It is very singular that almost all those who have questioned or denied our Lord's divinity, have be stowed high praise upon him as a wise and virtuous man, and as an enlightened teacher of morality. But they who do not allow him to be more than man, ought, like the Jews, to consider him as a blasphemer, for he publicly and repeatedly taught, and indeed it seemed to be the point on which all his doctrine hinged, that he and his Father were one; and he declined not the homage of religious adoration, when Thomas addressed him, after his doubts were removed, in language appropriate only to the Deity, " My Lord, and my God." Does our Lord rebuke Thomas for using language which was positively impious if applied to any mere man? If there is any rebuke implied in our Lord's reply, it is because Thomas had been too tardy in recog nising the truth which lie at last avowed. " Tho mas,because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." John xx. 29.
This part of the argument might be carried to much greater length, and might be strengthened by a great number of quotations from the gospels, all equally decisive as to our Lord's divinity. But it cannot be necessary to multiply texts on this sub ject; neither ingenuity nor sophistry can explain away the plain import of the passages already ad duced; it is not in the power of language to express more clearly these important truths, that Jesus in his lifetime advanced claims to a divine nature; that his apostles recognised these claims; that his enemies publicly charged him with blasphemy for advancing them; and that on such occasions he not only did not withdraw them, but supported them by additional arguments.
The testimony of Pliny is not unimportant to show how early divine honours were paid to Christ. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan, giving an ac count of the transactions in his province, where the Christians had become numerous, he states the manner in which he had proceeded with them; he mentions that he had inquired into their particular opinions, and that his information on this point amounted only to this, that " they were accustomed to meet on a stated day, before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to God."t Dr. Priestley engaged in the desperate undertaking of attempt ing to prove that the early opinions concerning Christ were unfavourable to his divinity. He has been answered by Dr. Horsley, and has been abso lutely overwhelmed and crushed by the force of his arguments and the extent of his learning.t But in maintaining the divine nature of Christ we are not to forget his humanity. It is an essen tial article in the orthodox creed that he is both God and man. And so intimately are the two natures connected, and yet so distinct are they in their properties, that he is sometimes spoken of in Scripture, as possessing only the attributes of God; and at other times as endowed exclusively with the feelings and faculties of man. He is " God over all blessed for ever:" and he is also the " man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." Sometimes he manifests his divine power, and multiplies a few loaves and fishes, so as to be sufficient for the sup ply of five thousand people. At other times we read of his being faint and hungry, and destitute of the ordinary comforts of life. Sometimes, when speaking of himself as man, he seems to state limi tations both to his power and his knowledge ; at other times he asserts all the prerogatives of divini ty, and lays claim to the same honours which are due to the great Father of all. But all these passages
are easily understood, if we bear in mind that Jesus had a proper divinity as well as a proper humanity: and that the same thing cannot be predicated of these two natures. Each of them has a distinct character not applicable to the other.
There is also a third character in which he ap pears, viz. that of a mediator, which has a distinct and appropriate office, and of which certain cir cumstances may be predicated which are not appli cable to Christ either in his divine or in his human nature, when separately considered. Thus when he says that he can do nothing of himself but as he is commanded by the Father, he speaks of his mediatorial office, in which a definite work was given him to per form, and from which he could not possibly deviate without frustrating the work of God, and deserting the enterprise which he had undertaken. In this respect, a limitation was laid even on his own omni potence ; and he was bound to fulfil every article stipulated in the eternal covenant between him and the Father. Yet, in all this, his power was re stricted only by his own will; and he submitted to a voluntary humiliation, and a voluntary relinquish ment of power, that he might accomplish a work which could not by any other means have been ef fected.
Though we ought carefully to abstain from all attempts to explain the manner of the Incarnation, yet it is neither improper nor unprofitable to con sider the consequences which have resulted from it, and even to illustrate them by analogies drawn front sources of knowledge more immediately within the reach of our faculties: and I have no hesitation in saying that the Incarnation of the Son of God, instead of appearing an objectionable doctrine, pre sents to us the most interesting, perhaps the only intelligible view of the Almighty, and of the duties which we owe to him. When men take what they are pleased to call a philosophical view of the na ture of God, they are soon lost and overwhelmed in the immensity of the subject ; for what concep tion can we form of a being without beginning and without end ; without appetites, without passions, without bodily form ; incapable of being injured by our sins, or benefited by our services ? Such a being as this (and it is only as such that the light of reason can recognise God,) must appear rather as an abstract conception of the mind, something resembling the fate of the heathens, than as an ob ject of love, gratitude, and adoration. On this ac count, the most philosophical inquirers, who have not had the light of the gospel for their guide, have been bewildered in the vast generality of the sub ject ; and have regarded the supreme being rather as an object of speculative contemplation, than as entitled to the affections and the worship of his creatures. The ignorant and uninformed fell into an opposite error. They could form no conception of God, but as of a being resembling themselves; and hence they represented him by forms and ima ges adapted to their prejudices and feelings. All these inconveniences and sources of error are re moved by the Incarnation of the Son of God, which was manifested in condescension to our weakness, to show the tender care, the paternal love, the con stant providence of our heavenly Father.