then to the only begotten Son, the image of the Father. To angels. Psal. xcvii. 7, 9. "worship him all ye gods.... thou art high above all the earth; thou art exalted far above all gods," compared with Heb. i. 6. See also Psal. viii. 5.9 To judges. Exod. xxii. 28. "thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." See also, in the Hebrew, Exod. xxi. 6. xxii. 8, 9. Psal. lxxxii. 1. 6. "he judgeth among the gods. I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." To the whole house of David, or to all the Saints. Zech. xii. 8. "the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them." The word on, though it be of the plural number, is also employed to signify a single angel, in case it should be thought that the use of the plural implies a plurality of persons in the Godhead Judges xiii. 21. "then Manoah knew that he was an angel of Jehovah and Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." The same word is also applied to a single false god. Exod. xx. 3. "thou shalt have no other gods before me.' To Dagon. Judges xvi. 23. To single idols. 1 Kings xi. 33. To Moses. Exod. iv. 16. and vii. 1. To God the Father alone. Psal. ii. 7. xlv. 7. and in many other places. Similar to this is the use of the word, the Lord, in the plural number with a singular meaning; and with a plural affix according to the Hebrew mode. The word also with the vowel Patha is frequently employed to signify one man, and with the vowel Kamets to signify one God, or one angel bearing the character of God. This peculiarity in the above words has been carefully noticed by the grammarians and lexicographers themselves, as well as in used appellatively. The same thing may perhaps -: : .עשרות and בעלים be remarked of the proper names For even among the Greeks, the word deorórns, that is, Lord, is also used in the plural number in the sense of the singular, • Lower than the angels, Authorized Translation. Minorem Diis, Tremell. See Par. Lost, II. 106. His look denounc'd Desp❜rate revenge, and battle dangerous where Bentley would substitute To less than God. Milton's quotation of the passage from the eighth psalm seems, however, to justify the common reading. 1 when extraordinary respect and honour are intended to be paid. Thus in the Iphigenia in Aulis of Euripides, Xíav DEOTÓTαIOI TIOTÒS ET, (I. 304, Beck's edition) for door, and again εὔκλεές τοι δεσποτῶν θνήσκειν ὑπερ (l. 312) for deoTórou. It is also used in the Rhesus and the Bacchæ in the same manner.1 Attention must be paid to these circumstances, lest any one through ignorance of the language should erroneously suppose, that whenever the word Elohim is joined with a singular, it is intended to intimate a plurality of persons in unity of essence. But if there be any significance at all in this peculiarity, the word must imply as many gods as it does persons. Besides, a plural adjective or a plural verb is sometimes joined to the word Elohim, which, if a construction of this kind could mean anything, would signify not a plurality of persons only, but also of natures. See in the Hebrew Deut. v. 26. Josh. xxiv. 19. Jer. x. 10. Gen. xx. 13. Further, the singular also sometimes occurs, Deut. xxxii. 18. and elsewhere. It is also attributed to Christ with the singular affix. Psal. cx. 1. "Jehovah said unto my Lord," in which passage the Psalmist speaks of Christ (to whom the name of Lord is assigned, as a title of the highest honour) both as distinct from Jehovah, and, if any reliance can be placed on the affix, as inferior to Jehovah. But when he addresses the Father, the affix is changed, and he says, v. 5. , "the Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." The name of God seems to be attributed to angels3 because as heavenly messengers they bear the appearance of the di 1 Rhes, 264. Bacch. 1027. Edit. Beck. 2 See this affirmed, and the whole subject learnedly dicussed, in Allix's Judgement of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians, chap. ix. p. 103. Edit. Oxford, 1821. 3 Milton is fond of attributing the name of God to angels, even in his Poem: Deigns none to ease thy load, and taste thy sweet, Nor God, nor man? Paradise Lost, V. 59. Evil into the mind of God or man And again, in the same book, May come and go, so unreprov'd. 117. Where Newton properly remarks that God must signify Angel, for 'God vine glory and person, and even speak in the very words of the Deity. Gen. xxi. 17, 18. xxii. 11, 12, 15, 16. "by myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah." For the expression so frequently in the mouth of the prophets, and which is elsewhere often omitted, is here inserted, for the purpose of shewing that angels and messengers do not declare their own words, but the commands of God who sends them, even though the speaker seem to bear the name and character of the Deity himself. So believed the patriarch Jacob; Gen. xxxi. 11-13. "the angel of God spake unto me, saying.... I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel," &c. xxxii. 30. “I have seen God face to face;" compared with Hos. xii. 4, 5. "he had power with God, yea, he had power over the angel." Exod. xxiv. 10, 11. “they saw the God of Israel.... also they saw God." Deut, iv. 33. "did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?" Yet it is said, Exod. xxxiii. 20. "there shall no man see me, and live." John i. 18. "no man hath seen God at any time.” v. 37. "ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." 1 Tim. vi. 16. "dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see.' It follows therefore that whoever was heard or seen, it was not God; not even where mention is made of God, nay even of Jehovah himself, and of the angels in the same sentence. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13. "behold the angels of God.... and behold, Jehovah stood above them." 1 Kings xxii. 19. "I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him." Isai. vi. 1, 2. "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne.... above it stood the seraphim." I repeat, it was not God himself that he saw, but perhaps one of the angels clothed in some modification of the divine glory, or the son of God himself, the image of the glory of his Father, as John understands the vision, xii. 41. "these things said Esaias, when he saw his glory." For if he had been of the same essence, he could no more have been seen or heard than cannot be tempted with evil,' as St. James says of the Supreme Being. So also in Paradise Regained, of the fallen angels, .led their march From Hell's deep vaulted den to dwell in light; I. 115. the Father himself, as will be more fully shewn hereafter.* Hence even the holiest of men were troubled in mind when they had seen an angel, as if they had seen God himself. Gen. xxxii. 30. "I have seen God." Judges vi. 22. "when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of Jehovah, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah, for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah face to face." See also xiii. 21, 22. as before. 5 The name of God is ascribed to judges, because they occupy the place of God to a certain degree in the administration of judgement. The Son, who was entitled to the name of God both in the capacity of a messenger and of a judge, and indeed in virtue of a much better right, did not think it foreign to his character, when the Jews accused him of blasphemy because he made himself God, to allege in his own defence the very reason which has been advanced. John x. 34-36. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"—especially when God himself had called the judges children of the Most High, as has been stated before. Hence 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5. "for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” Even the principal texts themselves which are brought forward to prove the divinity of the Son, if carefully weighed and considered, are sufficient to 'shew that the Son is God in the manner which has been explained. John i. 1. "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It is not said, from everlasting, but in the beginning. The Word, therefore the Word was audible. But God, as he cannot be seen, so neither can he be heard; John v. 37. The Word therefore is not of the same essence 4 See the next page, and p. 168. ō Be not so sore offended, Son of God, Though Sons of God both angels are and men, If I, to try whether in higher sort Than these thou bear'st that title.-Paradise Regained, IV. 196. with God. The Word was with God, and was God,—namely, because he was with God, that is, in the bosom of the Father, as it is expressed v. 18. Does it follow therefore that he is one in essence with him with whom he was? It no more follows, than that the disciple who was lying on Jesus' breast, John xiii. 23. was one in essence with Christ. Reason rejects the Doctrine; Scripture nowhere asserts it; let us therefore abandon human devices, and follow the evangelist himself, who is his own interpreter. Rev. xix. 13. "his name one God: he be a distinct How then is is called the Word of God"—that is, of the himself is a distinct person. If therefore he person, he is distinct from God, who is unity. he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the only begotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God. This seems to be the reason why it is repeated in the second verse-" the same was in the beginning with God;" which enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might show him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence; which doctrine is consistent with the subsequent explanations of the evangelist in numberless passages of his gospel. Another passage is the speech of Thomas, John xx. 28. 66 my Lord and my God." He must have an immoderate share of credulity who attempts to elicit a new confession of faith, unknown to the rest of the disciples, from this abrupt exclamation of the apostle, who invokes in his surprise not only Christ his own Lord, but the God of his ancestors, namely, God the Father ; -as if he had said, Lord! what do I see what do I hear-what do I handle with my hands? He whom Thomas is supposed to call God in this passage, had acknowledged respecting himself not long before, v. 17. "I ascend unto my God and your God." Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is. On whose word therefore can we ground our faith with most security; on that of Christ, whose doctrine is clear, or of 6 This is the Nestorian interpretation of the passage, and has been long almost universally exploded. It will be sufficient to refer to Waterland's Works, ii. p. 122; Pearson On the Creed, art. ii.; Nares's Remarks on the Improved Version, p. 197; and Wardlaw On the Socinian Controversy, p. 120-122. 6 |