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. Further, the singular

Josh. xxiv. 19. Jer. x. 10. Gen. xx. 13. 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.

8

The name of God seems to be attributed to angels, because as heavenly messengers they bear the appearance of the divine 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

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,

Where Newton properly remarks that God must signify Angel, for God cannot be tempted with evil,' as St. James says of the Supreme Being. So also in Paradise Regained, of the fallen angels,

the expression which was so frequently in the mouth of the prophets, and which is elsewhere often omitted, is here inserted, that it may be understood 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 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.

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, sons 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 show 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 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 essentially one with him with whom he was? It no more follows, than that the disciple who was lying on Jesus' breast, John

9

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.

xiii. 23. was essentially one 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 is called The Word of God-that is, of the one God: he himself is a distinct person. If therefore he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God, who is unity. How then is 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. 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 surprize 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 seewhat 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 Thomas, a new disciple, first incredulous, then suddenly breaking out into an abrupt exclamation in an ecstasy of wonder, if indeed he really called Christ his God? For having reached out his fingers, he called the man whom he touched, as if unconscious of what he was saying, by the name of God. Neither is it credible that he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly the faith of Peter is com

mended-blessed art thou, Simon-for having only said-thou art the Son of the living God, Matt. xvi. 16, 17. The faith of Thomas, although as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved in the next verse-Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which, if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever. Hence there is nothing to invalidate that interpretation of the passage which has been already suggested, referring the words-my Lord-to Christ,-my God to God the Father, who had just testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him up from the dead in so wonderful a manner.

So too Heb. i. 8. unto the Son-or of the Son-he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. But in the next verse it follows, thou hast loved righteousness, &c. therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, where almost every word indicates the sense in which Christ is here termed God; and the words of Jehovah put into the mouth of the bridal virgins, Psal. xlv. might have been more properly quoted by this writer for any other purpose than to prove that the Son is co-equal with the Father, since they are originally applied to Solomon, to whom, as properly as to Christ, the title of God might have been given on account of his kingly power, conformably to the language of Scripture.

These three passages are the most distinct of all that are brought forward; for the text in Matt. i. 23. they shall call (for so the great majority of the Greek manuscripts read it') his name Immanuel, which

Kaλéσovσι To ovoμa avтoû. Kaλéres Steph. B. Cant. Euseb. sed exemplaria MSS. universim, Vulg. Hieron. Epiphan. Chrysost. Theophylact. Origen. Iren. Just. Martyr (qui etiam habet kaλéσETE) receptam lectionem retinent.' Mill. in loc.

Q