difficulty; on the whole it now appears to me more probable that he did; and, the words of our Lord just now referred to, fully justified the appellation of Thomas. Employing the Jewish idiom, Jesus was a God, as being a representative of God, as being one to whom the word of God came;' and a Jewish disciple, who from his infancy must have been imbued with the strictest ideas of the unity and unrivalled supremacy of God, and accustomed by the scriptural usage of the appellation God to great latitude in the employment of it, could have no hesitation, in such circumstances, in employing it when addressing one respecting whom there was such abundant and peculiar proof, that to him the word of God came, that he was the representative of the Most High. - If Jesus were properly God, he himself asserts nothing of the kind: he uses, indeed, strong language in reference to the dignified character which he sustained, from which it has been inferred that he was properly God; but unless this astonishing doctrine is somewhere distinctly declared to us, the inference must fail if his words will justly allow of any other explanation; and that they do I shall briefly shew in my next Part. But if words have any force, and be to be interpreted in the plain and obvious sense' it has often been said, and perhaps long will be said, 'the Evangelist John has recorded express declarations of our Lord which prove that he existed before his human On this passage see Chap. VI. § 1. birth.' Where? I again ask. The Gospel is full of them; no one can read it with an unprejudiced mind without admitting that thus much is distinctly taught in it.' As in former instances, I admit that there are several passages which, if this doctrine were established, might receive a suitable interpretation upon it; but I contend, that the general tenor of the Scripture language and history is, that Jesus was a MAN, in the strict and proper sense of the term, sanctified and sent into the world by the GOD OF JESUS, and that the GOD AND FATHER of Jesus is THE ONLY GOD; and that therefore if these and other passages will admit of a just interpretation agreeably to this general tenor, they will prove nothing which is not consistent with it. According to the common translation for instance, our Lord is considered as expressly referring to a state of glory, in which he actually existed at some former period; but the original, if we interpret it by corresponding expressions, leads to no such conclusion. The words of our Lord obviously refer, as I hope to shewe, to glory which, with God, in Ilis sight with whom a thousand years are as one day, he had before the world began to exist. So again, in several passages our Lord speaks of his coming down from heaven, &c. Now this and similar expressions are capable of a correct interpretation, upon each of at least three hypotheses, • John xvii. 5. (See Note (P) p. 68.). e See this and the following expressions considered in Chap. VII. (viz. 1. that Jesus existed before his human birth; 2. that, at the time of his receiving his divine commission, he was taken up from earth, into some place which is permanently favoured with peculiar manifestations of the divine presence; and, 3. that he was, at that period, in some place which for the time was favoured with peculiar manifestations of the divine presence ;) and consequently, of themselves they prove neither, but we are to seek for proof as to the matter of fact from other parts of the Scriptures. Without here entering farther into the point, I assert then, without hesitation, that of themselves these expressions prove nothing.-I believe there is only one other expression which would be regarded as an independent proof of the pre-existence; I refer to that contained in ch. viii. C Before Abraham was (or rather, shall become) I am he.' That the passage is attended with some difficulty, (I do not mean on the Unitarian scheme merely,) is admitted; but I contend, that in the plain and obvious sense of words, the assertion I am he' refers to the time actually present when the words were used, the time which Abraham foresaw, in which our Lord was speaking,and not to the time before which Abraham existed, which it must do if it favour the doctrine of pre-existence. Still the Evangelist may have expressly declared doctrines which it is, I think, obvious that our Lord did not himself teach while on earth. I see no such declaration; I see nothing from which it can be satisfactorily inferred, that he considered Jesus as a being of a superior nature. That he gives the high appellation God to him on whose bosom he once reclined as the beloved friend, is to me clear; and he needs no farther justification than what is afforded by those words of Jesus which he himself records, and to which I have more than once referred. He also says that the Jews were about to stone Jesus, not only for having broken the sabbath, but for calling God his own Father, thus making himself like God;' and leaves the point without any comment. This I admit; and I have only to add, that the Evangelist has given us abundant reason to consider Jesus as representative of God, as His highly favoured and beloved Son, the chosen revealer of His will: and if the last clause (making himself like God) be considered as the inference of the Evangelist himself, which it scarcely can be, our Lord's likeness to God is sufficiently explained in various parts of the f Peter rebuked one whom many suppose to have been the Great God of heaven and earth (Matt. xvi. 22.) John leaned on his bosom and yet neither, as far as we can discover, ever manifested those feelings which one would suppose must necessarily arise upon an acquaintance with the fact, that he whom they had treated so familiarly was the very and eternal God; yet both had suitable opportunities of so doing. We have several declarations of Peter respecting his exalted Lord, subsequent to the effusion of the holy spirit; and John tells us of his familiarity with Jesus, of the friendship of Jesus for himself and others; yet neither introduces one expression of surprise, not one expression indicating the feeling with which such recollections must have been accompanied, not one unambiguous declaration of the matter of fact. • See page 62 note (1). Ch. v. 18. See Chap. V. - Gospel, it consisted in working the work of God, in doing those things which God commissioned him to do. The Evangelist gives our Saviour the high appellation of the only-begotten, or only, Son of God; but I imagine few, if any, competent judges would lay any stress upon this epithet, as an independent proof of the superior nature of our Lord; and to me it appears peculiarly appropriate to one of whom his beloved Apostle says, that all things were done by him, and that God gave him the spirit without measure, and who was appointed the sole medium of the most illustrious display of ovoyons correbeloved in Gen. Zech. xii. 10. The Hebrew word only to which sponds, is translated in the Septuagint ayanros xxii. 2, 12, 16. Jer. vi. 26. Amos viii. 10. ayanwuevos beloved in Prov. iv. 3: μovoyevns only Ps. xxii. 20. xxv. 16. xxxv. 17: and Movorgwños solitary in Ps. lxvii. 7. In the first three instances it refers to Isaac, and is rendered only in the English version. In the N. T. Movoyens is used in reference to Isaac, Hebr. xi. 17. That the Apostle might use ovoyens only, in the sense of ayarnros beloved, is obvious therefore from the Hebrew idiom: that he did not use it in the sense commonly affixed to the word only-begotten is abundantly clear from his own words in ch. i. 13, where he speaks of the believers in Christ as begotten (or, born) of God, ex eou eyevunnaay, and in the first Epistle ch. v. 1, where he says, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten (or, born) of God, ex rou Desu yeyevvntai, and every one that loveth him that begat τον γεννήσαντα (i. e. God himself) loveth him also that is begotten of him roy ye YEVYAMEVOV EŽ AUTOU (i. e. every believer in Jesus.) See also 1 John iii. 9. iv. 7. v. 18. Some Trinitarians have considered μovoyens when applied to Christ as referring in no way to his divine nature, but, to his miraculous birth. See Parkhurst's Gr. Lex. But it seems most accordant with the style of a Jewish writer, to consider it as nearly synonymous with ayanros beloved though somewhat more forcible than that word,-peculiarly beloved, beloved as an only son. |