Phil. ii. 9-11. 'Wherefore' (on account of his humility and obedience,) GOD also hath HIGHLY EXALTED him, and BESTOWED on him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD to the GLORY of God the FATHER.

VIII.

After this exaltation, and after the Apostles had received the holy spirit, they speak of Jesus as having received his powers from GOD, and as the SERVANT OF GOD, and they speak of him as MAN without guard or comment: Paul even reasons from his being MAN, without giving any intimation that he was possessed of any superior nature. On the other hand, the Apostles never reason from his being God, and there is only one clear instance in which an Apostle gives him the appellation God. (See p. 62.)

Acts ii. 22.

'Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN FROM GOD pointed out* among you by miracles and wonders and signs which GOD DID BY HIM in the midst of you.'

Acts iii. 13. The GOD of our Fathers hath glorified his SERVANT (Taida) Jesus.' Ver. 26. Unto you first, GOD, having raised up his

This I apprehend to be the correct translation of avopa arо Tov Θεου αποδεδειγμενον εις ύμας. The very general if not universal use of ano by Luke, is the ground of my preference of this rendering to any which requires aro to be used in the sense of by: but I lay no stress upon it in a doctrinal point of view.

SERVANT Jesus, SENT him to bless you by turning every one of you from his iniquities.' Ch. iv. 27. For of a truth against thy HOLY SERVANT JESUS, WHOM THOU Hast anointed.' Ver. 29, 30. And give to thy servants (douλos) that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal, and by signs and wonders being done through the name of thy holy SERVANT Jesus.'*

Acts xvii. 31. 'Because he hath fixed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the MAN whom he hath APPOINTED, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead.'

Rom. v. 15. 'One MAN, Jesus Christ.' See the argument from this passage in p. 44.

1 Cor. xv. 21. For since by man came death, by MAN also cometh the resurrection of the dead.' See p. 38. Ver. 47. The second MAN will be [the Lord] from heaven.' See Chap. VII.

1 Tim. ii. 5.

§ I. p. 96.

The MAN Christ Jesus.' See

• I think that a decided preference should be given to this translation was (child or servant) in reference to our Saviour, for the following reasons. (1) If the Apostle meant by it the same as vioç, no reason appears for his not using the more customary term, viz. vog, which is continually employed in reference to Jesus. (2) In all the instances in which the word is used in the N.T. it has no necessary connexion with the filial relation, but refers to the age or condition of the individual. (3) In the writings of Luke, (who uses it eleven times, besides the cases in question,) it uniformly signifies either servant or young person. (4) In the very same prayer of the Apostles (Acts iv. 24—30,) in which they twice use the term in reference to Jesus, they employ it in reference to David, where the common version has servant, viz. v. 25, of thy servant David, Δαβιδ του παιδος σου. And, (5) in Matt. xii. 18, the common version translates it servant in reference to Jesus himself; Idov o mais μov, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen.

That the New Testament Writers, without referring to any superior nature, reason from our Lord's being man, see Rom. v. 1 Cor. xv. Gal. iv. 4. Heb. ii. iii. v. &c. and some remarks already made on this point, p. 34, 47, 52, and particularly p. 38.

It deserves attention in this connexion, that it could not be an object of revelation, that Jesus was truly and properly a man; but that he was more as to nature, could not be known without revelation. Might we not then reasonably expect to find that he is expressly and plainly called God at least as frequently as he is expressly and plainly called Man, if he were truly and properly God as well as truly and properly Man? and that those facts which respect his divine nature should be brought into view as frequently and explicitly as those facts which respect his human nature only? Now few probably will deny, that compared with the general tenor of the New Testament, (which respects his humanity only,) there is but a very small part, which, even in appearance, refers to the supposed deity of our Saviour. Yet if he were truly and properly God, it must surely be of high importance that the fact should be distinctly revealed. And I cannot myself perceive the possibility of its having been distinctly revealed, and yet that such little notice of it should be taken by the Apostles and Evangelists. At any rate, even supposing that the evidence adduced for the proper deity of Christ were adequate to prove the point, yet, if

we confine ourselves to scriptural views, I regard it as indisputable, that the divine authority of Jesus, (the fact that he was sent by God and acted under his authority,) is infinitely the most important circumstance in the Christian system. -I know not how the believer in the proper deity of Christ reconciles himself to these and many other scriptural difficulties with which his system is loaded: to me it appears that if that system be true, the simplicity which is in Christ. is totally lost, and a veil of mystery thrown over the plainest assertions and the plainest facts. I shall only add,

IX.

The example of Jesus, (which is of the most interesting and engaging kind, peculiarly calculated to affect the heart of his disciple, and to excite to the imitation of him,) consists of HUMAN excellen cies; and its essential and CHARACTERISTIC value depends upon his having been truly and properly

MAN.

We are exhorted to cultivate holiness in heart and life, because God is holy: to exercise unlimited benevolence, because HIS benevolence is unlimited:* to be merciful because HE is merciful:-but are we ever exhorted to learn of GOD because HE is meek and humble in heart; to follow in HIS steps, because HE did no sin, neither

6

Matt. v. 48. Be ye therefore perfect (Tελɛia), as your Father that is in heaven is perfect.'-The connexion requires the sense here given. The word obviously does not refer to perfection in the abstract, but completeness, universality, in benevolence.

was guile found in his mouth; to imitate HIS selfdenying benevolence, because, though rich, for our sakes HE was poor? Though I am willing to admit, that the condescension and benevolence of the Son of God may operate as a strong motive to humility and benevolence, even when he is at the time thought of as God,-though I am convinced that thousands and ten-thousands of those who have departed from what I believe to be Gospel-truth as to his nature, have been most fully influenced by his example, (the natural consequences of their system having completely given way to the plain teachings of the Scriptures,)— yet I regard it as a self-evident truth, that to enable any one to set an example of HUMAN virtues, he must be a HUMAN being; and farther, that to make that example complete, as an object of our imitation, and, particularly, as an influencing cause of such imitation, he must be, as to nature, in the same circumstances with ourselves, liable to suffering, liable to sin.

That our Lord was liable to sin, I consider as necessarily following from the representations of the New Testament. Unless he were so, he could not have been tempted; for if, by any necessity of his nature, or by the superiority of his nature, he could not sin, no inducement to sin could be felt; in other words, temptation would be but a name. Now upon the supposition of his being properly God, surely no one will venture to assert that he could sin, or even that he could feel any inducement to sin: and if he could not,