scending and more universal love, to complete the work which he had begun, and to fulfil the words of his prophets. Every thing said by them concerning the person who had sent them is applied by this proposition to the person whom they announced; and there is a depth and perfection of wisdom in the manner of the application. As it was not necessary that the Son of God should be known while the Old Testament dispensation existed, we find that the ancient Jews had very imperfect conceptions of his nature. But when he came in the flesh, he took off the veil from the ancient Scriptures. The Old Testament now appears to be full of Jesus Christ; and all the revelations, from the beginning of the world, collected and interpreted by their application to him, redound to the honour, and illustrate the original dignity of the angel of the covenant.

DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST'S PERSON, ETC.

309

CHAPTER VI.

DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE PERSON OF CHRIST TAUGHT DURING HIS LIFE.

I HAVE Considered both those passages of Scripture, which teach plainly that Jesus existed before he was born of Mary, and those which ascribe certain actions to him in his pre-existent state. The manner in which these actions are described, not only contains a clear refutation of the first opinion concerning the person of Christ, but seems intended to convey an impression that he is not a creature ; and with the prejudice arising from this impression, we now proceed to attend to those passages of Scripture which are to direct us in forming a conception of his original dignity.

Dr. Clarke, in his Introduction to the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, expresses himself thus: ""Tis a thing very destructive of religion, and the cause of almost all divisions amongst Christians, when young persons, at their first entering upon the study of divinity, look upon human and perhaps modern forms of speaking, as the rule of their faith; understanding those also according to the accidental sound of the words, or according to the notions which happen at any particular time to prevail in the world, and then picking out, as proofs, some few single texts of Scripture, which, to minds already strongly prejudiced, must needs seem to sound, or may easily be accommodated, the same way; while they attend not impartially to the whole scope and general tenor of Scripture. Whereas on the contrary were the whole Scriptures first thoroughly studied, and seriously considered, as the rule and only rule of truth in matters of religion; and the sense of all human forms and expressions deduced from thence, the greatest part of errors, at least of uncharitable divisions, might in all probability have been prevented."

Dr. Clarke speaks the language of all true Protestants, when he says that the Scriptures, thoroughly studied and seriously considered, are the rule, and the only rule of truth in matters of religion. He speaks like a sound critic, when he says that texts ought not to be understood according to the accidental sound of the words, or according to the notions which happen at any particular time to prevail. But it does not appear to me how we can attain a certain knowledge of the whole scope and general tenor of Scripture, without a close examination of particular texts. In every inquiry we find it necessary to guard against the errors which arise from partial views, by comparing different parts of the subject, and by correcting the conclusions which had been too hastily formed. But still, notwithstanding

this danger, the scientific method of arriving at truth in all subjects is to proceed by an induction of particulars to an apprehension of the whole; and in the study of theology, which is in truth the study of the Scriptures, any notions formed of the doctrine contained in them must be loose and precarious, unless you investigate by sound criticism the amount of words and phrases. Although therefore I consider the collection of texts from the New Testament relative to the doctrine of the Trinity, which Dr. Clarke has made the groundwork of his propositions, as a most useful help to any one who sets himself to examine the subject, I do think that by following the method of studying it which he recommends, there is a danger of being prevented, by a phraseology which runs through many of the texts, from receiving the obvious sense of others. If, because it is said in numberless places that the Son is sent by the Father, and came to do the will of the Father, and that all things are given him by God, we infer that there is an inferiority to God in his nature, and afterwards find this inference in direct opposition to those texts, which teach that there is an equality, we have reason to presume that we have committed a mistake; and we are reminded, that the proper method of proceeding was not to draw a conclusion from a general impression, but to begin with ascertaining the sense of particular texts, and to rest in that conclusion which affords a consistent interpretation of all the passages that relate to the same subject.

I said, indeed, that we bring with us to the part of the subject upon which we are now entering, an impression that Jesus is not a creature. But this is an impression suggested by a careful and patient examination of those texts in which he is described as the Creator of the world, and by the whole tenor of those parts of the Old and New Testament, in which he is described as the Person by whom all intercourse between the Deity and the human race has been conducted. It is impossible to make progress in any subject without forming some opinion as we advance. If that opinion receive no support in the further prosecution of the subject, it rests upon its original foundation. If it be contradicted, we ought to revise the grounds of it, that we may discover where the mistake lies: but if it be found to coincide with the amount of future researches, it receives light and confirmation from this concurrence of evidence.

These are the principles upon which I am to proceed in a critical examination of those texts of the New Testament, the true meaning of which must decide the question between the second and third opinions concerning the person of Christ. But as the texts are found chiefly in the Epistles, which were not written for twenty years after our Lord's death, I think it proper to begin with an historical view of the manner in which the doctrine concerning his person was taught during his life.

It is manifest to any one who reads the gospels, that our Lord did not unfold all the truths of his religion at once to his disciples. In condescension to the narrowness of their views, and the strength of their prejudices, there was a preparation by which he led them on, as they were able to bear it, to points of difficult apprehension. When we observe that he never spoke plainly of his sufferings, till they had declared their faith in him as the Messiah-that the future extension

of his religion was intimated to them in parables-that they were not permitted before his death to preach the gospel to any but Jews-and that their expectations of a temporal kingdom continued till his ascension, we cannot doubt that some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity were very imperfectly known by the apostles while our Lord was with them; and we are not surprised to find these words in his last discourse to them, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."* If he was truly God, there was a peculiar fitness in the reserve with which he chose to reveal the dignity of his person. He appeared as a man, that he might converse familiarly with his brethren-that, by leading a life of sorrow, he might go before his companions in the practice of those virtues which they also were to be required to exercise-and that, by falling in due time a victim to the malice of his enemies, he might accomplish the salvation of the world. For these purposes, the veil of humanity was assumed; and if it was indeed the Godhead which that veil concealed from the eyes of ordinary beholders, the same purposes required that those persons who were continually around the person of Jesus, should have, during his life, only an indistinct impression of the glory and majesty of him with whom they conversed-and that the clear knowledge that he was God, should be conveyed to their minds after his death, by that recollection and explication of his words, which they were to derive from the illumination of his Spirit. After he had ascended to heaven, they could not think too highly of his character; and their conceptions of the wisdom and grace of their Master would be very much raised, when they found that those words, the full force of which they understood not at the time when they were spoken, admitted of an interpretation every way suited to the exalted notions which they were taught by the Spirit to entertain concerning the dignity of him from whom they had proceeded. This appears to be the plan which the wisdom of God followed in revealing this subject. We find, during the life of Jesus, intimations of the superiority of his character, such as are not only perfectly consistent with the future revelation that he is God, but such as nothing less than that revelation can fully explain. At the same time, we find both the apostles and Jews rather confounded than enlightened by these intimations; and it is not in the conversations recorded in the Gospels, but in the expressions used by the authors of them, or by the other apostles after the day of Pentecost, that we discern their knowledge of the character of their Master. By giving a short connected view of these previous intimations, I shall follow the preparation which our Lord used in showing himself to his disciples.

All the circumstances which attended the birth of Jesus, marked him out as an extraordinary person. The annunciation by the angel of the Lord, first to Mary, and afterwards to Joseph-the reference to ancient prophecy, in the language which the angel used-the glory which shone around the shepherds of Bethlehem at the time of the birth-and the song of the multitude of the heavenly host which was with the angel that spake-together with the visit of the wise men, who, led by a star in the East, "came to Jerusalem to worship him

John xvi. 12.

that was born King of the Jews,"-all these things could not fail to be noised abroad; they were matter of wonder to those that heard them, and Mary, not understanding what they meant," kept all these things," we are told, "and pondered them in her heart." The first direct explication of them was at the baptism of Jesus. John, whose mother Elizabeth was a relation of Mary, had been born a few months before Jesus. The Angel, who appeared to his father Zacharias the priest, had said that the son who was to be born "should go before the Lord God of Israel in the spirit and power of Elias:" and Zacharias, instructed by the temporary dumbness, which had been the punishment of his unbelief, to repose entire confidence in the words of the angel, said, after John was born, "Thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways."* When John was about thirty," the word of God came unto him," and he appeared, according to the destination of ancient prophecy applied to him at his birth, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord." Although personally acquainted with Jesus, John knew not that he was the Messiah, till taught by these words, in what manner he was to be distinguished from others: "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." Soon after this revelation was made to John, Jesus came with the multitude to be baptized of John, who preached the baptism of repentance; and as he went up out of the water, the heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended, either in the shape of a dove, or in the manner in which a dove descends, and lighted upon him. "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Instantly John recognized Jesus as the person to whom he was sent to bear witness. Having seen, he "bare record, that this is the Son of God," and pointed out Jesus as such to the Jews.§

It appears impossible to me, that any person, who, to all the circumstances that had conspired to raise the highest expectations concerning Jesus, joins the solemnity and splendor of that appearance by which he is made known to John, his forerunner, can interpret the words uttered by the voice from heaven in an inferior metaphorical sense, or can give them any other than that exalted import which they naturally bear, and which is suggested by the use of them in ancient prophecy. This opinion founded upon the circumstances of the case is confirmed by two critical remarks which deserve attention. The one is, that in all the three Evangelists who record them, the article is prefixed both to the substantive and the adjective, Matt. iii. 17, οὗτος όστιν ε υἱός μου ὁ αγαπητος ; the most discriminating mode of expression that could be employed, as if to separate Jesus from every other who at any time had received the appellation of the Son of God, and to lead back the thoughts of the hearers to the prophecies in which the Messiah had been announced under that name. This is that Son of mine who is the beloved. The other critical remark is, that, in all the three Evangelists, the verb of the second clause, in whom I am

Luke ch. i.

+ John i. 33.

Luke iii. 3-6.

Mat. iii. 16, 17. John i. 34.