CHRIST POSSESSED OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

HAVING considered the import of some of the titles applied to our Lord in the Scriptures, and proved that they imply Divinity, we may next consider the attributes which are ascribed to him in the New Tes­tament. If, to names and lofty tithes which imply Divinity, we find added attributes never given to creatures, and from which all creatures are excluded, the Deity of Christ is established beyond reasonable controversy. No argument can be more conclusive than this. Of the essence of Deity we know nothing, but that he is a Spirit. He is made known by his attributes; and it is from them that we learn, that there is an essential distinction between him and his creatures, because he has attributes which they have not, and those which they have in common with him, lie possesses in a degree absolutely perfect. From this it follows, that HIS is a peculiar nature, a nature sui generis, to which no creature does or can possibly approximate. Should, then, these same attributes be found ascribed to Christ, as explicitly and literally as to the Father, it follows of necessity, that, the attributes being the same, the essence is the same, and that essence the exclusive nature of the Qeoth~, or "God­head." It would, indeed, follow, that if but one of the peculiar attri­butes of Deity were ascribed to Christ, he must possess the whole, since they cannot exist separately; and whoever is possessed of one must be concluded to be in possession of all.[1] But it is not one attribute only, but all the attributes of Deity which are ascribed to him; and not only those which are moral, and which are, therefore, capable of being communicated, (though those, as they are attributed to Christ in infinite degree and in absolute perfection, would be sufficient for the argument,) but those which are, on all sides, allowed to be incommunicable, and peculiar to the Godhead.

ETERNITY is ascribed to him. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." "Everlasting Father" is variously rendered by the principal orthodox critics; but every rendering is in consistency with the application of a positive eternity to the Messiah, of which this is allowed to be a prediction. Bisimop Lowth says, " the Father of time everlasting age." Bishop Stock, "the Father of Eternity;" i.e. the owner of it. Dathe and Rosenmuller, "Aeternus." The former considers it an oriental idiom, by which names of affinity, as father, mother, &c, are used to denote the author, or eminent possessor of a quality or object. Rev. i, 17, 18, "I am THE FIRST and THE LAST, I am lie that liveth and was dead;" so also ch. ii, 8; and in both passages the context shows, indisputably, that it is our Lord himself who speaks, and applies these titles to himself. In chap. xxii, 13, also, Christ is time speaker, and declares himself to be "ALPHA and OMEGA, the BEGINNING and the END, the FIRST and time LAST." Now, by these very titles is time eternity of God declared, Isaiah xlv, 6, and xliii, 10, "I am the first, and I urn the last: and beside me there is no God." "Before me was there no God formed, neither shall there be after me." But they are, in the book of Revelation, assumed by Christ as explicitly and absolutely; and they clearly affirm, that the Being to whom they are applied had no beginning, and will have no end. In Rev. i, 8, after the declaration, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and time end­ing, saith the Lord," it is addect, "which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Some have referred these words to the Father; but certainly without reason, as the very scope of the passage shows. It is Christ who speaks in the first person, throughout the chapter, when the sublime titles of the former part of the verse are used and indeed, throughout the book; and to interpret this particular clause of the Father would introduce a most abrupt change of persons, which, but for a false theory, would never have been imagined. The words indeed, do but express the import of the name Jehovah, so often given to Christ; and as, when the Father is spoken of, in verse 4, the same declaration is made concerning him which, in verse 8, our Lord makes of himself, it follows, that if the terms "which was, and is, and is to come," are descriptive of the eternity of the Father, they are also de­scriptive of eternity as an attribute also of time Son. We have a similar declaration in Heb. xiii, 8, "Jesus Christ, THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, and FOR EVER," where eternity, and its necessary concomitant, immutability, are both ascribed to him. That the phrase, "yesterday, today, and for ever," is equivalent to eternity needs no proof; and that the words are not spoken of the doctrine of Christ, as the Socinians Con­tend, appears from the context, which scarcely makes any sense upon this hypothesis, (See Macknight,) since a doctrine once delivered must remain what it was at first. This interpretation, also, gives a figurative sense to words which have all time character of a strictly literal declara­tion; and it is a farther confirmation of the literal sense, and that Christ is spoken of personally, that anto~ is the phrase by which the immutability of the Son is expressed in chapter i, verse 12: "But thou art auto~, the same." Peirce, in his Paraphrase has well expressed the connection: "Considering the conclusion of their life and behaviour, imitate their faith; for the object of their faith, Jesus Christ, is the same now as he was then, and will be the same for ever." A Being essentially unchangeable, and therefore eternal, is the only proper object of an absolute "faith." A similar and most solemn ascription of eternity and immutability occurs Heb. i, 10-12, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish; but thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art THE SAME, AND Thy YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL." These words are quoted from Pea. cii, which all acknowledge to be a lofty description of the eternity of God. They are here applied to Christ, and of him they affirm, that he was before the material universe-that it was created by him-that he has absolute power over it-that he shall destroy it-that he shall do this with infinite ease, as one who folds up a vesture; and that, amid time decays and changes of material things, he remains the same. The immutability here ascribed to Christ is not, however, that of a created spirit, which will remain when the material universe is destroyed; for then there would be nothing proper to Christ in the text, nothing but in which an­gels and men participate with him, and the words would be deprived of all meaning. His immutability and duration are peculiar, and a con­trast is implied between his existence and that of all created things. They are dependent, he is independent; and his necessary, and therefore eternal, existence must follow. The phrase" ETERNAL LIFE," when used, as it is frequently, in St. John's Epistles, is also a 'clear designation of the eternity of our Saviour. "For time LIFE was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." In the first clause, Christ is called the Life; he is then said to be "eternal ;" and, that no mistake should arise, as though the apostle merely meant to declare that he would continue for ever, he shows, that he ascribes eternity to him in his pre-existent state,-" that eternal life" which was WITH THE FATHER; and with him before he was " manifested to men." And eternal pre-existence could not be more unequivocally marked.

To these essential attributes of Deity, to be without beginning and without change, is added that of being extended through all space.-He is not only eternal, but OMNIPRESENT. Thus he declares himself to be at the same time in heaven and upon earth, which is assuredly a pro­perty of Deity alone. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which Is in hea­ven." The genuineness of the last clause has been attacked by a few critics; but has been fully established by Dr. Magee. (Magee on the Atonement.) This passage has been defended from the Socinian interpretation already, and contains an unequivocal declaration of ubiquity.

For "where two or three are gathered together in my name, THERE AM I IN THE MIDST OF THEM." How futile is the Socinian comment in the New Version! This promise is to be "limited to the apostolic age." But were that granted, what would the concession avail? In time apostolic age, the disciples met in the name of their Lord many times in the week, and in innumerable parts of the world at the same time, in Judea, Asia Minor, Europe, &c. He, therefore, who could be "in the midst of them," whenever and wherever they assembled, must be omni. present. But they add, "by a spiritual presence, a faculty of knowing things in places where he was not present ;" "a gift," they say, " given to the apostles occasionally," and refer to 1 Cor. v, 3. No such gift is, however, claimed by the apostle in that passage, who knew the affair in the Church of Corinth, not by any such faculty or revelation, but by "report," verse 1. Nor does he say, that he was present with them, but judged "as though he were present." If, indeed, any such gift were occasionally given to the apostles, it would be, not a "spiritual pre­sence," as the New Version has it; but a figurative presence. No such figurative meaning is however hinted at in the text before us, which is as literal a declaration of Christ's presence every where with his worshippers as that similar promise made by Jehovah to the Israelites; "In all places where I record my name I will come to thee, and I will bless thee." At the very moment, too, of his ascension, that is, just when, as to his bodily presence, he was leaving his disciples, he promises still to be with them, and calls their attention to this promise by an emphatic particle, "And LO I AM WITh you ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world," Matt. xxviii, 20. The Socinians render "to the end of the age," that is, "the Jewish dispensation, till the destruction of Jerusa­lem." All that can be said in favour of this is, that the words may be so translated, if no regard is paid to their import. But it is certain, that, in several passages, "the end of the world," sunteleia th aiwno~, must be understood in its popular sense. That this is its sense here, appears, first, from the clause "Lo I am with you ALWAYS," pasa~ ta~ hmera~, "at all times ;" secondly, because spiritual presence stands, by an evidently implied antithesis, opposed to bodily absence; thirdly, because that presence of Christ was as necessary to his disciples after the destruction of Jerusalem as till that period. But even were the promise to be so restricted, it would still be in proof of the omnipre­sence of our Lord, for, if he were present with all his disciples in all places, "always," to the destruction of Jerusalem, it could only be by virtue of a property which would render him present to his disciples in all ages. The Socinian Version intimates, that the presence meant is the gift of miraculous powers. Let even that he allowed, though it is a very partial view of the promise; then, if till the destruction of Jerusalem the apostles were "always," "at all times," able to work miracles, the power to enable them to effect these wonders must "always" and in all places have been present with them; and if that were not a human endowment, if a power superior to that of man were requisite for the performance of the miracles, and that power was the power of Christ, then he was really, though spiritually, pre­sent with them, unless the attribute of power can be separated from its subject, and the power of Christ be where he himself is not. This, however, is a low view of the import of the promise, "Lo I am with you," which, both in the Old and New Testament, signifies to be pre­sent with any one, to help, comfort, and succour him. "Einai meta tino~. alicui adesse, juvare aliquem, curare res alicujus." (Rosenmuller.)

It is not necessary to adduce more than another passage in proof of a point so fully determined already by the authority of Scripture. After the apostle, in Col. i, 16, 17, has ascribed the creation of all things in heaven and earth, "visible and invisible," to Christ, he adds, " and by him all things consist." On this passage, Raphelius cites a striking passage from Aristotle, De Mundo, where the same verb, ren­dered "consist," by our translators, is used in a like sense to express the constant dependence of all things upon their Creator for continued subsistence and preservation. "There is a certain ancient tradition common to all mankind, that all things subsist from and by God, and that no kind of being is self-sufficient, when alone, and destitute of his pre serving aid."[2] The apostle then, here, not only attributes the creation, but the conservation of all things to Christ; but to preserve them his presence must be co-extensive with them, and thus the universe of matter and created spirits, heaven and earth, must be filled with his power and presence. "This short sentence implies that our Lord's presence extends to every part of the creation; to every being and system in the universe; a most striking and emphatical description of the omnipresence of God the Son." (Holden's Scripture Testimonies.)

To these attributes of essential Divinity is added, a PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of all things. This cannot be the attribute of a creature, for though it may be difficult to say how far the knowledge of the highest order of intelligent creatures may be extended, yet are there two kinds of knowledge which God has made peculiar to himself by solemn and exclusive claim. The first is, the perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins," Jeremiah xvii, 10. "Thou, even thou only," says Solomon, "knowest the hearts of all the children of men," 1 Kings viii, 39. This know. ledge is attributed to and was claimed by our Lord, and that without any intimation that it was in consequence of a special revelation, or supernatural gift, as in a few instances we see in the apostles and prophets, bestowed to answer a particular and temporary purpose. In such instances also, it is to be observed, the knowledge of the spirits and thoughts of men was obtained in consequence of a revelation made to them by Him whose prerogative it is to search the heart. In the case of our Lord, it is, however, not merely said, "And Jesus knew their thoughts," that he perceived in his spirit, that they so reasoned among themselves; but it is referred to as an attribute or original faculty, and it is, therefore made use of by St. John, on one occasion to explain his conduct with reference to certain of his enemies.

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he KNEW ALL MEN, and needed not that any should testify of man, FOR HE KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN." After his exaltation, also, he claims the prerogative in the full style and majesty of the Jehovah of the Old Testament: "And all the Churches shall know that I am he which SEARCHETH THE REINS AND THE HEART."

A striking description of the omniscience of Christ is also found in Heb. iv, 12, 13, if we understand it, with most of the ancients, of the hypostatic Word; to which sense, I think the scope of the passage and context clearly determines it. "For the WORD OF GOD is quick (living) and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercin'g even to the dividing asunder of Soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a DISCERNER OF THE THOUGHTS AND INTENTS OF THE HEART; neither is there any creature that is not MANIFEST in his sight; for all things are NAKED and OPEN to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." The reasons for referring this passage rather to Christ, the author of the Gos­pel, than to the Gospel itself, are, first, that it agrees better with the apos­tle's argument. He is warning Christians against the example of ancient Jewish unbelief, and enforces his warning by reminding them, that the Word of God discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. The argu­ment is obvious, if the personal Word is meant; not at all so, if the doctrine of the Gospel be supposed. Secondly, the clauses, " neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight," and, all "things are naked and open to the eyes of Him, with whom we have to do," or "to whom we must give an account," are undoubtedly spoken of a per­son, and that person our witness and judge. Those, therefore, who think that the Gospel is spoken of in verse 12, represent the apostle as making a transition from the Gospel to God himself in what follows. This, however, produces a violent break in the argument, for which no grammatical nor contextual reason whatever can be given; and it is evident that the same metaphor extends through both verses. This is taken from the practice of dividing and cutting asunder time bodies of beasts slain for sacrifice, and laying them open for inspection, lest any blemish or unsoundness should lurk within, and render them unfit for the service of God. The dividing asunder of" the joints and marrow" in the 12th verse, and the being made "naked and open to the eyes, in the 13th, are all parts of the same sacrificial and judicial action, to which, therefore, we can justly assign but one agent. The only reason given for the other interpretation is, that the term LOGOS is nowhere else used by St. Paul. This can weigh but little against the obvious sense of the passage. St. Luke, i, 2, appears to use time term LOGOS in a personal sense, and be uses it but once; and if St. Paul uses it here, and not in his other epistles, this reason may be given, that in other epistles he writes to Jews and Gentiles united in the same Churches; here, to Jews alone, among whom we have seen that the Logos was a well known theological term.[3]

The Socinians urge against this ascription of infinite knowledge to our Lord, Mark xiii, 32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." The genuineness of the clause "neither the Son" has been disputed, and is not inserted by Griesbach in his text; there is not. however, sufficient reason for its rejection, though certainly in the paral­lel passage, Matt. xxiv, 36, "neither the Son" is not found. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven; but any Father only." We are theme reduced to this-a number of passages explicitly declare that Christ knows all timings ; there is one which declares that the Son did not know "time day and the hour" of judg­ment; again, there is a passage which certainly implies tlmat even this period was known to Christ; for St. Paul, 1 Tim. vi, 14, speaking of the "appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ" as the universal judge, immediately adds, "which in his own times kairoi~ shall show who is the blessed and only potentate," &c. The day of judgment is here called "his own times," or "his own seasons," which, in its obvious sense, means the season he has himself fixed, since a certain manifesta­tion of himself is in its fulness reserved by him to that period. As "the times and the seasons," also are said, in another place, to be in the Father's "own power ;" so by an equivalent phrase, they are here said to be in the power of the Son, because they are "his own limes." Doubtless, then, lie knew "the day and the hour of judgment."[4] Now, certainly, no such glaring and direct contradiction can exist in the word of truth, as that our Lord should know the day of judgment, and, at the same time, and in the same sense, not know it. Either, therefore, the passage in Mark must admit of an interpretation which will make it consistent with other passages which clearly affirm our Lord's knowledge of all things, and consequently of this great day, or these passages must submit to such an interpretation as will bring them into accordance with that in Mark. It cannot, however, be in the nature of things that texts, which clearly predicate an infinite know­ledge, should be interpreted to mean a finite and partial knowledge, and this attempt would only establish a contradiction between the text and the comment. Their interpretation is imperative upon us; but the text in Mark is capable of an interpretation which involves no con­tradiction or absurdity whatever, and which makes it accord with the rest of the Scripture testimony on this subject. This may be done two ways. The first is adopted by Macknight.

"The word oiden here seems to have the force of the Hebrew con­junction, hiphil, which in verbs denoting action, makes that action, whatever it is, pass to another. Wherefore eidew, which properly signifies, I know, used in the sense of the conjunction hiphil, signifies, 1 make another to know, I declare. The word has this meaning, without dispute, 1 Cor. ii, 2. 'I determined, to know nothing among you, but Jesus Christ and him crucified;' i. c. I determined to make known, to preach nothing, but Jesus Christ. So, likewise, in the text, 'But of that day and that hour, none maketh you to know,' none hath power to make you know it; just as the phrase, Matt. xx, 23, 'is not mine to give,' signifies, 'is not in my power to give :'-' no, not the angels, neither the Son, but the Father.' Neither man nor angel, nor even the Son himself, can reveal the day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem to you: because the Father hath determined that it should not be revealed." (Harmony.)

The second is the usual manner of meeting the difficulty, and refers the words "neither the Son" exclusively to the human nature of our Lord, which we know, as to the body, "grew in stature," and as to the mind, in "wisdom." Bishop Kidder, in answering the Socinian objec­tion from the lips of a Jew, observes,- "1. That we Christians do believe, not only that CHRIST was GOD; but also that he was perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting.

"We do believe, that his body was like one of ours: a real, not a fantastic and imaginary one.

"We do also believe, that lie had a human soul, of the same nature and kind with one of ours; though it was free from sin, and all original stain and corruption. And no wonder then, that we read of him, that he increased, not only in stature, and in favour with GOD and man, but in wisdom also: Luke ii, 52. Now wisdom is a spiritual endowment, and belongs to the mind or soul. He could not be said to increase in wisdom as he was GOD; nor could this be said of him with respect to his body, for that is not the subject of wisdom; but with regard to the human soul of CHRIST, the other part of our human nature.

"2. It must be granted, that as man he did not know beyond the capacities of human and finite understanding; and not what he knew as God. He could not be supposed to know in this respect things not knowable by man, any otherwise than as the Divine nature and wisdom thought fit to communicate and impart such knowledge to him.

"3. That therefore CHRIST may be said, with respect to his human nature and finite understanding, not to know the precise time, the day and hour of some future events.

"4. 'Tis farther to be considered how the evangelists report this matter; they do it in such terms as are very observable. Of that day and hour knoweth no man; it follows, neither the Son. He doth not cay the Son of GOD, nor the logo~, or Word, but the Son only.

I do not know all this while, where there is any inconsistency in the faith of Christians; [arising from this view ;] when we believe that Jesus was in all things made like unto us, and in some respect a little lower than the angels, Heb ii, 7, 17. I see no force in the above-named objection." (Demonstration of Messiah.)

The "Son of man," it is trite, is here placed above the angels; but, as Waterland observes, "the particular concern the Son of man has in the last judgment is sufficient to account for the supposed climax or gradation.

"It is, indeed, objected by Socinians, that these interpretations of Mark xiii, 32, charge our Saviour, if not with direct falsehood, at least with criminal evasion; since lie could not say with truth and sincerity, that he was ignorant of the day, if he knew it in any capacity; as it cannot be denied that man is immortal, so long as he is, in any respect, immortal. The answer to this is, that as it may truly be said of the body of man, that it is not immortal, though the soul is; so it may, with equal truth, be said, that the Son of man was ignorant of some things, though the Son of God knew every thing. It is not, then, inconsistent with truth and sincerity for our Lord to deny that he knew what he really did know in one capacity, while he was ignorant of it in an­other. Thus, in one place he says, 'Now I am no more in the world,' John xvii, 11; and in another, 'Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always,' Matt. xxvi, 11; yet on another occasion, he says, 'Lo I am with you always,' Matt. xxviii, 20; and again, 'If any man love me-my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him,' John xiv, 23. From hence we see that our Lord might, without any breach of sincerity, deny that of himself; considered in one capacity, which he could not have denied in another. There was no equivocation in his denying the knowledge of 'that day and that hour,' since, with respect to his human nature, it was most true; and that he designed it to refer alone to his human nature, is probable, because he does not say the Son of God was ignorant of that day, but the Son, meaning the Son of man, as appears from the con­text, Matthew xxiv, 37, 39; Mark xiii, 26, 34. Thus Mark xiii, 32. which, at first sight, may seem to favour the Unitarian hypothesis, is capable of a rational and unforced interpretation, consistently with the orthodox faith." (Holden's Testimonies.)

As the knowledge of the heart is attributed to Christ, so also is the knowledge of futurity, which is another quality so peculiar to Deity, that we find the true God distinguishing himself from all the false divi­nities of the heathen by this circumstance alone. "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like ?" "I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," Isa. xlvi, 5, 9, 10. All the, predictions uttered by our Saviour, and which are no­where referred by him to inspiration, the source to which all the prophets and apostles refer their prophetic gifts, but were spoken as from his own prescience, are in proof of his possessing this attribute. It is also affirmed, John vi, 64, that "Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him;" and again, John xiii, 11, "For Jesus knew who should betray him."

Thus we find the Scriptures ascribing to Jesus an existence without beginning, without change, without limitation, and connected, in the whole extent of space which it fills, with the exercise of the most per­fect intelligence. These are essential attributes of Deity. "Measures of power may be communicated; degrees of wisdom and goodness may be imparted to created spirits; but our conceptions of God are con­founded, and we lose sight of every circumstance by which he is characterized, if such a manner of existence as we have now described be common to' him and any creature." (Hill's Lectures.)'

To these attributes may also be added OMNIPOTENCE, which is also peculiar to the Godhead; for, though power may be communicated to a creature, yet a finite capacity must limit the communication, nor can it exist infinitely, any more than wisdom, except in an infinite nature. Christ is, however, styled, Rev. i, 8, "THE ALMIGHTY." To the Jews he said, 'What things soever he [the Father] doeth, THESE ALSo DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE." Farther, he declares, that "as the Father hath LIFE IN HIMSELF, so hath he given to the Son to have LIFE IN HIMSELF,"

which is a most strongly marked distinction between himself and all creatures whatever. He has "life in himself," and he has it "AS the Father" has it, that is, perfectly and infinitely, which sufficiently de­monstrates that he is of the same essence, or he could not have this communion of properties with the Father. The life is, indeed, said to be "given," but this communication from the Father makes no differ­ence in the argument. Whether the "life" mean the same original and independent life, which at once entitles the Deity to the appellations "THE LIVING GOD," and "THE FATHER OF sPIRITS," or the bestowing of eternal life upon all believers, it amounts to the same thing. The "life" which is thus bestowed upon believers, the continuance and perfect blessedness of existence, is from Christ as its fountain, and he has it as the Father himself hath it. By his eternal generation it was derived from the Father to him, and he possesses it equally with the Father; by the appointment of his Father he is made the source of eternal life to believers, as having that LIFE IN HIMSELF to bestow, and to supply forever.

We may sum up the whole Scriptural argument, from Divine attributes being ascribed by the disciples to our Saviour, and claimed by himself, with his own remarkable declaration, "ALL THINGS which the Father hath are MINE," John xvi, 15. "Here he challenges to himself the incommunicable attributes, and, consequently, that essence which is inseparable from them." (Whitby.) "If God the Son hath all things that the Father hath, then bath he all the attributes and perfec­tions belonging to the Father, the same power, rights, and privileges, the same honour and glory; and, in a word, the same nature, substance, and Godhead." (Waterland.)