1

ed as existing before his birth in Judea, and, as the God of the Jews, the proprietor of the land of Israel. This also gives the true explanation of St. John's words, "He came unto his own, [nation,] and his own [people] received him not.' The second circumstance which proves the term God, in the title Immanuel, to be used in its highest sense is, that the same person, in the following chapter of Isaiah, is called 'God,' with the epithet of mighty,'- Wonderful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD.' Thus, as Bishop Pearson observes, 'First, he is 'Immanu,' that is with us, for he hath dwelt among us; and when he parted from the earth, he said to his disciples, 'I am with you alway, even to the end of the world,' Secondly, he is EL, and that name was given him, as the same prophet testified, 'his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD.' He then who is both properly called EL, that is God, and is also really IMMANU, that is with us, must infallibly, be that IMMANUEL,' who is God with us.' No inferior Deity, but invested with the full and complete attributes of absolute Divinity-the Mighty God.''

"In Luke i. 16, 17, it is said of John Baptist, And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the LORD THEIR GOD, and he shall go before HIM in the spirit and power of Elias.' This passage has been already adduced to prove, that the title LORD' is used of Christ in the import of JEHOVAH. But he is called THE LORD their GoD, and, as the term LORD is used in its highest sense, so must also the term GoD, which proves that this title is given to our Saviour in its fullest and most extended meaning-to Jehovah their God,' or 'to their God Jehovah,' for the meaning is the same."

Equally conclusive are the words of the Evangelist in John i. 1: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.". Christ is here called God in the highest sense. 1. Because when this title is applied to the Father, in the preceding clause, it must be used in its full import. 2. Because

immediately to call our Lord by the same name as the Father, without any hint of its being used in a lower sense, would have been to mislead the reader on a most important question, if St. John had not regarded him as equal to the Father. 3. Because the creation is ascribed to the "Word," who is called God. "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." By this, the absolute Divinity of Christ is infallibly determined, unless we should run into the absurdity of supposing it possible for a creature to create, and not only to create all other created things, but himself also. For, if Christ be not God, he is a creature; and if "not any thing that was made" was made" without him," then he made himself.

"The introduction to St. John's Gospel may, therefore, be considered as an inexpugnable proof that Deity, in its highest, and in no secondary or subordinate, sense is ascribed to our Saviour, under his title God- and the Word was GOD.' Nor in any other than the highest sense of the term God can the confession of Thomas, John xx. 28, be understood. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.' Unitarians, however, contend that this may be considered not as a confession, but as an exclamation, 'My Lord! and my God!' thereby choosing to put profane, or, at least, vulgar language into the mouth of this Apostle, of which degradation we have certainly no example in the narration of the Evangelists. Michaelis has justly observed, that if Thomas had spoken German, (he might have added English, French, or Italian,) it might have been contended, with some plausibility, that 'My Lord and my God" was only an irreverent ejaculation; but that Jewish astonishment was thus expressed is wholly without proof or support. Add to this, that the words are introduced, with said to him, that is, to Christ; a mere ejaculation, such as that here supposed, is rather an appeal to Heaven. Our Saviour's reply makes it absolutely certain, that the words of

Thomas, though they are in the form of an exclamation, amount to a confession of faith, and were equivalent to a direct assertion of our Saviour's Divinity. Christ commends Thomas' acknowledgment, while he condemns the tardiness with which it is made; but to what did this acknowledgment amount? That Christ was LORD and GOD.

.

"In Titus ii. 13, 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' our Lord is not only called God, but the GREAT GOD, which marks the sense in which the term is used by the Apostle, and gives unequivocal evidence of his opinions on the subject of Christ's Divinity. Unitarian interpreters tell us, that the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ' are two persons, and therefore refer the title 'Great God' to the Father. and accordingly render the text, 'the glorious appearance of the Great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.' To this interpretation there are satisfactory answers. Dr. Whitby observes:

"Here it deserveth to be noted, that it is highly probable, that Jesus Christ is styled the Great God, 1. Because, in the original, the article is prefixed only before the Great God, and therefore seems to require this construction, the appearance of Jesus Christ, the Great God and our Saviour. 2. Because, as God the Father is not said properly to appear, so that word never occurs in the New Testament, but when it is to be applied to Jesus Christ and to some coming of his; the places in which it is to be found being only these: 2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. i. 10; and iv. 1, 8. 3. Because Christ is emphatically styled our hope, the hope of glory: Col. i. 23; 1 Tim. i 1. And, lastly, because not only all the ancient commentators on the place do so interpret this text, but the anti-Nicene fathers also; Hyppolitus, speaking of the appearance of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ; and Clemens of Alexandria, proving Christ to be both God and man, our

Creator, and the Author of all our good things, from these very words of St. Paul.'

"Another passage, in which the appellation God is given to Christ, in a connection which necessarily obliges us to understand it in its highest sense, is Heb. i. 8: 'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' The argument of the Apostle here determines the sense in which he calls Jesus, the Son, 'GOD,' and the views he entertains of his nature. Angels and men are the only rational created beings in the universe which are mentioned by the sacred writers. The Apostle, argues, that Christ is superior even to angels; that they are but ministers, he a sovereign, seated on a throne; that they worship him, and that he receives worship; that they are creatures, but he creator. Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands; and, full of these ideas of supreme Divinity, he applies a passage to him out the 45th Pslam, which is there addressed to the Messiah, Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever." "

6

The Unitarians, however, find fault with the translation of this passage, and assume the responsibility of rendering it as follows: "But unto the Son he saith, God is thy throne forever and ever." This interpretation, however, is monstrous, and derives no support from any parallel figurative or eliptical mode of expression in the sacred writings. God the throne of a creature! If so, then a creature must be greater than God, inasmuch as the one who sits upon a throne must be greater than the throne upon which he sits. This, certainly, is strange theology. A creature, in order to support Unitarianism, must become a God, while the infinite Jehovah must be converted into a throne to be occupied by this created Deity; and, finally, all this absurdity must be charged upon the inspired penman.

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him

that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his SON JESUS CHRIST. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE.' 1 John v. 20. Here our Saviour is called the true God and Eternal Life. The means by which this testimony is evaded, is to interpret the clause him that is true,' of the Father, and to refer the pronoun this, not to the nearest antecedent, his Son Jesus Christ,' but to the most remote, him that is true.' All, however, that is pretended by Unitarian critics on this passage is, not that this construction must, but that it may take place. Yet even this feeble opposition to the received rendering cannot be maintained: for, 1. To interpret the clause, him that is true,' of the Father, is entirely arbitrary; and the scope of the epistle, which was to prove that Jesus the Christ was the true Son of God, and, therefore, Divine, against those who denied his Divinity, and that he had come in the flesh,' in opposition to the heretics who denied his humanity, obliges us to refer that phrase to the Son, and not to the Father. 2. If it could be established, that the Father was intended by him that is true,' it would be contrary to grammatical usage to refer the pronoun this, is the 'true God and Eternal Life,' to the remote antecedent, without obvious and indisputable necessity..

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Rom. ix. 5.

"With respect to this text, it is to be noted,

"1. That it continues an enumeration of the particular privileges of the Jewish nation which are mentioned in the preceding verses, and the Apostle adds, whose are the fathers,' the patriarchs and prophets, and of whom the Christ came.'

"2. That he throws in a clause of limitation with respect to the coming of Christ, according to the flesh,' which clearly states that it was only according to the flesh, the humanity of Christ, that he descended from the Jewish nation, and, at the same time, intimates, that he was more than flesh, or mere human nature.