THE GLORY OF CHRIST AS GOD-MAN. mean to express his pre-existence, but his divine nature also, I AM being the name of God ; Exod. iii. 14. And the great mo- dern refiner of the Arian scheme Doctor Samuel Clarke allows so much as this, viz. That from our Saviour's using the words "I am" instead of " I was," he might possibly intend to insinu- ate that he was theperson in whom the naine of God was, viz. Jehovah, or "I am :" And he adds, as This indeed cannot be denied ;" though he will not allow him here to describe himself is the self-existent Being. See DoctorClarke's Scripture Doc- trine, chapter H. section iii. number 591. But there are many proofs of the divinityof Christ which are cited, and confirmed under the eighth and ninth propositions of the discourse on the " Christian Doctrine of the Trinity," and which are needless to be repeated here. III. "There are other scriptures which denote the pre- existence of Christ, and may also perhaps include a reference to his divine nature, but carry not with them such a full and con- vincing evidence of his godhead as utterly to exclude all other. interpretations." Such are these; John iii. 31. He that comethfrom above is above all, bfc. 1 Cor. xv. 37. The first man is of theearth earthy, the secondman is the Lordfrom heaven. John iii. 13. No man kith ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.* IV. " But there are some texts 'which insinuate the exis- tence of Christ before he came into the flesh, which in their most natural, obvious and evident sense seem to refer to some intelli- gent nature belongingto our Lord Jesus Christ, which is inferior to godhead." This will be made evident under the following- proposition. V. " Whatsoever scriptures represent Christ as existent before his incarnation in a nature inferior to godhead, do most naturally lead us to the belief of the pre-existence of his hu- man soul." * I confess I have cited this text in a former treatise to prove the omnipre. senceof Christ as God, and perhaps that may be part of the true meaningof it.; but I have lately found two or three writers of name who heartily believed the godhead of Christ, and yet suppose this text may refer to his pre-existent soup because v wv ev sfmvw, which we render, " who is in heaven," may be as well ren- dered, at who was in heaven," the participle tea being equally capable of the past, as well as the present tense or time. So St. John himself expresseth the time past, " he was," by na, chap. ix. 25, where the blind man cured by our Lord, says, .t I was blind," ru¢ae, wv, And St. Paul expressethi " who was," in the same manner twice, vµaç av1rcç v:xeaç, Fph: ii. 1. and verse 5. " You who were dead." Beza himself inclines to construe this ward, " who was in heaven," in this text. Upen the whole, I doubt whether this text will certainly prove Christ's divinity, and whether it may not more directly refer to his pre-existeotsoul. For since there are proofs enough of the divinity of Christ, which are strong in my opinion and unanswerable, I would not constrain such passages of_scrip- ture into this service whose force and sense. are rendered doubtful byany just rules of criticism.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=