Inferiority to the Father.

85

not for my sake, but for yours, that ye might believe.' The sole object of this prayer from which the passage now under consideration is taken is declared by Christ to be for the sake of his disciples. "And these things I speak in the world, for their sakes, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." We see, therefore, that all his appeals to the Father, in which he expressed his subjection to him were for the confirmation of his disciples, or the conviction of his enemies. There was no other way in which these effects could have been produced, but by the constant declaration of the union of Deity with his person; which, as we have shown, he did not see fit always to proclaim. Our argument therefore is this: if Christ were God and man, it was indispensable that as Mediator he should always assert his dependence upon the Father, as the only way of proving that he was divinely commissioned, unless he saw fit to publish and prove the mysterious union, which as well as the fact that he was the Messiah, we find that be left the world to infer from the Scriptures, and from his works, more frequently than from his open declarations.

86

One God, and One Lord.

Another passage adduced to prove that the father only is God is 1 Tim. ii. 5. "There is one God the Father, of whom are all things:and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." This text is very positive. It declares that Jesus is Lord, but that the father only is our God.' p. 7.

6

A very erroneous conclusion. The writer seems to infer that the term 'Lord' is inferior to God.' This is a mistake. The term Lord was applied by the Greeks to their Supreme deities. The expression (xvoios, Lord) denotes dominion. Now if the father alone is God, according to the inference from this text, then Christ alone is Lord; that is, the Father has no dominion.

Several passages are frequently quoted to prove that the manner in which Christ is usually spoken of show that he was not God.

"Take his testimony concerning himself. 'I came not to do mine own will'-of course not; because he could have no separate will from the Father. I can of mine own self do nothing;' because the Father and Son are so intimately united that they cannot act apart. All these expressions were used, as the context

Charge of Blasphemy a Proof of Deity. 87

shows, to prove that he was not an impostor, but in union with God.

One of the greatest proofs of the deity of Christ is suggested by an argument brought forward in this Tract to disprove it. We ask the reader's attentive consideration of the following passage: Mark xiv. 61, 2, 3; "Again the High priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.' Then the High Priest rent his clothes, and saith, what need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy. And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."

Every one knows that the term Christ is only another name for 'Messiah,' and that the Messiah had been the object of long and earnest expectation among the Jews. Christ, in the presence of the Jewish council assumed to be the Messiah, and in doing this was immediately condemned for blasphemy. Now let it be explained under what pretence they could accuse him of blasphemy, if the Messiahship did not include divine attributes. Blasphemy,

88 Jews accused Him of making Himself God.

according to Schleusner, is arrogating and taking to one's self that which belongs to God. But if the Messiah was expected to be merely a human being, how could he have been condemned on the spot for blasphemy,—when he laid claims to something which involved only human attributes? The crime, however, was so dreadful that the High Priest 'rent his clothes.'

Yet in the mere assertion that he was the Messiah they found sufficient reason for his condemnation. 'Ye have heard the blasphemy:—what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.'

On a previous occasion the Jews came to Christ, and said, 'How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us plainly. Some things which Christ said in reply involved an assertion of his Messiahship, and they stoned him, saying that it was for blasphemy,—and because thou being a man makest thyself God!'

Another passage further illustrates this point. Christ said to his disciples, 'Whom do ye say that I am.' Peter answered, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.'

6

The Sa

The Messiahship implies Divinity. 89

viour replied, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' But surely if the term 'Christ the Son of God,' implied nothing more than his being a messenger divinely commissioned, Peter did not need inspiration to teach him that which was so plainly proved by the miracles! But it would seem that there was a high mystery in the Messiah's character, from the fact that Christ ascribed Peter's knowledge to supernatural influence. If all this be true, if the Messiahship implied such attributes and powers that a false assumption thereof was blasphemy, if a true knowledge of the Messiah was the special gift of God, it follows that to confess Jesus to be the Christ involved an acknowledgement of the most important nature. We shall undertake to show in the proper place that the ancient prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament, designated him as a divine person. If this can be proved, would not the confession that "Jesus is the Christ," be equivalent to a confession of his deity? Hence the argument in the Tract before us, drawn from 'the terms of faith required of his disciples,' may be turn