530 THE GLORY Or CHRIST AS GOD -MAN. Lord. And in visions angels profess themselves to be sent of God." Grotius himselfconfesses, that it " was not a mere angel gave the law in Sinai, but an angel with whom the Logos or divine word was present" The objection has been indeed carriedon further by a late ingenious writer, by way of similitude. " Suppose we hear of King George's speech to the parliament, we know that King Georgedoth not speak it himself, but gives the speech to my Lord Chancellor, and he reads it : Now if a man upon hearing my Lord Chancellor speak those words to the parliament, should conclude that he isKing George he would certainly be mistaken :" And therefore though an angel who represents God assumes divine titles, wecannot infer that he is God. Answer I. It is sufficiently and publicly known that King George gives the speech to my Lord Chancellor, and that King George himself also is present there, and visible on the throne : And on both these accounts there is no manner of danger of our mistaking the one for the other. But if King Georgewere invi- sible, or did not appear, and myLordChancellor, arrayed in royal robes, assumed the title and used the very words of the king, without any preface or intimation that King George sent him to speak thus, how should any strangers know, unless they were told, that this was not the kinghimself ? And how could the people of Israel know, that it was not God who spoke the words of the law to them, when the bright array, and the title of God are assumed, and the language is properly the language of God. But Iadd, secondly, II. If the Lord Chancellor not only spoke words belonging to the king without any such preface as, Thus saith the king : If he not only assumed the proper name and the titles of King George, the king himself being absent or invisible, but if the his- torians alsodeclared that it was King George that spoke these words, if they called it the voice of King George, and ifthe spec- tators called him king, addressed to him as king, and worshipped him as such, would there not be abundant ground for a most per- nicious mistake among all those who in after-ages should read this history ? Now this is the present case, Jehovah or God himself is invisible, and was not seen by eyes of flesh ; and not only the angel who appeared in the Old Testament assumed the divine names and titles of Jehovah or God himself, without any distinguishing preface of, 'l'bus saith the Lord, but the sacred historian declares to us, it was God appeared, and it was God spake, it was the voice of God, even of Jehovah, the God of Israel; and the persons also with whom he conversed, viz. Abra- ham. Moses, and the children of Israel, &c. called him God, and Lord, andworshipped him as snob. Now let us put all these things together, and there seems to be an unavoidable occasion
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=