21. A Summary view of the evidences of the divinity of Jesus Christ

A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

After examining generally the evidences of the sacred scriptures in favor of the existence of God, the divine unity and the divine plurality; and after examining particularly their evidences in favor of the divinity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is suitable to bring these evidences into one view that we may feel their united force. Every source of evidence affords a rich supply of arguments in proof of the subject. But when all the sources are opened, and their united strength is made to bear upon opposing systems, it is hoped they will carry conviction, where a single argument, or a single source of evidence would fail. The existence of God, is written as with a sunbeam on all the works of nature. “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” The unity of God is argued from the correspondence between the different parts of the world; from the uniformity of divine government; from the coincidence of the different parts of the sacred scriptures; and from the sameness of Spirit, which runs through the whole system. The unity of Israel’s God was expressly taught bv divine authority in contradistinction to the multiplicity of the gods of the heathen. Plurality in SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES, &;C. 28S the divine nature is deducible from the divine name of plural number; from the specification of distinctions in the divine nature; and from different and significant names applied to the Deity.

Revelation has not left us with only these general ideas of God. While it exhibits the unity of the divine essence, it exhibits certain distinctions, which constitute a ground of intercourse and of reciprocal compact. The Father occupies the first place in the work of redemption. He possesses no priority of existence, nor superiority of nature, compared with the Son and Spirit. But according to the methodical arrangement of infinite Wisdom, there is order of offices in the dispensation of grace. By reciprocal consent the Father holds the first office; the first in respect to order and number. The authority which the Father had to send the Son was by mutual consent. The universal authority which the Son had in heaven and in earth, after his resurrection, was also by mutual consent. The terms, Father and God, are often used in the scriptures as synonymous. The doctrine of the Trinity is not incidentally expressed or alluded to in the scriptures. It is not confined to some solitary passage or page, as if it were interpolated, or casually dropped from the penman of the sacred oracles. It is a prominent doctrine.

Divine plurality appears in the first sentence of divine inspiration. It was gradually unfolded in ancient times.

After the advent of Christ it was revealed with greater clearness and distinctness. In short, it is a doctrine interwoven through the whole system of revelation. The divinity of Christ is inferred from a multiphcity of evidences, each of which appears to be conclusive.

Divine names are given to him. The most exalted names of God, names, significant of his existence are applied to him. Some divine names, it is true, are given to creatures. But all divine names are not given to any creature. But the highest divine names are given 284 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES to Christ. When they are applied to creatures, they are applied with such restrictions and qualifications, and with such evident relation to creatures, that they are not calculated to lead people into the belief that they are divine. When they are applied to Christ, they are applied without limitation. No intimation is given that these names are not literally applied. If Christ had not been divine, there is no doubt that some qualification or restriction would have been added to his titles to prevent people, naturally prone to idolatry, from giving him divine worship. As no such restriction is annexed to the divine titles of Christ, the scriptures are sadly calculated to mislead, if he be not divine. It seems that the frequent application of divine names, even the highest divine names to Jesus Christ, would prevent all objection to his divinity. If there were but one source of evidence to prove his Deity, if but one characteristic feature of divinity were attributed to him, there might be, perhaps, some ground to doubt his divinity. Such explanation might be given by denlers of his divinity, which would seem to take from him his divine claims. But the divinity of Christ does not rest on one source of evidence. He has more than one divine feature. What is a name, a high name, unless it be appropriately given.’* What is a divine name, unless it designate divine nature? The same scriptures, which give divine titles to Christ, also ascribe to him divine attributes. Duration, knowledge, wisdom, presence, and power, are attributed to Christ in no less degree than to the Father. Sometimes a single divine attribute is hyperbolically given to a creature, not to designate divine nature, but to express some extraordinary quality. But this bears no proportion to the literal application of the whole assemblage of divine qualities to Jesus Christ. If divine attributes had been given to Christ only in a figurative sense, it would have been necessary that some notice should be given of the figurative allusion. But as no such notice was OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 285 given; as no limitations of number or degree were made to those divine attributes, which were ascribed to Christ, it is a natural inference that his nature is divine. If any should not admit that divine titles applied to Christ proved him to be divirie, it seems that the addition.d evidence of divine attributes applied to him, would decide the question. In addition to these evidences, the same works are attributed to Christ, which are attributed to God.

He is the Author of creation. He was in concert with the Father and Spirit, w hen it was said, “Let us make man.” He performed miracles by his own power and authority. He will raise the dead and judge the world. Greater works are not attributed to the Father than those, which aie attributed to the Son. If the divinity of the Father is argued from his works, it is equally conclusive, to infer Christ’s divinity from his works. If Christ wa? merely an instrument in the hand of the Father in the work of creation, and in the perforjiance of miracles; and wrought only by the communication of his power, it would not be proper to attribute these works to Christ, excepting under certain restrictions. But as no such restrictions are applied to him, it is a fair conclusion that he wrought bv his own power. It is impossible that almighty power should be transferred from God the Father to a creature; and it is also impossible that the operation of almighty power should be the act of a creature. If Christ be properly the Author of the works of creation and of miracles, he of course possesses divine power. If he be not properly the Author of the world and of miracles, the Scriptures are calculated to mislead, and they have misled the human mind. The sacred Scriptures represent the knowledge and wisdom of the Son in as high degree as they represent the knowledge and wisdom of the Father. By way of eminence, the Son is called wisdom. By his works and dispensations he has proved that this name Isaiah 286 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES significant and appropriate. When he was upon earth, he had an intuitive view of transactions where his bodily eye could not penetrate. He knew what was in man. When his enemies meditated evil against him, he knew their thoughts. “No one knoweth the Father but the Son.” This declaration implies that the Son had a knowledge of the Father. It requires an unlimited capacity to have knowledge of an infinite subject.

There is evidence from Scripture that the presence of the Son is as extensive as the works of creation.

He represented himself to be at the same time in heaven and on earth. To his disciples, who were going into different parts of the world he said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” His office as Intercessor implies that he is present with all his suppliants and hears their petitions. The divine goodness of the Son is inferred from his works before his incarnation; from his dispensations on earth; from his official acts, which he will perform at the last day; and from his system of religion, whose tendency is of the most salutary nature. If the works, the dispensations and the religion of God prove his divine goodness, the same, being the works of the Son, prove with equal decision his divine goodness. If it was an act of goodness in the Father to send his Son into the world to redeem mankind, it was no less goodness in the Son to come into the world for this purpose. The sacred Scriptures attribute no less authority to Christ than to the Father. He has authority over his ambassadors. He has authority over his church.

He has authority to forgive sins. He has authority to judge the world and dispense retribution. He has all authority in heaven and in earth; all authority, which is essential to the office of Redeemer. The Son is entitled to no less honor than the Father. This is inferred from the worship he has received.

Immediately after he came into the world, wise men OP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 287 went and worshipped him. The divine command was, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” His disciples and others worshipped him; and he forbade them not. His own language was “that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” If he had not been entitled to divine worship, he would not have required it; nor would he have countenanced it when it was offered him.

These evidences unite their force to prove the divinity of Christ. There are as great evidences in favor of the divinity of the Son, as there are in favor of the divinity of the Father. If these evidences do not prove the divinity of the former, neither do they prove the divinity of the latter. If we ask for more evidence, than the Scriptures afford, to prove the divinity of Christ, we must, to be consistent, ask for more evidence of the existence of God; and of the infinitude of his attributes. If the testimony of Scripture on this subject can be explained away, or be made to signify any thing or nothing, the testimony of Scripture on other subjects can be explained away, or be perverted with equal ease. If the cloud of evidences, which the Bible offers to prove the divinity of the Son, does not prove it, it is impossible to name evidence or evidences, which will prove it.

Each evidence, which has been adduced in favor of Christ’s divmity, appears to be conclusive. But they appear with increased strength, when they are viewed together. Like the pillars of an edifice standing individually on their own bases, they stand more firm by their connection. The sacred Scriptures were designed to enhghten, not to confound the human understanding. They were designed to exhibit the divine nature and character; and the nature and condition of man. If the Scriptures take the characteristic traits of divinity and apply them, in all their extent, to humanity, they confound the Creator with the creature. They darken the human mind. They lead mankind directlv into 288 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES idolatry. When the magicians copied with great precision the mir-icles, whicii God wrought by tlje hand of Moses, God saw tit to give a visible superiorit)- to his own works, lest people should give that honor to the magicians, which was due only to hitnsell”. If Christ be a mere creature, and God applied so many divine properties to him, and did not manifest a decided superiority of himself, it might well be expected that people would esteem and honor him even as they esteemed and honored the Father. As the Scriptures attribute as great excellence of nature and as great dignity of character to the Son as to the Father, it is a just inference, that he is divine and is entitled to equal love and veneration. Those passages of Scripture, which represent Christ to be inferior to the Father, cannot be reconciled with those, which represent him to be equal with God, without admitting that he has two natures of unequal excellence; and that the former class of texts are applied to his inferior, and the latter class to his superior nature. If it be admitted that Christ has two natures, it is natural to expect that the Scriptures would sometimes speak of one nature; sometimes of the other; and that sometimes they would speak of him in both natures. As there are two classes of texts applied to Christ, one of which imports an inferior and the other a superior nature, there is the highest evidence that he possesses two natures. As these two classes designate human and divine nature, it follows that Jesus Christ is both human and divine.

If we contrast Jesus Christ with the most illustrious personages, that ever appeared on earth, personages, who by divine couimunications performed miracles and exhibited the most distinguished traits of character, we shall find an infinite superiority on the side of Christ; and we shall find an argument in favor of his divinity. “One reflection, which I beg you to make in finishing this part of my discourse, is that, if only one extraordinary and divine trait were to be found OF THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 289 here in the course of a long life, we might be inclined to beheve that it sometimes pleaseth the Lord, to allow his glory and his power to shine forth in his servants. Thus, Enoch was carried up, Moses appeared transfigured on the holy mountain, Elijah was raised up to heaven in a fiery chariot, John the Baptist was foretold. But, besides that these were individual circumstances, and that the language of those miraculous men and of their disciples, with respect to the divinity and to themselves, left no room for superstition and mistake: here, it is an assemblage of wonders, which all, or even taken separately, would have been sufficient to deceive the credulity of men, here, all the different traits, dispersed among all these extraordinary men, who had been considered almost as gods upon the earth, are collected together in Jesus Christ, but in a manner a thousand times more glorious and more divine. He prophesies, but more loftily, and with more striking characters, than John the Baptist: he appears transfigured in the holy mount, but surrounded with more glory than Moses: he ascends to heaven, but with more marks of power and majesty than Elijah: he penetrates into the future, but with more accuracy and clearness than all the prophets: he is produced, not only from a barren womb like Samuel, but likewise by a pure and innocent virgin: what shall I say? And not only he does not undeceive men by certain and precise expressions upon his origin as purely human; but his sole language with respect to his equality to the Most High; but the sole doctrine of his disciples, who tell us that he was in the bosom of God from all eternity, and that all hath been made through him, who call him their Lord and their God, who inform us that he is all in all things, would justify the error of those who worship him, had even his life been, in other respects, an ordinary one, and similar to that of other men.”*

* Massillon.

37 290 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES- The only way, by which we know one class of beings from another, is by their respective peculiarities.

Angels are distinguished from men by their disembodied state; by their superiority of capacity; and by their dilierence of employment. The divine Spirit is distinguished from angels and men by the peculiarities of his nature and the peculiarities of his works. If they, like him, be spirits, he possesses qualities infinitely superior to theirs; and he perforuis works infinitely beyond the limits of their capacities. If we find a character described in the sacred Scriptures, which does not rank with angels or men, but possesses all the peculiarities of divinity, it is agreeable to the rules of classification to call him divine. The Scriptures attribute all divine properties to Jesus Christ; and they must be perverted or rejected, if the conclusion that he is divine be denied.

Besides the Father and the Son, the sacred Scriptures exhibit another character, to which they attribute divine peculiarities. To the Holy Spirit they ascribe divine attributes; divine works; divine honors; they give him a distinct character, and they represent him acting in a distinct office; and bearing a certain relationship to the Father and Son. If the Holy Spirit be no more than the operation of the Father, it is hard to conceive why the Scriptures should give it significant and appropriate names; give it divine qualities, works and honors; and declare it to be more criminal to sin against it, than to sin against the Father or the Son. If the Holy Spirit be not divine; if he be not, in a certain sense, distinct from, as well as united to the Father and the Son, the Scriptures cannot be understood according to the most natural import of words. Should we, in reading the history of any particular country, find three distinct characters, who had been employed in laying the foundation of a nation; and at a critical juncture, had, by their united exertions saved it from ruin^ should we find human qualities attrib- OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 291 uted to them; and discover them to be authors of achievements, pecuhar to men, we should naturally conclude, without labored arguments, that these were the authors of the same work; that they were three; and that these three were human. In the history of creation, and in the history of redemption, three distinct characters are brought to view. Each is represented with divine peculiarities; and exercising divine prerogatives. By analogy of reasoning it is a fair conclusion that these are three; and that they are of divine nature. If analogy ceases here, and does not prove that these three are one, we feel no need of analogy. The Scriptures are decisive on this point.

They expressly declare that there is but one only living and true God. The iirst command of Jehovah is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” If the sacred Scriptures present to our view three distinct characters with divine peculiarities, and at the same time expressly assert that there is but one God, what shall be done with this seeming contrariety? Shall we reject the doctrine of the Trinity because we cannot clearly reconcile it with the divine unity?

Why may we not as well reject the doctrine of the divine unity because we cannot reconcile it with the doctrine of the Trinity? Why may we not, on the same principle, reject both doctrines because we cannot reconcile them? Our inability to comprehend a subject is not a conclusive evidence against its truth. Our inability to reconcile two propositions does not prove that they are not reconcilable; nor does it prove that both, or either of them, are untrue. If we had a perfect knowledge of the divine nature, we might say what could be, or what could not be predicated of it. But we are not competent to make a decision of this kind.

Propositions, which in terms are contradictory, carry on the face of them their own falsity. Propositions, which are not contradictory and are not self-evident must be proved to be true or false by extraneous evi- 292 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES dence. The doctrine of the Trinity is not self-evident.

It never has been intuitively perceived; nor has it been discovered merely by the power of reason. It is a doctrine of revelation. If it be substantiated from this source it stands. If it be not substantiated from this source, it falls. Revelation represents the Father to be divine; the Son to be divine; the Holy Spirit to be divine; and it represents only one God. These representations are not, in terms, a contradiction. We may, upon divine authority, safely believe both the plurality and the unity of God.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. The union of divine and human nature is a doctrine, which appears to be taught in the Scriptures. - It is a doctrine, which, it is presumed, was never invented b^ reason; and, it is presumed, will never fall entirely within the compass of a finite understanding. But the unsearchable nature of the doctrine affords not a shadow of proof against its truth. If such a union be contradictory, or absurd, it is presumed that it is not revealed in the Scriptures. It cannot be, that the Author of human reason requires a belief of that, which contradicts the conclusions of that power of the mind. It is the province of reason to decide what is revealed; but it is not the province of reason to fathom all revealed truth. Reason teaches, that a system of religion, which embraces the infinite Spirit and an eternal state of existence, is not within the bounds of finite comprehension.

It appears to be not unreasonable, nor unphilosophical to suppose that divinity was united with humanity. In every human action, there is a co-operation of divine power. Without the supporting influence of the Deity, creatures can neither think nor move. This concurrence of divine and human operation is as far beyond our comprehension as the union of the Son of God with the Son of man. Man is composed OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 293 of matter and spirit. Rational, sensitive, and corporeal powers unite in one person. It appears to be no more contradictory, that diviiie power should be united with these, than that they should be united with each other.

There was a more special connection between divine operation and those holy men of old, who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There is another and different operation of divine power upon men, in causing them to be born again. The Holy Spirit dwells in those, who have been subjects of this divine influence. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16. In these cases, there is a certain connection of divinity with humanity; and in each case divine operation is different. If it be not unphilosophical to admit this connection of divinity and human nature, it appears to be not unphilosophical to admit that connection, which the Scriptures represent to subsist between the Son of man and the Son of God.

It is no more difficult to conceive this connection than it is to conceive the immeasurable gift of the Spirit, or divine fulness dwelhng in the man, Christ Jesus. If the former hypothesis be unphilosophical, so is the latter.

It is objected by some that it is not agreeable to sound philosophy to suppose that divine and human nature should so unite that they constitute but one person. We shall not contend for the phrase, one person, nor for the propriety of it, when applied to Jesus Christ. Viewed in his human and divine nature, he is different from all other beings; and it is obvious that many of those terms and phrases, which are appropriate to them, cannot be applied with the same propriety to him. One class of texts proves his humanity; another as evidently proves his divinity; and from both classes is inferred the union of both natures.

294 SUM3IARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 1. To this it is objected that “it divides the one Supreme Being, or essence.

2. It ascribes to one part of the indivisible and immutable essence, a property, or properties, which the others do not possess.

.3. It ascribes two natures to the person of Christ, each of which separately considered, possesses all the properties necessary to constitute personality.

4. It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, suffering, and death.” (See Purve’s Humble Attempt, &c p. 87.)

These consequences, it is apprehended, do not follow from the admission of the doctrine under consideration. Spirit is not, like matter, divisible. When we speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we do not mean three distinct and separate beings. If any infer from the doctrine, this distinction in the divine nature, the inference is their own, not ours. We do not attempt to explain the mode, in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit subsist. But we maintain, that we find it in the Scriptures, as we apprehend, that the Father is divine; that the Son is divine; that the Holy Spirit is divine; and that there is but one God.

It is admitted that the subject is mysterious; but it no more implies a division of divine nature, than the omnipresence of God. Those, who believe his existence, believe this is an attribute of his nature. They believe that he is in this world, and exercises his power, wisdom, and goodness. They believe that he is at the same time in heaven, exercising his power, wisdom, and goodness. But they do not believe there are two Gods; nor do they believe that divine nature is divided; nor do we infer this from their belief. We believe that the Father was in heaven exercising divine attributes, while the Son was upon earth exercising divine attributes. If a division of divine nature can be justly inferred from our belief, with equal OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 295 justice can it be inferred from theirs. Let us, for a moment, apply their argument to the omnipresence of God. The divine Being is present in this world either wholly, or in part. If he be wholly in this world, then he is not in heaven. If he be partly in this world and partly in heaven, then the divine Spirit is divisible and is composed of parts. Again, these parts are either finite, or infinite. If they be finite, it follows that two finite parts make one infinite whole. If they be infinite, it follows that there are two infinities in the divine nature. These inferences as naturally follow from their belief, as from ours. As they have drawn these conclusions themselves, it belongs to them, not to us, to dispose of them. The second inference of the objector is founded on the first, as far as it relates to the divisibility of the divine nature; and we would apply the same observations. But we do not apply properties to the Father, which are not applied to the Son, nor do we applv properties to the Son, which are not applied to the Father and the Holy Spirit. By properties we understand qualities of a nature. The same qualities are attributed by the inspired writers to the Son, which are attributed to the Father. Still there is something peculiar to each. What this something is, which is the ground of their distinction is not revealed. But it appears that as the Son doeth nothing without the Father, so the Father doeth nothing without the Son; and that they, with the Holy Spirit, are united in their operation in every work.

We shall not attempt to explain the union of the Son of God with the Son of man. We cannot explain the union of body and soul. It is not surprising then that we cannot explain the union of divine and human nature. This union appears to be taught in the Scriptures; and it appears no more like absurdity and contradiction than the union of divine fulness with the man Christ Jesus. Are we charged with dividing the divine Essence, because we maintain that the Son of God was united with the Son of man? The charge 296 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES lies with equal weight against those, who maintain that divine fulness, or the immeasurable gift of the Spirit dwell in Christ. The fulness of the Godhead, or divinity embraces all the divine perfections. If all divine perfections dwelt in Christ when he was upon earth, we retort the question upon the objector, where is the fulness of perfection of the Father? If the Father, in the plenitude of his perfections, dwelt in the man Christ Jesus on earth, how could be be, at the same time, in heaven without a division of his essence? If all the fulness of the Godhead was united with the human nature of Jesus, it follows, according to the argument of the objector, that the person of divinity is united to the person of humanity; and of course, “the Lord Jesus Christ consists of two persons, or else two persons are one person, or united in one.” To obviate this conclusion, recourse has been had to the apostle’s prayer for the Ephesians, in which he requests that they “might be filled with all the fulness of God;” Ephesians 3:19. From this it is inferred that the fulness of the Godhead, which dwelt in Christ, does not differ in its nature from that divine fulness, which is communicated to saints; that it means no more than that divine blessings or influences were abundantly bestowed upon him. But these passages do not appear to be parallel. John testifies that “of his (i. e. Christ’s) fulness, have all we received.” From this it appears that it was the same thing to receive the fulness of Christ, and the fulness of God. But what saint, prophet, or apostle had a divine fulness, which they could impart to others? The primitive Christians occasionally received those extraordinary influences of the Spirit, which were called the fulness of Christ or God. But it is not said, and it does not appear that this fulness was permanent in them. There is evidence to the contrary. The fulness of God, of which they were partakers, was, therefore, occasional and temporary. But in Christ all the fulness of the God- v aP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 297 liead (divinity) dwelleth, nuroinei. The preposition connected with this verb adds force to its meaning.

It therefore signifies, not to occupy occasionally, but to dwell permanently. This divine fulness not only dwelt permanently in Christ, but it dwelt in him bodily; i. e. truly and substantially. We find that holy men have resembled, in a degree, almost all the features of Christ’s character. But in every trait of his character there is?\ visible superiority, which distinguishes divinity from humanity. Another consequence, which has been drawn from the doctrine of the union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ is, “It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, suffering and death.” This consequence does not appear to follow from the doctrine. It is not admitted that the sufferings of the humanity of Christ wholly constituted the atonement. It is maintained that the divine Son, if he did not suffer pain, suffered ignominy.

He suffered a state of humiliation. He suffered the condition of a servant, the reproach of the cross.

It is maintained that this suffering gave value, gave efficacy to the sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross. The Son of God could suffer this without sustaining any change in his nature. The perfections of divinity were not diminished by union with humanity. The Son of God was no less entitled to divine honors, when he was reviled upon the cross, than when he was seated on the right hand of the Father. We do not hold that merely the human nature of Christ mediates between God and man. We maintain that in both natures he acts in the office of Mediator. This does not involve the inconsistency of mediating between himself and the human race; because he mediates between the Father and them, and the Father is not the Son. To the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and humanity it is objected, “He would not say, himself could not 38 298 SUMMARY VIEW OP THE EVIDENCES do, or did not know the things which all this while himself could do and did know very well; as to be sure, if he was the supreme God, he could and did. For this were to make him say what is most false, and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner.” (See Emlyn.^ This position is not correct.’ Christ could, tvith truth and agreeably to the coEsfmon usage of language, deny that of ore nature,^ich belongs to the other. He could, as Son of m^ii, truly say, he knew not the day of the dissolution of the world, while, as Son of God, he knew the time. The Scriptures represent man as mortal. Job calls him ’â- ’•mortal man.^^ The same volume of inspiration represents man to be immortal Christ hath brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel. Must the Scriptures be charged with deceit, equivocation and falsehood, because, at one time, they call man mortal; and at other times represent him to be immortal; because, at those particular times, they do not express any limitation? This accusation lies with as much force against the word of God in its representation of man, as against Jesus Christ in speaking of himself, sometimes in one nature, sometimes in the other. It is a usual manner of speaking among people to say, 1 am mortal; and at other times to say, 1 am immortal; and at the time to express no limitation. They are understood. They are not charged with falsehood, because it is known and admitted that they are composed of a material and mortal nature; and also of an immaterial and immortal nature. If we admit that human and divine nature were united in Jesus Christ, we perceive that he might, without equivocation, sometimes speak of himself as human, and at other times as divine; that the apostle might, at one time, call him ’â- Hhe man Christ Jesns;^^ and, at another time, call him “//ic Lord from heaven.’^ If Christ and his apostles had always spoken of him as a man, the conclusion would be fair, that he was only a man. U they had always spoken of him as God, it would be a fair con- OP THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST 299 elusion that he was only divine. But as they sometimes speak of him possessing human qualities, and at other times possessing divine perfections, the conclusion is equally fair that he is both human and divine. The Jews understood Christ to make himself equal with God and to make himself God; and they charged him with blasphemy. If he had been merely a man, it is presumed he would have repelled the charge in direct terms. But instead of this, he took them on their own ground, and refuted them on their own principles. He neither denied nor acknowledged his divinity; but shewed his accusers that upon their own principles he was justly exempt from the charge of blasphemy. This was all he needed to do, and this he did do. There were times, in which Christ expressed his meaning in ambiguous language. When people were speaking of the temple, he said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will rear it up.”

They understood him to speak of the temple of the Jews. He often spoke in parables, which the multitude did not understand. Jesus said, “verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.’ The Jews understood him to speak of natural death; and he did not correct their mistake. But who dares accuse him with deception, prevarication, and falsehood’^