the Father," to have been made "a little lower than the angels," to be "the first-born among many brethren," to obey God, and to "do the things that please him,"

In the following passages, Jesus speaks of himself in his mediatorial capacity: "I can do nothing of myself To sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give-The Father hath given the Son to have life in himself The Father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works-I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me-As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." So, as our High Priest, he prays for us; and, as a man, he prays for himself. So also the Apostle says that "Christ is God's," and that "the head of Christ is God." In all these cases Jesus is presented to us exactly in the character that was foretold of him, as God's "servant" or "messenger;" and therefore of course in that capacity dependent upon God, and acting a subordinate part under him. But again we ask, How came he to be "found in" this "fashion?" The Apostle tells us- - He emptied himself of the form of God, and took upon him the form of a servant. These remarks will likewise furnish an answer to the difficulties raised about his ascension and exaltation: "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God;" "wherefore God also hath highly exalted him." Did he ascend to himself? or was he exalted by himself? His human nature† ascended to his Father, and was exalted by his Father, as the reward of his humiliation and

proper persons, or only part of them? Secondly, whether both their souls and bodies died, or only their bodies? If he says that the real and very thieves did die, and yet that it was only their bodies which died-he will have answered his own objection. If my body may die without the soul that is united to it dying, why might not Christ's Manhood die without the Godhead that was united to it dying? *It is very remarkable that, although Jesus tells his disciples to say "our Father," yet he never uses the expression himself. He says "the Father," "my Father," "your Father," "my Father and your Father," but never "our Father." What was this, but to shew that, although God is his Father and our Father, yet the word is not used in the same sense when applied to him, that it is when applied to us. Nor is it less remarkable, that our Lord never prayed with his disciples. "As it is said of him, he got up before day, or he went into a solitary place, to pray, that he might be marked as alone in prayer. So it is said, he withdrew himself and prayed-he continued all night in prayer-he was alone praying. Nor is he once seen in prayer even with his disciples, though he owned their praying, both teaching them and encouraging them to pray.

Why, then, was this? If he taught and encouraged them to pray, and also prayed himself, why would he not, why did he not, join them in prayer?

This may be the answer; his prayers had a character in them which none others could have had. He was heard "for his piety." (Heb. v.) He needed no mediator, but stood accepted in himself. He pleaded no one's merit-he used no mercy-seat with blood upon it. This was the character of his communion in prayer, but into this there was no entrance for any worshipper but himself. He prayed in a Temple peculiar to himself, erected, as it were, for such a worshipper of the Son of God, who offered prayer at an altar the like of which was not to be seen any where-it had no pattern on the top of the mount. He was a worshipper of a peculiar order, as he was a priest of a peculiar order, or a servant of a peculiar order. He did not owe service, but he learnt it-he did not owe worship, but he rendered it. He was the voluntary servant (Ex. xxi. 5. Heb. v. 8), and the meritorious worshipper. Thus he prayed alone.""

+ Yet on account of the Divine nature being united to his human nature St. Paul says, that "God was received up into his glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16.

sufferings for our sakes. But the glory and power, which was then conferred on him as man, was only an addition to the glory which he had with the Father " before the world was;" "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."—Of a similar kind are the following: "That they might know thee, the only true God, an Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"-"And call no man your Father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even Christ"-"To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"-"There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." These passages do not prove that Christ is not one person in the Godhead spoken of; other Scriptures declare that he is but they mention him in his distinct character as mediator between God and man. If St. John had only said "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," Unitarians would have brought it forward as proof that the Word could not be God, because, being "with God," it must be something distinct from God; but St. John tells us that, although there was a distinction, yet "the Word was God." This supplies us with a principle of interpretation, by which alone such expressions as those just quoted can be harmonised with the positive declarations of Scripture concerning the Deity of Christ.

There seems to be a prejudice in the present day against familiar illustration being applied to sacred subjects-as if it was not treating them with sufficient reverence. But considering that by far the greater part of our Lord's teaching consisted of the most familiar illustration possible, taken from the commonest objects of nature, or the most ordinary events of daily life, we need have no fear in attempting, at however great a distance, to follow his example. A simple illustration will often remove a difficulty more effectually than the most laboured argument: only we must remember that, however striking and forcible it may appear, it must always be more or less imperfect, when Divine things are compared with human. Even in our Lord's parables, if pressed close, the likeness will not hold good in every minute point; so long as the general drift and bearing of it convey the required instruction, its end is gained. Let us then see if we cannot find some earthly similitude, which may assist our faith in receiving this great mystery of godliness-God manifest in flesh.

The first great point, about which so much difficulty is felt, has been already illustrated at the beginning of this lecture, A red-hot cannon-ball possesses two complete natures, fire and iron and yet is only one thing. Both these natures possess all their original properties entire, except appearance. Whatever may be said of fire, may be said of that ball; and whatever may be said of iron, may be said of that ball. Yet the two

:

natures remain in another sense perfectly distinct; iron cannot burn, nor can fire batter down a stone wall. So whatever may be said of a man, may be said of Christ; and whatever may be said of God, may be said of Christ, Yet the two natures are in a sense distinct: as God, he knows all things; as man, he only knows what is communicated to him, &c If the iron could speak, it might say, I cannot burn of myself; it is the fire, which is in me, that burns: just as Jesus says, I can of mine own self do nothing; the Father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. This might be carried out further but we hasten on to the second point, which to many minds is no less difficult, namely, that Christ should be Mediator between God and man, and yet be himself one person in the Triune Godhead. This, say Unitarians, is being Mediator between himself and man. Well, what is that, but the same person appearing in two characters, holding two offices, or acting two parts? For instance; I am the patron of a living, and being a clergyman I present myself to it. Here I am both the presenter and the person presented, the giver and the receiver. Who would argue, that I could not be the patron or presenter of the living, because I was the person presented to it? It is quite clear, I present in one character, office, or capacity, and am presented in another.—Again, I let my mind wander, bring it back, fix it on something-Is my mind part of myself? If so; how can that which brings back and that which is brought back, that which fixes and that which is fixed be the same? Further, I obey my conscience, consult my reason, exercise my understanding. Are my conscience, reason, and understanding, part of myself? If so, will the Philosopher, who thinks Christ could not be God because he was sent by God, tell us how the obeyer and the obeyed, the consulter and the consulted, the exerciser and the exercised, can be one and the same?—Again; a man is committed to prison by a judge for contempt of court. He asks the governor of the prison to release him. The governor replies, I have not the power to do so; I can of mine own self do nothing; your liberty is not mine to give; I am not here to do mine own will. Now it is quite clear that the governor had the power to release him, and could have given him his liberty if he pleased: he only means that he could not do so consistently with a proper discharge of the office which he held. He had voluntarily undertaken an office, which required him to act under the instructions, and by the authority, of others. So did the Son of God voluntarily humble himself to act the part of the Father's servant or messenger, when he undertook the office of Mediator between God and man. While holding that office therefore, he can do nothing of himself; but speaks and acts under his Father's authority.

In the last mentioned instance however, there is no connection between the person giving, and the person receiving, the authority; this feature in our Lord's mediatorial office will be

seen better in the following case: A person, for breach of privilege or some other offence, is committed to the Tower by the House of Commons, until he submit to certain conditions; which he is not willing to do. The Commons choose one of their own members to act as Mediator between the two parties. He is directed to offer the delinquent terms, and urge him to accept them. Now this person is chosen by the House, appointed by the House, sent by the House, and yet is himself a member of the House. He is a servant and messenger of the House, he acts according to their instructions and under their authority, and yet in himself possesses equal rank, dignity, and authority with any other member whatever. He tells the person to whom he is sent, that he can neither say nor do any thing of himself; that he can only speak as he is taught; that he has no power or authority but what is given him.* He promises to intercede for him, and pray the House to release him; and tells him that, if he will submit to the conditions offered and follow his directions, he will find that he (the messenger) has done nothing of himself, but that all bis proceedings will be recognised by the House as done by their authority. He tells him further that, as the reward of his undertaking this office of Mediator, he will be exalted by the House to a post of peculiar honour and dignity in addition to his own original dignity as one member of the House. He then returns to those who sent him, and says, I have delivered your message to the person you sent me to; I have followed your instructions in all things; I have persuaded the offender to submit to you as the only authority which has power over him, and to accept the terms offered him by me as your messenger, &c., &c. How can he use such language as this, when he is himself a member of the House ? He speaks thus in his official capacity, as Mediator between it and another party. Yet these are just the sort of expressions, which Unitarians bring from Scripture, as proofs that Jesus could not be one person in the adorable Trinity.

Once more great stress is laid on Christ's words in Mark xiii. 32. "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."-Some years ago it came out in evidence before parliament, that in one of the books used for the training of Romish Priests were the following questions and answers.† Q. If a person at confession acknowledge to you having committed a certain crime, and you were afterwards asked on

Does Jesus say any thing stronger of himself, than what he says of the Holy Ghost; " He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak." Yet some Unitarians allow that the Holy Ghost is God, only Rot a distinct person from the Father; and all admit it to be the power or operation of God. The same remark applies to the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus "in a bodily shape." Is there any more difficulty in the Son of God taking a bodily shape, than in the power or operation of God taking one?

+ Den's Theology. Vol. 6. p. 218, in the edition published at Dublin, by B. Coyne, in 1832, and dedicated to Dr. Murray, Romish Archbishop of Dublin.

your oath in a court of justice, whether you knew any thing about it—what should you say? A. I do not. Q Would not that be perjury? A. No. Q How so? A. I sat in the confessional as God; but I was examined in the court of justice as man. As God I knew who had committed the crime as man I knew nothing about it-Now this, which is blasphemy in the mouth of a Romish Priest, is nothing but simple truth in the mouth of Jesus Christ; for he is both God and man. His Divine nature knew all things; his human nature increased in wisdom, like any of his brethren, and was of course limited in its knowledge. As Mediator too, the "day and hour" formed no part of his message; he was not commissioned to reveal it to us. As man therefore, it was beyond his actual knowledge; as Mediator, it was beyond his official knowledge.

Some however may be inclined to ask, What was our Lord's object in so repeatedly declaring his real and perfect manhood, and pressing it upon our attention in such a variety of ways? We allow that these declarations may be satisfactorily explained, without rejecting the equally plain declarations of his Deity; but we don't see the necessity for them. Strong assertions of his Godhead were evidently necessary, because from the form in which he appeared, people would be backward to believe it; but surely he need not have taken such pains to convince them that he was a man: it is not likely any one could doubt that. Such reflections may probably pass through the minds of many in the present day, and for this reason; that those who deny Christ's manhood are very few, whilst those who deny his Godhead are increasingly numerous. The proofs of our Lord's manhood are so constantly forced upon us by Unitarians, that we are apt to think there can be no possible danger on the other side of any one asserting him to be only God, and not a man at all. But if we had been as much troubled by the Swedenborgians, and scarcely at all by the Unitarians, we might perhaps have thought just the reverse. Certainly we should never have been tempted to think the proofs of Christ's manhood at all stronger or more numerous than necessary, but should have admired the providence of God in furnishing us with such powerful armour against a dangerous heresy. Even in the face of the present overwhelming amount of evidence, there have always been sects in every period of the Christian Church, who have denied the reality of our Lord's manhood: how much more numerous then in all likelihood would they have been, if Jesus had not made such very strong and positive declarations on the subject. And it is worthy of observation, that the first heretics who started up in the Apostle's days, were deniers, not of the Saviour's Godhead, but of his manhood. These were the men whom St. John denounces so severely for denying "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." What an extraordinary error for any one to fall into, if Jesus was nothing but a man! How inconceivable,