07. Divine attributes ascribed to Christ
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. Who belong...the express image of his person. Hebrews 1:3. This is predicted of the Son, Jesus Christ, in relation to God the Father. The original is somewhat more expressive. It signifies that he is the character of his (i. e. God’s) substance.
All that is known of the nature of a thing is by its qualities. One class of beings is distinguished from another by its different properties. Human nature is known by its distinguishing qualities. Divine nature is known in the same manner. What has human qualities is human nature; and what has divine qualities is divine nature. If it can be shown that Jesus Christ possesses divine qualities, it consequently follows that he possesses divine nature.
Although Christ possessed human nature; yet there is evidence from the inspired writings that he possessed a nature, which distinguished him from a mere man.
Paul, in his salutation to the Galatians, begins thus, “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ. He inquires, “Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, 1 should not be the servant of Christ. But 1 certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Christ. The apostle makes a plain distinction between Christ and a man or men. He is therefore understood ascribing to him a nature, which ihcv had not.
96 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIS”!’. The sacred scriptures ascribe eternity to the Lord Jesus. After the apostasy God held intercourse with man, through the medium of his Son. The voice of the Lord God, whom Adam heard walking in the garden, was the Son. It was the Son, who made the covenant with Abraham. It was the Son, who appeared unto Jacob; changed his name, and blessed him. It was the Son, who led Israel out of Egypt; conducted them through the Red Sea; guided and supported them in the wilderness; and led them to the land of promise. All the divine appearances and communications, which are mentioned in the Old Testament, were made by the Son of God. If these exhibitions of himself do not prove his eternity, they prove that he had existence before he was conceived by his mother Mary. It proves that he was more than mere humanity.
Christ saith of himself, ’•^before Abraham was I am.’
He prayed to the Father, saying, “Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was^ Solomon, personifying Wisdom, which is generally understood to be Christ, says, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him.” In these texts is conveyed the idea not only of his pre-existence, but also of his eternal existence. His being by him, as one brought up with him, easily conveys the idea of two, who had always lived together; and upon equal terms. When Christ appeared unto John in Patmos, he styled himself, “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the first and the last.” This title was given to God by his prophet; and if it is an evidence of his eternal existence, it affords the same evidence of the eternal existence of the Son Jesus Christ. The prophet, in view of the birth of Christ, makes this address to the place of his nativity. “Thou DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 97
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting: This text is clearly applied to Christ. It mentions his coming forth, which would be at his birth. It mentions also his goings forth, which had been of old, from everlasting. This reduplication of time, according to the nature of the Hebrew language, clearly and forcibly conveys the idea of his eternity.
Christ is the express image, or character of the divine nature, or substance. His nature is, of course, divine, and his attributes are divine. It is absurd to suppose that the character of divinity should be ascribed to Christ, and he be not divine; or that he should possess some divine attributes, and not others. If he be the character of divine existence, he is of course eternal. The title Jehovah, is repeatedly given to Christ. This name signifies self-existence. What is self-existent had no cause nor origin of its existence; and of course must always have existed. If the name Jehovah is rightly applied to Christ, it implies his eternal existence. The sacred scriptures ascribe immutability to Christ. This is a divine attribute. Whatever has been created is subject to change by the same power, which created it. But he, that is not subject to change, exists without a cause, and of course is divine. The apostle Paul to the Hebrews is clear and decisive on this point. “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.’ The apostle made this address to Christ; and it as decisively proves his divinity, as the same description proves the divinity of the one 13 &8 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST.
(rue God, when applied to him by the Psalmist. Paul to the Hebrews says, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” This mode of speaking, expresses duration past, the present time, and duration to come. As he is the same^ in the past, present, and future time, he changeth not.
Christ has been manifested to the world in various manners. To Jacob he appeared in the form of a man. To Moses he appeared in, or in the likeness of, a burning bush. To the Israelites he appeared in, or in the form of, a pillar of cloud, and a pillar of fire.
After his incarnation he appeared in human form, in the form of a servant. Since his resurrection he is united to a spiritual body; and is seated on the right hand of divine Majesty. His appearances were different at different times; and his state of humiliation appeared very different from his state of exaltation. But these appearances made no alteration in his nature.
He was no less God in the man Christ Jesus, than he was on the right hand of God the Father. His power was not less when he was in the hands of men, and was condemned, or when, his body was under the dominion of death, than it was when he created the world. All the adventitious circumstances, which attended him while he was upon earth, produced no change in his nature or attributes. The scriptures attribute omnipresence to Christ. The Lord Jesus, when he was upon earth, said, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.” This implies that he was in heaven at the same time he was upon earth. After Christ was received up into heaven, his apostles “went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with them.^^ At this time he sat on the right hand of God. But he was present with them, otherwise he could not have wrought with them. “Where two or three are met together in my name, (said Christ) there am I in the midst of them.” Jesus said unto his disciples, DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 09
’Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” These are individual instances of Christ’s presence on earth, while he is in heaven. If these instances do not prove his universal presence, it proves his presence to a great extent. If his presence is extended to a great proportion of his creatures, there is no reason why it should not be extended to all. By Him all things were created, and by Him all things consist, i. e. are supported. His presence must have been as extensive as his works; and it must now be as extensive as that influence of his, which upholds all things. It is true, all this only proves his presence to be as extensive as the works of creation. The scriptures cannot prove the presence of God the Father to be more extensive. It is not important to prove that divine presence is where nothing feels its influence, nor beholds its glory.
There is abundant evidence from scripture that Christ is omniscient. The apostle Paul says he is before all things. Whether he be before all things in respect to duration or dignity, or in respect to both, he undoubtedly has a capacity for this extent of knowledge. As he made all things, he perfectly knows their natures, and the effects, which would arise from any particular combination of things. As he is omnipresent he knows all events, which take place. Nothing is concealed from his view. The word of inspiration confirms this sentiment. His disciples said unto him, “Now we are sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee.” When Peter was interrogated concerning his love toward his divine Master, he replied, “Lord, thou knowest all things.’ 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.
Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were, that believed not. When prayer was made to the Lord Jesus for direction in filling a place among the apostles, which had been vacated by Judas, he was addressed 100 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. thus: “Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen.” “The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing 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.” Christ, sending word by his servant John, unto the church in Thyatira, says, “all the churches shall know that I am he, which searcheth the reins and hearts,^”* To these may be added another testimony “In whom (i. e. Christ) are bid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” The sacred scriptures do not ascribe a greater extent of knowledge to God the Father. The office of Mediator between God and man, which Christ sustains, renders it necessary that his knowledge should be adequate to the work. If he was not perfectly acquainted with his Father’s will, he would not be capacitated to treat, in his stead, with the human race. If he was not perfectly acquainted with the thoughts, desires, and conditions of the human race, he would not be capacitated to mediate between them and their offended Sovereign. He needs to be perfectly acquainted with both parties, in order to fill the Mediator’s office. In addition to this, he has a knowledge of all the works of his hand; and of course he possesses the highest degree of knowledge which can be conceived. But there are texts of scripture which appear to limit his knowledge; and these texts have been eagerly used for the purpose of robbing Christ of his divine nature. Christ saith, “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” From this it is inferred that he derives his knowledge from the instruction of his heavenly Father. In this discourse with the Jews, Jesus taught them his union with the Father, and his subordination to him. He taught them that he was not alone; that his Father DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 101 was with him, and that he acted in perfect coincidence with his will. In the same manner that he was from God, so was his knowledge from God, or he was taught of God. The scriptures represent perfect order, subordination and agreement subsisting in the Trinity, in the work of redemption. If it is the place “of the Son to do his Father’s will, it is proper to say the Father teaches, or communicates to him his will. This appears to be a correct method in official transactions, although the Son knew all his Father’s purposes. It is true Christ knoweth nothing of himself, and he doeth nothing o/* himself. He is in concert with the Father; and the Father is with him in all his operations. The order of offices justifies the mode of expression, which gives priority to one, and posteriority to the other.
Christ speaking of the day of judgment says, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” From this text has been inferred the limited knowledge of the Son. It has been suggested that so much of this text as relates to the Son was an interpolation by the Arlans. But it is not necessary to make this resort in order to explain the passage consistently with the omniscience of the Son. There are various passages, in which Christ expresses his inferiority to the Father; and there are various other passages, in which he expresses his equality with the Father. It is impossible to account for this difference of representations of himself without admitting the union of two natures, the human and divine. He might speak of his humanity in a limited degree. He might also speak of his divinity in an unlimited degree; and in both instances adhere to the truth. In his capacity as Son of man he might not know the time of the day of judgment; but as Son of God ho might have a perfect knowledge of it. It is reasonable to suppose that he, who is to raise the dead and pass sentence upon them, should foreknow the day of these important events. It can be said with truth that man is mortal. It can be said with equal truth that he is immortal. Our Lord said at a certain time, “Now am no more in the world.” Again he said, “Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. In another place he says, “Lo I am with you always.’^ The fact was, his bodily presence was soon to be removed from them; but his spiritual presence was to be continued. Of course, what he denied respecting his humanity might with propriety and sincerity assert respecting his divinity. If he could make this distinction in one point of view, there is no reason why he might not make the same distinction in another point of view. This mode of speaking did not probably convey distinct ideas to the minds of his disciples.
He often taught them in obscure figures. He did not design to make a full revelation of himself till after his resurrection. A full disclosure of himself while he was upon earth would have had a tendency to frustrate the object of his coming into the world.
“We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery^ even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,^’
Goodness or holiness is attributed, in an eminent degree to Christ, in the sacred scriptures. In his incarnate state he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” The object of his coming into the world and the works, which he performed while he was upon earth, indicated, in the highest degree, the holiness of his nature. If it was an act of divine goodness to create the world; form man upright and place him in paradise, it was an act of equal goodness to make a propitiation for sin; to pay a ransom for sinners; and to prepare mansions for them in Paradise above. Those particular acts of goodness, which characterize the nature of God, are also ascribed to DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 103
Christ. Is God called merciful? Of the Son it is said, “Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Is God called gracious? Of Christ it is said, “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is fmcious.” Is God called long-suffering? The apostle Paul says, “I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering Is righteousness ascribed to God? Christ is called the righteous Judge; the Lord our righteousness. It is by his righteousness that sinners are justified. St. John heard the angel say, “Thou art righteous O Lord.” When the rich young man addressed Christ by the title, good Master, he seemed to check him by saying, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God.” By this interrogation and assertion, Christ did not design to deny his claim to goodness, not even to divine goodness. It appears that the young man was not apprehensive that Christ was divine; that he viewed him only as a man of more than ordinary endowments; that he viewed him as a prophet. According to the young man’s apprehension of Christ he gave him a title higher than he deserved; though not higher than he really deserved. On this ground Christ made his reply. The Jews formed their ideas of God from the same titles, attributes, or characters, which are applied to Christ. If they had evidence from this source that there was a God, there is the same evidence that Christ is God. Had only a single divine title or attribute been ascribed to Christ, there would have been ground to suspect that they were applied to him figuratively, or applied to him as they have been applied to men. But when it is considered that all divine titles and attributes, except those which distinguish the Father from the Son, in their relationship or in their distinct offices, are applied to Christ, it is impossible to account for their just application without admitting that he is divine. It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. In him dwelt 104 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the express image of his person; the very character of his substance. If there were no plurality in the divine nature, which is the ground of the distinctions, Father and Son, it appears to be improper to say that in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. If, on this principle, all divine fullness dwelt in him, there would be no ground for addressing divinity out of himself.
There would be no ground of his addressing the Father. If the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, divine nature and divine attributes dwelt in him; otherwise, all the fullness of the Godhead did not dwell in him; he was not the character of divine nature.
If God made communications to Christ as he did to the prophets, only in a greater degree, he would not possess one divine attribute. Divine Fullness would not dwell in him. If there be no ground of distinction in the divine nature, and God should communicate his Fullness to the man Christ Jesus, he would only change his condition, (if the expression may be allowed) but there would be no ground of distinction between the Father and the Son; nor would there be ground for one to address the other. It is absurd to say that Christ possesses divine attributes only in a limited degree. Divine attributes are infinite, or in the greatest possible degree. What is less is not divine. if this be not true, it is impossible to draw a line of distinction between human and divine attributes. As divine attributes are as clearly and fully ascribed to the Son as they are to the Father; and as a nature is known only by its attributes, it follows that there is as clear evidence, from this source, of the divine nature of the Son, as of the Father.*
* Who being the express image of his person. ^ag*KT»!g Ttt?” C’Troa-Ta.miie di/Toy. Hebrews 1:3. These original Words signify the character of his substance. A character is an exact representation of the seal or stamp, which makes the impression. They are of the same dimensions; and they perfectly correspond in all their parts. According to the perfection of the former, so is the perfection of the latter. If Christ represents the Father as a character represents its seal, there is an exact correspondence between them. They are of the same extent. Their attributes are correspondent, and of equal perfection. If Christ DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 105 be of finite nature and finite properties, there is no proportion, there is no correspondence between him and the Father, who is of infinite perfection. If extraordinary powers were delegated to him, they would make no addition to his nature; and of course they would not make him the character, or exact likeness of the Father’s substance.
“Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58. We produce this text, not to prove the eternal existence of the Son, but to prove his pre-existence. Attempts have been made to evade even this proof from the text. It is contended that Christ did not design to convey an idea that he had existence before Abraham, but that before his day he was appointed by the counsel of Heaven to the office of Alevsiah; that he was ordained to be the Christ. If this be the meaning of the text, he gave a very indirect answer to the question of the Jews. Their inquiry related to his age; and if his answer related to the time of his appointment to office, there is not the least connection between the answer and the question. Rather than to suppose this prevarication, we would use the text according to its most easy and natural construction; that Christ was before Abraham.
Glorify thou me with thine own self, Avith the glory, which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:5. This text is offered to prove Christ’s preexistence only It is an unhappy evasion to say that this glory, which Christ once had with the Father, and for which he prayed, was a glory, which was reserved (or him, which was in the Father’s purpose and decree. It could not, with truth be said that he ever had a glory, which was only reserved or purposed for him. Besides, if he prayed for this degree of glory, he would pray only for a glory to be kept in reserve or purpose; for this, upon the present hypothesis, is the glory he had with the Father, “I am Alpha and Omega,’ the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
Leviticus 22:13. It is admitted by Unitarians that these are the words of Christ. The terms, first and last, are applied in the Old Testament to God. If these terms, when applied to him, express his eternal existence, they equally express the eternal existence of Christ, when applied to him. It is admitted that many -words in the scriptures, which, according to their natural meaning, are taken in their greatest latitude, are restricted by their application. But there is no restriction, or qualification intimated, when the terms first and last are applied to Christ. To say “they signify that Jesus Christ, is contemporary with the earliest and latest events in that dispensation, over which he has been ordained by the Almighty to preside,” is begging the question. It is assuming that he had no authority, or that he did not preside over any thing till he commenced the dispensation of mercy with mankind. When the prophet Isaiah applies the same terms to the God of Israel, some captious critic might as well say, they signify that God is contemporary with the earliest and latest events of the Jewish dispensation. With such license, it would be impossible to prove one divine attribute of God the Father.
“But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. The original words standing for “shall he come forth,” and “whose goings forth,” are radically the same. It is contended that the first, signifies his birth at Bethlehem; and that “the last clause must therefore be understood thus: “whose birth has been of old from everlasting;” i. e. “whose birth has been determined, or appointed from everlasting.” Even though the extension, “goings forth,” should be referred to an earlier period of our Lord’s existence than his birth from the Virgin Mary, it must signify generation in some way or other, and therefore favors the Unitarian doctrine, that he had a beginning, rather than the orthodox opinion of his eternity.” (See Yates’ Vindication of Unitarianism.) This learned author makes the assumption, that the phrase, “shall he come forth,” signifies his natural birth. The original word does not necessarily signify birth. It is sometimes applied to it. But it is also “.applied to the productions of the earth, or of vegetables; to the solar lights going forth upon the earth; so to the stellar lights, to the springing, or coming forth of waters; to come or go forth, or out, in almost any manner.” (See Park. Heb. Lex. on the word.) ’Out of thee,” i. e. Bethlehem, “shall he come forth to me.” However common the supposition may be, it is hard to conceive that Christ’s coming forth out of the city Bethlehem to his Father, should signify his natural
14 106 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. birth. But if this supposition were correct, and the latter phrase, “his goings forth, signified the same thing, the inference would be, that he had a natural birth before he was born of Mary. As the latter phrase is in the plural number, it would follow that he had had several natural births before that time, the learned author, however, only infers that -it must signify generation in some •way or other “ But this is making the conclusion broader than the premises. To apply the first phrase lo his natural birth, and the latter to an unintelligible generation, is neither agreeable to sound logic, nor to the rules of strict criticism. The LXX did not understand, by the original terms, an} kind of birth or generation. If we understand the terms according to their natural and true import, as they stand in our translation, we shall find that he, who came forth from Bethlehem on his Father’s business, had also gone forth from him, from of old, from everlasting.
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” Hebrews 1:3:8. It is contended by some that Jesus Christ, in this text, is put for the doctrines which he taught; and that this text proves not the immutability of his nature; but only the immutability of his doctrines. It is admitted that his name is sometimes used to signify his religion. But it does not follow from this that it is always used in this sense, or that it is so used in this passage. But if this were the true meaning of the text, it would offer some evidence of his immutability.
If he be the Author and Supporter of an unchangeable religion; if his kingdom be of one nature, and his laws and administration be without essential variation, there is strong evidence that he himself does not essentially change. If his designs are always the same, there is no reasonable doubt that he is always the same. In the former part of the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle, after attributing the work of creation to the Son, asserts his immutability by the same terms, thou art the same (o at/ roc.) To speak of the visible changes, which Christ sustained during his humiliation is mere evasion. It is to speak of the mutability of his humanity, which all admit.
•’No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.” John 3:13. Trinitarian commentators are not agreed in their explanations of this text. It appears, however, that the first clause cannot be understood literally. For Enoch and Elijah were taken up bodily into heaven. The connection of this text authorizes a belief that Christ, by his declaration, “no man hath ascended up to heaven,” designed to show that no person beside himself was fully acquainted with the counsel of heaven.
He positively asserted that he spoke what he knew, and testified what he had seen. He knew and he had seen what mere man never knew nor saw. If the first part of the text is understood figuratively, there is no necessity of understanding the second clause in this manner. Other texts, without the appearance of a figure, assert that he came down from heaven. Christ himself says, “1 came down from heaven.” The Jews understood him to speak literally; for they said, •’is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know, how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” The apostle Paul, speaking of Christ’s ascension, saith, “now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also, that ascended up far above all heavens.” The latter part of the text, “the Son of man, who is in heaven,” natural!^ conveys the idea that he, who had descended from heaven, and was then speaking, was also in heaven. This construction is ea.sy, if it be admitted that divinity was united with the Sod of man. If this union be denied it is difficult to explain this passage.
•’They went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following,” Mark 16:20. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,”
Matthew 18:1-35 :’20. •’Lo, lam with you always, even unto the end of the world,” Matthew 28:20. A learned Unitarian, (see Yates’ Vindication of Unitarianism, p 225,) admits that these texts “prove, that he was virtually present with his disciples, to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apostolic labors.” To prove his omnipresence, he considers it necessary to show that his substance is extended through all space. This extension of substance he considers to be the omnipresence of God. The distinction between actual and virtual omnipresence of God is a subject better calculated for the speculations of metaphysicians than for the discussion of theologians. Let the conclusion be which way it will, the effect will be the same. Whether he be actually or virtually present, it is in DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 107
(or rather by) him we live, move, and have our being. We know too little of spiritual substance to have definite conceptions of its extension, or of its relation to place. We cannot define the limits of own spii-iis (spirits?); but we have reason to believe that we have perceptions, and we produce effects far beyond the extension of our material or spiritual substance, if a finite spirit can produce effects where its substance does not actually extend, it does not appear to be necessary to suppose that the substance of the divine Spirit should be actually extended wherever he operates. If it be admitted that the virtual presence of Christ is “with his disciples, to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apostolic labors,” it is believed that the presence of God with them is not superior to this, either in its nature, or in its effects; and till it is proved to be superior, there appears to be no presumption in the belief. We do not maintain that these texts alone prove Christ’s universal presence; but they appear to prove his presence to be of such a nature, that it may as well extend to every other creature. But we are not left to inference on this subject The apostle expressly tells us, “by him all t h in ffs consist.,” Colossians 1:17. “U|ihol(ling a// things \)\ the word of his power,” Hebrews 1:3. These texts prove, (and it is presumed it will be admitted) that Christ’s virtual presence is as extensive as the works of creation; and till it is proved that the presence of God the Father is more extensive and of a higher nature, we shall call it omnipresence, and a divine attribute.
Now we are sure that thou knowest all things and needest not that any man should ask thee.” John 10:30 - “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,” John 2:24, ’25.
“Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,” Acts 1:24. It is probable that the address in the last verse quoted was made to Christ. It was his province, while he was upon earth to designate men to the apostleship. After his resurrection his authority was not abridged. So far from it that all authority in heaven and in earth was given unto him. Of course he retained the authority of selecting and sending forth apostles. It was with peculiar propriety that they should direct their requests to him to designate which of the two candidates should fill the place, which Judas had vacated. In these texts Christ is said to know all things; to know all men; to know what is in man. But we are told that “the word all, does not always denote strict universality.” The very same phrase, of knowing all things, is used in application to men. “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,” 1 John 2:20. It is admitted that the word all, is sometimes used in the scriptures in a limited sense. Because it is sometimes used in this manner, it does not follow that it is always used so. Because it is used in a restricted sense, when it is applied to men, it does not follow that it is to be restricted, when it is applied to Jesus Christ. But we are not left to ambiguous terms and phrases to prove the divine knowledge of Christ. He is said to know what was in man At different times he gave evidence that he possessed this knowledge. But we are told that this knowledge might be revealed to him; that “numerous instances of this occur in scripture.” Elijah the prophet, although blind through age, was inspired to know the wife of Jeroboam and the intentions of her heart, notwithstanding she feigned herself another. It is asserted, concerning Elijah the prophet, that he could tell the things, which the king of Israel should do in his bed chamber; an expression denoting a knowledge of the most secret transactions. Much in point is the declaration of Elisha. And the man of God said, “Let her alone, for her soul is vexed within her; and the Lord hath hidden it from me, and hath not told me.” We have a memorable instance in the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter knew by inspiration, that Ananias had kept back part of the price of the land, though he declared he had not; and, also, that he and his wife had secretly agreed to maintain the falsehood. “My lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.”
These are particular cases of extraordinary knowledge. In the case of Ahijah, it is expressly asserted, that the Lord told him the errand and the deception of Jeroboam’s wife. In respect to Elisha’s knowledge of the words, which the king of Syria spoke in his bed chamber, it is only a declaration of a servant of the Syrian king. But admitting his declaration to be literally true, it only proves that a particular fact was revealed to him. When the Shunamite went unto Elisha with the sad tidings of the death of her son, he did not know her errand;
108 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. and for this reason, the Lord had hid it from him, and had not told him. This implies that when he had extraordinary knowledge, it was by inspiration. It is not recorded how Peter knew the secret deception of Ananias and his wife. But there is no doubt that he received knowledge of this event, from Him, who gave him power to heal a lame man. When the widow of Tekoah perceived that David had discovered her deception; and convinced of his sagacity, she in a complimentary manner compared him with an angel of God to know all things that are in the earth. In all these instances, extraordinary knowledge was communicated by the divine Being. But these communications were made only hi particular cases, and for special purposes. Those men, who were thus endowed, had not a knowledge of the hearts of men generally, nor had they a knowledge of a single heart at all times.
Christ’s knowledge appears very different from this. He knew not only a particular thought of a particular person, but he knew all men; and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. This text expresses his knowledge of what is in the hearts of mankind; and he possesses this knowledge without anyone’s testifying to him what passes in the human mind.
There is no intimation given that he received this knowledge by inspiration. This and some other texts, which are applied to Christ, are as expressive of divine knowledge, as any texts, which are applied to the Father. But we ace told, there are texts, which represent Christ’s knowledge to be inferior to the Father’s, or to be derived from him. It is admitted there are two classes of texts, which are applied to Christ. One class represents him having knowledge, â- which is peculiar to Deity. Another class represents him having limited knowledge; having knowledge, or doctrines, given, shown, taught him from above.
These two classes of texts exhibit Christ in his divine and human nature. When things are said to be given, shewn, and taught to Christ, he is either exhibited in his humanity, or in his mediatorial, subordinate office. When Christ says,”The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things, that himself doeth,” he asserts his perfect knowledge of all the operations of the Father; and also the intimate union, which subsists between them. To express their equality of knowledge in unequivocal language he says, “^s the Father knoweth m«, even so know I the Father.”
•’I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works,” Revelation 2:23. It will not be pretended that Christ searcheth, by inspiration, the reins and hearts. A person may be inspired with a knowledge of what passes in another’s heart; but it is not proper to say, one is inspired to search his heart. But it is asserted that power may be delegated to Christ for this purpose; and it is supposed he “will at the day of general judgment be endued with all the knowledge of men’s thoughts and dispositions, which is necessary to the discharge of his office.” Let it be observed, that a text in the book of Jeremiah predicates of God the same power.
“I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” Now let it be asked why the same unqualified words, when Christ applies them to himself, do not import the same power, as when God applies them to himself? By what rule are they to be restricted in one case, and not in the other? A delegation of power to a creature to know all things is an impartation entirely disproportionate to the capacity of the recipient. Christ, to express his union and equality with the Father, says, “What things so ever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” At the same time he disclaimed all pretensions to acting separately from him.