every orthodox creed. If it can be fairly established, that this view of the person of Christ rests on the plain grammatical and unsophisticated testimony of God, as delivered to us in the Bible, there will be no necessity for going into an investigation of the other two opinions above referred to, and adverting to the modifications which they may have assumed in different ages of the Church, from the times of the Evangelist John till the present day. The arguments which go to substantiate the truth of our Lord's divinity, must necessarily in the same proportion annihilate the hypothesis of his created existence, whether that existence may have been earlier or later, more or less exalted. It will therefore be the object of this and some following papers to ascertain what the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach on the subject. The proofs of our Lord's divinity, which are furnished us in the Old Testament, will first be considered: only it must be premised, that it would be very unreasonable to expect this particular doc trine to be more frequently and clearly taught than many others, during a dispensation, one of whose peculiar characteristics was comparative obscurity. Nothing more ought to be expected, than that the proofs which supported it are equally perspicuous as those which are admitted to establish other doctrines, the full development of which did not take place till the introduction of the Christian economy.

CLASS A. Proofs of the Divinity of Christ from the OLD TESTAMENT.

1. The first are those which assert the fact of Divine Manifestations, or Personal Appearances to men, under the combined characters of the Angel and Jehovah.

The nature of the proof to be here adduced is this; the person who appeared to the Patriarchs and Israelites is expressly called Jehovah, or

, Adonâi, (the Lord,) which in point of peculiarity is equivalent to it. He is also called Malach, the Angel or Messenger, and is the same who afterwards appeared as the Messiah. These three propositions will receive illustration as we proceed.

(1) Gen. xvi. 7—13. There we find the same person who is four times mentioned as "the Angel of Jehovah," expressly receiving the names of "Jehovah" and "God." Some would render "the Angel Jehovah ;” but this is contrary to the current analogy of the Hebrew language, which requires the words to be read in construction, not in apposition.

(2) Gen. xviii. It is evident from the whole of this interesting portion of sacred history, that "Jehovah" appeared to Abraham as the , accompanied by two other angels, who immediately proceeded on their way to Sodom, while He continued visible to the patriarch, and communed with him for a time.

(3) Gen. xxi. 17-20; xxii. 11, 15-18; xxxi. 11-13; xlviii. 15, 16; Exod. iii. 2-15; xxiii. 20, 21; Isaiah lxiii. 8, 9; Zech. iii. 1-4; xii. 8; Mal. iii. 1.—This last passage appropriates the term Malach, “Angel” or Messenger," to the Messiah.

In all these passages the peculiar names and appropriate attributes of the Supreme Deity are given to the angel who appeared on the occasions to which reference is made. And that this Angel was the Son of God appears clearly from Micah v. 2, compared with Matth. ii. 6. The л or "goings forth," do not relate to what has been called "eternal generation," but to the appearances which this Divine Person assumed in the earlier periods of time. They are here introduced to prepare the Church of God for the more wonderful appearance or "going forth," in the fulness of time.

That the Angel referred to in the above passages was not an exalted Angel personating the Deity, as the Arians and some others have maintained, is evident from these circumstances, that we nowhere in Scripture find Angels or any other messengers or ambassadors apply the names, &c. of God to themselves, or to each other, but they uniformly speak as the servants of God; that they nowhere represent themselves as personating the Deity; and that they invariably and expressly disclaim every title to religious adoration.

It is equally clear, that the Socinian hypothesis of the Angel being a mere symbol of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of Jehovah's power, is utterly untenable; for such strong and unqualified representations are made in the sacred records of personal attributes and personal distinctions, as cannot be reconciled with such ideas, consistently with any principles of just and rational interpretation. Every unbiassed reader, on coming to such parts of the narrative, must, according to the meaning he is accustomed to attach to language, consider the Angel as a person, in some respects distinct from Jehovah, and yet as Jehovah himself.

2. Those passages in the Old Testament which describe the Messiah as possessing the names, the nature, and the attributes of Jehovah.

(1) Job xix. 25-27. The characters here given to Job's "Redeemer" are Châi, the Living One, Acharon the Future, or the Last, or He who was ultimately to come, and Mibsári Eloah, the Incarnate God. The last character is almost a literal rendering of the original expression," God of my flesh." The phrase is parallel with that used Gen. ii. 23; "This is bone of my bone, and a flesh of my flesh." By his flesh," Job meant his nature, that nature which was assumed, when & Aoyos σαρξ εγένετο "the word became flesh," (John i. 14;) and he whom he confidently hoped to see in human nature, is “Eloah," God.

66

(2) Ps. ii. 12. The Messiah, described as the Son of God, is here represented as entitled to the homage and confidence of the world. Compare Jer. xvii. 5; Mic. vii. 5—7 ; Ps. xl. 4; where trust in a mere man is most strongly reprobated. The language of the whole psalm, which is incapable of application to any but Christ, is very different from what we find employed any where in Scripture of a mere creature.

ND Kisachâ Elohim,

(3) Ps. xlv. 6, 7. The Socinians render (LXX, 8 Opovos σov & eos) "God is thy throne ;" but such a mode of expression is altogether foreign to the usus loquendi of the Scriptures, and to

E

every orthodox creed. If it can be fairly established, that this view of the person of Christ rests on the plain grammatical and unsophisticated testimony of God, as delivered to us in the Bible, there will be no necessity for going into an investigation of the other two opinions above referred to, and adverting to the modifications which they may have assumed in different ages of the Church, from the times of the Evangelist John till the present day. The arguments which go to substantiate the truth of our Lord's divinity, must necessarily in the same proportion annihilate the hypothesis of his created existence, whether that existence may have been earlier or later, more or less exalted. It will therefore be the object of this and some following papers to ascertain what the Scriptures of the Old and New Tes taments teach on the subject. The proofs of our Lord's divinity, which are furnished us in the Old Testament, will first be considered: only it must be premised, that it would be very unreasonable to expect this particular doctrine to be more frequently and clearly taught than many others, during a dispensation, one of whose peculiar characteristics was comparative obscurity. Nothing more ought to be expected, than that the proofs which supported it are equally perspicuous as those which are admitted to establish other doctrines, the full development of which did not take place till the introduction of the Christian economy.

CLASS A. Proofs of the Divinity of Christ from the OLD TEStament.

1. The first are those which assert the fact of Divine Manifestations, or Personal Appearances to men, under the combined characters of the Angel and Jehovah.

The nature of the proof to be here adduced is this; the person who appeared to the Patriarchs and Israelites is expressly called Jehovah, or "TM, Adonâi, (the Lord,) which in point of peculiarity is equivalent to it. He is also called T Malach, the Angel or Messenger, and is the same who afterwards appeared as the Messiah. These three propositions will receive illustration as we proceed.

(1) Gen. xvi. 7-13. There we find the same person who is four times mentioned as "the Angel of Jehovah," expressly receiving the names of "Jehovah" and "God." Some would render D "the Angel Jehovah ;” but this is contrary to the current analogy of the Hebrew language, which requires the words to be read in construction, not in apposition.

(2) Gen. xviii. It is evident from the whole of this interesting portion of sacred history, that "Jehovah" appeared to Abraham as the, accompanied by two other angels, who immediately proceeded on their way to Sodom, while He continued visible to the patriarch, and communed with him for a time.

(3) Gen. xxi. 17—20; xxii. 11, 15-18; xxxi. 11–13; xlviii. 15, 16; Exod. iii. 2-15; xxiii. 20, 21; Isaiah lxiii. 8, 9; Zech. iii. 1—4; xii. 8; Mal. iii. 1.-This last passage appropriates the term Malach, “Angel” or "Messenger," to the Messiah.

In all these passages the peculiar names and appropriate attributes of the Supreme Deity are given to the angel who appeared on the occasions to which reference is made. And that this Angel was the Son of God appears clearly from Micah v. 2, compared with Matth. ii. 6. The л or "goings forth," do not relate to what has been called "eternal generation," but to the appearances which this Divine Person assumed in the earlier periods of time. They are here introduced to prepare the Church of God for the more wonderful appearance or "going forth," in the fulness of time.

That the Angel referred to in the above passages was not an exalted Angel personating the Deity, as the Arians and some others have maintained, is evident from these circumstances, that we nowhere in Scripture find Angels or any other messengers or ambassadors apply the names, &c. of God to themselves, or to each other, but they uniformly speak as the servants of God; that they nowhere represent themselves as personating the Deity; and that they invariably and expressly disclaim every title to religious adoration.

It is equally clear, that the Socinian hypothesis of the Angel being a mere symbol of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of Jehovah's power, is utterly untenable; for such strong and unqualified representations are made in the sacred records of personal attributes and personal distinctions, as cannot be reconciled with such ideas, consistently with any principles of just and rational interpretation. Every unbiassed reader, on coming to such parts of the narrative, must, according to the meaning he is accustomed to attach to language, consider the Angel as a person, in some respects distinct from Jehovah, and yet as Jehovah himself.

2. Those passages in the Old Testament which describe the Messiah as possessing the names, the nature, and the attributes of Jehovah.

(1) Job xix. 25-27. The characters here given to Job's "Redeemer" are Châi, the Living One, p Acharon the Future, or the Last, or He who was ultimately to come, and Mibsári Eloah, the Incarnate God. The last character is almost a literal rendering of the original expression, " God of my flesh." The phrase is parallel with that used Gen. ii. 23; "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." By his 'flesh," Job meant his nature, that nature which was assumed, when & Aoyos σαρξ εγένετο "the word became flesh," (John i. 14;) and he whom he confidently hoped to see in human nature, is "Eloah,” God.

(2) Ps. ii. 12. The Messiah, described as the Son of God, is here represented as entitled to the homage and confidence of the world. Compare Jer. xvii. 5; Mic. vii. 5—7; Ps. xl. 4; where trust in a mere man is most strongly reprobated. The language of the whole psalm, which is incapable of application to any but Christ, is very different from what we find employed any where in Scripture of a mere creature. (3) Ps. xlv. 6, 7. The Socinians render TİN Kisacha Elohim, (LXX, ¿ Opovos σov 8 Oeos) "God is thy throne;" but such a mode of expression is altogether foreign to the usus loquendi of the Scriptures, and to

E

כסאר

tally repugnant to every idea of reverence and piety. & eos is not the nominative, but the usual vocative case, both in the LXX. and in the New Testament; indeed fee, the proper vocative, occurs only twice in the Old Testament, and but once in the New, & eos being used in invocations in its stead. The translation given by Gesenius, " thy God's throne is eternal," is equally objectionable to warrant it the words should have been 7 DJ. That the Messiah is the object of this address cannot be denied by any who admit the inspired authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the first chapter of which the language is expressly applied to Him; indeed, every interpretation of the 45th Psalm, which does not refer it to the Messiah, is clogged with insurmountable difficulties.

The following words, TN Elohim Eloheichâ, may either be rendered " God, thy God"-or "O God! thy God."-The latter mode, which is that of our common version, is supported by the authority of Symmachus, (no unimportant witness in such a case,) who gives it eɛe d eos σou (Thee, ho Theos sou.) This mode also seems best to comport with the preceding vocative. It may be said, that as judges and magistrates are called Elohim in Scripture, (Ps. lxxxii. 1, 6; John x. 35,) the title in this place is not expressive of divinity, but merely of royalty. But the fact here asserted as an objection exists only in reference to the number of rulers generally, as no instance can be produced in which a single or individual king is called by this name.

Ps. xcvii. 7, and Ps. cvii. 25-29, will be considered under the head of New Testament proofs.

(4) Ps. cx. 1-3. That this Psalm applies to the Messiah we are warranted on the highest authority to assert, the words of the first verse being so applied not fewer than four times by the inspired writers of the New Testament, as those of the 4th verse are repeatedly. And that it was regarded by the Jews in the time of our Lord as applicable to him, and to none else, is clear from the silence of the Pharisees when he asked them, "Why then doth David in spirit call him Lord?" The force of the arguments from this Psalm, in support of our Lord's divinity, lies in the meaning of ". This word in the first verse, as it is printed in the present Hebrew copies, Adoni, signifies merely "my Lord;" by which term superiority is acknowledged, without any expression of the degree of that superiority. That it was understood in this way before the time of our Saviour is evident, from its having been rendered by the LXX. Tш Kupɩw μov (to Kurio mow), which version is introduced by Matthew: yet the whole force of our Lord's argument with the Pharisees proceeds on the principle, that the word was to be read Adonai, THE LORD," and not Adoni, "my Lord." According to all the three evangelists, who have given us any account of this conversation, Jesus did not say, "How then doth David in spirit call Him my Lord?" but, "How then doth David in spirit call Him ΚΥΡΙΟN LORD ?” i. e, Adondi, τον μονον Δεσποτην Jude 4. Had he put the former question, nothing could have been easier than for the Pharisees to have replied, that even in regard to Solomon, his