their Master, when they the only living and true God, such as self-existence and quote these prophetic passages as fulfilled in him. They eternity, that it can, in truth, be a descriptive appellation found it used in the Greek version of the Old Testameni, of no other being.' It is, however, solemnly and re- in its highest possible import, as a rendering of Jehovah. peatedly given to the Messiah ; and, unless we can Had they thought Jesus less than God, they ought suppose Scripture to contradict itself, by making that a to have avoided, and must have avoided, giving to him a peculiar naine which is not peculiar to him, and to es- title which would mislead their readers ; or else have tablish an inducement to that idolatry which it so sternly intimated, that they did not use it in its highest sense condemns, and an excuse for it, then this adorable name as a title of Divinity, but in its very lowest, as a term itself declares the absolute Divinity of him who is of merely human courtesy, or, at best, of human doinvested with it, and is to him, as well as to the Father, minion. But we have no such intimation; and, if a name of revelation, a name descriptive of the attri- they wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, butes which can pertain only to essential Godhead. it follows, that they used it as being understood to be

This conclusion is corroborated by the constant use fully equivalent to the title Jehovah itself. This their of the title "LORD” as an appellation of Jesus, the Mes- quotations will show. The evangelist Matthew (iii. 3) siah, when manifest in the flesh. His disciples not only quotes and applies to Christ the celebrated prophecy of applied to him those passages of the Old Testament, in Isaiah xl. 3: “For this is he that was spoken of by the which the Messias is called Jehovah, but salute and prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the worship him by a title which is of precisely the same wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his original import,(3) and which is, therefore, to be consi- paths straight.” The other evangelists make the same dered in many places of the Septuagint and the New application of it, representing John as the herald of JeTestament an exact translation of the august name sus, the “Jehovah" of the prophet, and their“ Kupios." Jehovah, and fully equiyalent to it in its import. It is It was, therefore, in the highest possible sense that allowed, that it is also used as the translation of other they used the term, because they used it as fully equinames of God, which import simply dominion, and that valent to Jehovah. So, again, in uke i. 16, 17: “And it is applied also to merely human masters and rulers. many of the children of Israel shall he turn to THE It is not, therefore, like the Jehovah of the Old Testa- Lord Their God, and he shall go before um in the ment, an incommunicable name, but, in its highest spirit and power of Elias.” “Isim," unquestionably sense, it is universally allowed to belong to God; and refers to “the Lord their God;" and we have here a if, in this highest sense, it is applied to Christ, then is proof that Christ bears that eminent title of Divinity, the argument valid, that in the sacred writers, whether so frequent in the Old Testament, “the Lord Gon," used to express the self and independent existence of Jehovah Aleim; and also that Kvpios answered, in the him who bears it, or that dominion which, from its nature view of an inspired writer, to the name Jehovah. and circumstances, must be Divine, it contains a nota- On this point the Apostle Paul also adds his testimony, tion of true and absolute Divinity.

Romans x. 13, “ Whosoever shall call upon the name The first proof of this is, that, both in the Septuagint of the LORD shall be saved ; which is quoted from and by the writers of the New Testament, it is the term Joel ii. 32, “ Whoever shall call on the name of JEHOby which the name Jehovah is translated. The Soci- vai shall be delivered." Other passages might be nians have a fiction, that Kupios properly answers to added, but the argument does not rest upon their numAdonai, because the Jews were wont, in reading to sub- ber; these are so explicit, that they are amply suffistitute that name in place of Jehovah. But this is suf- cient to establish the important conclusion, that in ficiently answered by Bishop Pearson, who observes, whatever senses the term “ Lord" may be used, and

though the writers of the New Testament, like our(3) Bishop Pearson, on the second article of the selves, use it occasionally in a lower sense, yet they Creed, thus concludes a learned note on the etymology use it also in its highest possible sense and in its of Kvo!os, Lord: “From all which it undeniably ap- lottiest signification, when they intended it to be under. peareth, that the ancient signification of Kuow is the same with cut, or vrapxw, sum, I am."

(4) Discourses on Creed.

stood as equivalent to Jehovah, and, in that sense, they | a relative signification, and not, as in metaphysica. apply it to Christ.

books, an absolute one: as is evident from the relative But, even when the title “ LORD” is not employed to terms which, in moral writings, may always be joined render the name Jehovah, in passages quoted from the with it. For instance: in the same manner as we say, Old Testament, but is used as the common appellation my father, my king, and the like; so it is proper also of Christ, after his resurrection, the disciples so con- to say my God, the God of Israel, the God of the uninect it with other terms, and with circumstances which verse, and the like: which words are expressive of doso clearly imply Divinity, that it cannot reasonably be minion and government. But in the metaphysical way, made a question but that they themselves considered it cannot be said my Infinite Substance, the Infinite it as a Divine title, and intended that it should be so Substance of Israel, or the like." understood by their readers. In that sense they ap- To this Dr. Waterland's reply is an ample confutaplied it to the Father, and it is clear that they did not tion. “I shall only observe here, by the way, that the use it in a lower sense when they gave it to the Son. worů Tar is a relative word, for the same reason with It is put absolutely, and by way of eminence, “ THE that which the Doctor gives' for the other. For the LORD.” It is joined with “God;" so in the passage Star of your God Remphan (Acts vii. 43) is a proper above quoted from St. Luke, where Christ is called the expression; but, in the metaphysical way, it cannot LORD God; and when Thomas, in an act of adoration, be said, the luminous substance of your God Remphan. calls him “My LORD and my God.” When it is used So again, water is a relative word; for it is proper to to express dominion, that dominion is represented as say the water of Israel ; but, in a metaphysical way, it absolute and universal, and therefore divine. He is cannot be said, the fluid substance of Israel. The Lord of all.“KING of kings, and LORD of lords." expression is improper.(6) By parity of reason, we “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda- may make relative words almost as many as we please. tion of the earth; and the heavens are the works of But to proceed; I maintain that dominion is not the thy hands. They shall perish; but thou remainest : full import of the word God in Scripture; that it is but and they shall all wax old, as doth a garment, and as a part of the idea, and a small part too; and that if any a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be person be called God merely on account of dominion, changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall he is called so by way of figure and resemblance only; not fail.

and is not properly God, according to the Scripture noThus, then, the titles of Jehovah” and “ Lord” both tion of it. We may call any one a KING, who lives free prove the Divinity of our Saviour; "for," as it is re- and independent, subject to no man's will. He is a king marked by Dr. Waterland, “if Jehovah signify the so far, or in some respects; though, in many other eternal immutable God, it is manifest that the name is respects, nothing like one; and, therefore, not properly incommunicable, since there is but one God; and, if a king. If, by the same figure of speech, by way of the name be incommunicable, then Jehovah can sig. allusion and resemblance, any thing he called God, benify nothing but that one God, to whom, and to whom cause resembling God in one or more particulars, we only, it is applied. And if both these parts be true, and are not to conclude that it is properly and truly God. if it be true, likewise, that this name is applied to “To enlarge something farther upon this head, and Christ, the consequence is irresistible, that Christ is to illustrate the case by a few instances. Part of the the same one God, not the same person, with the Fa- idea which goes along with the word God is, that his ther, to whom also the name Jehovah is attributed, but habitation is sublime, and his dwelling not with flesh, the same substance, the same being, in a word, the Dan. ii. 11. This part of the idea is applicable to ansame Jehovah, thus revealed to be more persons than gels or to saints, and therefore they may thus far be

reputed gods; and are sometimes so styled in Scripture God. That this title is attributed to Christ is too or ecclesiastical writings. Another part of the comobvious to be wholly denied, though some of the pas- plex idea of God is giving orders from above, and pubsages whịch have been alleged as instances of this ap- lishing commands from heaven. This was, in some plication of the term have been controverted. Even in sense, applicable to Moses, who is, therefore, called a this a great point is gained. Jesus Christ is called god unto Pharaoh; not as being properly a god; but God; this the adversaries of his Divinity are obliged instead of God, in that instance, or that resembling cirto confess, and this confession admits that the letter of cumstance. In the same respect, every prophet or Scripture is, therefore, in favour of orthodox opini- apostle, or even a minister of a parish, might be figu

It is, indeed, said, that the term God, like the ratively called God. Dominion goes along with the term LORD, is used in an inferior sense; but nothing idea of God, or is a proof of it; and therefore, kings, is gained by this; nothing is, on that account, proved princes, and magistrates, resembling God in that against the Deity of Christ ; for it must still be allowed, respect, may, by the like figure of speech, be styled that it is a term used in Scripture to express the Divine gods ; not properly; for then we might as properly say, Nature, and that it is so used generally. The question, God David, God Solomon, or God Jeroboam as King therefore, is only limited to this, whether our Lord is David, &c.; but by way of allusion, and in regard to called God, in the highest sense of that appellation. some imperfect resemblance which they bear to God in This might, indeed, be argued from those passages in some particular respects; and that is all. It belongs the Old Testament in which the title is given to the to God to receive worship, and sacrifice, and homage. acting, manifested Jehovah," the Lord God" of the Old Now, because the Heathen idols so far resembled God Testament; but this having been anticipated, I confine as to be made the objects of worship, &c., therefore myself chiefly to the evangelists and apostles.

they also, by the same figure of speech, are by the Before that proof is adduced, which will most une- Scripture denominated gods, though, at the same time, quivocally show that Jesus Christ is called God, in the they are declared, in a proper sense, to be no gods. highest sense of that terın, it will, however, be neces- The belly is called the god of the luxurious, Phil. iii. sary to show that, in its highest sense, it involves the 19, because some are as much devoted to the service of notion of absolute Divinity. This has been denied. their bellies as others are to the service of God, and Sir Isaac Newton, who, on theological subjects, as because their lusts have got the dominion over them. Bishop Horsley observes, "went out like a common This way of speaking is, in like manner, grounded on man," says that the word God " is a relative term, and some imperfect resemblance, and is easily understood. has a regard to seryants; it is true, it denotes a Being The prince of the devils is supposed by most interpreeternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect; but a Being, ters, to be called the god of this world, 2 Cor. iv. 4. Ir however eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect, with so, the reason may be, either because the men of out dominion, would not be God.”(5) This relative this world are entirely devoted to his service; or that notion of the term, as itself importing strictly nothing he has got the power and dominion over them. more than dominion, was adopted by Dr. S. Clarke, and made use of to support his semi-Arianism; and it (6) It is very obvious to perceive where the improseems to have been thought, that, by confining the term priety of such expressions lies. The word substance, to express mere sovereignty, the force of all those pas- according to the common use of language, when used sages of Scripture in which Christ is called God, and in the singular number, is supposed to be intrinsic to from which his absolute Divinity is argued, might be the thing spoken of, whose substance it is; and, indeed, avoided. His words are, “ The word Öcos, God, has, to be the thing itself

. My substance is myself; and in Scripture, and in all books of morality and religion, the substance of Israel is Israel. And hence it evinces

to be improper to join substance with the relative terms, (5) Philos. Nat. Mathæ. in calce,

understanding it of any thing intrinsic.

one."

ons.

« PreviousContinue »