difficulty. For it was in the office and character of Prophet that this homage was rejected both by St. Peter and the Angel. But, whatever was its common import among the Jews, it might mean much more when used in addressing Jesus than in addressing any ordinary Prophet: and, taking into account their belief of the divine nature of the Messiah, it would most probably signify in his case, a vast deal more than could be tolerated by our Saviour, unless his intention was to give countenance and sanction to their opinions on that subject. In some instances, however, it could mean nothing less than the divine honour to which he was entitled as the Son of God. The instances I refer to, are those of the devils, who fell down at his feet and worshipped him, acknowledging him as the Son of the most high God, and as the Judge whom they expected hereafter to consign them to the abyss of everlasting torments'. Equally clear is the proof found in the history of the man who 1 Mark iii. 11. v. 7. Luke viii. 28. had been born blind, and whose worship our Saviour undoubtedly received as an acknowledgment of his faith in his divine nature. "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." On the whole it is plain, that the conduct of our Saviour gave the most unequivocal sanction that could possibly be given, to the doctrine of the Jewish Church relative to the nature of the Messiah. It was a direct encouragement to the doctrine, that the title, "the Son of God," belonged to the Messiah, in a sense which implied that he was the Supreme God. It is unnecessary to adduce instances in which our Saviour's teaching confirmed the Jewish doctrine of a trinity of persons. His 1 John ix, 35-38, commands to his Apostles in the text of these discourses, are quite sufficient. The language is perfectly irreconcileable with common sense and with the first principles of religion, on any other supposition. It becomes still more so, when considered in connexion with His discourses with his Apostles shortly before his passion, in which the personality of the Holy Ghost, and the divine nature of the Messiah, are most distinctly taught. The impression made by the conduct and discourses of Christ could have been no other than this, that the Jewish Church had retained the true doctrine concerning the divine nature. The conduct and writings of the Apostles shew, that this was the impression made upon their minds after his ascension. They worshipped Him as their God. And in the whole of their writings they constantly applied to Him the language of the Old Testament in such a manner as proves, not merely their own belief of a personal plurality in the Godhead, but irrefragably demonstrates the doctrine of the Jewish Church at the time they wrote. I have already noticed the remarkable language used by God in the vision which the prophet Isaiah saw in the temple, and have directed your attention to the encouragement which it must have given to the doctrine of personal plurality in the Godhead. The prophet declares that he saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, and that he heard the Seraphim worshipping him in these mysterious words, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Jehovah Sabaoth. The whole earth is full of His glory." The Prophet knew that the Being whom he saw was no other than God himself. "Then said I, Woe is me; for I am undone;.... for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah Sabaoth 2." He de-. clares also, that he "heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us 3?" These words, as I have already observed, would seem to convey the notion, that in some way or other personal plurality existed in the unity of God. Now what encouragement have the Apostles given to this notion? St. John expressly 1 Isa. vi. 3. 2 Isa. vi. 5, 3 Isa, vi. 8. tells us, that it was the Son of God whom Isaiah saw in the temple1; and St. Paul, that the words he heard were spoken by the Holy Ghost 2. There is one observation which I desire to make at this step of the argument: that in such instances as these the Apostles use no argument to justify their applying the language of the Old Testament in such a manner as to countenance the doctrine deduced from it by the Jewish Church. Where the Apostles felt it necessary to prove the Messiah to be the subject of a particular prophecy they allege reasons for the application 3. But in the vast number of instances in which they apply to Christ those passages of Scripture, which are distinct and formal assertions of Deity, they apply them without any attempt to prove that they can or ought to be applied to him. They take this for granted. They use the language of the Old Testament in such a manner as would have been absurd 1 John xii. 41. |