"rection.* It was the whole bent of his mind, "his labour, and his delight, his meat' and drink, ' to do the will of him that sent him.'† "God was in all his thoughts."

66

It can scarcely be necessary to adduce proofs of what every thoughtful reader of the Gospels must know to be true; but the citing of a small number of the more striking passages may be desirable.

Matt. xx. 23. To sit on my right hand and on [my] left, is not MINE to give but to those for whom it hath been prepared by MY FATHER.'

Matt. xxvi. 39. And he went forwards a little, and FELL ON HIS FACE, and PRAYED, saying, O my FATHER, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, NOT AS I WILL, BUT AS THOU WILT.'

Matt. xxvii. 46. MY GOD, MY GOD, why hast thou forsaken me.'

Matt. xxviii. 18. All power, (or authority,) has been GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth.' Mark xiii. 32. • But of that day and hour knoweth NO ONE, (neither the angels who are in heaven, NOR THE Son,) but the Father.'‡

* See John v. 30. vii. 28. Ch. vii. 16. viii. 28. Ch. xvi. 10. Ch. v. 19. Ch. xiv. 31. Ch. x. 18.

+ John iv. 34.

On this passage, see Henry Taylor's Considerations on Ancient and Modern Creeds compared, p. 43-56. The following passage peculiarly deserves the attention of the reader.

"Dr. Lightfoot observes that, Christ as the second Person of the Trinity, knew the day; and to say otherwise, is blasphemous; [bona verba quæso]; but to say the Messiah knew it not, who nevertheless was the same with the Second Person of the Trinity, is not blasphemous.' And Burkitt talks in the same way.-But

John iv. 34. 6

My meat is to do the will of

HIM WHO SENT ME, and to finish HIS work.

John v. 26, 27. in himself, so He hath GIVEN to the Son also to have life in himself; and He hath GIVEN HIM AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is a SON OF MAN that is, a proper human being.* Ver. 30. I CAN OF MY OWN SELF DO

For as the Father hath life

what shall we say of the Evangelist, or rather of Christ himself, who by using the word ovde, NO ONE, excludes them both ?— I shall not inquire whether it be blasphemy, to say, the MesIsiah knew it not; because it is not said of the Messiah, but of the Son; and he is allowed, by Dr. Lightfoot, to be the Second Person of the Trinity, in the beginning of the argument. But, is not this to say the Second Person of the Trinity did know it, and, at the same time, did not know it? And, if a Deist were to argue in this manner, should we not call it shuffling? Can King George know a thing, as King of England, and, be ignorant of it, as Elector of Hanover, till it be revealed to him by the King of England, who is the same Elector of Hanover to whom he reveals it? Is not this revealing it to himself, who knew it before; and is not this mere sophistry? ludere cum sacris? When any one is spoken of personally, there is no room for such evasions; though he had a thousand different offices: the office makes no alteration in the person."

I am now satisfied, that by the remarkable words or vis AvIwπov εσTt, our Lord is to be understood as declaring, that he was appointed to his high office of Judge of all mankind because he is a proper human being. Our Lord often used the appellation the Sor of Man; but, except in the present instance, it is always with the article prefixed to both words o vi тOV AVIρWπоV. Dr. Middleton's remarks deserve consideration. His work on the Greek article is valuable as a repository of phenomena; but his theory is obscure, anfounded, and useless; and it has often, in connexion with his theological opinions, given so obvious a bias to his assertions and arguments, that they can seldom be received as authority. In the present instance he argues, that dog should be without the article, because it is the predicate of a proposition; and that avowroг must then be without it too: but he has himself, (p. 64.) furnished a sufficient argument on the other side; viz."we sometimes find that the predicate after aut has the article, where the subject is a pro noun personal or demonstrative." I presume that he would not infer any thing from the ellipsis of the subject in this and other instances On the appellation as commonly employed by our Lord, I refer the reader with peculiar satisfaction to a Discourse by

NOTHING: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just, BECAUSE I seek not my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.'

John vii. 16. 'My DOCTRINE is not MINE, but HIS THAT SENT ME.' So ch. xii. 49. For I have not spoken oF MYSELF, but the FATHER WHO SENT ME, HE GAVE ME A COMMANDMENT what I should say, and what I should speak.'

6

John xiv. 10. The FATHER who dwelleth in me, HE doeth the works.' Ver. 28. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for MY FATHER is GREATER THAN 1. V.

Jesus lived and died as a MAN, possessing human feelings and affections, and subject to human wants and sufferings.

I do not know that it can be thought necessary to prove this; and indeed it can scarcely be completely done by detached sentences. The whole Gospels may be confidently appealed to as a proof. I shall however quote a few passages from them which will illustrate the above position.

John iv. 6. 'Being WEARIED with his journey.' Luke iv. 1, 2. Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness, being forty days TEMPTED by the devil. And in those days he ate nothing; and when they were ended, he afterwards HUNGERED.' John xi. 5. Now Jesus

Mr. Aspland, entitled An Attempt to ascertain the Import of the Title SON OF MAN, 1821.

6

LOVED Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.' -Ver. 35. Jesus WEPT,' Mark iii. 5.' And when he had looked round on them with ANGER, being GRIEVED for the hardness of their hearts.' Luke x. 21. In that hour Jesus REJOICED in spirit.' John xii. 27. Now is my

Soul TROUBLED.'

Matt. xxvi. 37, 38. · And he

took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be SORROWFUL, and FULL of ANGUISH. Then saith he unto them, MY SOUL IS EXCEEDING SORROWFUL, EVEN UNTO DEATH, tarry ye here and watch with me.' Luke xxii. 44. And being in AN AGONY he prayed more earnestly.' Mark xv. 37. • And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and EXPIRED.' John xix. 42. There laid they Jesus.'

VI.

During his ministry on earth, he was considered and treated as a MAN (in the usual sense of the term); and this not only by the people at large, but by his disciples.

Here again I must refer to the whole of the Gospel-history; and I should suppose that no one can hesitate, except from the conclusions which follow from it, to admit the truth of this position. After the most striking displays of our Lord's miraculous powers, after those discourses in which he is generally supposed to have spoken of his pre-existence and personal divinity, the people regarded him as a MAN, and his disciples obviously viewed him as they had done before, as a MAN, though the Christ, the Son of God.—A few

passages I shall select to illustrate the assertion which I have made, but the proof of it rests upon the whole narratives of the Evangelists.

6

The Baptist (John i. 30,) speaks of his successor and superior as a MAN. When our Lord had led the woman of Samaria to the conviction that he was the Christ, she said to her townspeople (John iv. 29,) Come, see a man who hath told me all things that ever I did.' After Jesus had publicly manifested his miraculous powers at Jerusalem (John v.), his manner of teaching (during the Feast of Tabernacles) excited this remark from the messengers of the Pharisees,Never man spake like this MAN.'* In his subsequent discourses he called himself a MAN, as we have already seen § III. After he had restored sight to a blind man (John ix.) we find the poor man saying . 11. A MAN called Jesus opened my eyes.'t When he had in the most striking manner cured the paralytic, the people wondered (Matt. ix. 8,) and glorified GOD who had given such power unto MEN.' When he raised the widow's son at Nain, (Luke vii. 16,) the spectators glorified

• John vii. 46. The words og ovтos ò av≈ρwrоç are marked by Griesbach as somewhat doubtful. If they were omitted, the sense would be different, and, in one point of view, contrary: Never man spake thus.'

+ In this chapter four instances occur in which Jesus is called Man (avρwπоs) and in the Gospel of John alone, he is called Man seventeen times, viz. fifteen times avowπоs, once avηp, and once σap. To me it appears almost incredible, that a disciple believing in the proper divinity, or even in the pre-existence of Jesus, should thus unhesitatingly use these appellations respecting him, and give no clear indication of his own opinion that he was not truly and properly a man.