SECT. II.-EXAMINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST, DRAWN FROM THE REAL OR SUPPOSED APPLICATION OF THE NAME GOD TO HIM.

SECT. II. -EXAMINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST, DRAWN FROM THE REAL OR SUPPOSED APPLICATION OF THE NAME GOD TO HIM.

OBSERVATIONS.

1. By perusing the prophecy as it stands in the book of Isaiah, the intelligent reader will be at no loss to perceive, that, like many other texts adduced by Trinitarians, it does not contain any reference or allusion to Jesus Christ. The child spoken of was evidently one born at or near the time at which the prophecy was delivered; and the name to be given it-Immanuel—was designed to signify merely that God would be the protector of Ahaz, king of Judah; whose territories were threatened with an invasion from the united sovereigns of Syria and Israel, but who were themselves to be defeated before Immanuel was capable of discriminating between good and evil; that is, in a short time from the birth of the child."

Some commentators are of opinion, that the mother of Immanuel was the wife of Isaiah; others, that she was the queen of Ahaz: others, again, think that the term Virgin-or, rather, the Virgin-was used by the prophet to represent the city of Jerusalem; an interpretation which seems to be supported by many passages of the prophetical writings, in which the same word is undoubtedly applied to the metropolis of the Jewish nation. Without deciding on this point, we think it in the highest degree probable, that, as the word Immanuel is never used as a proper name in any part of the New Testament, the writer of the passage in Matt. i. 23 did not consider it prophetical of the birth of Jesus; but applied it to him merely to describe the extraordinary display of God's goodness manifested to the human race in the mission of a being who was to act as the visible representative of Divine Benevolence.c

Were it certain, however, that the passage under consideration was originally applied to the Messiah, it would not prove that he possessed a divine nature, or that he was God-man; since, as we have before observed, it was a general practice with the Hebrews to bestow on their children, and even on places and altars, names compounded partly of the word Godd or Jehovah, and partly of other words or phrases, descriptive of some remarkable circumstance or event in the history of individuals, or of the nation. To borrow the words of a recent orthodox writer— Dr. JOHN PYE SMITH-"The fact is unquestionable, that the gratitude or hope of individuals, in the ancient Scriptural times, was often expressed by the imposition of significant appellations on persons or other objects; in the composition of which, divine names and titles were frequently employed: these are, therefore, nothing but short sentences, declarative of some blessing possessed or expected."

OBSERVATIONS.

2. Our reasons for rejecting this passage as a testimony to the divine nature of Jesus Christ are as follows:-In the first place, It is not cited in any part of the New Testament; an omission which, we think, cannot be reasonably accounted for, if it be supposed declaratory of Christ's Deity. Jesus and the apostles delighted in the use of Scriptural language;" and it is therefore very improbable, that, if they had viewed this passage in the same light as the generality of Christians do at the present day, they would not have repeatedly referred to it, in confirmation of a doctrine which must have been altogether novel in the eyes of the Jews.

Secondly, That portion of Isaiah's prophecies in which the passage occurs, is admitted by Bishop LoWTH, and other eminent commentators, to be attended with "many and great difficulties." The passage itself is undoubtedly very obscure, having been variously rendered by men of great learning and piety; and, therefore, should not be appealed to in proof of a doctrine which, if based on truth and essential to salvation, would be inscribed in legible characters in many places of the Sacred Volume.

Thirdly, It is evident that the person spoken of was inferior to the God of heaven and earth; for Isaiah expressly affirms, that Jehovah of hosts would perform what is predicated of the subject of the prophecy;" evidently implying, that, whoever the "child" was, or however mighty, he was not equal in power to the Omnipotent.

Fourthly, Were the title AL-GEBUR (mighty God) applied in this prophecy to the Messiah, it would not prove that he is possessed of independent or uncontrollable power, any more than the word GEBRI-AL, with the same Hebrew characters, applied to Gabriel, would prove this heavenly messenger to be the omnipotent God; or than the name Elijah, used of a mighty prophet, would prove him to be, what the word literally signifies, my God Jehovah.

Fifthly, The word God, in the Bible, has various significations. It not unfrequently denotes the quality of strength, excellence, &c. in the subjects to which it is applied; and is often used in reference to angels, judges, and holy men. Granting that the title mighty god had been given to Christ, it would not follow, that he who appeared as a man,' who was endowed with the affections and principles of human nature," and who attributed all his wisdom and all his power to the universal Father," was the omnipotent and eternal Deity. Jesus himself never assumed a higher appellation than Son of God: but, had he styled himself a god, he would have been fully justified by the practice of his countrymen; amongst whom it was not unusual, as he himself admits, to bestow this name on any person "to whom the word of God came.". Yet, in this respect our Saviour was modest in a very remarkable degree; and seemed studiously to shun every expression that might be deemed to imply the arrogation of that honour which is due to the only true God.

ALLEGED PROOF.

3. John i. 1—14: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, &c.

REMARKS.

He [St. John] has asserted the absolute proposition," the Word was God," in the only terms in which he could have asserted it, in this simple form, without grammatical impropriety.-Wardlaw.

As we interpret the phrase, "This is my body," to signify, "This represents my body," because a regard to the preservation of consistency and rationality in the doctrines of the Gospel requires this acceptation of our Saviour's language; so we ought to interpret the assertion, that "the Word was God," as meaning only that "the Word represented God." Such would be the proper mode of considering the passage, if there were reason to believe that the term GoD is here used according to its highest sense as an appellation of the Supreme Deity.-Yates.

The evangelist has clearly shown what is the nature of the Word by subjoining, "And the Word was a god," although he might have said "And the Word was GOD," with the addition of the article [in the Greek, but not in English], if he had thought, that the Father and the Son was one and the same, and that the Word is GOD OVER ALL.- —Eusebius, as quoted by Yates and J. S. Porter.

Although the same word, God, occurs twice in this verse, the phrase is not the same in the original. In the first instance, the noun has the emphatic article which limits its signification, so that it can denote no other than the Supreme Being. In the latter instance it stands alone, and, of course, may be construed in a wider sense-in a sense similar to that in which it is so often applied to judges, prophets, and magistrates.-J. S. Porter.

The Greek word which our translation hath rendered by that of word signifies also reason, intelligence, wisdom. This sense is much better than the other.-Abauzit.

The Apostle teaches that the Logos was not the agent of God, but God himself. Using the term merely to denote the attributes of God as manifested in his works, he teaches that the operations of the Logos are the operations of God; that all conceived of under that name is to be referred immediately to God; that in speaking of the Logos we speak of God," that the Logos is God."-Norton.

For continuation of remarks, see p. 266.

ILLUSTRATIVE TEXTS, ETC.

PASSAGES DEEMED FAVOURABLE TO THE HYPOTHESIS,
THAT THE LOGOS, OR WORD, SIGNIFIES AN ATTRIBUTE
OF THE DIVINE BRING, EMINENTLY DISPLAYED IN
CREATION, PROVIDENCE, AND REDEMPTION.

Ver. 1: In the beginning was the Word.]
In the beginning was Wisdom.-Lindsey, Wakefield.
In the beginning was the Power of God.-Norton.

Moses, in his account of the creation,
commences in a similar manner. Gen. i.
1: "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth." And thus
Solomon: Prov. viii. 22: "Jehovah pos-
sessed me [Wisdom] in the beginning of
his way, before his works of old."
And the Word was with God.]

Wisdom was with God.-Lindsey, Wakefield.
The Power of God was with God.-Norton.
Solomon represents Wisdom as existing
with God before, and at the time, the
universe was called into being: Prov, viii.
25-30: "Before the mountains were
settled....
was I brought forth; while
as yet he had not made the earth.
When he appointed the foundations of
the earth; then I was by him, [as] one
brought up [with him]; and I was daily
[his] delight, rejoicing always before him.”
See Job xii. 13.

...

Other atributes of the Deity are personified by the sacred writers, according to the same phraseology. Thus David says, Ps. cxxx. 4: "[There is] forgiveness with thee [Jehovah];" and thus the Apostle John (1 epistle i. 2): "We... show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." And the Word was God.]

Wisdom was God.-Lindsey, Wakefield.

God was Wisdom.-Lindsey (List of Readings). The following are similar expressions: 1 John i. 5: "God is light." Chap. iv. 8, 16: "God is love."

Ver. 3: All things were made by him, &c.] All things were made by it.-Bible 1596-7, 1607; Priestley, Lindsey, Campbell, Wakefield, Fox. Creation and providence are not unfrequently ascribed, by the sacred writers, to the word or fiat, the power, the energy of the Almighty. Gen. i. 3: "God said, Let there be light, and there was light." Ps. xxxiii. 6-9: "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was [done];