--

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 commended," 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, 66 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 coequal 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 being interpreted is, God with us," does not prove that he whom they were so to call should necessarily be God, but only a messenger from God, according to the song of Zacharias, Luke i. 68, 69, "Blessed be the Lord God of Isra-. el; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us," &c. Nor can any thing certain be inferred from Acts xvi. 31, 34, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..... And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." For it does not follow from hence that Christ is God, since the apostles have never distinctly pointed out Christ as the ultimate object of faith; but these are merely the words of the historian, expressing that briefly which there can be no doubt that the apostles inculcated in a more detailed manfaith in God the Father through Christ. Nor is in Acts xx. 28 more decisive, passage "The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own

ner,

the

blood"; that is, with his own Son, as it is elsewhere expressed, for God, properly speaking, has no blood; and no usage is more common than the substitution of the figurative term blood for offspring. But the Syriac version reads, not "the Church of God," but "the Church of Christ"; and in our own recent translation it is "the Church of the Lord." Nor can any certain dependence be placed on the authority of the Greek manuscripts, five of which read τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, according to Beza, who suspects that the words Tou Kupiov have crept in from the margin, though it is more natural to suppose the words xai sou to have crept in, on account of their being an addition to the former. The same must be said respecting Rom. ix. 5, " Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." For in the first place, Hilary and Cyprian do not read the word God in this passage, nor do some of the other Fathers, if we may believe the authority of Erasmus; who has also shown that the difference of punctuation may raise a doubt with regard to the true meaning of the passage, namely, whether the clause in question should not rather be understood of the Father than of the Son. But, waiving these objections, and supposing that the words are spoken of the Son, they have nothing to do with his essence, but only intimate that divine honor is communicated to the Son by the Father, and particularly that he is called God; which has been already fully shown by other arguments. But, they rejoin, the same words which were spoken of the Father, Rom. i. 25, "More than the Creator, who is blessed for Amen," are here repeated of the Son; therefore the Son is equal to the Father. If there be any force in

ever.

this reasoning, it will rather prove that the Son is greater than the Father; for, according to the ninth chapter, he is "over all," which, however, they remind us, ought to be understood in the same sense as John iii. 31, 32, "He that cometh from above is above all; he that cometh from heaven is above all." In these words even the divine nature is clearly implied, and yet, "what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth," which language affirms that he came not of himself, but was sent from the Father, and was obedient to him. It will be answered, that it is only his mediatorial character which is intended. But he never could have become a mediator, nor could he have been sent from God, or have been obedient to him, unless he had been inferior to God and the Father as to his nature. Therefore, also, after he shall have laid aside his functions as mediator, whatever may be his greatness, or whatever it may previously have been, he must be subject to God and the Father. Hence he is to be accounted above all, with this reservation, that he is always to be excepted "who did put all things under him," 1 Cor. xv. 27, and who consequently is above him under whom he has put all things. If, lastly, he be termed "blessed," it must be observed that he received blessing as well as divine honor, not only as God, but even as man. Rev. v. 12," Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing"; and hence, ver. 13, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."

There is a still greater doubt respecting the reading in

1 Tim. iii. 16, "God was manifest in the flesh." Here again Erasmus asserts that neither Ambrose nor the Vetus Interpres read the word God in this verse, and that it does not appear in a considerable number of the early copies. However this may be, it will be clear, when the context is duly examined, that the whole passage must be understood of God the Father in conjunction with the Son. For it is not Christ who is "the great mystery of godliness," but God the Father in Christ, as appears from Col. ii. 2, "The mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. . . . To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." Why, therefore, should God the Father not be in Christ through the medium of all those offices of reconciliation. which the apostle enumerates in this passage of Timothy? "God was manifest in the flesh," namely, in the Son, his own image; in any other way he is invisible: nor did Christ come to manifest himself, but his Father.

The next passage is Tit. ii. 13, "The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Here also the glory of God the Father may be intended, with which Christ is to be invested on his second advent, Matt. xvi. 27, as Ambrose understands the passage from the analogy of Scripture. For the whole force of the proof depends upon the definitive article, which may be inserted or omitted before the two nouns in the Greek without affecting the sense; or the article prefixed to one may be common to both. Besides, in other languages, where the article is not used, the words may be understood to apply