»:" <m^¥ 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 ,i^: 
 
 
 '^' 
 
 ^J ■ -' 
 
 ^, 
 
 5i2SfcJ'«^ 
 
 fe^j^^' 
 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 "^^k: 
 
 
 ./ 1 
 
BT 220 
 
 .D6 1849 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dods, Marcus, 1834- 
 
 -1909. 
 
 On the 
 
 incarnation 
 
 of 
 
 the 
 
 eternal Word 
 
 
 
ON THE INCARNATION 
 
 THE ETERNAL WORD. 
 
EDINBURGH PRINTING COaiPAXY, 
 
 12, Soutli St David Sti-eet. 
 

 THE INCARNATION 
 
 THE ETERNAL WORD. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 REV. MARCUS DODS 
 
 BELFORD. 
 
 RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SEELEY, BURNSIDE, & SEELEY, FLEET STREET 
 
 AND NISBET AND CO., BERNERS STREET. 
 EDINBURGH : THE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 M.DCCC.XLIX. 
 
RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE 
 
 REV. THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D. 
 
 I REGRET that my engagements do not allow me to pre- 
 pare a full or critical estimate of the very able and learned 
 work, by the Rev. Marcus Dods, on The Incarnation 
 OF THE Eternal Word, a second edition of which is 
 now in the press. 
 
 The Author of this Volume exemplifies a union, not 
 often realized in the present times, of great mental 
 wealth, with great mental vigour — being at once rich in 
 the scholarship of a varied and extensive erudition, and 
 yet possessed in no ordinary degree of massive and origi- 
 nal powers of his own. He is of the same genus in Theo- 
 logy with Warburton and Horsley of the Church of Eng- 
 land — able, like them, to grapple with the most arduous 
 and formidable questions in the Science ; and at the same 
 
VI RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE. 
 
 time to draw from the most recondite som-ces in Christian 
 antiquity, all that might serve either to illustrate or sup- 
 port his OAvn high argument. 
 
 I rejoice that a New Edition should be called for in an 
 age which I fear has lost in depth whatever it may have 
 gained in diflfusion. 
 
 THOMAS CHALMERS. 
 MoRNiNGSiDE, July 3, 1844. 
 
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 That the " Word was made flesh," and that he was not 
 made sinful flesh, are propositions which lie at the very 
 foundations of Christianity. That the first of these pro- 
 positions is denied by any person in the present age, I 
 have little gi'ound for supposing ; and I have not there- 
 fore judged it necessary to enter at any length into the 
 proof of it, but have contented myself with simply stating 
 the gi'ounds upon which that proof may be founded. Un- 
 til very lately, the other proposition would not have re- 
 quired, in a treatise like this, more than a passing notice. 
 The earnestness, however, with which the sinfulness of 
 cm' Lord's flesh is now maintained, renders it a matter 
 of paramount importance. A\Tiile, therefore, I am not 
 aware that I have altogether omitted any material ques- 
 tion that is intimately connected with the Incarnation, 
 yet I have treated each more or less largely, according as 
 I considered it as bearing more or less du^ectly on that 
 tenet. 
 
 Of the exculpatoiy explanation of the word 'sinful,' 
 that it is applied to the humanity of our Lord only 
 
viii THE author's preface. 
 
 in a passive sense, that is, I suppose, synonymous with 
 * peccable,' I have not felt myself called upon to take any 
 notice. For,^rs^, the word has no such meaning. Next^ 
 If it had, yet some of the principal arguments in sup- 
 port of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh are founded upon 
 the active meaning of that word. Thirdly^ Many other 
 words equally offensive, and capable of no such explana- 
 tion, are applied to the flesh of Christ, so that if that 
 word was altogether abandoned, the tenet against which 
 I contend remains unaltered. Fourthly^ I deny that 
 the word is applicable to Christ, or, if we must separate 
 his humanity from himself, to the humanity of Christ, 
 in any sense, active or passive. I deny that Christ, or 
 the humanity of Christ, was peccable. Finally^ The 
 charge against the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
 is, that this tenet is rank Nestorianism ; and nothing 
 can possibly show a more thorough want of acquaintance 
 with the subject, than an attempt to escape that charge 
 by attaching to the word ' sinful' a meaning less offen- 
 sive than that which it is usually understood to convey. 
 The fact Ls, the very offensiveness of the word has been 
 the means of making not a few overlook the real ground 
 of the charge. Shocked, as they well might be, at hear- 
 ing such language applied to Christ, or to a part of 
 Christ, they have looked no farther, imagining that the 
 whole offence consists in the use of such opprobrious 
 terms. That this is highly criminal and revolting to the 
 feelings of the Christian, there is no doubt. But the charge 
 of heresy rests upon a ground totally distinct from the 
 offensiveness of the language. Take away from the word 
 * sinful' every offensive idea, let it be used even as the 
 
THE AUTHOR S PREFACE. IX 
 
 most laudatoiy word in the language, — that does not in 
 the slightest degree affect the charge of heresy that lies 
 against the tenet that the flesh of Christ was sinful. The 
 charge rests not at all on the meaning of the tenn, but 
 solely on its application. The question is, can this term, 
 be its meaning what it may, be applied to the flesh of 
 Christ, while it cannot be applied to Christ himself or to 
 God ? While you say that the flesh of Christ was sinful, 
 do you say also that Christ himself was sinful, or that 
 God was sinful? If not, — if you say that you apply to the 
 flesh of Christ terms which you will not apply to Christ 
 or to God, then either this is the most du-ect, and open, 
 and flagrant Nestorianism, or no such heresy ever existed. 
 The meaning of the term is a matter of not the slightest 
 earthly consequence, as far as the charge of Nestorianism 
 is concerned ; and the attempt to escape from the charge 
 by palliating the offensiveness of the term, manifests an 
 ignorance which certainly could not have been anticipated 
 in any writer upon the subject in the present age. Em- 
 ploy the word ' sinful' if you will, as expressive of all that 
 is good and great, that affects not in the slightest degree 
 the charge of Nestorianism, as long as you say that, what- 
 ever be its meaning, it may be applied to the flesh of 
 Christ, but not to Chi'ist himself, or to God. Nestorius 
 attributed all that is good and great to the flesh of Christ ; 
 he was, nevertheless, a ISTestorian still, and was justly con- 
 demned for making two persons in Chiist, because he ap- 
 plied to the flesh of Christ language which, however re- 
 spectful, (and he used none that was not expressive of the 
 highest respect,) he would not apply to God. 
 For these reasons, I could not take the slightest notice of 
 
X THE author's TREFACE. 
 
 the attempt to evade the charge of Nestorianism, by palli- 
 athig the offensiveness of the terms applied to the flesh of 
 Christ. I have noticed it here, lest I should be suspected 
 of overlooking it for a different reason. The ancient 
 writers, especially after the time of Nestorius, were ex- 
 tremely guarded npon this subject. They would apply no 
 term to the humanity of Christ which they would have 
 scrupled to apply to Christ or to God. I may give an il- 
 lustration of the nicety with which expressions were then 
 sifted, out of Facundus Ilefinianensis, himself, too, labour- 
 ing under a violent, though, I think, groundless suspicion 
 of Nestorianism, on account of his attachment to the cele- 
 brated three chapters. In Book I. chapter iii., of the work 
 which he addressed to the Emperor Justinian, he proves 
 that a person of the Trinity suffered for us. There were 
 two ways of expressing this, — imus de Trinitate passus 
 est., — one of the Trinity suffered, and una de Trinitate per- 
 sona passa est^ — one person of the Trinity suffered. At 
 present a man would not readily discover any difference 
 between these two modes of expression, nor would easily 
 detect a nearer approach to heresy in the one than in the 
 other. Yet the difference was very clearly nnderstood in 
 the time of Justinian ; for while nobody felt any scruples 
 about the latter expression, some Catholics hesitated to 
 make use of the former, lest they should be supposed to 
 ascribe suffering, not to a Divine person, but to the Divi- 
 nity. Facundus., on the contrary, shows that the first is 
 tlie proper mode of expression, as the latter does not stand 
 sufficiently clear of Nestorianism. A Xestorian would 
 not say that one of the Trinity suffered, but would say 
 readily enough, that a person of the Trinity suffered, mean- 
 
THE author's preface. si 
 
 ing that the Man Jesus Christ who suffered bore the person 
 of the Word, much in the same way as Paul bore it, when 
 he said, " If I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, 
 for your sakes I forgave it in the person of Christ.'''' What 
 would have been thought, in those days, of the orthodoxy 
 of men who openly avow their application to the flesh of 
 Christ, of teims which they will not apply to Christ ? And 
 what would have been thought of their knowledge of Theo- 
 logy, when they attempted to escape the charge of heresy, 
 by alleging that these teims are not applied in the offen- 
 sive sense that they are commonly understood to convey ? 
 In Part 11., I had originally intended to give a complete 
 view of the Theology of the Primitive Chmxh on the doc- 
 trine of the Incarnation. But this I soon found, however 
 important, would requii'e a work much larger than I con- 
 templated, or could easily command time to execute. I 
 found it necessary, therefore, to dii*ect my attention ex- 
 clusively to the one point of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 flesh. And on this point, too, I found that I must con- 
 fine myself to the wi'iters of the first /owr centuries ; and 
 even within these limits I have been compelled to omit by 
 far the gi'eater number of the passages that I had marked 
 for quotation. A different arrangement of the testimonies 
 from the primitive writers would have exhibited their 
 strength to much greater advantage. Still the simple ar- 
 r?ngement of them, according to the order of time, has 
 other advantages besides being the easiest. Few as they 
 are, to what they might easily have been, and inartificial as 
 is the arrangement, I tmst they will be found perfectly suffi- 
 cient to convince every impartial reader, that to say that 
 the primitive Church believed in the sinfulness of Christ, 
 
xii THE author's preface. 
 
 or in the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, is an assertion the ex- 
 travagance of which has never been exceeded. 
 
 As a mite, however small, such as my ability permits 
 me to contribute to the treasury of Gospel truth, I beg to 
 commit my work to the candour of the Church, and to the 
 blessing of its glorious Head. 
 
THE 
 
 DOCTEINE OF THE INCARNATION 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINABY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The doctrine of the Incarnation, so far as it can be under- 
 stood by man, is sufficiently simple, and might be stated 
 in a few sentences. But while eiTors are zealously pro- 
 pagated upon the subject, which go very du-ectly to the 
 total subversion of eveiy doctrine of Christianity, a some- 
 what more detailed view of it seems to be called for, than 
 would otherwise be necessary. I propose, therefore, to 
 give such a general outline of the work of human redemp- 
 tion, and of the offices which Christ executes in the ac- 
 complishment of that work, as w\R enable us to see more 
 distinctly the nature of the Incarnation. In doing this, I 
 shall not fail to notice the bearing of the observations 
 which may be made upon the question of the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's humanity. I shall not, however, limit my re- 
 marks to such points as may be necessary to prove that 
 Christ was not fallen nor sinful, nor capable of falling or 
 sinning. This may be proved in a few sentences to any 
 person capable of forming an opinion upon the subject, 
 and willing to listen, either to the authority of Scriptm-e, 
 or to the dictates of reason. But while the proof of om- 
 
 A 
 
2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Saviour's perfect sinlessness and impeccability will be with 
 me a primary object, yet I trust that the general view 
 which I propose to take will lead to observations which 
 may be interesting to those whose minds are so fully satis- 
 lied upon that question, that they would not take the 
 trouble to read a single page upon the subject. 
 
 This world was made by him who does nothing in vain. 
 It was, therefore, made for some specific purpose, and 
 that a purpose worthy of the work, and of the events of 
 which it has been the scene. We may also rest perfectly 
 satisfied that it actually accomplishes the purpose for which 
 it was made ; since it is certain that infinite wisdom could 
 not err in the plan, nor infinite power fail in its execution. 
 The question then is, what is the purpose for which the 
 earth was made and man upon it ? The reply to this ques- 
 tion is, that God made all things for the purpose of mani- 
 festing his own perfections. Reason can discover no other 
 cause of creation ; and the fact that God made aU things 
 for his own glory, is recognized in every page of Scripture. 
 But when it is said that God made all things for his own 
 glory, some explanation is necessary. We do not mean 
 by this expression, that God made all things, or any thing, 
 for the purpose of rendering himself more glorious than he 
 was from all eternity, for that is impossible, his glory being 
 alike incapable of increase or diminution ; but that he made 
 all things for the pui-pose of making his glorious perfections 
 known. And when it is said that God made all things for 
 the purpose of manifesting his perfections, it is meant that 
 the manifestation was to be made, not to himself, which 
 is impossible, but to the creatures whom he made. It is 
 obvious, then, that the manifestation was to be made both 
 by the creatures and to the creatures. Tho^ Tveie io be 
 both the manifesters of the Divine perfection, and the per- 
 cipients of these perfections when manifested. Now, as 
 the purpose for which every creatm*e is made is, that it 
 may, according to its nature, manifest the perfections of 
 God, and perceive them as manifested by itself, and by all 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 3 
 
 other creatures, it follows as a necessary consequence, that 
 to do this must be the glory and the happiness of the crea- 
 ture, — its being's end and aim ; and it follows also, that 
 the higher the degree in which any creature is capable of 
 doing this, the higher is the degree of glory and of happi- 
 ness which it is capable of attaining and enjoying. 
 
 That every thing, according to its natm-e and capacity, 
 does both manifest the perfections of God, and rejoice in 
 them, is a fact open to every one's observation, and is 
 often referred to in Scripture. The inanimate parts of 
 God's works are often spoken of, not only as manifest- 
 ing his perfections, but as rejoicing in the manifestation. 
 " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
 ment showeth forth the works of his hands. Day unto 
 day uttereth speech, and night unto night teacheth know- 
 ledge." The sun rejoiceth to run his race : the heavens 
 and the earth are called upon to hear the word of the 
 Lord : the sea roars, and the fulness thereof : the forests 
 clap their hands : the mountains break forth into singing, 
 and the little hills rejoice. These, no doubt, are figiu-ative 
 expressions, but they are expressions which show the 
 truth of the principle, that all things, according to their 
 nature, manifest the perfections of God, and rejoice in 
 them, when so manifested. The same remark still more 
 obviously applies to such creatures as have life and feeling. 
 The lower animals, which have received their instincts 
 from God, and enjoy his bounties, though they know not, 
 nor can know, any thing of him from whom theu' enjoy- 
 ments come, afford a still more striking manifestation of 
 his perfections, as is amply and beautifully illustrated in 
 some of the latter chapters of the book of Job. But, be- 
 yond all creatures, man is fitted, not merely to be the per- 
 cipient of the Divine perfections, but also to manifest these 
 perfections. And this he does not merely by that bodily 
 structure, which is " feaifully and wonderfully made," nor 
 by those mental faculties which raise him so high above 
 the lower animals, which enable him to recall the past, to 
 
4 PIIELIMINARY 0B8I:RVATI0NS. 
 
 anticipate the future, and to approximate the remote ; but 
 more particularly and emphatically by the fall, the re- 
 demption, and the whole history of the human race. The 
 first lesson that our Church teaches her children is, that 
 " The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him 
 for ever ;" and it is upon this broad basis that all sound 
 theology must be built. 
 
 But to the general rule that all existing things manifest 
 the perfections of God, one important and extensive ex- 
 ception seems to be found in the existence of moral evil, 
 ■which not only does not itself manifest the perfections of 
 God, but which unfits the creature in whom it dwells from 
 manifesting them. This exception, however, will be 
 found on examination to be only apparent, not real. The 
 question as to the origin of moral evil I am not called 
 upon to discuss. It lies, I apprehend, beyond the reach 
 of man ; and the result of the attempts which have hitherto 
 been made to decide that question has certainly not been 
 such as to encourage any further speculations on the sub- 
 ject. Of the greater part of these attempts, it would be 
 well if it could be said simply that they are failures. No 
 question has ever led to more fatal consequences, or been 
 productive of more disastrous results. Without, there- 
 •fore, attempting to solve the difficulties attending this 
 question, I may merely remark, that they are difficidties 
 Avhich press with equal weight upon every system; for 
 the actual existence of moral evil can be denied by none. 
 He who proves that good preponderates over evil, if his 
 proof be sound, does something, perhaps, to remove the 
 rmfavourable impression with regard to the character of 
 God, which the existence of evil has sometimes produced; 
 but he has done nothing to account for the origin of evil. 
 He who proves that through the medium of evil, a degree 
 of perfection and happiness is attained, which could not 
 l)y any other means be reached, may be admitted to have 
 completely reconciled its existence with the perfections of 
 God ; but still he lias not accounted for its origin. Pro- 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 5 
 
 bably, however, he has gone as fai' as it is possible for 
 man to go. Our business is not so much to inquire into 
 the origin of things that lie beyond oui' reach, as to take 
 them as we find them actually existing, and derive from 
 them the lessons which then* existence is fitted to teach. 
 The Eg}iDtian may know nothing of the sources of the 
 XUe, or of the causes of its ovei'flow ; but when he sees it 
 canying desolation over his fields, experience has taught 
 him that the temporary evil, of the cause of which he 
 knows nothing, will prove a lasting benefit ; and that he 
 shall not only reap a harvest when the flood has passed 
 away, but a haiwest of the richness of which the flood has 
 been the cause. Even so we may not be permitted to 
 open the sealed book, and to answer the question, whence 
 cometh e\il? But while it standeth before us in all the 
 undeniable reality of its actual existence, we may be able, 
 Avith the light of Revelation for our guide, to trace it to 
 some of its beneficial results, and to see how, instead of 
 unfitting the creatm-e for the manifestation of the Divine 
 perfections, it furnishes the means of a manifestation 
 which never otheinvise could have been given. 
 
 This will more clearly and strikingly appear, if Ave con- 
 sider the work of redemption, for the sake of which the 
 world was made, not with a reference to man alone, but 
 with a reference to the whole rational family of God. Nor 
 can we conceive that the world was made, and the work 
 of redemption appointed, solely for the sake of man. Man 
 is the sole object of redemption ; but he was made so for 
 the sake of others ; and the existence and the agency of 
 other beings, both good and evil, and the deep and in- 
 tense interest with which they look upon the work of 
 Iniman redemption, is not incidentally and obscurely 
 hinted in the Bible, but forms an essential and prominent 
 part of that system which the Bible reveals. The elec- 
 tion of Israel out of all the tribes of earth, to be the 
 chosen people of God, will afford us a coiTCCt illustration 
 of the choice of the human race, fi'om among all the races 
 
6 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 that constitute his moral govemment, as the objects in 
 whose redemption he might manifest his glorious perfec- 
 tions to all. The Israelites were not chosen to be the pe- 
 culiar people of God, on account of any superiority which 
 they possessed over the rest of mankind ; for they were 
 chosen in Abraham before they actually existed : so 
 neither were mankind chosen to be the objects of God's 
 redeeming love on account of any merit of their own, for 
 this idea is inconsistent with the fact that they needed re- 
 demption, but were chosen in Christ before they were 
 created. The Israelites were not chosen that they alone 
 might enjoy the blessing of God, but that through them 
 that blessing might come upon all nations : neither was 
 man chosen to redemption that its benefits might re- 
 dound to him alone, but "to the intent that now, unto 
 the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might 
 be known, by the Chm'ch, the manifold wisdom of God." 
 The Israelites were chosen, that unto them God might 
 commit his revelations for the use of all nations : so man- 
 kind were chosen, that in them God might manifest his 
 perfections for the instruction of all his rational creatures. 
 Though many of the chosen Israel perished in their sins, 
 yet the great purposes for which that people was chosen 
 were effectually accomplished : so, though multitudes of 
 the human race perish, yet the great purposes for which 
 they were chosen, as the objects of the work of redemp- 
 tion, are not the less effectually accomplished. As the 
 Israelites, though far behind most other nations in arts 
 and sciences, yet taught to the world something infinitely 
 more valuable than aught that art or science were ever 
 capable of discovering : so, the human race, though far 
 inferior to many other races, yet manifest to all a know- 
 ledge of the character and perfections of God, which other- 
 wise they could never have known. And, finally, as the 
 Israelites are still destined to stand at the very head of 
 the human race, and to be the most glorious of nations ; 
 even so, the human race, though now so low, are destined 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 7 
 
 to take their place at the head of all the families of God. 
 Human natm-e is, at this moment, the most glorious of 
 created natures, taken, in its assumption by the Son, into 
 a nearness of union with the Godhead, which none other 
 enjoys ; and where our head is, there all his true mem- 
 bers shall in due time be. As the man Christ Jesus pass- 
 ed through all suffering into glory, even so his people, 
 exposed to dangers which others never knew, and made 
 triumphant through his Spirit dwelling in them, rise to 
 honom's with which others can never be crowned ; and, 
 living monuments of all those divine perfections which 
 were displayed in their redemption, living records of the 
 glory of God, they will awaken among the hosts of 
 heaven a song which, thi'oughout eternity, Tvill be ever new 
 In fine, if all thiags were made for the purpose of manifest- 
 ing, to the creatures, the perfections of the Creator, then, 
 above all things with which we are acquainted, must the 
 work of redemption, the most glorious of all the works which 
 we know, be designed and fitted for this great end. 
 
 In order to see how the human race, in then- fall and 
 redemption, acquire for themselves, and communicate to 
 others, this knowledge of the perfections of the Creator, 
 it will be necessary to go back to a period when as yet 
 there was no sin in the dominions of God, — when there 
 were none but unfallen beings in existence. Such beings, 
 it is clear, could have but a very limited and defective 
 view of the nature and character of God. From his 
 works they would be able to infer that he was possessed 
 of great wisdom, and of great power ; and, from the 
 happiness which they enjoyed, they would be persuaded 
 of his great goodness. But that his wisdom was omni- 
 science, — that his power was omnipotence, — that his 
 goodness could extend, not merely to the unfallen and 
 sinless creature, but also to the " unthankfal and the evil," 
 they could not by any possibility know. Of his mercy, it 
 is obvious they could not possibly have any idea what- 
 ever ; and of all his other perfections they could have very 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 little, if any, knowledge at all. They could not tell if he 
 were immutable, when nothing had ever ocemTed to put 
 his mutability to the test. For the same reason, they 
 could not tell if he were inflexibly just, unchangeably true, 
 infinitely and unalterably holy. They might be able to 
 prove by abstract reasonings, the probability that he pos- 
 sessed these perfections ; but these proofs would be similar 
 in theu' nature to the proof of the immortality of the soul 
 by Plato or Seneca,— a fine speculation, but producing no 
 such conviction as to become a living active principle, to 
 be held fast, and acted upon, and carried out to all its 
 practical results, at the expense of all that is dear in life, 
 or at the expense of life itself. 
 
 The perfections of God, in order to be fully kno^vii, 
 must be seen, carried out into actual operation; and 
 operating too under such circumstances as to prove them 
 to be absolutely infinite. But this exhibition could not be 
 made while none but unfallen beings existed. A large 
 family, living under the eye of a father whom not one of 
 them has ever offended, may have a considerable know- 
 ledge of his character ; yet it is clear that that knowledge 
 must be imperfect and defective. They may know that 
 he is true, and just, and good ; but they cannot teU to 
 what extent his truth, his justice, his goodness may reach, 
 because nothing has ever occuiTed which coiild afford an 
 occasion of trying, of limiting, or restraining, the exercise 
 of these qualities. But let some individual of the family 
 offend him, and then in his treatment of that individual, 
 all the rest of the family, as well as the off'ender himself, 
 will obtain a new view, and consequently a more extend- 
 ed knowledge of his character. While the prodigal son 
 dwelt beneath his father's roof, he knew well the goodness 
 of his father's heart. But he was far from knowing the 
 whole extent of that goodness. When pining in want 
 and misery he resolved to return to his paternal home, all 
 the extent to which he ventured to hope that his father's 
 goodness could go, was to receive and treat him not as a 
 
PRELi:.IINARY OBSEEVATIOXS. 9 
 
 SOU, but as a liii-ed servaut, aucl that too ouly upon the 
 most earnest entreaty, and the most lowly confession of 
 his errors. But when his retm-n was welcomed with joy 
 and gladness, when he felt his father's embrace, saw 
 himself aiTayed in the richest robes, and feasted in the 
 most sumptuous manner, then did he know that his father 
 possessed a goodness, the existence of which he did not 
 dare previously to believe. Even so, the Great Father 
 of All, whose prerogative it is to bring good out of evil, 
 hath, out of the ruins of the human race, drawn an exhi- 
 bition of his o^vn character, from which angels, not less 
 than men, acquu-e new views and more extended know- 
 ledge of it. And as the human race consists of endless 
 myi-iads of prodigals, some of whom never return, and as 
 every individual differs in some respects, in his conduct 
 and treatment, from every other, so the angels, who delight 
 to trace the ways of God, derive from every individual a 
 somewhat different view, and a somewhat increased 
 knowledge of his character. And as that knowledge con- 
 stitutes the very end and aim of their being, though 
 possibly no actual danger might result to them from our 
 fall, yet then* glory and then- happiness have received, and 
 ^\\\l receive, an incalculable augmentation from the work 
 of om' redemption. 
 
 With the commencement of moral evil then, Avhatever 
 was its origin, commenced a new and glorious develop- 
 ment of the divine perfections. — When part of the angels 
 sinned, and tor their sin were doomed to punishment, being 
 driven out from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
 glory of his power, God was seen in a new relation, and 
 an additional view of his character would be given. Some- 
 thing would be known of him that was not known before. 
 But then this knowledge, like most other pieces of know- 
 ledge, in intelligent minds, would give rise to some 
 doubts, and to questions of no easy solution. Some 
 illustration of God's displeasm*e against sin, and of his 
 power to punish it, would be given ; and they would feel 
 
 a2 
 
10 PRELIMINAEY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 that even though possessed of angelic excellence, they must 
 obey or suffer. But then they would now know sin, of 
 which, before its actual existence among them, they 
 probably had not even an idea. And that idea would 
 necessarily be attended with a painful feeling, — the feeling 
 of insecurity. The offenders, it is tme, were driven out ; 
 but they now knew what probably they knew not before, 
 that they were liable to sin and to punishment ; and we may 
 easily conceive how deeply such a knowledge would 
 affect their happiness. Their perfect and unsuspicious 
 confidence in, and reliance upon each other, would be 
 much abated, and the delight of their mutual communi- 
 cations greatly lessened. The same causes that had 
 already produced sin among them might produce the same 
 effect again, and by successive defections, the throne of 
 God might be left without a worshipper. The pei*plexing 
 question. Whence cometh evil ? would naturally suggest 
 itself; and it would also naturally occur to them to 
 inquire, how it happened that sin could possibly enter into 
 the dommions of God at all ? K he were perfectly holy, 
 then must he hate sin ; and if he were omniscient and 
 omnipotent, why did he not foresee and prevent that 
 which, as holy, he must hate, — that which, as rebellion 
 against his own authority, he must hate, whether holy or 
 not ? And these are questions, to the solution of which 
 there is no reason to suppose that they had the means of 
 making any approach to a satisfactory reply. Hence 
 painful fears and doubts would be the result of the first 
 appearance of sin in heaven. 
 
 When they saw man made, a part of their fears would 
 be removed. They would see that though all angels should 
 rebel, there could be no room to fear lest " heaven should 
 want inhabitants, or God want praise." But the next 
 step in the providence of God, the fall of man, would bring 
 back all their fcai'S with increased pressure. Was God 
 really so little able to resist the rebels, that he could not 
 uphold his own fair workmanship from being led away 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 11 
 
 captive by them ? "What then was the use of this creating 
 power, if he could not preserve what he created, but made 
 it only that it might afford a triumph to his enemies ? 
 When they saw Satan become the god of this world, would 
 not the power and other perfections of God stand greatly 
 in doubt? The sons of God shouted for joy when man was 
 made ; and that shout was expressive, not simply of adora- 
 tion at seeing a new exhibition of then- Maker's power, 
 but also of the delight which they felt, at having, by this 
 exhibition of his power, so many of their fears removed, 
 which the entrance of sin had awakened. And proportion- 
 ed to the delight which they felt and expressed at man's 
 creation would necessarUy be the consternation with 
 which they beheld his fall. And when they heard it de- 
 clared that man, though fallen, taken captive by Satan, 
 and now leagued with him in rebellion against God, yet 
 was not to be lost, what would be the result of such a de- 
 claration ? Probably new doubts and new fears. Creation 
 they had seen, and knew what that was. Sin also they 
 had seen, and knew what the consequence of that was. 
 But redemption was something as yet unheard of, and 
 they would naturally ask, what new thing is this ? or how 
 can it possibly be ? When angels fell, they were driven 
 away in then- wickedness, and no hope of restoration was 
 held out to them. Yet they still possessed so much power 
 as to cany away man into rebellion ; and now he is not 
 to die, even after the sentence denounced, — " In the day 
 thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."^ Was God to 
 prove himself regardless of his truth, by recalling the 
 sentence so solemnly pronounced? Was he to abandon 
 his own holy law to violation, and his authority to con- 
 tempt, by extending mercy to the transgi'essors ? Was 
 the majesty of the divine government to be insulted with 
 impunity ? and was the holiness of God to stoop to hold 
 communion with that which was polluted ? In short, was 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
12 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 God to prove that Immutability formed no part of his 
 character? If he was destitute of any one of these per- 
 fections, or if he possessed any of them only in a limited 
 degi'ee, and if angels were about to see that limit reached, 
 then their happiness was gone. His immutability stood 
 most in doubt, and most of all was it necessary that 
 they should be well assm-ed of this. For what other se- 
 cmity had they for the continuance of their happiness 
 than this, that he who had made them, and had bestowed 
 that happiness upon them, was a being who could not 
 change ? Let this once be made doubtful, and then, in ad- 
 dition to the feeling of insecurity arising from a sense of 
 theu' own liability to sin, they would experience the still 
 more painful feeling of insecurity derived fi'om the muta- 
 bility of the divine character. When they saw the newly 
 created being involved almost immediately in spmtual 
 death, and given up to moral bondage, it is obvious, that 
 whether this arose from the want of power, or fi'om the 
 want of will in the Creator to sustain him, they could con- 
 template the event mth no other feelings than those of 
 terror and dismay. 
 
 Had man, under these circumstances, been driven away 
 in his wickedness, this would have done nothing to alle- 
 viate their dismay : as such a consequence of the fall would 
 have seemed to render useless the creating power of God : 
 for to Avhat pui-pose served the power of creating, if se- 
 parated from a power of sustaining, — if he could not save 
 tliose whom he created from becoming the servants of an- 
 other lord ? But then, how could man possibly be pardoned 
 and saved, without inducing all the painful consequences 
 just refeiTcd to? God had most positively declared, that 
 on the day on which he transgressed he should die. Could 
 that sentence be suspended, or even its execution delayed, 
 without creating some question as to how far his truth 
 might be relied upon ? If the law of God was violated, and 
 the authority of God trampled upon, not merely with im- 
 punity, but with favour to the transgressor, was not this 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. I'd 
 
 in effect to abrogate the law ? Even under the Christian 
 dispensation, which so awfully demonstrates the sanctity 
 of the law, how difficult is it to prevent men from " turning 
 the grace of God into lasciviousness," and from sinning 
 ''because gi-ace abounds!" But had God forgiven men^ 
 without any demonstration of the holiness, and of the un- 
 alterable nature of the law, this would have been to set 
 open a flood-gate for the introduction of all iniquity. That 
 God could by a mere act of power, or, as it ought rather 
 to be called in tliis case, offorce^ have rescued the sinner 
 from the grasp of Satan, and have created him anew, and 
 have reinstated him in higher happiness than that from 
 which he fell, may be perfectly true. But what then be- 
 came of his moral attributes ? Such an act of power, if it 
 had been an act of mercy to the guilty, would at the same 
 time have been an act of gi'eat cruelty to the innocent. 
 For, who among his unfallen creatui'es could have in this 
 case avoided the conclusion, that he who could act so was 
 an unholy, an unjust, a mutable, nay, a capricious being ? 
 He would have appeared to be capricious in this, that if 
 the law was to be virtually abrogated by the acquittal of 
 one class of fallen creatm-es, it would be impossible to dis- 
 cover any reason why the same dishonom'ed law should 
 be applied, in all its unabated rigom-, to another class. 
 
 We are often told that it is an easy thing for God to for- 
 give sin, — that there is nothing to prevent him fi'om with- 
 drawing his right to punish the guilty, and that such an 
 act of gi'ace would highly illusti'ate his goodness, and 
 awaken songs of praise among both angels and men. No- 
 thing, however, can well be more evident than the truth 
 of the very reverse of this. Among men such an act of 
 grace would have been, and could have been productive of 
 nothing else, than the most unrestrained licentiousness ; 
 and among angels of nothing but consternation and dis- 
 may ; and an act of mercy so exercised would have effec- 
 tually defeated every purpose of mercy. Every sinner 
 thus rescued by an act of omnipotent power, not from the 
 
li PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 grasp of Satan, but from the righteous sentence of God's 
 most holy law, would have been a new monument of a 
 mutable God, and of a despised law ; and instead of being 
 hailed on his entrance into heaven with songs of joy, 
 would have been received with expressions of jealousy and 
 fear. It is easy, it is said, for God to depart from his right 
 to punish. But by whom is this said ? By men who have 
 never been convinced of sin, who know not how exceed- 
 ingly sinful a thing it is ; who know nothing of the extent 
 and spirituality of the law of God, and have never felt 
 their need of, and dependence upon, a Saviour. Ask the 
 awakened sinner who has felt the terrors of the law coming 
 like water into his bowels, and like oil into his bones, if 
 he thinks it an easy thing for God to forgive sin ? He will 
 tell you, that when a violated law set all his sins in array 
 before him, and when conscience confirmed the sentence 
 of the law, so far was he from thinking it an easy thing 
 for God to forgive his sins, that hardly all the grace mani- 
 fested in the Gospel could persuade him to believe it pos- 
 sible, that even with God there could be an extent of 
 mercy sufficient to forgive his sins, — that while he felt no 
 difficulty in believing the general proposition, that with 
 God there is mercy for sinners, he feels that nothing but a 
 divine power could have enabled him to apply the general 
 proposition to his own particular case, and to believe that 
 there was mercy with God sufficient for him. It is easy, 
 we are often told, for God, by a mere act of grace to par- 
 don, and by a mere act of power to regenerate and save 
 sinners. It is easy for him to forego his right to punish 
 the transgressor. But it is not seen, nor, save by the 
 awakened sinner, can be seen, that in so doing he foregoes 
 all the inflexibility of his justice, all the sacredness of his 
 truth, all the sanctity of his law, all the spotless purity of 
 his holiness, and all the majesty of his government, and 
 is destroying all the security that is founded on the im- 
 mutability of his character. And as to the mercy which 
 it is supposed would have been illustrated by such an 
 
PRELIMINAKY OBSERVATIONS. 15 
 
 act of grace, I think it has been shown already, and will 
 be more distinctly shown afterwards, that mercy would 
 have been outraged by such a proceeding. Moreover, the 
 pardon of sin, without any manifestation of its hatefulness, 
 and of the perfections of God, would have brought both 
 his wisdom and power into question. For surely it 
 would have exhibited much more of both, to sustain 
 man from falling at all, than to leave him to fall, mere- 
 ly in order to rescue him from the effects of his fall, 
 by an exercise of power put forth at the expense of all his 
 moral attributes ; while all the lessons taught by the work 
 of redemption, for the sake of which the earth was made, 
 and man upon it, would not only have been entirely lost, 
 but it would have been impossible to determine why some 
 men were saved, and others left to perish, — why grace was 
 offered to one fallen race, and none offered to another ; 
 and it would indeed have been a question which defied 
 solution, for what one useful purpose could such a being as 
 man possibly have been made ? The Jews erred grievous- 
 ly when they supposed that the dispensation, of which they 
 were the recipients, terminated in themselves, and was 
 given them, not for the sake, but to the exclusion of aU 
 other nations. And we carry the same en*or to a much 
 more pernicious extent, and still more effectually mar the 
 glory of the work of redemption, when we consider that 
 work as terminating in man, — when we consider ourselves 
 as an insulated race, and not as beings intimately connect- 
 ed with, and made for the sake of all the rational family 
 of God. We might just as rationally hope to ascertain 
 the true position and motions of the earth, without refer- 
 ring to the heavenly bodies with which it is connected, and 
 of the system constituted by which it is an essential and in- 
 tegral part, as hope to ascertain the true position and the 
 use of such a being as man, and the bearing of the work 
 of redemption, without referring to those heavenly intelli- 
 gences with whom he is intimately connected, — a connec- 
 tion recognized in every page of the Bible. Had no nation 
 
10 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 been to be blessed but the Jews, the Jews would never 
 have been chosen ; and had no bemg been to profit by the 
 work of redemption but man, it seems impossible to con- 
 ceive one rational purpose that could be answered by such 
 a creature as man being made at all. The Sadducee might 
 think himself exceedingly leanied, and very far above all 
 vulgar prejudices, when he could prove that there was 
 " neither angel nor spirit ;" and might show what a cant- 
 ing hj-jiocrite was the Pharisee who confessed both. But 
 if the Pharisees could not convince them out of the Law of 
 Moses, there were not wanting heathens who stood forward 
 to vindicate their prerogatives as men, and to prove the 
 being of a God, and the immortality of the soul. And 
 the modern infidel may think himself exceedingly learned, 
 and very far above all vulgar and superstitious prejudices, 
 when he denies, — and perhaps founds his denial on the 
 very alleged fact of the insignificance of man, — all the 
 peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. But even were we unable 
 to vindicate the truth, other orders of beings would come 
 forward to vindicate their OAvn share in the glorious work 
 of man's redemption. The Sadducee and the infidel may 
 perish in gi'oping round the contracted circle of their ovm 
 dark and narrow conceptions ; but the enlightened among 
 men, and higher orders of beings, will contemplate with 
 the eye of a deep veneration, and of an intense interest, 
 that glorious work fi'om which they have already learned 
 much, and from the farther development and the final 
 consummation of which they expect yet to learn more, 
 of the character of the Almighty Maker and Ruler of all. 
 
 It Avas when it was declai'cd that fallen man should be 
 saved, and when it appeared not how that salvation could 
 be effected, without casting doubt and distrust over all the 
 perfections of God, unhinging all the principles upon which 
 his moral government was founded, and thus producing 
 the most disastrous and fatal consequences throughout the 
 whole universe, that the gi'eat mysterj'- of redemption, into 
 which angels desire to look, and from which they learn 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 17 
 
 wisdom, began to run its mighty course. It was then that 
 the eternal Word was announced as the Redeemer of the 
 fallen race, who should rescue them from their thraldom, 
 and bring them back to holiness, to happiness, and to 
 God. Now, in the accomplishment of this work, the Re- 
 deemer has three parties to deal with, — him who holds the 
 captives in bondage, — the captives themselves so held in 
 bondage, — and him who, for then- rebellion, gave them up 
 to captivity : and each of these parties renders the pos- 
 session of certain powers essentially necessaiy in the Re- 
 deemer. He who holds the captives in bondage may be 
 determined that they shall not go fi-ee for any price, or 
 upon any consideration. The Redeemer, therefore, must 
 of necessity possess power to compel him to let them go. 
 The captives may be utterly insensible to the misery of 
 their bondage, and unwilling to be delivered. The Re- 
 deemer, therefore, must possess a power to convince them 
 of the misery of theu' state, and to awaken in their hearts 
 the desne of jlbertyy The captives may be totally igno- 
 rant of the way that leads to the home whence they have 
 been exiled, and totally incapable of encountering the 
 manifold difficulties and dangers with which that way 
 abounds. The Redeemer, therefore, must possess power 
 both to lead them in the right way, and to support and 
 strengthen and uphold them against all opposition. The 
 captives may have acquu'ed habits and dispositions which 
 totally incapacitate them for the occupations and enjoy- 
 ments of the country to which they are to be brought. 
 The Redeemer, therefore, must possess power to change the 
 whole tenour and cmTcnt of then- habits, affections, and 
 dispositions. The captives may have been driven from 
 home for their crimes, and theii' return would be an in- 
 fringement of that law by which they were condemned, a 
 dishonour to the sovereign by whom they were banished, 
 and dangerous to those of his subjects whp never rebelled. 
 The Redeemer, therefore, must possess a power to ensure 
 them a welcome reception ; that is, he must bring them 
 
18 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 back in such a way as to magnify and make honourable 
 the law by which they were condemned, — to display the 
 equity and justice, as well as the goodness and mercy of 
 the sovereign by whom they were exiled, — to give fresh 
 stability to all the principles of his moral government, and 
 additional security to all his faithful subjects. He must 
 be able to reconcile, and to preserve in the most indis- 
 soluble union, these apparently most irreconcileable things, 
 the glory of God, and the safety of the sinner, — to unite, 
 in most harmonious union, these apparent contraries, the 
 mercy that pleaded for the sinner's safety, with the truth 
 that demanded his punishment, — the righteousness that 
 condemned him, with the peace that was promised him. 
 Such are the powers which it is essentially necessaiy that 
 the Redeemer should possess ; or, to sum up all these 
 powers in tliree words, he must be a Prophet, a Priest, 
 and a King, in the highest and most extensive application 
 of these terms. Such powers, it is clear, no created being 
 could by any possibility possess ; but such powers were 
 found in the Son. Announced, therefore, as the Redeemer 
 of men, he was announced as Prophet, Priest, and King ; 
 and the first acts of each of these offices he performed per- 
 sonally. As Prophet he announced to man the hope of 
 deliverance through the " woman's seed." As Priest he 
 appointed sacrifices, as typical of his o^ti death for sin- 
 ners, and clothed om* first parents with the skins of slain 
 beasts, instead of then* own fig leaves, as a token that he 
 would cover their spiritual nakedness by a righteousness 
 much more effectual than any that they could provide.* 
 And as King he sent them forth to cultivate the gi'ound, 
 until they should retm-n to the dust fi'om which they were 
 taken. These offices, thus formally and personally as- 
 sumed by the Son, were thenceforth delegated to his repre- 
 sentatives, till the fulness of time should amve for his 
 
 1 This may appear rather a forced interpretation of this transaction." It has, 
 however, been sanctioned by some able and sober writers ; among others, by 
 the Rev. C. Benson in hia Uolsean Lectures on Scripture Difficulties. 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 19 
 
 coming in the flesh. To what extent the knowledge of 
 men or of angels, as to these offices, might then go, we 
 have no means of ascertaining ; but we may be weU as- 
 sured, that they would study with the most carefal atten- 
 tion every type and every prophecy which could thi'ow light 
 upon so important a subject ; and this we know, that at 
 that period commenced, and, in the evolution of the work 
 of redemption, was gi-adually unfolded for the instruction of 
 both, an exhibition of the glory of God's perfections, of the 
 majesty and stability of God's government, and of the 
 sanctity of God's law, far beyond aught that could have 
 been derived either from the sinless obedience, or fi-om 
 the endless punishment of all created beings. 
 It It will be obsei'ved that I here consider the Son, not 
 simply as elected to, but as actually invested with, the 
 offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and as discharging 
 the duties of these offices from the moment of the fall. 
 After that period, every prophet that announced to the 
 church any portion of the will of God, received his com- 
 mission from him who is the great and only Prophet, — 
 every priest who ever offered an acceptable sacrifice to 
 God, had it accepted only thi'ough him who is the great 
 and only Priest, — every king that ever reigned was the 
 delegate of, and accountable to, him who is the gi'eat and 
 only King. Dming the period anterior to his incarnation, 
 and from the beginning, he acted as the Prophet, Priest, 
 and King of the Church. The proof of this, however, will 
 occur more natiu-ally afterwards ; and I might proceed at 
 once to consider the circumstances attending the incama - 
 tion, but a preliminary question occm-s, which must be 
 first disposed of. The question to which I refer is one 
 that has been often asked. If the incarnation was necessary, 
 why was it so long delayed ? To this it may be replied, 
 that had not the incarnation been delayed, its necessity 
 would not have been seen. Had the Word been made 
 flesh immediately on the Fall, sin would not have had 
 sufficient time to develop its native malignity, nor would 
 
20 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 the miserable and degi'aded state of man have sufficiently 
 appeared. It was necessary that man should be placed in 
 a great variety of situations, both before and after the 
 Incarnation, that by the endless variety of situations in 
 which he was placed might be seen the utter helplessness 
 and hopelessness of his state ; and his utter inability, 
 under any circumstances, of emancipating himself from 
 the bondage of Satan. 
 
 Under the patriarchal dispensation, there were circum- 
 stances extremely favourable to the cultivation of holiness, 
 and the retiu-n of men to God. Paradise was as yet before 
 their eyes, though guarded by the heavenly host and by 
 the flaming sword. Adam lived for many ages among them, 
 to tell them of the blessedness of the state fi'om which he 
 had fallen, and to tell them, too, upon the authority of the 
 divine promise, of the hope of being restored to that state, 
 — and Cam was among them a monument of the miser- 
 able consequences of unsubdued passion. Under these 
 ch'cumstances, we should natm*ally expect to find them 
 looldng to Paradise, and deploring with the deepest peni- 
 tence the happiness they had lost ; and looking up to God 
 with humble gratitude for the hope of restoration ; and 
 seeking by the most lowly and earnest obedience to secure 
 the speedy fulfilment of the promise. But what do we in 
 reality find ? A God who could not be at that time un- 
 known, yet utterly despised, and wickedness prevailing to 
 an extent which has never been surpassed. 
 
 Immediately after the deluge, it might have been 
 expected that men, Avith the recent traces of so awful a 
 visitation every where before their eyes, would have been 
 effectually deten'ed from sin. So far, however, was this 
 from being the case, that they went on increasing in 
 iniquity, till the very name of the true God was forgotten, 
 and his worship abandoned for idolatry of every form. 
 Men were therefore left to use or abuse the knowledge 
 already given, as they were able, or disposed ; and the 
 whole history of the heathen world proves how utterly 
 
PRELIMIXARY OBSERVATIOXS. 21 
 
 lost, how hopelessly degraded man is. And if the 
 exhibition was continued down to the time of our Sa- 
 vioui-'s appearance, it cannot be thought to have been 
 continued too long ; since, though through the greater 
 part of the world it has been continued dovm to the 
 present day, it has not yet sufficiently impressed men with 
 the humbling, but necessaiy lesson, which it is designed, 
 and so well fitted to teach, — no, nor though continued to 
 eternity ever will teach it. For, in the face of aU the 
 multiplied and deplorable proofs afforded by the odious, 
 the disgusting, and revolting practices of idolatry, both in 
 ancient and in modem times, both among savage and 
 civilized heathens, of the utter imbecility of man's under- 
 standing, the perversion of his reason, the corruption of 
 his heart, and his total inability to rescue himself from the 
 state of deep degTadation into which he has fallen, there 
 are men who can deny that man is a fallen being at all, 
 and can talk of the extent of the human understanding, 
 and of the sufficiency, nay, the glory of human reason. 
 Human reason is indeed a glorious thing when guided 
 and sustained by the Spnit of God ; but such men do 
 themselves show how utterly perverted and degraded it is, 
 when left to its own resom'ces, and how hopelessly they 
 are blinded, when they can gravely maintain a position, 
 the utter absm-dity of which is written, in lines of horror 
 and of blood, on every page of the history of man ; and 
 when, indebted as they are to the knowledge communi- 
 cated by the gi'eat Prophet, for then- o-^ti exemption from 
 the degradation of saying " to a stock. Thou art my 
 father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth," they 
 can yet pretend that no revelation of God was necessary. 
 If the history of the world teaches any thing, it surely 
 teaches this, that " the world by wisdom never knew 
 God." Revelation is necessary even to the existence of 
 pure Theism. Polytheism and idolatiy is all that man 
 has ever proved himself capable of attaining by his own 
 unaided reason. Somniaverat Deum^ non cognoverat^ saith 
 
22 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Lactantius of Plato ; and what was said of Plato may 
 well be said, I suppose, of all other heathens. 
 
 But impressively as the lesson of man's helpless and 
 degraded state is taught by the whole history of man, 
 when left to himself, or with only a traditionary revelation 
 to guide him, the lesson is rendered still more impressive 
 by the exceptions to this state which have occmTcd. The 
 Israelites were placed in circumstances which might have 
 been expected to repress every corrupt propensity, and to 
 ensure the most devoted obedience. God chose them for 
 his own peculiar people, he was continually manifesting 
 his power and his presence among them, and that very 
 often in a manner directly mu-aculous ; he gave them a 
 ritual so splendid as to leave them no room to look with 
 envy upon the most splendid ceremonies of the heathens 
 around them ; he hired them to obedience by the worldly 
 prosperity which it never failed to produce, and deterred 
 them from rebellion by the sufferings with which it never 
 failed to be followed. Under such circumstances, one 
 would think disobedience almost impossible. And if men 
 were unfallen creatures, or if the perversion of their un- 
 derstanding, and the coiTuption of their heart, were 
 capable of being corrected by any circumstances, however 
 favourable, it would have been so. But what is their 
 whole history? Sm'ely it is a most decisive proof that 
 the native tendencies of the human heart to evil, and the 
 imbecility of the human understanding, are not to be cor- 
 rected by any external circumstances, however fitted for 
 that pui-pose. Over barriers which one would conceive to 
 have been almost insm-mountable, they rushed into the 
 most unnatm-al and most revoltmg of the practices of the 
 heathen around them. 
 
 It may be said, however, that the dispensation under 
 which the Israelites were placed, though it did present 
 strong motives to obedience, and enlisted the selfish pas- 
 sions on the side of holiness, by its temporal rewards and 
 punishments, was yet defective. It preceded the Incar- 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 23 
 
 nation, and the degree of knowledge as to man's eternal 
 prospects which it communicated was extremely defec- 
 tive, and wrapped up in aU the obscurity of t}^es and 
 shadows. Its appeals to the higher principles of hu- 
 man nature were indistinct, and therefore feeble ; and, 
 therefore, though men under this dispensation did prove 
 both that their reason was blind, and then- hearts cor- 
 rupt, yet still man, placed under other cuxumstances, 
 and under a dispensation more distinctly and more di- 
 rectly appealing to the higher principles of our nature, 
 might prove that that blindness of reason, and that cor- 
 ruption of heart, may be cured, without the du-ect and im- 
 mediate agency of the Spirit of God. The experiment 
 has been made. The great Prophet came, and communi- 
 cated to men that knowledge of divine things, to which 
 no addition has ever been made. He gave to men instruc- 
 tions so clear that it is impossible to mistake them ; he 
 sanctioned these instructions by motives of the most re- 
 sistless urgency, by the prospect of eternal happiness on 
 the one hand, and of eternal woe on the other ; he ani- 
 mated them to obedience by providing for them the most 
 effectual assistance and support ; and he gave them the 
 most perfect security that their labour should not be in 
 vain, but that then- reward should be sure. He esta- 
 blished a dispensation which appeals, in the most direct 
 and forcible manner, to all that is lofty in human thought, 
 and to all that is sensible in human feeling, and to all 
 that is pure in human affection ; and what was the re- 
 sult ? Did the moral darkness of the world pass away 
 before this glorious light, like the darkness of night before 
 the rising sun ? Did men every where and eagerly em- 
 brace the " glad tidings of great joy" which were an- 
 nounced to them? Exulting in that "life and immor- 
 tality" which had been brought to light, did the securing 
 of, and preparation for, that life and immortality, be- 
 come the engrossing object of all their thoughts, sinking 
 
24 PREHMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 all the petty conceras of time into insignificance? No. The 
 result has proved, in the most impressive and decisive 
 manner, not only that man is a fiillen being, but fallen to 
 a depth from which he cannot be recovered by any means, 
 however well adapted to that end, without the immediate 
 agency of God : that there is an inveteracy in the perver- 
 sion of man's reason, and in the eorraption of his heart, 
 which no other hand can cure. It is in vain that we are 
 suiTOunded by all the advantages for moral improvement 
 which God can bestow ; it is in vam that weapons of the 
 most heavenly temper are put into our hands ; till we be 
 quickened by the Spirit, the arm that should wield them 
 is unnerved in all the toipor of spmtual death. The les- 
 son taught by the whole history of Christianity is, that 
 the possession of a dispensation of a religion of absolute 
 and unimproveable perfection, does not in the slightest 
 degree emancipate us from a total dependence upon God, 
 for the possession of all moral good. 
 
 Yet that lesson, though so impressively taught, has 
 been very imperfectly learned. There are many, and 
 many of those too who believe the Gospel, who maintain 
 that man is not a totally corrupted and depraved creature, 
 — that death and natural evil are the only consequences 
 derived to us from the fall, — and that since God has given 
 to us the Gospel, we require no farther aid, but are abund- 
 antly able to apply and to improve it of ourselves. Now, 
 if there be men who, with the history of Christianity actu- 
 ally before their eyes, can maintain such doctrines as these, 
 what would have been the consequence, had the Gospel, 
 at its first promulgation, spread with resistless force through 
 all the world, and manifested its enlightening and purify- 
 ing effect in every heart ? We are very apt to regi'ct that 
 this should not actually have been the case, and infidelity 
 has reared some of its puny arguments upon the fact, that 
 Christianity has neither been communicated to all lands, 
 nor has given spii'itual life to all to whom it has been 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 25 
 
 coramimicated. But this fact, like all other facts when pro- 
 perly understood, is a proof of the wisdom of him who does 
 all things well. Had our Lord's object in the establishment 
 of the new dispensation been to save the gi-eatest possible 
 number of persons, in the shortest possible space of time, 
 then the unresisted and universal triumph of the Gospel 
 would have been the most direct means of accomplishing his 
 design. But if his object was to give the most important 
 possible instruction to the greatest possible number, both 
 of angels and men, then the early and universal triumph of 
 the Gospel would have defeated that purpose. For if men 
 who see the determined resistance which has been offered 
 to the reception of the Gospel in all ages and countries, 
 and who are aware of the pei-petual tendency in those who 
 do receive it, to modify it to their own views, can yet 
 maintain such doctrines as those just referred to, what 
 would have been the consequence, had the Gospel been 
 uniformly successful? Had the Gospel been received in 
 all its simplicity, and obeyed by every one to whom it was 
 announced, — had it operated with all the regularity and 
 efficiency of a physical cause, then much more in that case 
 would the idolatry have been committed, of attributing to 
 the means that efficiency which belongs only to the Holy 
 Spirit. If men can forget and deny then' dependence on 
 the Spuit now, how much more would it have been denied 
 under such circumstances ? Men would have thought that 
 to become a Christian was a mere matter of course ; and 
 had fruit been as regularly produced in the one case as in 
 the other, would have felt the necessity of the agency of 
 the Spirit, to render the seed of the Word fruitful in their 
 hearts, just as little as they are now apt to see the neces- 
 sity of a divine agency to fructify the seed in their fields. 
 Thus the agency of the Holy Spirit — a doctrine as essen- 
 tial to the Gospel as that of the atonement itself — would 
 have been denied ; and this would speedily have put an 
 end to Christianity. Thus the early and universal tri- 
 
l^t) PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 iinipli of tlie Gospel would have ensured its early and uni- 
 versal overthrow. 
 
 To this conclusion we arc clearly led by the history of 
 the past ; and the history of the future, as far as it is re- 
 vealed, leads us still more clearly to the same conclusion. 
 God will not give his glory to another, no, not even to the 
 Bible ; nor will pennit men to believe that the Gospel 
 makes its way in the world, or in the human heart, by its 
 own intrinsic power and excellence, but by his Spirit. 
 This is taught by the past and the present history of 
 Christianity, and the Millennium is approaching to give to 
 this truth the last decisive proof, and to render it for ever 
 impossible to doubt, that for the reception and possession 
 of all spiritual good, man is immediately dependent on God, 
 without whom he can never either acquire or retain one 
 moral excellence. The Millennium is described as a state 
 of imiversal righteousness. It is the triumph of the Gos- 
 pel, when Christ sball possess the heathen for his inherit- 
 ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession. 
 But we are told that this state of universal righteousness 
 is to tenninate in a state of almost universal apostacy. 
 Now, what is to bring so holy and blessed a state to such 
 a fearful termination ? It is plain that this can happen only 
 from the withdi'amng of the Holy Spirit ; and it is equally 
 plain that the Holy Spirit will not withdraw till men have 
 forgotten their dependence upon him, and ceased to pray 
 for him. And that they will do this we may be certain 
 both from the history of the past, and from what we see 
 at present. We live in most eventful times. The ele- 
 ments of 'some mighty movement have, for some years, 
 been gathering around us with unexampled rapidity. The 
 ancient bonds of society seem to be worn out, and burst- 
 ing asunder. The old despotisms appear to be crumbling 
 to dust, together with the superstition on which they lean ; 
 while the present aspect of society promises to substitute 
 in their room nothing better than liberalism allied with 
 
PRELIMIXAEY OBSERVATIONS. 27 
 
 infidelity, — an infidelity so much the more dangerous, in 
 that it has assumed the form of Christian theologj", and 
 proclauns its dogmas by the mouths of men who eat the 
 bread of the Church, and call themselves her ministers. 
 Yet, under circumstances so appalling, when we feel be- 
 neath our feet, what seems to be the heave and the swell 
 of the approaching earthquakes, men can pillow their heads 
 in secmity, and di-eam of the uninterrupted advance of so- 
 ciety to perfection, and loudly proclaim that men have 
 now reached a point in the progi'ess of improvement, from 
 which there is not only no danger, but no possibility of 
 receding. Now, if men can reason in this manner at pre- 
 sent, how much more will they reason thus toward the 
 end of the Millennium, when circumstances will afford an 
 infinitely better ground for such reasonings, than any that 
 can be found at present ? Yes, after centm^ies of universal 
 righteousness, men will begin to forget that they are cor- 
 rupted and depraved creatures ; that for all their excel- 
 lences they are indebted to the quickening energy and 
 sustaining power of the Holy Spirit. So little accustomed 
 to sin, they will begin to forget that they are in any danger 
 of it. They will imagine that they have an-ived at a point 
 in the progress of moral excellence, from which it is im- 
 possible that any retrogi-ade movement can take place. 
 The folly of all rebellion against God will appear in so 
 clear a light, that they will be ready to think it impossible 
 that any rational creature can ever more be guilty of it. 
 They wiU look upon the present state of Christianity with 
 a feeling very similar to that with which we look upon the 
 absm'dities of heathenism, wondering how beings endued 
 with reason could ever be misled by the delusions to 
 which we are so commonly yielding, or could consider 
 themselves Christians at all. And, thinking it impossible 
 that ever Christianity can be reduced to so low a standard 
 again as it is among us ; and forgetting that they are na- 
 turally as weak and as corrupt as we are, and that their 
 strength is not in themselves, they will less earnestly pray 
 
"2^ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION'S. 
 
 1V)r tlie Holy Spirit. He, provoked, will withdraw ; and 
 then Cometh, in their apostacy, the fearful demonstration, 
 that men never can be exalted to a pitch of moral excel- 
 lence and spiritual power, where they may be safely left 
 to their 0A\ni unaided poTvers, to increase, or even to retain 
 what they have acquired. When the Spirit has withdrawn, 
 and Satan is again let loose, then Avill it be seen that even 
 all the glor\' of the Millennial excellence will not prevent 
 man from being earned away, by the corrupt tendencies of 
 his heart, into a state of bondage to error and guilt. And 
 then Cometh the end, when the rational family of God 
 have no more to learn from the wanderings of their prodigal 
 brother. 
 
 These considerations appear to me very satisfactorily to 
 show that the Incarnation could not take place, either im- 
 mediately after the beginning, or immediately before the 
 end of the world. Had our Lord come in the flesh at an 
 early period of the world, the history of Christianity would 
 have been the same. There must first have been a long, 
 a very partially successful struggle, in order to prove, 
 what we feel it so very difficult to admit, that the Gospel 
 makes not its way to our hearts, because we so clearly 
 see, and so readily yield to, its excellence ; but solely by 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit. Then would have follow- 
 ed its imiversal triumph, in order to show, that however 
 incapable of making way by its own intrinsic excellence, 
 yet, when he chose to put forth his power, all the guilt 
 and all the power of the world could offer it no eff'ectual 
 opposition. And then would have come the apostacy, in 
 order to show that there is no point in the progress of spi- 
 ritual attainment, at which man, miless sustained by an 
 Almighty arm, and borne onward by an Almighty power, 
 \\ ould not rapidly recede into a state of guilt and of sufl'er- 
 ing. In this case the world would long since have reach- 
 <'d its termination : but while what is properly called the 
 Christian dispensation would have afforded the same in- 
 struction, at whatever period it had taken place, yet some 
 
rRELlMINARY OBSEHVATIONS. 29 
 
 jmportant links iii the ciiain of man's history, and some 
 important points in the instruction afforded by it, would 
 have been wanting. Let us acknowledge, then, the wis- 
 dom of all the divine aiTangements, and admit that for 
 these reasons, and probably, too, for other reasons, which 
 we cannot see, it was necessary that our Lord should 
 delay his coming till the period when it actually took 
 place. ^ 
 
 Having thus disposed of the preliminary question, we 
 may now proceed to consider the cu'cumstances of the In- 
 carnation itself. These are stated with much siaiplicity in 
 Scripture ; and the discussions into which it wiR afterwards 
 be necessary to enter, will enable us to be very general in 
 our remarks here. The first inquiiy to which our attention 
 is here called is, who was it that became incarnate ? To this 
 the reply is, that it was the Son, the second person of the 
 Holy Trinity. Reasons why the Son alone could become 
 incarnate are di-awu from considerations on the Trinity, 
 which cannot well be introduced here, as they woiild lead 
 us too far fi'om the present subject. But there is one rea- 
 son which, though far fi'om the most satisfactory, is yet so 
 very simple and intelligible, that I shaU content myself with 
 stating it- Had the Father become incarnate, then, being 
 the Father by nature, and becoming a Son by incarnation, 
 he would have been both Father and Son, which would 
 have been altogether incongruous ; and there would, more- 
 over, have been two Sons in the Trmity. For a like rea- 
 son the Holy Ghost would not become incarnate, for then, 
 becoming a Son by incarnation, he would have been both 
 Son and Holy Ghost ; and in this case, too, there would 
 have been two Sons in the Trinity. Hence, to become in- 
 carnate was suitable to the Son alone. 
 
 We may now go on to consider how the act of the In- 
 carnation proceeded; and, in doing so, we must simply 
 take the Evangelist for our guide, who thus describes it. 
 
 ' See note B. Appendix. 
 
30 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 
 Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 
 shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, that holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
 God." ^ Here we are told that when the Son assumed our 
 natm'e, " he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin 
 Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Now, when in 
 assuming our nature, he consented to be conceived and 
 born of a woman, that which he took into indissoluble 
 union with his person was a tnie body and reasonable 
 soul. The reality of his body is proved by the same cir- 
 cumstances that prove the reality of our o^\ti. He hunger- 
 ed and thirsted, he was weary and slept, he was bom 
 and grew, he sweated and bled, he died and was bmied ; 
 all which things are proper to a real body, and prove that 
 his body was no phantom, but truly flesh and blood. 
 That he took also a reasonable soul admits of equally easy 
 proof. For he grew in wisdom ; he felt grief and sore 
 amazement, which neither his body nor his Divinity could 
 feel ; he had a will also distinct from his Divine will ; and 
 he died, which he could not have done had he not had a 
 soul ; for death consists in the separation of the soul from 
 the body. Neither his soul nor his body coukl ever be for 
 one moment separated from his Divinity, but they were 
 separated fi'om each other, which constitutes death. Thus 
 it is clear thai he took a true body and a reasonable soul, 
 that is, every thiug that is essential to full and complete 
 manhood. 
 
 There are two questions, liowever, one with regard to our 
 Lord's body, and another with regard to his soul, which 
 require some attention. As to his body, we must inquire 
 whether it was really formed of, and nourished by, the sub- 
 stance of his mother, as the bodies of all other men are ; 
 or whether it was derived from some other source, and 
 merely passed through her as a canal of conveyance. Did 
 
 > Sec note C. Appendix. 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. ol 
 
 he derive from her all that every other man derives from 
 a mother? Was he, in short, her son in reality, or in ap- 
 pearance only ? Such questions were often, of necessity, 
 treated of by the primitive writers. But after being so 
 amply discussed by them, we might certainly have hoped 
 to be spared the mortification of being compelled to return 
 to the discussion, amidst the grey hairs of the world's old 
 age. Indeed, I hope that the discussion is in reality totally 
 mmecessary. It has, however, been loudly proclaimed, 
 that the heresy which denies that Chiist has come in the 
 flesh, has widely overspread the land, and has deeply in- 
 fected the Chm'ch. That this charge has been most gTossly 
 exaggerated I well know. That it is totally groundless 
 I am willing to believe, but have no right to assume. I 
 shall not, however, enter on the discussion, but shall merely 
 state the grounds upon which it may be most decisively 
 proved that Christ was tridy the Son of Mary, — that the 
 contagion of the fall excepted, she imparted to her Son all 
 that other mothers impart to their children, — grounds 
 which may be insisted upon by those who feel more dis- 
 posed to enter upon the discussion than I do ; or who have 
 more ample means than I have of kuoT\dng that the dis- 
 cussion is at all necessary. That Christ was truly the 
 Son of Mary, and took his flesh of her substance, is a most 
 important point of Christian doctrine, and may be proved 
 by the following arguments. — If he took not a body of the 
 substance of his mother, then was his whole life one con- 
 tinued scene of deception. N'ot only did Mary call him 
 her son, but he called her his mother, — he was subject 
 unto her, and on the cross he manifested his filial duty to 
 her by providing for her a home in the house of the be- 
 loved disciple. Now, if Mary was not as truly his mother 
 as any other woman is the mother of her child, his recog- 
 nizing her as his mother, from the beginning to the end of 
 his life, was in reality a deception. And, as Tertidlian 
 most justly remarks, if the Marcionites considered it as a 
 degradation of the eternal Word, to suppose that he would 
 
32 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 submit to be bom of woman ; it is surely a much greater 
 degradation of him to suppose that he would profess to be 
 her son, while in reality he was not. He would much 
 rather be the son of Mary in reality, than falsely pretend 
 to be so. Again, if he took not flesh of Mary, then is he 
 no brother, no kinsman of om-s, and his right of redemption 
 altogether fails. In this case, he not only is not David's 
 son, but he is not the Son of man at all, as he almost uni- 
 formly calls himself, — deceptively it must be admitted, un- 
 less Mary was truly his mother. Neither in this case 
 could we Avith any truth be said to be ''members of his 
 body, of his flesh, and of his bones," if in reality his body 
 was a different substance, and derived from a different 
 source from ours. Moreover, he could not call us " breth- 
 ren," any more than we can apply that appellation to the 
 angels that smTOund the throne of God, or to the worm 
 that creepeth in the dust. Fellow- creatures they are, but, 
 without an entire community of nature, our " brethren" 
 they are not. And when we are requh*ed to " put on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ," we are required to do what is not 
 merely a moral, but a physical impossibility, if there lie 
 between us and him the utterly impassable barrier of a 
 different nature. If he took not his fleshly substance of 
 the flesh of his mother, then not being as truly man as we 
 are, he could not fairly meet and conquer our oppressor, 
 or at least his victory can give no assurance of victory to 
 us. For, to express a . very common sentiment in the 
 language of Irenajus, " Hadhe not been man who conquered 
 our enemy, he would not have been fairly conquered ; and, 
 on tlie other hand, had he not been God who gave us the 
 victory, we could hold it upon no'secm-e tenure."^ And, 
 finally, if he took not flesh of the substance of Mary, then 
 was he not truly the " woman's seed," and the great ori- 
 ginal promise, upon which all subsequent promises are built, 
 
 1 Si cnim hoino non vicisset ininiicuni hominis, non juste victus esset in- 
 iiuicns. Rursus autara nisi Deus donasset salutem, non firmiter haberemus 
 eaiii. Lib. i. Cap. 36, 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIOXS. oo 
 
 remains as yet unfulfilled. But it is not more essential 
 that the serpent's head should be bruised at all, than it is 
 that it should be bruised by the '' woman's seed." Hence 
 if Christ was not truly and really the " woman's seed," 
 then the whole foundation of our hopes fails. Upon these 
 gi'ounds we not only hold it most important to believe, but 
 consider it to be most uTefragably proved, that Christ was 
 as truly " made of a woman" as we are, — that his body 
 was truly a body composed of flesh and blood as ours 
 is. 
 
 The question with regard to his soid, to which I referred 
 above, is, — Did he take a reasonable soid ? A distinction 
 was made, in early times, between the reasonable soul, 
 and the sensitive soul or vital principle ; and not a few 
 heretics maintained that om' Saviour took the latter, but 
 not the former ; that in him the divinity supplied tlie 
 place of a reasonable soul. This distinction, I observe, 
 has been abolished by some of the most celebrated modern 
 physiologists, who confound the reasonable soul with the 
 vital principle. The distinction, however, I apprehend, 
 rests upon the most undeniable gTounds, and in this re- 
 spect, the ancient heretic has the advantage over the 
 modern physiologist. With this, however, I have nothing 
 to do ; but, while it is certain that he assumed the vital 
 principle, the question is. Did he also assume the reason- 
 able soul of man ? I surely cannot be called upon to waste 
 any time in the discussion of such a question ; for if there 
 be few, if any, who deny the reality of oiu' Lord's body, 
 there are, I should think, still fewer Avho are so utterly 
 ignorant of the Gospel, as to deny that he took a reason- 
 able soul ; and to maintain that, in him, the divinity 
 occupied the place of the soul. Should any discussion be, 
 by any, found necessaiy, they will find that every argu- 
 ment which proves that he had a soul at all, proves it to 
 have been a reasonable soul. Our belief therefore is, not 
 simply that the Word, in being made flesh, took a body 
 and soul ; but, as om- Catechism, with guarded accuracy of 
 
 b2 
 
34 I'RELIMINAUY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 expression, hath taught us from our childliood, that he 
 took '^ a true body and a reasonable soul." 
 
 That our Lord really had a reasonable soul, seems to 
 be sufficiently proved by the fact, that he was made man : 
 for this would not be true if he had only a human body ; 
 because a himian body is not a man, but only part of a 
 man. The argument commonly m-ged by the fathers, 
 against the Appollinariaus, seems also to be perfectly de- 
 cisive. They maintained that there was the same reason 
 for his taking a soul as for his taking a body ; for the 
 soul had sinned, and needed redemption as well as the 
 body. Thus one of them, urging that if that which is in- 
 ferior in man was assumed that it might be sanctified by 
 the Incarnation, for the same reason must that which is 
 superior in man have been assumed, says, " If the clay 
 was leavened and became a new mass. Oh, ye wise ones, 
 shall not the image be leavened and mingled with God, 
 being deified by the divinity ? " ^ 
 
 But this view of our Lord's humanity seems to bind us 
 do^vn to the adoption of the tenet, that it was fallen, sin- 
 ful humanity. For it is acknowledged that his mother 
 was a fallen, sinful woman. If, then, his body was 
 fonned of her substance, then must it, of necessity, have 
 been fallen and sinful. This, however, by no means fol- 
 lows : for, in the^rs^ place, it is not the body of man that 
 is fallen, nor the soul of man, but the whole man, consist- 
 ing of both. His body, therefore, might be taken of the 
 
 ^ E/ 'TTYihog i^v/L^u^Yi Kxi 'JiO'j (pv^ctf^x ys'/ousu CO ao(poi, 7} 
 iix.au ov ^vfAco^YiaiToK, Kott TT^og Qiov ocuctK^ec^mi'^oti dsaBnaoc 
 ^loc TYis BsorriTog | Gregory Nazianzian. Sermon 51. In a preceding 
 part of the same sennon, he observes that " both became one by the mixture, 
 God being made man, and man being made God, or however any one may 
 choose to express it."— Tst ycc^ et/ic(pors^oi ku tyj avyK^XffSi^ hou 
 f/,iv suxu^^aTrYitxxuTog, uu^^cottov hs ffeoB^-urog,, n OTragxurig ouo- 
 f^xam. This language, if rigidly interpreted, would lead to error, as there 
 could be no mingUng of the divinity and humanity, but to an error in direct 
 opposition to that which maintains the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity. 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 35 
 
 substance of his mother, as it most certainly was, without 
 involving any necessity that he should be a fallen man. 
 Next^ his body being formed of the substance of his 
 mother, no more infers that body to have been in all re- 
 spects the same as hers, than the foimation of the world 
 out of chaos infers the world to be a confused and indi- 
 gested mass ; or than the creation of matter out of no- 
 thing infers matter to be, as many ancient, and some 
 modem philosophers, have determined it to be, nothing, 
 or the formation of Adam's body from the dust infers it 
 to have been an inanimate clod. Again^ the contagion of 
 the fall, and the guilt of Adam's first sin, can be propa- 
 gated in no other way that we know of, than by ordinary 
 generation. But our Lord Jesus Christ, descending from 
 Adam in a way altogether singular and extraordinary, 
 was not at all involved in the guilt of his sin, nor tainted 
 by the contagion of the fall. But upon this subject, I 
 shall avail myself of the language of Augustme, which is 
 both more appropriate than any I could use, and Avill 
 cany more weight with it. Speaking of the Incarnation, 
 he says, " The Word which was made flesh, was in the 
 beginning, and was God with God. But, however, his par- 
 ticipation of our humiliation, that we might partake of his 
 exaltation, held a certain middle com'se, even in the nati- 
 vity of his flesh ; so that we should be bom in sinful flesh, 
 but he in the likeness of sinful flesh, that we should be bom 
 not only of flesh and blood, but also of the will of man, 
 and of the will of the flesh ; but he only of flesh and blood, 
 and not of the will of man, or of the will of the flesh, but 
 of God. We, therefore, are bom unto death, on account 
 of sin ; but he, on account of us, was born unto death 
 without sin. And as his humiliation in which he descended 
 to us was not, in all respects, equalled to our humiliation 
 in which he here found us ; even so om* exaltation, in v,-hich 
 we ascend to him, will not be equalled to his exaltation, in 
 which we shall there find him. We shall be made sons 
 of God by his grace ; but he was always by nature the 
 
a6 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Son of God. We, when converted, shall be united to 
 God as inferiors; he never needing conversion, remains 
 equal with God. We are made partakers of eternal life ; 
 he is eternal life. He alone, therefore, even when made 
 man, still remaining God, never had any sin, nor took 
 sinful flesh, though he took it of the sinful flesh of his 
 mother. For what flesh he took of her, that truly he 
 either purified that it might be assumed, or he purified it 
 in the assumption. Wherefore, he created whom he 
 might choose, and chose, from whom he might be created, 
 a virgin mother, not conceiving by the law of sinful flesh, 
 that is, by the motion of carnal concupiscence, but by a 
 pious faith deserving to have the holy seed foraied in her. 
 How much more then ought sinful flesh to be baptized, in 
 order to escape condemnation, if that flesh which had no 
 sin was baptized as an example for our imitation ? " ^ 
 
 What Augustine has written to show, that as the flesh 
 of Christ proceeded not from carnal concupiscence, there 
 
 ' Verbum enim quod caro factum est, in principio erat, et apud Deum 
 Deus erat. Venintamen ipsa participatio illlus in inferiora nostra, ut nostra 
 esset in superiora illius, tenuit quandam et in carnis navitate medietatem : 
 ut nos quidem nati essemus in came peccati, illc autem in similitudine camis 
 peccati : nos non solum ex carne et sanguine, verum etiam ex voluntate 
 viri et ex volimtate carnis, ille autem tantuni ex carne et sanguine, non ex 
 voluntate viri, neque ex voluntate carnis, sed ex Deo natus est. Et ideo nos 
 in mortem propter peccatmn, illc propter nos in mortem sine peccato. Sicut 
 autem inferiora ejus, quibus ad nos dcscendit, non omni modo coaequata 
 .sunt inferioribus nostris, in quibus nos hie invenit : sic et superiora nostra, 
 quibus ad eum adscendimus, non coosquabuntur superioribus ejus, in quibus 
 cum illic inventuri sumus. Nos enim ipsius gratia facti erimus filii Dei, ille 
 semper natura erat filius Dei : nos aliquando conversi adhajrebimus impares 
 Deo, ille nunquam aversus manet aiqualis Deo : nos participes vitae aeternse, 
 ille vita apterna. Solus ergo ille"etiam homo factus manens Deus, peccatum 
 nullum habuit unquam, nee sumsit carnem peccati, quamvis de matema 
 came peccati. Quod enim carnis inde suscepit, id profecto aut suscipiendum 
 mundavit, aut suscipiendo mundavit. Ideo virginem raatrem, non lege car- 
 nis peccati, id est, non concupiscent iae carnalis motu concipientem,sed pia 
 Hde sanctum geniien in se fieri proraerentem, quam eligeret creavit, de 
 qua crearetur elegit. Quanto magis ergo caro peccati baptizanda est propter 
 evadendum judicium, si baptizanda est caro sine peccato propter imitationis 
 exemplum ? De Peccatorum Mentis, et Remiasione, Lib. ii. Cap. 24. 
 
PHELi:.IINARY OBSERVATIONS. 37 
 
 was no such concupiscence in him ; and that he conse- 
 quently had a perfect holiness, resulting not from the suc- 
 cessful repression of all the motions of sin in the flesh, 
 but from the total absence of any such motions, would fill 
 a larger volume than I have any intention to A^Tite. One 
 passage more, however, I shall here quote. " For he who 
 lusteth after evil things, although, resisting his concupis- 
 cence, he perpetrate not the evil, fulfils what is wTitten, 
 ' Thou shalt not go after thy lusts ;' yet he does not ful- 
 fil what the law saith, 'Thou shalt not covet.' Christ, 
 therefore, who most perfectly fulfilled the law, had no 
 evil concupiscence ; because that discord between the 
 flesh and the SpMt, which works in the natm-e of men 
 from the sin of the fii'st man, he was altogether free from, 
 who was born of the Sphit and a vii'gin, and not by the 
 concupiscence of the flesh. But in us the flesh lusteth 
 after evil against the Spirit, so that it will perform the 
 evil, unless the Spu-it so lust against the flesh as to over- 
 come it. You say that the mind of Christ subdued all 
 his senses ; but that needs to be subdued which ofl'ers re- 
 sistance. Now the flesh of Christ had nothing imsub- 
 dued, nor did it in any thing resist the Spirit, so as to re- 
 quire to be subdued by it."i 
 
 1 Nam qui concupiscit mala, etsi resistens concupiscentiae sure non ea per- 
 petrat, implet quidem quod scriptom est, Post concupiscentias tuas non eas ; 
 sed non implet quod ait lex, Non concupisces. Christus ergo qui legem per- 
 fectissime implevit, nulla illicita concupivit ; quia discordiam camis et 
 Spiritus, quse in hominimi naturam ex prsvaricatione primi hominis vertit, 
 prorsus iUe non habuit, qui de Spiritu et virgine non per concupiscentiam 
 camis est natus. In nobis autem caro concupiscit contra spiritum illicita, 
 ita ut onmino perficiat, nisi et contra camem spiritus ita concupiscat, ut 
 vincat. Dicis mentem Christi omnium sensuum domitilcem : sed hoc do- 
 mandum est, resistit : caro autem Christi nDiU habehat indomitum, nee 
 in aliquo spiritui resistebat, ut ab illo eam domari oporteret. Operis imper- 
 fecti contra JuHanum, Lib. iv. cap. 57. 
 
 In the following page, he charges Julian with outrageous blasphemy in 
 equalling the flesh of Christ to the flesh of other men. Imraaniter, JuUane, 
 blasphemas, cosequans camem Christi ceterorum hominum carni; ncc 
 videns ilium renisse non in came peccati, sed in similitudine camis peccati. 
 
38 PREUMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The considerations suggested by Augustine will, I 
 think, satisfy the reader that the flesh of Christ, from the 
 peculiar mode of its generation, was not at all fallen and 
 sinful, like the flosh of all other men. The strong lan- 
 guage in which he addi'esses Julian, — and we shall by 
 and by see that this language is moderate to that which 
 he occasionally applies to him on the same subject, — 
 shows both how very fully he was convinced himself, that 
 the flesh of Christ was not fallen nor sinful, and also how 
 very Avarraly he felt upon this subject. 
 
 But farther^ while the generation of the flesh of Christ, 
 in a manner so very different from that in which all other 
 flesh is generated, necessarily leads to the conclusion 
 that, in some respects, it was different from other flesh ; 
 and that as it was generated without any of that concu- 
 piscence which enters into the generation of all other flesh, 
 the total absence of all concupiscence from his flesh, is the 
 very point in which the difference consists; it will be 
 recollected that his flesh was generated by the immediate 
 act of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, that if that which 
 was generated was fallen and sinful, then the Holy Ghost 
 was the doer of this sinful act, the generator of this sinful 
 thing. Now, without stopping at present to show that 
 this is nothing but an aggravated form of manichoeism, I 
 would remark that it is in dii'cct opposition to the very 
 letter of the text, which declares that what was generated 
 was a " holy thing." Now, what was generated was the 
 humanity of our Lord ; which is not called a person, which 
 it was not, but a thing. And the declaration refers not to 
 what would be the future character of that humanity, as 
 founded upon the acts of our Lord's life, but to his charac- 
 ter AS GENERATED. And whcu the Evangelist declares, 
 in language as express and unequivocal as can be used, 
 that he was generated hoh/^ the man who maintains, in 
 direct opposition to this, that he was generated /a//en and 
 sinful^ — that he naeded, or that he was capable of re- 
 generation, maintains a tenet to which, we can be 
 
PRELIMI^AEY OBSERA'ATIONS. 39 
 
 deemed chargeable with no severity, when we apply the 
 language addressed by Augustine to Julian, who, as I shall 
 afterwards have occasion to show, was guilty of no such 
 impiety. Besides, if he needed regeneration^ where was he 
 to find it ? The Holy Ghost is the regenerator. Where 
 he works, all is purity. But if he, in the first instance, 
 generated him fallen and sinful, — and perhaps I ought to 
 apologise even for so impious a supposition, — then I cannot 
 conceive either why he should, or how he could, after- 
 wards coiTCct the defect of his own work. That he was 
 generated holy, the text expressly declares ; but if he were 
 not, I would ask upon what principle he could be regener- 
 ated ? or what pm*pose could that regeneration possibly 
 answer ? If m his generation the Holy Ghost failed to ge- 
 nerate him holy, he failed either through lack of power, or 
 through lack of ^vill. K he failed through lack of power, 
 — supposing this to be possible — then he could not after- 
 wards regenerate him, as he could assuredly bring no ad- 
 ditional power to the work. And if he failed thi'ough lack 
 of will, then he, by his own immediate act, chose to pro- 
 duce a being who not only was capable of, but who actu- 
 ally needed, and received regeneration. 
 
 Moreover, the generation of Christ was mii'aculous. It 
 indeed did so far sm'pass all mu'acles, being the very event 
 for which all the previous arrangements of the world were 
 made, that it is perhaps by an accommodation of language 
 only that it can be called a mkacle at aU. But a mu-acle 
 surely could not be wi'ought by God, without having some 
 beneficial result in view ; and a result which could not be 
 produced by any other means. But if the flesh of Christ 
 was fallen and sinful, then was a mh-acle wrought to pro- 
 duce that which would have been, with unerring certain- 
 ty, produced without it. And if it be a point of faith of 
 vital importance to believe, that the flesh of Christ was 
 fallen sinful flesh, then did God work a mu*acle which was 
 not only useless, as the result woidd have been better pro- 
 duced without it, but directly pernicious. For it is plain 
 
40 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 that the miraculous conception naturally leads us to sup- 
 pose that the flesh of Christ was not fallen and sinful, and 
 thus throws a great degree of doubt and distrust over a 
 transaction, with regard to which, had the miracle been 
 spared us, no doubt whatever could possibly have existed. 
 Upon the whole, the verse in which the angel announces 
 the incarnation, does so very clearly show, that the flesh 
 of Christ did differ from the flesh of other men, and shoAvs 
 also so distinctly in what that difference consists, namely, 
 in that it was generated holy, as no other flesh ever was, 
 and consequently never needed, nor was ever susceptible of, 
 regeneration, that had I no other object in view than to 
 prove this, I should not deem it necessary to write another 
 line upon the subject. But a particular view of the work 
 which Christ did in the flesh, besides affording abundant 
 proofs that he was not fallen and sinful, will also lead us 
 to considerations which possess an interest and an useful- 
 ness altogether independent of this point, — a point, how- 
 ever, let it not be forgotten, than which not one of more 
 vital importance is to be found within the whole range of 
 Christian theology. I shall therefore proceed to take a 
 view of the different ofiices which Christ executes as our 
 Redeemer; and we shall then be able to determine 
 whether these are oflices which could be sustained by a 
 fallen sinful man. It is perhaps a matter of little conse- 
 quence, to which of these oiRces we first direct om' atten- 
 tion. In the application of the benefits of his oifices to us, 
 his sacerdotal office takes the precedence. We cannot be 
 enlightened by him as our Prophet, nor renovated by him 
 as our King, nor can any act of grace be exercised toward 
 us, till we be pardoned by him as our Priest. Justification 
 is the first step in the progress of the sinner's salvation. 
 Till this be granted to him, no grace and no virtue can be 
 conferred upon him. Did he possess any Christian grace, 
 previous to his justification, there might be some ground 
 for supposing that his justification was founded upon his 
 possession of these graces, and was the effect instead of 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 41 
 
 the cause of them. When a king exalts to high rank, and 
 employs in important offices, a man who was formerly in 
 a state of rebellion against him, it is evident that the 
 guilt of the rebellion must first have been forgiven. In 
 the same way when a man is possessed of any Christian 
 grace, we know that he could receive it from Christ alone ; 
 and that his possession of it is a proof that his sins have 
 been aU forgiven. The sacerdotal office of Christ, there- 
 fore, is the office the benefits of which are first applied to 
 us. Perhaps, however, it may be more natural to con- 
 sider his offices in the order of oui' perception of their 
 application, and thus to begin with his prophetic office. 
 For we must be enlightened by him as our Prophet, before 
 we can see our need of being pardoned by him as our 
 Priest, or sanctified by him as our King. 
 
i 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 It has been already observed tliat Christ was Prophet, 
 Priest, and King, from the beginning. This is abundantly 
 certain from the fact that Abel and other patriarchs were 
 saved, that is, they were pardoned, enlightened, and 
 sanctified. But this they could not be, excepting by the 
 Mediator in the exercise of all his offices. There were 
 many prophets before the incarnation of our Lord ; but if 
 ever there was a true prophet who did not derive his 
 commission fi'om him alone, then so far his work of 
 mediation ceased, and our salvation was wrought out by 
 another. But if there never was any other Saviour than 
 Christ, then there never was any other prophet than he ; 
 and the prophets that preceded his coming were merely 
 liis delegates, commissioned by him, and totally unable 
 either to abridge or to enlarge the message given to them. 
 The duty of Christ, as our Prophet, is to reveal to us the 
 Father, as he saith, "Neither knoweth any man the 
 Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
 will reveal him ;" and again it is said, " No man hath 
 seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is 
 in the bosom of the Fatlier, he hath declared him." Now, 
 how did Christ reveal to us the Father? Not by any 
 set proofs of his existence, nor by any abstract discussions 
 upon his nature or character, nor by didactic discourses, 
 but by action ; a mode of instruction as level to the 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 43 
 
 compreliension of the meanest capacity, as to that of the 
 loftiest ; as intelligible to the peasant as to the philosopher. 
 He taught us, for example, that God is Holy. But how 
 did he do this? Not by any set dissertations on his 
 holiness, but by the unceasmg and spotless holiness of his 
 0"\^Ti conduct. Never were allurements more enticing 
 than those by which he was sometimes solicited, and 
 never were trials so severe as those to which he was 
 commonly exposed, and never were testimonies so nume- 
 rous, unequivocal, and decisive, as those by which it is 
 proved that by no allurement was he ever enticed, by no 
 trial was he ever pressed into a deviation, or into any 
 thing approaching a wish to deviate, from the path of 
 duty. Not only could he himself challenge his bitterest 
 foes to convince him of sin, but the testimony of his friends 
 and foes alike concurs to assure us that he "did no sin," 
 and that in his mouth no guile was found. In the same 
 manner he teaches us that God is Good, not by regular 
 proofs of this in his discourses, but by the constant 
 exhibition of it in his practice. AVhen the infii-m and 
 the distressed applied to him, the application was never 
 made in vain. He never said to the applicant, you are 
 of too abandoned a character for notice, and richly 
 deserve all the miseries that you endm-e ; or, yom* disease 
 is of too desperate a natm-e, or of too long standing, to 
 admit of relief. No, but his language was, " If thou canst 
 believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." 
 And while he was literally fulfilling the prediction which 
 thus spoke of the blessings of his coming, — " then the eyes 
 of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall 
 be unstopped ; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, 
 and the tongue of the dumb shall sing ;" he was, in so 
 doing, giving proof of his power and his readiness to give 
 a far higher accomplishment to this happy prediction, 
 by healing the spiritual diseases, of which those of the 
 body are only feeble, however painftil, symptoms. And 
 when he went about doing good, and healuig all manner 
 
44 CHRIST OUR PROrHET. 
 
 of diseases, we are expressly taught that the design of his 
 so doing, was to lead men to aj^ply to him for blessings of 
 a higher order, and to convince them of his power and his 
 readiness to confer these blessings. Thus when the scribes 
 murmured at hearing him say to the man who was sick of 
 the palsy, " Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins be forgiven 
 thee," he asked them, " Whether is it easier to say, Thy 
 sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise and walk ?" very 
 plainly intimating that he who had the power and the will 
 to do the one, had no less the power and the will to do the 
 other, a truth which he proceeded still more directly to 
 teach, saying, — "But that ye may know that the Son of 
 man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to 
 the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto 
 thine house." Here ability to command the sick man to 
 arise and walk is, by our Lord himself, adduced as a 
 convincing proof of his power to forgive sin. Indeed, as 
 disease is just the effect of sin, nothing can well be clearer 
 than that he who can, by the word of authority, heal the 
 one, can also forgive the other. 
 
 Now, he who exhibited this imceasing holiness, and this 
 unlimited goodness, was God with us, God manifest in the 
 flesh. And such as he was in the world, even such is 
 (jod. If we wish to know the character of God, we shall 
 iind it revealed there, where the life of Jesus is recorded. 
 Hence the following most distinct language is used by om* 
 Lord himself on this subject : " If ye had known me, ye 
 should have known my Father also : and from henceforth 
 ye know him, and have seen him." Philip saith unto 
 him, " Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us, 
 Jesus saith unto him. Have I been so long time with you, 
 and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath 
 seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, 
 Show us the Father?" Hence, too, when we are called 
 upon to combat the fears that take possession of the 
 iiwakened soul, and the arguments which ignorance and 
 jiubelief raise up, in the heart of the convinced sinner, 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 45 
 
 against faith and hope, we find the record of oiir Saviour's 
 life one of the best and most eflScient grounds on which 
 they may be combated. We say with powerful effect to 
 the sinner, nnder these circumstances, He, whose good- 
 ness was so unlimited, was God manifested in the flesh, 
 and manifested there for this very purpose, that we might 
 see with our own eyes, and have the most perfect know- 
 ledge of the gi'acious dispositions of God toward us. If 
 you say that you admit the general proposition, that there 
 is mercy with God for sinners, but dare not specifically 
 apply the general proposition to yom- own individual case, 
 and hope that there is mercy for you^ then we say that 
 you are negativing not only his manifold and gi-acious de- 
 clarations, whereby he encourages the weaiy and heavy 
 laden to come to him, that they may find peace and rest : 
 but you are negativing the import of the lesson taught by 
 the whole com'se of his conduct. For, from that exercise 
 of inconceivable goodness which he manifested when, 
 leaving the glory which he had with the Father before 
 the world began, he condescended to become obnoxious 
 to every suffering which human natm'e knows, in that flesh 
 which he took into personal union with himself, down to 
 that other equally inconceivable exercise of goodness which 
 he manifested, when he bowed his head and gave up the 
 ghost, giving his own life for that of a lost world, what 
 one act in the whole course of his earthly existence is not 
 in most perfect accordance with the gi-ace and the good- 
 ness, which distinguished alike its commencement and its 
 close ? What wretch ever applied to him, and was sent 
 away unrelieved ? Whom did he ever ask, by what right, 
 or on the ground of what merit, they laid claim to his in- 
 terposition in their favour ? ^Yhom did he ever reproach 
 with the guilt that had brought their miseries upon them ? 
 If he healed the sick, and raised the dead, if out of one he 
 castsevendevils, and dispossessed another of a whole legion, 
 it was for the very purpose of convincing you, that there 
 is no limit either to his power or his willingness to heal 
 
46 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 3'our spmtual sickness, to quicken yon from your death in 
 sin. You have the same access to him noTV, that the 
 miserable had when he was on earth. What he was then, 
 he \s now. He asks no questions as to the past. He asks 
 not if you be laden with the sins of a few days, or with 
 the sins of many years. He asks not if your crimes be few 
 or many, slight or aggi'avated. They all lie equally 
 within the compass of his power ; and his only question 
 is, " Wilt thou be^made whole?" If, for a moment, he re- 
 fused the woman of S}Tophenicia, it was only to teach you 
 the happy effect of persevering and importunate prayer. 
 If he refused her for a moment, it was only the more em- 
 phatically to teach this truth, that he will never refuse, — 
 that whosoever cometh unto him shall not be denied. 
 
 And if the life of Clirist was in reality a living manifes- 
 tation of all the perfections of God, and if we know God, 
 because God has verily dwelt in the flesh amongst us, 
 then it is obvious, not merely that the Son, who became 
 our Prophet, to reveal unto us the Father, must of neces- 
 sity become flesh, since in no other way that we know 
 could he make that revelation ; but it is not less obviously 
 necessary, that the flesh which he took should be perfectly 
 holy, else it is not conceivable how his life could afford us 
 any exhibition of the holiness of God. He might have 
 showed to us the holiness of a man, such as Abraham or 
 Moses, carried to a higher degree of perfection, even to the 
 extent of avoiding all actual transgression of the law of 
 God. But if his flesh was really shiful, if it ever felt the 
 slightest propensity or inclination to sin, — an inclination 
 which required to be repressed, in order to prevent it 
 from proceeding to actual guilt, then this propensity was 
 itself criminal, — it was just that carnal concupiscence, 
 that lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, which we de- 
 rive from the fall, and which eff'ectually disqualified him 
 in whom it dwelt fi'om giving any practical revelation of 
 the divine holiness in his life. He was exactly in the 
 situation of other fallen men ; he might be a very bright 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 47 
 
 monument of divine grace ; but the revealer of God, — the 
 author of the grace of illumination, he could no more be, 
 than any other fallen and regenerated man. Of that grace 
 lie might have received a richer abundance than any other 
 fallen man ever received ; but he stood in exactly the 
 same predicament as they did, and, therefore, though per- 
 haps we cannot reasonably hope to receive quite as large 
 a measure of that wisdom which maketh wise imto salva- 
 tion, from Abraham, " the friend of God," or from Aaron, 
 the " saint of the Lord," or from Paul, " the apostle of the 
 Gentiles," as from him in whom the work of regeneration 
 had a more perfect operation than it had in them ; yet 
 assuredly the same principle that authorizes us to expect 
 that grace fi'om one fallen and regenerated man, author- 
 izes|us to expect the same grace, though perhaps in a 
 somewhat inferior degree, fi'om any other fallen and regen- 
 erated man. And this is not the only point on which the 
 doctrine of our Lord's fallen humanity gives the most di- 
 rect and decisive sanction to the worship of the Saints : the 
 sanction becomes still stronger and more decisive, when we 
 reflect, that though we may probably expect a more abun- 
 dant measure of wisdom from Christ, than fi'om any other 
 fallen and regenerated man, yet we may unquestionably 
 expect the highest measure of that wisdom, when we seek 
 it both fi'om him, and also from all other fallen and re- 
 generated men. In him, indeed, that concupiscence of 
 the flesh, which characterizes fallen man, might be kept 
 as " a spring shut up, and a fountain sealed," from which 
 no emanation of actual guilt was ever permitted to pro- 
 ceed. The motions of sin in the flesh might in him be so 
 powerftilly and successfully repressed, that it might be 
 truly said of him in whom these motions wrought, that he 
 " did no sin ;" but with what truth it could be said of him, 
 whose whole life was an unceasing, however successful, 
 struggle against the will of the flesh, compelling " the 
 flesh against its will," into however perfect a harmony 
 with the will of God, that he " knew no sin," is to me alto- 
 
48 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 gether incomprehensible. If the concupiscence of the 
 flesh existed in him at all, however successfully subdued, 
 it existed as the germ of all actual transgression, — as con- 
 tainiug in it the elements of all human guilt, — as the ob- 
 ject of just wrath, and deserved punishment, — as that 
 which can be rendered fit for communion with God, only 
 through that shedding of blood, without which there can 
 be no remission, and, consequently, totally depriving him 
 in whom it existed of all claim to the title, and of all 
 power to accomplish the purposes, of a " Lamb without 
 blemish, and without spot." 
 
 But in order to see all the fulness with which he dis- 
 charged the duties resulting from his prophetic character, 
 and leara fi'om his discharge of them all the knowledge 
 which it is fitted and intended to convey, we must look, 
 not merely to his life, but still more especially to his 
 death. He was a Prophet on the cross, as well as " a 
 Priest on the throne," and not the less a King on both. 
 And whatever knowledge of the character of God we de- 
 rive from the life of Christ, is both carried out to a greater 
 extent, and taught with a more impressive emphasis, by 
 his death. By his life we are taught that God is good, 
 and the sinner is powerfully encouraged to come to him 
 for pardon and for peace. But it was on the cross that he 
 gave the highest exhibition of the Divine goodness. To 
 all his creatures the goodness of God was known, but 
 to none of them was the infinite and inconceivable extent 
 of that goodness known till Christ died on the cross. 
 When man fell, had God freely forgiven the rebel, and 
 by a word restored him to perfect purity, and placed him 
 in a state of impeccable stability, this would have been an 
 act of unexampled goodness. Still, however, the good- 
 ness which forgave the rebel, supposing it possible to for- 
 give him by a mere act of grace, might very possibly not 
 be infinite. As such an act, however, could by no possi- 
 bility be performed, without throwing doubt on all the 
 Divine perfections, and producing the most disastrous 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 49 
 
 consequences throughout the universe, the next and only 
 method which created wisdom could have suggested, for 
 the treatment of the rebels, would be, to give up the 
 fallen pair to him to whose suggestions they had listened, 
 in opposition to the command of God ; to cut off the 
 stream of iniquity by diying up its som'ce, and people the 
 world anew with less feeble creatm'es. This also, how- 
 ever, would have left an indelible reflection on the wisdom 
 and the power of God, for having made at all, creatm-es 
 whom he found it necessary to dispose of in such a man- 
 ner. But when they heard of the Incarnation, when they 
 heard that the Eternal Word, who spoke the world into 
 being, was himself to be made flesh, and in the weakness 
 of flesh was to go forth into that world of which Satan 
 had become the god, and to meet him in his own domain, 
 and to contend with him and all his powers on his owti 
 ground, and by his own deeds, and his own sufferings, to 
 take away the captives of the mighty, and to redeem the 
 prey of the terrible, — and when they saw all this actually 
 accomplished, then had they a view of the goodness of 
 God, far beyond aught that they could possibly have had 
 before. When they saw God willing to redeem fi'om their 
 captivity, and to ransom from destruction, creatures whose 
 utter and final perdition could not have a^ected, in the slight- 
 est degree, his happiness or glory, Avith no less a price than 
 the blood of his own well-beloved Son, it is no matter of 
 surprise that they, delighted to be thus assured, not only 
 that God is good, but that his goodness is absolutely infinite, 
 should, as well as the redeemed from among men, celebrate 
 the death of Christ, in the most exalted strains of gratitude 
 and adoration, as we are assured by John in the Revela- 
 tion, that they do, when he says, " And I beheld, and I 
 heard the voice of many angels round about the thi'one, 
 and the beasts, and the elders ; and the number of them 
 was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of 
 thousands ; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the 
 Lamb that \^'as slain to receive power, and riches, and 
 
 c 
 
50 ClIHIST OIK I'EOPUET, 
 
 wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bless- 
 ing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
 earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
 and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and 
 honour, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon 
 the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever."^ And 
 Avell might the same writer, when contemplating the 
 goodness of God, as it is set forth in the unspeakable 
 value of the price by which he purchased our safety, thus 
 speak of it, "In this was manifested the love of God to- 
 wards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son 
 into the world, that we might live through him. Herein 
 is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."^ The 
 love of God is indeed thus manifested to be something, 
 the extent of which no language may describe, and no 
 heart may conceive : and the redeemed of the Lord, while 
 throughout eternity his love flows forth to them, in an 
 ever-increasing weight of glory and blessedness, will feel 
 no misgivings, lest he who thus blesseth them should grow 
 weary in the exercise of his love, and should come to a 
 limit beyond which they shall not go in its enjoyment, for 
 they can ever look back to the cross of Christ, where the 
 death of our Prophet gave an inefiaceable and irrefragable 
 demonstration that the love of God is truly boundless and 
 exhaustless, and passing all understanding. 
 
 Now, is it possible that the life of Christ, clear, and 
 distinct, and decisive as are the manifestations of the love 
 and goodness of God which it aftbrds, could have mani- 
 fested that love and goodness to as great an extent, or 
 have given so impressive and indubitable a demonstra- 
 tion of them, as that which we derive from his death ? 
 Every reader will readily answer, No. It was through 
 his whole life, but still more especially and emphatically 
 ill liis death, that our great Prophet revealed unto us the 
 
 ' Hev. V. 11. -' 1 Jubn iv. 9. 
 
CHRIST OUK PROPHET. 51 
 
 Father. Then it follows that he died as a Prophet, not 
 less than as a Priest ; or, in other words, it was fi'om his 
 death as a sacrifice to expiate our sins, that we derive the 
 highest instruction, which, as our Prophet, he came to 
 teach us. Had God sent his Son merely to instruct us by 
 his doctrine, this would have been a great proof of love ^ 
 but it might still have been supposed that that love was 
 limited, that though he gave him to be our instructor, yet 
 he would not give him up to suffering for our sakes. But 
 when Christ actually died, then was the love of God proved 
 to be truly infinite ; " For gi-eater love hath no man than 
 this, that he should lay down his life for his friends." But 
 Christ had greater love than this, for he laid down his life 
 even for strangers and enemies. But what mighty proof 
 of love was this, if Christ was really a fallen sinful man ? 
 In that case his death could be of no avail to us, and could 
 afford us no proof that the love of God is infinite. But it 
 was essentially necessary on his own account, for if he were 
 fallen, he needed regeneration, having been generated by 
 the Holy Ghost, a sinful thing ; and regeneration can be 
 perfected only through the medium of death. ^ And if he 
 died to perfect his own regeneration, then his death is no 
 more to us than the death of any other fallen, sinful, but 
 regenerated man ; nor can I see how the love of God to- 
 ward us is displayed in the one case more than in the 
 other. 
 
 But supposing that the death of Christ was not at all 
 necessary on his own account, but was endiu-ed solely for 
 our sakes, then the demonstration of the love of God which 
 
 1 This position will be disputed by those who have adopted the Pelagian 
 tenet, that sinless perfection is attainable in this life. To me the fact appears 
 just as little liable to dispute, as any other fact that falls under our daUy ob- 
 servation. While we are in the flesh, the flesh will lust against the Spirit ; and 
 the concupiscence of foe flesh is sin. I cannot be expected, however, in pro- 
 secuting one controversy, to plunge myself into another. They who wish to 
 enter upon the question, will find it amply and ably discussed by Augustine, 
 in his -writings aarainst the Pelagians, especially in his treatises — De Peccato- 
 rum Meiitis et Remissione, De Lite. a et Spiiihx, and De Perfectione Justiti<B 
 Hominis. 
 
52 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 it aflfoids becomes much more distinct aud impressive, 
 when viewed in connection with that demonstration of the 
 exceedingly hateful and malignant nature of sin, which was 
 given by the same event. If the evil of sin be small, then 
 the love that forgives it is not gTcat, and, therefore, the 
 death of Chiist w^ould not be a proof of the infinite love of 
 (xod, unless it w^ere also a proof of the infinite evil of sin. 
 That the evil of sin is infinite is easily proved by abstract 
 reasoning ; for its dh-ect tendency is to detlu'one God, and 
 thus destroy the universe. But God does not teach us 
 truths of importance, by abstract reasonmgs which require 
 close thinking to apprehend, but by practical demonstra- 
 tions which are alike intelligible to all. And the death of 
 Christ is the practical illustration, not only that sin is evil, 
 but that its evil is infinite. When sin was first introduced 
 into the dominions of God, some demonstration of its evil 
 was given in the punishment jnflicted on the ofl'enders. 
 That demonstration, however, was comparatively trifling. 
 In them it was not immediately punished to the full ex- 
 tent of its demerit, nor, consequently, to the full extent of 
 its evil shown. And had these first ofl'enders been at once 
 and fi-eely forgiven, could this by any possibility have been 
 done, it would have afforded a comparatively trifling ma- 
 nifestation of the grace of God. Before that grace could 
 be seen in all its glory, sin must first be seen in all its ma- 
 lignity. And this could not be seen merely in the fall of 
 angels. One of its most awful characteristics then- fall 
 could not show. I refer to its generative nature, — its 
 capability of being propagated from race to race through 
 successive generations. Whatever number of angels there 
 were who kept not their fii'st state, each fell by his own 
 personal act ; and to however many other sins that first 
 sin might give rise in the individual, this was only a proof 
 that shi once admitted into the heart would propagate it- 
 self there ; but could give no idea of another fact, which 
 far more fearfully demonstrates the malignity of sin, — 
 namely, that sin might be committed under such circum- 
 
CHRtST OUR PROPHET. 63 
 
 Stances, as would render it just in God to cause the poison 
 of that sin to pass from the actual transgi'essor to unnum- 
 bered millions of other responsible creatures, connected in 
 a particular manner with the transgi-essor, so as to involve 
 them all in his guilt and in his doom. Till man fell, and 
 the result of his fall was seen, it could not be known that 
 such was the malignitv of sin, that one sin of one man was 
 sufficient to diffuse guilt and misery through all genera- 
 tions of men. One sin thus committed, under circum- 
 stances which afforded it an opportunity for producmg all 
 its natural and proper effects, gave a much more impres- 
 sive view of its native malignity than the fall of angels 
 could possibly do. Many proofs of the hatefulness of sin 
 have been given, such as the sweeping away of a guilty 
 world by the flood, — the sudden destruction of " the cities 
 of the plain," — the devotion of the Amorites to extermina- 
 tion, when the measm-e of their iniquities was full. And 
 all the madness, and folly, and guilt, and misery, that 
 abound on earth, and every sin, and every son-ow, of every 
 indi\idual, when viewed, as it ought always to be, in con- 
 nection with the original som'ce whence it sprung, are all 
 affecting and convincmg proofs — proofs coming home to 
 the bosom of every man who is capable of feeling — how 
 evil a thing and bitter sin is ; while, at the same time, 
 they are proving that the " evil figment" of man's heart, 
 the " root of bitterness," is at this day as vigorous, and 
 fresh, and flourishing, and fruitful, as it was at the begin- 
 ning ; and while they are showing how one sin of one man, 
 when committed under cu'cumstances favourable to the de- 
 velopment of its proper effects, is capable of resulting in 
 the actual guilt and temporal sufferings of all, and in the 
 final condemnation of many. 
 
 And when this demonstration of the malignity of sin has 
 been for ages exhibited to the examination of men and of 
 angels, when we have seen one sin spreading its contami- 
 nation over a whole world, and over all generations of 
 men, and showing its poison in the production of a guilt 
 
54 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 and a misery that baffle all calculation and all conception^ 
 is this demonstration, ovenvhelming though it be, the 
 most painful, and the most awful, exhibition of the " ex- 
 ceeding sinfulness of sin," which God hath given to angels 
 and to men ? No. Notwithstanding this demonstration, 
 the evil of sin, inconceivable as it is shown to be, might 
 yet have a limit, and its misery might have an end. 
 Therefore, a demonstration more striking still, and one 
 which may prove that the evil of sin is truly and properly 
 infinite, was wanted ; lest men, ever apt to imderv-alue 
 that evil, should come to think that the sufferings of life, 
 and the pangs of death, fonn a sufficient expiation for it. 
 The only begotten Son of God is sent forth to teach us this, 
 among other things, that the holiness of God is something 
 far beyond all conception, — that his aversion to sin is 
 wholly unalterable, — and that, in short, there is a hateful- 
 ness in sin, w^hich we can no more comprehend than we 
 can comprehend the perfections of God. We have seen 
 the effects of one sin, and these are disastrous beyond all 
 calculation. But the death of our Divine Prophet affords 
 a demonstration even beyond this, else it would not have 
 been given. When angels saw him, whom they were ac- 
 customed to worship, go forth into the world " in the 
 likeness of sinfid flesh," — when they saw him take upon 
 himself the penalty due to the sins of a lost world, — when 
 they saw him undertake to pay a debt of such incalculable 
 magnitude, they would be ready to say, ' Surely it is suffi- 
 cient that he has had goodness enough to undertake for 
 these fallen creatures ! The debt w ill not be in reality ex- 
 acted ; the penalty will not be unsparingly inflicted. The 
 sins which could not be forgiven to the creature will be 
 freely forgiven to the only begotten and well-beloved Son, 
 when he has taken them upon himself. A little may be 
 exacted, in order to prove the reality of his suretyship ; a 
 little may be inflicted, in order to prove the reality of his 
 substitution ; but surely the whole will never be either re- 
 quired or inflicted. The transgressions of the law, which 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 00 
 
 could not be forgiven to the actually guilty creatui'e, may 
 well be forgiven, when they become, by imputation, the 
 transgressions of him who is above the law. He will 
 spare the Son.' But no, not one pang clue to our guilt 
 was withheld, not one drop of gall which guilt had mingled 
 in our cup, was abstracted fi*om his. " The Lord hath laid 
 on him the iniquity of us all ;" and he is able to forgive 
 every sin, because there is no sin, the bitterness resulting 
 from which he did not feel to the full. And this is what 
 constitutes his death, so a^^l and solemn, and impressive 
 a demonstration, beyond all other demonstrations, of the 
 infinite and inconceivable holiness of God, and of the un- 
 speakable hateftdness of sin, that though he who took our 
 iniquities upon himself was the well-beloved Son, yet not 
 one pang due to guilt was spared him. 
 
 But what becomes of this demonstration, if Christ was 
 fallen and sinfid ? His death was then no greater a demon- 
 stration of the evil of sin than our own. He took om' sins 
 upon him, and in consequence of the imputation of them, 
 even though he was the well-beloved Son, he was not for- 
 given, but died for them. But if this assumption of our 
 sins was not the sole gi'ound of his death, if he was bound 
 to die on some other ground besides the imputation of our 
 sins, then the doctrine of imputation itself begins to be 
 doubtful ; for we have it only declared in words, but not 
 exhibited in clear and unequivocal action : and, moreover, 
 it is in vain to look to the cross of Christ for the most de- 
 cisive and impressive proof that was ever given of the in- 
 finite holiness of God, and hatefuluess of sin ; for he was 
 only in the situation of an infant, which is fallen and sin- 
 ful, but guiltless of actual transgression. From the death 
 of such an infant, we learn quite as much of the holiness 
 of God, and the evU of sin, as we learn from the cross of 
 Christ, if he was fallen and sinful. Under the sanction of 
 such a principle, it certainly cannot be matter of sui-prise, 
 if the necessity of an atonement should be denied, and sin 
 should be considered as something sufficiently slight, to be 
 
66 CURIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 abundantly expiated by our own sufferings and death. 
 But if we reject the tenet that Christ was fallen and sinful, 
 and died because he was so, then does his cross afford such 
 a fearful proof of the evil of sin, as the universe never saw 
 before, nor can ever see again. And that proof of the sin- 
 fulness of sin involves in it also a new and most impres- 
 sive illustration of the goodness and grace of God, proving 
 it to be truly infinite. For if such be the hatefulness of 
 sin, that even when the Son took our sins upon him, not 
 one pang due to them was spared him, then we not only 
 say, hoAv gi*eat is the goodness of God in giving up his 
 Son to death for the sake of any creatures, however ex- 
 alted, and however pure ! but we also say, how inconceiv- 
 ably gi'cat is his goodness, in giving up his Son to death 
 for the sake of creatures, so deeply involved in all the pol- 
 lutions of that abominable thing which God so unalterably 
 hates ! Well might the apostle say, " For scarcely for a 
 righteous man will one die ; yet peradventure for a good 
 man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his 
 love toward us, in that, wiiile we were yet sinners, Christ 
 died for us." ^ And well might he also say, as he does in 
 the same chapter, " Where sin abounded, grace did much 
 more abound." For if such be the malignity of sin, that 
 one sin of one man could involve the whole human race in 
 guilt and condemnation, — nay, could bring the Son of God 
 to the cross, — how great is that grace of God, which for- 
 gives, not one sin of one man, but innumerable sins of in- 
 numerable men ! 
 
 Upon this point, then, we are irresistibly led to the con- 
 clusion, that our Divine Prophet was not fallen or sinful. 
 A demonstration of the same thing might be drawn from a 
 similar course of remarks on the truth and justice of God. 
 It is in the cross of Christ that we see these perfections 
 operating, under circumstances which prove them to be in- 
 finite. But if Christ was fallen and sinful, this proof alto- 
 
 ' Romans v. 7. 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 67 
 
 gether fails. I shall only farther show, however, under 
 this head, how the death of Christ proves the Immutability 
 of God, as it is most necessary that we should be well 
 assured of this. Of the existence of this perfection the 
 history of the world affords many striking illustrations. 
 Many things occmTed to induce God, if change with hmi 
 had been possible, to change his pui-pose of gi-ace and 
 mercy to a fallen world. The history of the antediluvian 
 ages shows us men, not, as might have been expected, 
 mourning over the dismal consequences of the fall, and 
 walking in all the humility of deep penitence before the 
 God whom they had offended, and cherishing Tvdth feelings 
 of heartfelt gratitude the happy hopes which he had graci- 
 ously held out to them ; but, on the contrary, devoted to 
 every species of wickedness, and caiTying their guilt to 
 such an extent as to render it necessary to sweep away the 
 whole race. Yet, even in the infliction of this tenible 
 judgment, God in the midst of wrath remembered mercy, 
 and preserved one family, that through them the promise 
 that the woman's seed should bruise the serpent's head 
 might be fulfilled, and the immutability of his pui-pose 
 might be made manifest. 
 
 Again, when Israel was chosen, that to that nation might 
 be committed the " oracles of God," and that they might 
 be placed under a dispensation preparatory to the coming 
 of the promised Messiah, how constantly did they prove 
 themselves to be truly a stiff-necked and rebellious people ! 
 Xot all the wonders that they saw in Eg^^^t, at the Red 
 Sea, and in the wilderness, — not their ovni constant expe- 
 rience of the happiness of obedience, and of the miserable 
 consequences of rebellion, — in short, nothing could wean 
 them fi'om their idolatries. How often had God to give 
 them up into the hands of their enemies ! But nothing could 
 induce him to cast them off. Their unbelief could not make 
 his faithfulness of none effect. " I am Jehovah ; I change 
 not ; therefore, the sons of Jacob are not consumed." 
 Notwithstanding all their provocations, therefore, they 
 
 c2 
 
58 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 were still preserved till the promise was fulfilled, and the 
 " Consolation of Israel" sent. And even now that, for 
 their rejection of the Messiah, they have been, for many 
 ages, sifted like wheat among- all nations, and have become 
 a byword and a reproach among all people, the same im- 
 mutability which performed foraier promises will yet fulfil 
 that which teaches us to hope that the veil shall yet be 
 taken away from the hearts of that people, when Israel 
 shall turn unto the Lord and be saved. 
 
 That God persevered in the accomplishment of apui-pose 
 which every thing in the history of the world in general, 
 and of his ovm chosen people in particular, strongly pro- 
 voked him to abandon, is a gi*eat and impressive proof of 
 his immutability. But a still greater was wanted ; for 
 though nothing in the history of the world could produce 
 any change in him, yet that does not prove that change 
 Avith him is impossible. But a complete proof of the utter 
 impossibility of change in him is given in the death of 
 Christ. When all om- iniquities were laid upon him, and 
 the penalty of them all was exacted of him, will not God, in 
 such a case as this, relax a little of the firmness of his pur- 
 pose, and manifest some slight disposition to change ? 
 When he beholds the agonies that rend the spotless soul of 
 Jesus with unutterable anguish ; when he hears his strong 
 cryings, and sees his tears, and the shrinking and shudder- 
 ing of nature, not at the thought of death, but of that hour 
 and power of darkness, by which death was preceded, 
 when the malice of men, and the power of Satan, and the 
 curse of a broken law, were all let loose against him, will 
 not God, under such circumstances as these, relent in 
 favour of his well-beloved Son ? AVill he not interfere to 
 confound the malice of men, to wither up the power of 
 Satan, and to abate the demands of tlie law ? No. He 
 will not change even non\ and thus he gives the most de- 
 cisive proof that never, on any occasion, is it possible for 
 him to change. Even when the pains of hell got hold of 
 his well-beloved Son, and the son'ows of death encom- 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 59 
 
 passed him around, and he found trouble and soitow, such 
 as mortal man may never adequately conceive, God mani- 
 fested no variableness, and no shadow of turning. If he 
 had, what would have been the consequence ? A God 
 capable of change, and governing by a law which had been 
 violated, without its demands being fully satisfied, and its 
 penalty fully inflicted, would have been the object present- 
 ed to the view of angels ; an object which it is obvious 
 they never could have contemplated without terror and 
 alai-m. The love of an earthly parent to a child is but a 
 faint shadow of that love with which the Father regards 
 his Son in whom his soul delighted. And never was im- 
 mutability put to such an awful test, as when the accom- 
 plishment of his purpose, with regard to a guilty and 
 polluted race, requu'ed him to give up this Son to sufferings 
 of the most fearful description ; and never was result so 
 glorious, and never could conviction, by any possibility, 
 be deeper than that which was impressed upon the hosts 
 of heaven, that m God they could never henceforth di'ead 
 any change. And the powers of darkness know, that God, 
 who withdrew not his well-beloved Son from one pang 
 that the imputed guilt of an apostate world entitled them 
 to inflict upon him, until he was enabled to say, "It is 
 finished," is a God who cannot, by any possibility, change. 
 And the believer in Jesus knows, that the God who gave 
 up his Son to die for him is a God who can never change ; 
 and he rejoices to know, that if God hath chosen him to sal- 
 vation, through sanctification of the Spu'it, and belief of the 
 truth, there is then nothing in heaven above, or in hell be- 
 neath, that can separate him from the love of God which is 
 in Cbrist Jesus. And let the thoughtless, heedless, careless 
 sinner know, that God can never change ; that his threaten- 
 ings are as unalterable as his promises. He is satisfying 
 himself, it may be, with some vague, imdefined, and un- 
 founded reliance upon the uncovenanted mercies of God ; 
 and soothing away the alarms of a guilty conscience by 
 saying, — God is merciful. And merciful he is, — beyond 
 
60 CHRIST OUR rKOniET. 
 
 what heart can conceive, but merciful to tliose only who 
 seek his mercy in the appointed way. The sinner thinks, 
 perhaps, that a few prayers and tears, wrung from him at 
 the last trying hour, may prevail on a being so merciful to 
 save him from the fearful and irreversible doom denounced 
 against sinners. But look to the cross of Christ. Had 
 change with God been possible, under any circumstances, 
 would he not have changed the sentence which declares 
 that " The wages of sin is death," when it was his own 
 well-beloved Son upon whom that death was to be inflict- 
 ed, and inflicted with every circumstance of unmitigated 
 agony ? And if he spared not his own Son, dare you ven- 
 ture to hope that he will spare you, as if he loved you 
 better than he loved him ? He abated not one iota of the 
 demands of the law in the case of Christ, and will he abate 
 its demands for you ? He forgave not imputed sin in 
 Christ, and will he forgive actual guilt in you ? With un- 
 changing and unaltering purpose, he said of him, '' Awake, 
 O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that 
 is my fellow," and can you hope that the sword which was 
 made so sharp to him shall be sheathed for you ? You 
 hope for that which the cross of Christ proclaims to be an 
 impossibility. Away, then, with the delusive, the destruc- 
 tive hope, and flee to him in whom alone safety is to be 
 found. 
 
 We know, then, that God is absolutely incapable of 
 change. It is most essential for our welfare to know 
 this. We can draw proofs of it from various sources, but 
 complete demonstration of it. is aftbrded by the cross of 
 Christ alone. But if Christ was fallen and sinful, then the 
 demonstration entirely fails. Nor does the remark apply 
 to the attribute of Immutability alone. We can produce 
 the most uTCsistible proof of every particular in this proposi- 
 tion, — " God is a Spirit, inflnite, eternal, and unchangeable, 
 in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, 
 and truth." But remove the cross of Christ, from which 
 alone the proof is derived, and we are again plunged into 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 61 
 
 all tlie uncertainty of those speculations upon the being 
 and attributes of God, the only effect of which has been to 
 show, that unaided reason could never draw any satisfac- 
 tory conclusion upon the subject, from the kingdoms either 
 of nature or of providence, — that as the sun can be dis- 
 covered only by his own light, so God can be known only 
 by his own revelation. Make the cross of Christ the cross 
 of a fallen sinful man, and the same effect is produced. If 
 the death of such a man could teach us anything as to the 
 being and attributes of God, then surely the instruction 
 must be considered as more than sufficiently given, in the 
 death of all generations of men. Yet who that ever spe- 
 culated on the subject, ever drew from the fact, that fallen 
 man is mortal, the most resistless proof, and the most glo- 
 rious illustration, of the Divine perfections? Yet either 
 this fact does afford such proof and illustration, or the 
 death of Christ, supposing him to have been fallen and sin- 
 ful, affords it not. And if the death of Chrisf furnish not 
 that proof and Illustration, I repeat that we are yet des- 
 titute of them ; and the gospel, much and justly as we are 
 accustomed to boast of the information which it has com- 
 municated to us, has left us where it found us, in a state 
 of total uncertainty with regard to the fundamental article 
 of religion. Take away the cross of Christ, or make it the 
 cross of a fallen sinful man, and God is yet unrevealed ; 
 we cannot even prove his existence, and still less can we 
 speak with any degree of certainty as to his character. 
 
 The instructions which our Saviom* delivered orally to 
 his disciples, comprise the very smallest portion of what 
 he did as our Prophet. These instructions could easily 
 have been delivered — as to us in point of fact they are de- 
 livered — by inspired men. To deliver these instructions, 
 therefore, could not be the object of his incarnation. 
 Neither could his active obedience possibly manifest the 
 whole of the Divine perfections, or the infinity of any of 
 them, and, consequently, his active obedience could not 
 form a complete revelation of God. His death was neces- 
 
62 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 sary for this puri^ose. But if his death was merely the 
 death of a fallen and sinful, but regenerated man, then the 
 most instructive, the most glorious and impressive display 
 of the Divine perfections which the universe ever saw, or 
 can ever see, dwindles into one of the most ordinary, 
 every-day occm-rences that the world presents to our 
 notice. 
 
 I do not hold myself bound so to confine myself to a 
 controversial view of this subject, as to overlook its more 
 striking and important practical bearmgs. I have already 
 had occasion to show, that the death of om- Prophet very 
 distinctly teaches us, that such is the goodness of God, 
 that there is no extent of guilt which he is not willing to 
 pardon, and therefore that there is no sinner who may not 
 venture to come to the throne of gi'ace. I have also shown 
 how the same event proves, that to hope for salvation, 
 excepting through an union with Christ, is to hope that 
 God will overturn the whole principles of his moral go- 
 vernment, and render the whole scheme of redemption, 
 and all that it cost Christ to accomplish it, a mere nullity ; 
 and that, for the purpose of sparing the sinner the trouble 
 of denying himself, and abandoning his sins. I would 
 now further remark, that the death of our Prophet distinct- 
 ly teaches us to what extent our obedience to God must 
 be earned. His command is, that we should be ready to 
 lay down our lives for the brethren, and should resist even 
 unto blood, striving against sin. Ilis own practice goes to 
 the full extent of his precept. He obeyed even unto 
 death. He has thus effectually cut off every excuse that 
 can possibly be made for a limited obedience. Nothing is 
 more common than for men to plead, in palliation of some 
 palpable neglect of duty, or of perseverance in conduct 
 which their own conscience condemns, the resistless 
 strength of the temptation. They will admit that they 
 are wrong, but then they plead. How can they help it ? 
 How can they expose themselves to the ridicule of their 
 companions, to the frown of those whose society consti- 
 
CHPvIST OUR PROPHET. 63 
 
 tutes their chief delight, to discredit in the workl, to the 
 displeasure of influential Mends, or to severe worldly 
 losses, by a rigidly scrupulous attention to what the Bible 
 and their own conscience declare to be their duty ? Prin- 
 ciple, no doubt, is a good thing ; but then unhappily that 
 which is right is not always that which is expedient. 
 Now, if there ever existed a human being who could pro- 
 duce a valid plea for limiting his obedience, and for mak- 
 ing the right yield to the expedient, it was the man Christ 
 Jesus. What an endless variety of apologies might he 
 have made, for declining fi'om the path of obedience, when 
 it became the path of suffering ? He might have pleaded 
 that as his obedience was voluntary, he ought not to be 
 required to submit to aught that was painful ; that he suf- 
 ficiently honoured the law, when he yielded obedience to 
 its active precepts, without coming under its penal endur- 
 ances. He might have pleaded that he was the Son, and 
 had never offended, and therefore might well claim some 
 indulgence. He might have alleged the great immediate 
 happiness that would result from all men owning him as 
 the Messiah, and contrasted it with the misery which must 
 ensue on his being despised and rejected of men. If 
 strength of temptation can sanction a limitation of our 
 obedience, then never were temptations equal to those with 
 which he was tried. And if the losses and sufferings that 
 would follow a resolute discharge of duty, may be pleaded 
 as a valid reason for neglecting it, then who had ever 
 such a reason for neglecting it, as he who could so truly 
 say, " Behold and see if any soitow be like unto my sor- 
 row?" Xever, however, did he seek "to limit his obedience. 
 Though the path assigned him by the will of the Father 
 was a path of ceaseless and unexampled suffering, — was 
 everywhere strewed with thorns, and wet with tears and 
 blood, yet it was his meat and his drink to do the will 
 of his Father. " Though he were a Son, yet he learned 
 obedience by the things that he suffered." And if no re- 
 laxation of the stem demands of the law was ever made in 
 
64 CHRIST OUR TROPIIET. 
 
 his favour, dare we suppose that any relaxation will be 
 made in our favour ? Have we any apology as valid for 
 declining the path of duty, even under the most trying 
 possible circumstances, as he had ? And shall we be per- 
 mitted to decline or di'aw back, where he was imperiously 
 required to go forward, even though it were to a baptism 
 of blood? No. "The disciple is not above his master, 
 nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the 
 disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his 
 lord." 
 
 And the obedience of om- Prophet, " even unto death," 
 was essentially necessary to teach us this truth . Had his 
 obedience been limited to something short of death, then 
 we would have felt encouraged to set a limit, and that a 
 much narrower limit, to our own obedience. But if even 
 death, in its most fearful form, did not authorize the Son 
 to decline from the path of obedience, then his every pang 
 impresses Upon our hearts the lesson, that when God com- 
 mands, there is no plea, however plausible, that can pos- 
 sibly be admitted as an excuse for neglecting to obey ; — 
 that though obedience should lead us through a fiery fur- 
 nace, or a lion's den, the example of him who obeyed 
 through sufferings more fearful by far than either, infalli- 
 bly assm-es us, that no argument can apologize for our 
 turning back, when God. calls us to go forward. Moreover, 
 liad his obedience fallen short of obedience unto death, it 
 would have been impossible to say exactly how much had 
 been requu-ed of him, and therefore how much could be re- 
 quu*ed of us. And timid martyi's would, when called u])- 
 on to suffer, have been tempted to yield to what they 
 might have considered the necessity of the case ; and sa- 
 crifice to idols under the plea, that they could not be 
 called upon to perform an act of obedience, which had not 
 been required of Christ himself. And vain-glorious mar- 
 'tyrs, — some sucli there were, — would have been encourag- 
 ed, rashly and presumptuously, to offer themselves to the 
 stake, urged on by the desire of yielding an obedience 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 6b 
 
 which Christ had never yielded, and of enduring sufferings 
 with which even he was never tried. Wherefore in all 
 things, — in obedience as well as other things, — it became 
 him to have the pre-eminence ; so that when we feel 
 tempted to set a limit to our obedience, we may learn from 
 our Prophet, that there is no ground upon which such a 
 limitation can be defended. When a man begins to m- 
 quire, not how he may most effectually obey God, but 
 within how naiTow limits he may ventm'e to contract his 
 obedience ; when he begins to ask, not what is right, but 
 what is expedient, let him look to the cross of Christ, and 
 either renounce such principles, or renounce the name of 
 Christian. 
 
 Whether, then, we look to the communication of theolo- 
 gical truth, or to the illustration and enforcement of prac- 
 tical principle, it is plain that om' instruction would have 
 been altogether defective, had not our Prophet died. 
 Even with his death before their eyes, men do grievously 
 err, and call themselves Christians, when their conduct is 
 such, that unless Christianity be a dream, then- salvation 
 is impossible. How much more would this have been the 
 case had Christ not died at all ! If with his obedience even 
 unto death before them, they can yet call themselves 
 Christians, while carrying their obedience only as far as 
 expediency warrants, how much more would they have 
 done this, had his obedience been of a limited nature ! 
 
 Again, it is to be recollected that Christ still continues 
 to be the Prophet of the Church. " In him are hid all the 
 treasm*es of wisdom and knowledge," and we can derive 
 that msdom which maketh wise unto salvation from none 
 other than from him. He still continues to teach us, " by 
 his Word and Spmt, the will of God for om* salvation." 
 And no other can teach us. It is important for us to re- 
 member this ; for we are very apt to overlook it, and to 
 seek instruction from somxes which have it not to give. If 
 Christ still hold the office of Prophet, then it is impossible 
 that any one can give us that " wisdom which cometh 
 
66 CHRIST OUR PROrHET. 
 
 down from above," excepting him. For, if we could ac- 
 quire that wisdom, or any portion of that wisdom, from any- 
 other, then, so far, would that other be our Saviour, and 
 Christ's office of Prophet be superseded. It may be said, 
 perhaps, that it is from the Holy Spirit that we receive 
 that wisdom, and that he is the great enlightener ; and it 
 is truly said. It is the Holy Ghost alone who applies to 
 us the benefits resulting from all the offices of Christ ; but 
 then, in so doing, he is acting as the Spirit of Christ, 
 and is given to us by him. While, therefore, he is the 
 great and only enlightener, he is not our Prophet, but takes 
 of the things that are Christ's, and shows them unto us. 
 And that none save Christ, by his Spirit, can give us any 
 heavenly wisdom, is abundantly proved, by the difi^erent 
 effects produced by the same Gospel, announced in the 
 same terms, to different men. In one, its threatenings 
 against all ungodliness arouse the most lively concern, its 
 promises awaken the most delightful hopes, and it becomes 
 " the power of God unto salvation." By another, the same 
 threatenings and promises are heard with the most pro- 
 found indifference, and produce no effect whatever, save 
 that of hardening him more and more, every time he so 
 hears them, against their influence. Now, how is this fact, 
 — a fact known to every man, — to be accounted for ? It 
 cannot be accounted for by any difference in point of 
 learning, or talent, or natural temperament, or by any ex- 
 ternal ch'cumstances. For men of all different kinds and 
 degrees of learning, talent, temperament, and external cii'- 
 cumstances, are found both among believers and unbe- 
 lievers. The fact can be accounted for only on this 
 ground, that to the one, the truths declared have been ren- 
 dered efficacious, by the gi'cat Prophet sending his Spirit 
 to bring them home to his heart with demonstration and 
 power ; wliile the other, forgetting his dependence upon 
 this agency, seeks not for it by earnest prayer, and there- 
 fore finds that to him the application of means, perhaps in 
 themselves more powerful, are totally unavailing, — and 
 
CHRIST OUK PEOPHET. 67 
 
 unavailing, possibly, because their apparent power has led 
 him to depend upon them, TNithout looking beyond them. 
 Could any means, however powerful, sa%ingly enlighten 
 us, Avithout the agency of the Holy Spu-it given to us by 
 Christ, then might we safely rest in the means alone, as 
 we are always too prone to do. And if he who gives us 
 the Holy Spirit be a fallen, sinful, and regenerated man, 
 then I see no reason why we should not expect any other 
 fallen, sinful, and regenerated man. in whom the Holy Spi- 
 rit dweUs, to impart to us the same gift, though perhaps in 
 a smaller measm'e. To make our Prophet, then, a fallen, 
 sinful, regenerated man, goes very directly to establish 
 more than one of the most fatal errors with which the 
 Chm'ch of Rome has ever been charged. 
 
 If Christ be om* Prophet, therefore, it becomes us to at- 
 tend to the instructions which he hath given with the most 
 reverential regard. Xo man professing Christianity will 
 venture to say, in so many words, that the Eternal Word 
 was made flesh, and endm^ed so much, in order to give to us 
 a revelation, with which it is a matter of little or no con- 
 sequence whether we be acquainted or not. Xo such man 
 will even venture to say. that there can be any thing of 
 greater importance than to make ourselves acquainted with 
 that which he held to be so important. Yet, if we actually 
 neglect to study the work of redemption, and prefer a 
 thousand things to the acquisition of that wisdom which is 
 ft'om above, we are guilty of saying this, and of saying it 
 in a manner much stronger than words can express it. 
 And to plead that we never gave utterance to this blas- 
 phemy, in so many words, is no extenuation, but, on the 
 contrary, a grievous aggi-avation of our guilt. For if that 
 man be culpable who maintains and acts upon an errone- 
 ous principle, how much more culpable is he who acts up- 
 on a principle so utterly and indefensibly bad. that he not 
 only dares not maintain it. but would shudder even to utter 
 it ! Yet how many there are, even among professing 
 Christians, who practically say unto God, '"Depart fi'om 
 
68 CHRIST OUR PROrHET. 
 
 US, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways," no man 
 needs to be told. That any human being should have been 
 found, even among our fallen race, capable of treating, as 
 a matter hardly worthy of attention, that which, when 
 no created being was found capable of revealing, the 
 only begotten Son himself humbled hhnself so low, in 
 order to reveal ; and capable of looking with the most 
 hardened indifference upon that affecting and impressive 
 display of the Divine perfections, exhibited in the cross of 
 Christ, could not have been anticipated — could not have 
 been believed, till it was actually proved by the experiment 
 being made. There are men eager in the pursuit of know- 
 ledge, and who suffer nothing to escape their examination, 
 from behemoth to the worm, — from the cedar that is in 
 Lebanon to the hyssop that gi'oweth out of the wall, — 
 from the combinations of the planets to the transforma- 
 tions of an insect, but from whose range of study the 
 Maker of all things is most carefully excluded, and from 
 whose heart God is most resolutely shut out. Perhaps 
 there exists not a more deplorable proof of the fatal nature 
 of the fall of man, nor can Satan point to any more signal 
 proof of the power of his delusions, nor can angels, in their 
 visits to this earth, meet with a more lamentable and in- 
 structive spectacle than such a man, — a man enriched 
 with all the acquisitions, and adorned with all the honours 
 of science, and yet whose mind is totally impervious to the 
 simple reflection, that if those works which he delights to 
 investigate be wonderful, 
 
 " How passing wonder He who made them such !" 
 
 No position, it appears to me, can well be more simple or 
 less liable to dispute than this, that if the material system 
 of the universe be glorious, and a knowledge of all its de- 
 partments important, — much more glorious and important 
 to be known in all its parts must be that moral system, 
 for the sake of which alone the material fabric was reared ; 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 69 
 
 a system throughout which the " Sun of Righteousness," 
 as its centre, diffuses the light of heavenly wisdom, and 
 the riches of heavenly joy. And with whatever pity or 
 compassion the philosopher may feel himself entitled to 
 look doA^ai upon the untutored peasant. 
 
 " Whose soul proud science never taught to stray, 
 Far as the solar walk, or milky way," 
 
 and for whom suns arise only to light him to his toils, and 
 set only to leave him to recruit his exhausted strength ; 
 with much gi'eater pity and compassion is that peasant, if 
 he has been taught in the school of Christ, entitled to look 
 down on the proudest name that ever science owned, if 
 separated from the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus. A 
 knowledge of the works of God, our own unaided efforts 
 are able to attain ; a knowledge of God himself, none but 
 God manifest in the flesh could reveal. And he surely is 
 a woeful monument of the utter peiwersion of the human 
 mind who prefers the former of these species of knowledge 
 to the latter; and imagines that he ennobles himself 
 by extending our knowledge of the things that God 
 has made, while he perhaps sneers at the man who, by 
 studying the work of redemption, is seeking to extend our 
 knowledge of God himself. If Christ be our Prophet, 
 it is no longer a question whether the infonnation which 
 he came to give be more important than any information 
 which we could acquu-e without his advent. He has given 
 to us the revelation of God, and if we neglect it, or prefer 
 any other knowledge to it, we do so at our peril. The gospel 
 is not one of the things, which, if it do us no good, wUl do 
 us no harm. We must all account to Christ for the use 
 which we have made of the knowledge given ; and to each 
 of us it will be the savom- of life, or the savour of death. 
 It win save us from om* sins, or it will leave us without 
 excuse. I therefore repeat, that if Christ be om- Prophet, 
 we are bound by the most sacred ties, and under the most 
 
70 CHRIST OUR PROniET. 
 
 fearful sanctions, to attend to his instructions with the 
 most reverential regard ; for surely it will not be said that 
 he can be safe who treats as a trifle that which God be- 
 came incaraate to reveal. 
 
 If Christ be our Prophet, we are also bound to receive 
 his instructions with all the docility of a little child, with- 
 out pretending to sit in judgment upon the truth or pro- 
 priety of these instructions. The limits of the province 
 that belongs to reason in religion it cannot be difficult to 
 assign. It is the duty of reason to ascertain, Avhether 
 that which professes to be a divine revelation really be so 
 or not. And supposing this to be determined in the affir- 
 mative, it is then the office of reason to ascertain what it 
 is that that revelation teaches, — what is the plain, simple, 
 unsophisticated meaning of the language which it addresses 
 to us. But beyond this reason may not go. Nothing can 
 be more preposterous than to admit a revelation to be from 
 God, and yet imagine that we have a right to reject, or 
 alter, or in any way modify, what that revelation teaches. 
 It is no apology for this absurdly to say, that it contains 
 things mysterious, and most dh'ectly opposed to some of 
 our most deeply cherished views, and feelings, and preju- 
 dices. A revelation, to do us good, must contain such 
 things. It is not given that it may be modified into an. 
 agi'cement with our views and prejudices, for it could in 
 this case be of no use to us whatever, but that all our views, 
 and feelings, and principles, may by it be coiTccted, and 
 brought into confoniiity with the truth. We have no 
 right whatever to select what portions of it we will receive, 
 for it must be unreservedly received as a whole, with the 
 most perfect submission of the mmd to all its dictates, else 
 it is wholly rejected. He who receives only so much as ap- 
 pears to him to be credible, plainly does not receive any 
 portion of the Word of God ; for what he does believe, he 
 believes, not because God has said it, but because he can 
 prove it, whether God had said it or not. His faith there- 
 fore stands, not at all upon tlie AVord of God, but wholly 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 71 
 
 upon his own wisdom, and the authority of God is entire- 
 ly rejected. That there should be such men is not won- 
 derful; but it is wonderful that they should call them- 
 selves believers in a divine revelation. " Speak, Lord, for 
 thy servant heareth," is the attitude in which it becomes 
 us to listen to the instructions of our Prophet, even when 
 these instructions come to lay an unsparing hand upon all 
 our pleasant things, — to root out our most deeply-fixed pre- 
 dices, — to repress our most cherished inclinations, — and 
 to bind us down to a course of self-denial and mortification, 
 most painful to flesh and blood. We have no more right, 
 and no more power, to improve the AYord of God, than we 
 have to improve the works of God. " This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him," is a com- 
 mand to which there is no limitation, and from which there 
 is no exception. 
 
 To increase in divine knowledge is also a duty which we 
 owe to our Prophet. While there is in his revelation of 
 God a depth which the profoundest of himian minds can 
 never fathom, an extent which the most capacious of hu- 
 man understandings can never ftdly comprehend, and from 
 which the hosts of heaven gather ever new accessions to 
 then- knowledge ; there is also a simplicity by which even 
 little childi'en may be nourished up unto everlasting life : 
 and the Holy Spmt, by whose agency our Prophet teaches 
 us, can render the Holy Scriptures, the means by which he 
 teaches us, as efficacious to them as to those of riper years. 
 But while the Christian will feel that he has indeed enjoy- 
 ed a rich privilege, if he has from a child known the Holy 
 Scriptures, he wiU also feel, that when he becomes a man, 
 it will be proper that he should put away childish things, 
 and gi-ow in the knowledge of God. ^N^ot a few, who call 
 themselves Chiistians, seem to consider, not how they may 
 most eff'ectually increase thek knowledge of God, but with 
 how little knowledge of him they may be safe. But if to 
 know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, be life 
 eternal, then the Christian will feel that it is not so much 
 
72 CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 
 
 his duty as his privilege, to be continually gi'owing in that 
 knowledge. The desire which he feels after this know- 
 ledge cries unceasingly, " Give, give ;" and every acquisi- 
 tion which he makes, only stimulates his desires after 
 further acquisitions, and increases his power to make them. 
 When God shall appear, we shall be like him, because we 
 shall then see him as he is. And the more that we can see 
 of him here, the more like to him we shall be in holiness and 
 in hap])iness. The man who thinks that he has acquired as 
 much knowledge of God as is necessary, is proving that as 
 yet he knows not God at all. 
 
 Another duty which we owe to our Prophet, is to carry 
 out his uistructions into practice. To make us holy is the 
 etfect intended to be produced by all that Christ has done 
 for us. " He died that he might redeem us from all our 
 iniquities, and might purify us to himself a peculiar people, 
 zealous of good works." And if this effect be not produ- 
 ced, it signifies nothing how correct om- creed, or how loud 
 our professions may be ; we are yet " in the gall of bit- 
 terness, and in the bond of iniquity." '' Why call ye me 
 Lord, Lord, if ye do not the things which I say?" saith 
 Jesus ; and elsewhere he states the necessity of carrying 
 his instructions out into practice, in the following impres- 
 sive language — " Whosoever therefore heareth these words 
 of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man, 
 who built his house upon a rock : And the storm de- 
 scended, and rivers came, and the winds blew, and beat 
 upon that house ; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a 
 rock. And whosoever heareth these my words, and doeth 
 them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, who built his 
 house upon the sand : And the storm descended, and the 
 rivers came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that 
 house; and it fell, and its fall was gi'eat."^ If they do 
 grievously en- who hope to be saved by their obedience, 
 thus instead of making holiness the very substance of sal- 
 
 » Matt. vii. 24. 
 
cnniST OUR prophet. ' 73 
 
 vation, and its attainnient the very highest object of human 
 hope, sinking it into tlie rank of something desirable, not 
 on its own account, but as a means for obtaining something 
 of greater value ; they do not less gilevously err who 
 imagine that because the righteousness of Christ is the sole 
 ground of our salvation, therefore, their own holiness is a 
 matter of little or no consequence. For to hope that we 
 may be saved, without being made holy, is a direct contra- 
 diction in terms. It is to hope, in other words, that we 
 may be saved, without being saved. It ought not to be 
 forgotten, that holiness is not, and cannot be, the means of 
 salvation, for this plain reason, that it is salvation itself. If, 
 therefore, we should be able to say to Christ, " Lord, Lord, 
 have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast 
 out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works ?" 
 All this will avail us nothing, if we be '' workers of iniquity." 
 If Christ be our Prophet, then we are bound to com- 
 municate to others that knowledge of God that he has 
 taught to us. To this w^e are urged by every doctrine 
 which the gospel inculcates, and by every principle v/hich 
 it implants in om- hearts. If we love God, we wiU desire 
 to make his glory knoTvu. K we love men, we will be 
 anxious to promote their best interests. And if we love 
 not God and men, or if our love to them be too feeble to 
 urge us on to make any active exertions, or submit to any 
 sacrifices, I need not stop to prove that we have yet to 
 learn what Christianity is. If Christ submitted to all the 
 humiliation, and endured all the sufferings recorded in the 
 gospel, in order to manifest the glory of God, and to save 
 the souls of men ; can we call om'selves his disciples, and 
 say that we have drank of his Spirit, if amongst us, and 
 around us, and throughout the world, we can see the glory 
 of God given to a thousand idols, and the souls of men 
 perishing, without feeling ourselves urged to every exertion 
 that may be within oiu- power, in order to terminate a 
 state which no Christian can contemplate without the most 
 painful feelings ? No, the Christian is essentially a mission- 
 
74 CHRIST OUR rROPIIET, 
 
 ary, and everj- Christian Church is essentially a Missionary 
 Society. The believer, in learning the value of his own 
 soul, has Icanied how to estimate the souls of other men ; 
 and the same Spirit that imparted to him a knowledge of 
 the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, and taught him to feel 
 all its importance, imparted to him, at the same time, the 
 desire to communicate it to others. Every man who calls 
 himself a Christian professes to be a living monument of 
 the glory of God ; and according as his conduct is, or is 
 not, consistent with this profession, will it be an encourage- 
 ment to, or a stumbling-block in the way of, others embrac- 
 ing the gospel. His character must exercise a beneficial 
 or a malignant influence upon all who are connected with 
 him ; and either his light will so shine before men, as to 
 lead others to glorify our Father who is in heaven, or his 
 conduct will lead to the conclusion that the adoption of 
 the gospel is calculated only to add h}-pocrisy to guilt, 
 and thus cause " the way of truth to be evil spoken of." 
 
 The believer therefore feels, that, independent of his own 
 personal obligations to hold the truth in righteousness, 
 there rests upon him an aw^ul responsibility with regard 
 to the effect which his conduct may have upon other men. 
 In these days especially will every Christian weigh well 
 the import of the declaration, " He that is not for me is 
 against me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth 
 abroad." In primitive times, the holy lives of Christians 
 was one of the principal means of giving to the gospel such 
 astonishing success ; and were every man, who calls him- 
 self a Christian now, to prove himself by his conduct to be 
 a Christian in reality, there can be no doubt that Chris- 
 tianity would rapidly spread throughout the world. It is 
 a melancholy reflection, that while the progress of Chris- 
 tianity has been so slow, that progi'css has never been re- 
 tarded by all the eftbrts of its declared opponents. A 
 man, in order effectually to injure Christianity, must 
 profess himself a Christian ; and I cannot think that it is 
 overstating the matter to say, that every man who calla 
 
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 75 
 
 himself a Christian, without in reality being so, inflicts a 
 more essential injury upon Christianity, and does more 
 to retard its progress in the world, than any one declared 
 opponent that ever existed. 
 
 Upon the whole, then, it appears that the death of 
 Christ, and consequently his Incarnation, was essentially 
 necessary to the discharge of the duties of his Prophetic 
 office. Without dying he could not have given us that 
 manifestation of the Di^dne character, — that knowledge of 
 the perfections of God, without which we can never have 
 GUI' hearts "right with God." And it no less plainly 
 appears, that to make him a fallen sinful man, is to sweep 
 away the very ground of all the knowledge which he im- 
 parted, and to extinguish the light of his Revelation, by 
 covering it with a cloud of impenetrable darkness. If he 
 had no sin, either original or actual, then he was not 
 fallen and sinful, and we draw from his life, and especially 
 from his death, a knowledge of God which we can never 
 exhaust. If he had either original or actual sin, then 
 indeed he was fallen and sinful ; and in this case we can 
 learn no more fi'om his death, than we can learn from that 
 of any other man. 
 
 I may remark, also, that every argument which has been 
 used to disprove the tenet that Christ was a fallen and 
 sinful man, applies with equal force to prove that he was 
 not a mere man. 
 
CHAPTER m. 
 
 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 I NOW proceed to consider the Priesthood of our Saviour, 
 This also will lead us to see the necessity of his death, and 
 consequently of his Incarnation ; and, at the same tinie, 
 will cariy us very directly and irresistibly to the conclu- 
 sion that, in becoming man, he did not become a fallen 
 sinful man. That he actually was a Priest, I hold to be 
 sufficiently proved by the fact, that he is called so in 
 Scripture. It is no doubt argued that he is called so only 
 liguratively, as all Christians are called priests, and with 
 a reference to the priests under the Levitical dispensation. 
 To this I reply, that a figure must be drawn from a real- 
 ity ; and if he was only figuratively a priest, then where 
 is the man who was really one ? It Avill not avail to say, 
 that under the law there were real priests, from whom the 
 name ^^'as improperly applied to him. For if he was no 
 Priest, then unquestionably they were none ; unless it be 
 maintained that they did what he could not do ; and that 
 the Jewish dispensation, instead of being only the shadow 
 of good things to come, was in fact the reality of which 
 Christianity is only the shadow ; a position which I 
 suppose few will be hardy enough to maintain. If then 
 the great " High Priest of our profession" was only figur- 
 atively a Priest, assuredly those priests who only exercised 
 the delegated powers which they received from him could 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 77 
 
 be DO more ; and consequently there never was a real priest 
 in existence. The very word, npon this supposition, stands 
 in the unprecedented situation of having a figurative appli- 
 cation, without having ever had a real literal meaning. But 
 it will be said that the priests under the law were really 
 priests. This I most readily admit ; and I admit, too, that 
 the sacrifices which they offered were perfectly efficacious 
 for the pui-poses for which they were appointed. They ex- 
 empted the offender from temporal punishment, and restor- 
 ed him to his place in society, and to his situation in the 
 congregation of the Lord. But they could do no more. 
 The blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin. 
 But if the priests under the law were real priests, and theii- 
 sacrifices possessed a real efficacy, to however limited an 
 extent, then Ave seem to be shut up to one of these conclu- 
 sions, — either that the sacrifices were efficacious by reason 
 of their own intrinsic value, — or that they were so by reason 
 of the power and favour which the offering priest enjoyed 
 with God, — or, finally, that they derived their efficacy 
 solely from their reference to, and connection with, the 
 sacrifice offered by a priest of a higher order. The first of 
 these conclusions will hardly be espoused, even by the 
 hardiest rationalist. If the second be adopted, then it is 
 admitted, that under the law there was an atonement to a 
 certain extent ; and that there was a priest who, through 
 the medium of gifts and sacrifices, offered for sins, had ac- 
 cess to God, and a ground upon which to found an accept- 
 able and a prevalent intercession, in behalf of the sinner ; 
 advantages of which, under the Christian dispensation, we 
 are totally deprived. And if Christ, instead of giving us 
 the substance, of which the law only exhibited the shadow, 
 has, in fact, reduced to a figm^e that atonement, and that 
 priesthood, which under the law had an actual and efficient 
 reality, then the Apostle had little gi'ound for his boasting 
 of the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over that of 
 Aaron. We come, then, to the conclusion, that Christ 
 was a real Priest, and the Priest from whom all otlier 
 
78 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 priests derived their power ; and through whom alone their 
 sacrifices possessed any efficacy. 
 
 The duties which Christ discharges as our Priest are, to 
 make atonement for us, and to intercede for us ; or, to adopt 
 better language than any that I can frame, " Christ exe- 
 cuteth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of him- 
 self a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice, and reconcile us to 
 God; and in his making continual intercession for us." 
 Xow, these duties he discharged from the beginning, for 
 from the beginning he forgave sin. This, however, he 
 could not do excepting as a Priest. He was the " Lamb 
 slain from the foundation of the Avorld." His Incarnation 
 and death were so absolutely certain, that men were par- 
 doned in consequence of his atonement, long before that 
 atonement was actually made ; so that his failure in his 
 work was an impossibility, unless it were possible that the 
 counsel of God could fail, and that, through a defect of 
 prescience, he had admitted into heaven the "righteous 
 Abel," and others whom it might be necessary afterwards 
 to cast out. 
 
 The necessity of an atonement, — the absolute impossi- 
 bility of pardoning the sinner without it, has, I conceive, 
 been already abundantly manifested. If sin indeed be 
 considered merely as a debt, then the necessity of an 
 atonement cannot be proved ; for there can be no impro- 
 priety in a rich creditor forgiving a poor debtor, without 
 the intei-jiosition of any surety. That our sins are debts 
 is perfectly true ; but many and miscliievous are the errors 
 into which men have been led, by considering them merely 
 as debts ; and one of the worst of these eiTors is, that if 
 sin be merely a debt, then is an atonement altogether un- 
 necessary. But if God be considered as the Supreme 
 lluler of the Universe, appointing wliat is necessary for 
 the welfare of all his creatures, — and if he be a wise Ruler 
 wlio docs not make a world which has no connection with, 
 nor effect upon, the whole, but makes every world with 
 reference to all other worlds ; in other words, if no part of 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 79 
 
 the universe be useless or superfluous ; and if our sins be 
 considered as infractions of that law, of the inviolable 
 sanctity of which it is necessary that every creature should 
 be clearly convinced, and as practical denials of those di- 
 vine perfections, of the absolute infinity and immutability 
 of which it is necessary that every creature should be well 
 assured ; then they assume a very different aspect. In 
 this case we see clearly that were God to forgive them 
 without atonement, he would in truth, by so doing, abro- 
 gate the law, of which they are infi-actions, and acquiesce 
 in that denial of his own perfections which they imply. 
 Let the death of Christ as a Priest be denied ; let it be 
 admitted that it was the death of only a fallen sinful man, 
 dying for the same reason that other men die, and for what 
 possible purpose, unless a most disastrous pm-pose, such a 
 world as this was created, I cannot even venture to con- 
 jecture. But view our sins as a rebellion against the Su- 
 preme Ruler, and the death of Christ as the death of our 
 great High Priest, atoning for these suis ; and we see at 
 once the high and important situation which man occupies 
 in the government of God ; while the atonement, through 
 which his salvation is effected, exhibits to the hosts of 
 heaven a view of the sanctity of the law, and of the glory 
 of the divine perfections, which, as no language could ex- 
 hibit, so no language can describe. 
 
 This view of the matter, however, has been suflSciently 
 discussed, and it has been shown that God could not have 
 pardoned sin without atonement, without producing con- 
 sequences the most disastrous to the whole universe. I 
 shall now endeavour, therefore, through a somewhat dif- 
 ferent train of reflection, to lead the reader to the same 
 conclusion, and to prove that the death of Christ was 
 really an atoning sacrifice. It will, I think, be admitted, 
 as a maxim of indisputable truth, that pain inflicted when 
 there is no necessity for it, or inflicted to an extent beyond 
 what the necessity of the case demands, is a violation of 
 justice. And it will be admitted that God cannot by any 
 
80 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 possibility violate justice. Whenever, therefore, God does 
 inflict pain, it will be admitted that that pain, and the 
 whole extent of it, was required by the necessity of the 
 case ; and, consequently, that the remission of any part of 
 it would be unjust. But God did inflict pain upon Christ, 
 — nay, " it pleased tlie Lord to bruise him, and put him to 
 gi-ief." Now, either that pain, and every part of it, was 
 imperiously required by justice, or it was not. If it was 
 not, — if our salvation, the object of Christ's coming, could 
 have been accomplished without it, then God, in the inflic- 
 tion of this pain, was clearly \iolatiug justice, — a violation 
 of V, hich they surely will not believe him to have been 
 guilty, who seem to consider God as merely a name for 
 some unintelligible personification of mercy. It is of no use 
 to say that God might justly inflict a degree of pam which 
 Christ was willing to bear, in order to promote om* salva- 
 tion. For we are arguing on the supposition, that our sal- 
 vation possibly could have been effected by him without 
 these sufferings. And it is not easy to see how our salva- 
 tion could be effected by his sufferings, if they were unne- 
 cessary, and, therefore, unjust, because carried beyond 
 what the necessity of the case demanded. It must be con- 
 cluded, then, that the sufferings of Christ, in all theu' ex- 
 tent, were imperiously demanded by justice. 
 
 We must next inquire, then, upon what gi'ound Justice 
 founded this demand. That his sufferings were of the 
 most agonizing kind cannot be denied. Extenuate them 
 as you -sAill ; call them the sufterings of a mere man, still 
 in the union of bodily pain with mental anguish, they 
 stand unequalled in the history of human endurance. 
 Now, why were sufferings of this exquisite kind necessary ? 
 Say that he was bearing our iniquities in his own body on 
 the accursed tree, — that he was sustaining the cm'se due 
 to us for our violations of the law, and the reply a])pear3 
 to be perfectly satisfactory, because it appears to assign a 
 perfectly suflicient ground for these sufferings. Assign 
 any of the inferior gi'cuuds which have been alleged as 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. &1 
 
 the cause of his sufFermgs, and see whether they are 
 equally satisfactory, or whether they will render these 
 sufl'erings at all compatible with Justice. It is said that 
 he died to confinn the truth of his doctrines. Granted ; 
 but was his death absolutely necessary for this purpose V 
 Would his doctrmes not have been believed had he not 
 died to confirm them ? Had he constructed them with so 
 little intrinsic rationality, and supported them by so little 
 external evidence, that his death was necessary, imperi- 
 ously and essentially necessary, to then- reception ? Ur, 
 if his death was necessary, were all the agonizing circum- 
 stances that attended it necessary too? Unless this be 
 affirmed, unless it be maintained that had one pang that 
 was inflicted upon him been spared, his doctrines could not 
 have been believed, then it must be admitted that to say 
 lie died merely to confinn his doctrines, does by no means 
 render his sufferings even compatible with Justice : much 
 less does it give a satisfactory account of them. But that 
 he died in confii-mation of his doctrines at all, is an allega- 
 tion that we sm-ely could little expect to hear from men 
 who requii'e very different evidence indeed, than either 
 his life or his death affords, before they will receive any 
 doctrine that he has taught, — who will believe nothing, 
 unless they imagme that they can prove it, whether Christ 
 ever taught it or not. Moreover, if there be any one doc- 
 trine which, beyond all others, his death was designed to 
 confii-m, it is this, that he was equal with God ; for it was 
 for the alleged blasphemy of this, that he was condemned 
 as worthy of death by the rulers of the Jews. Yet this is 
 the very doctrine, which they who tell us that his death 
 was intended to confirm his doctrine, make it the funda- 
 mental point of their system to deny. We may surely 
 say to them, if he died to confinn his doctrine, why do 
 you not believe his doctrme ? We expect more consist- 
 ency in rational men. Either admit, then, that his deatli 
 .was more than a confirmation of his doctrine, or admit 
 that his sufferings were a plain violation of Justice, since 
 
 D 2 
 
82 CHRIST orn puikst. 
 
 you receive no doctrine which you Avoiild not have re- 
 ceived, whether he had snflfercd or not. 
 
 But furtlier, tlie death of Christ could not by any possi- 
 bility prove liis doctrines to be true, if they were previously 
 (loubtful. It could only prove his own sincerity ; and if 
 this was doubtful before, it is uncertain whether it could 
 have been verj^ satisfactorily established by that event, 
 under the particular circumstances of the case. But with- 
 out dwelling- upon this, I would observe, that to prove a 
 doctrine to be true, and to make it true, are two very dif- 
 ferent things. Now, the death of Christ did not merely 
 prove his doctrines to be true, but it made them true. 
 For example, he declared that his death was necessaiy in 
 order to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, — '' It is ex- 
 pedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the 
 Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will 
 send him unto you." Now, if Christ could actually have 
 given the Holy Spirit without dying, this doctrine is false.* 
 The same remark may, in one form or another, be ap- 
 plied to every doctrine of the Gospel. They depend not 
 for their confirmation, but for their truths on the death of 
 Christ. Take that away, and Christianity at once 
 dwindles down to simple Deism. Again, therefore, I re- 
 mark, that to say that Christ died to confirm the doctrines 
 of simple Deism, is just to say, that sufl^'ering was inflicted 
 upon him, in order to prove the truth of doctrines whicli 
 the Deist pretends that he can prove very well, though 
 Christ had never either lived or died. In this case, then, 
 assuredly his sufferings were not at all required by the 
 necessity of the case, and were consequently inflicted in 
 palpable violation of justice. 
 
 Again, it is said that he died to give us an example of 
 patience in sufll-ring. This also is most fully granted ; 
 but the question is, Avas his death imperiously necessary 
 for this purpose ? Could we not possibly have acquired for 
 
 ' See note D. AppencUx. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 83 
 
 ourselves, or could God not possibly have m'ought iii us, 
 the spirit of fortitude and patience, had the sutfermgs of 
 Christ been less severe ? The objector to the atonement 
 cannot, on his own principles, pretend to say this. He 
 must then admit, either that the sufferings of Christ had 
 a higher object, or that they were unjustly inflicted. 
 Neither this purpose, then, nor the proving of his doc- 
 trines, could render his death a matter of imperious 
 necessity, nor consequently a matter of justice. 
 
 Another purpose which, it is said, was answered by his 
 death was, that by rising again he might give to us the 
 most perfect assurance of the resurrection. Now, it is most 
 readily admitted, that the accomplishment of this purpose 
 rendered his death imperiously necessary. But then the 
 easiest and most honourable death would have accom- 
 plished this pm'pose just as well as the most ignominious, 
 and the most agonizing. The agony in the garden and on 
 the cross, and ail the bitterness of death, were totally un- 
 called for by this object, and were therefore inflicted to 
 the violation of justice, as they were inflicted without 
 being at all required by the necessity of the case. 
 
 Are there any other purposes supposed to be accom- 
 plished by the sufferings and death of Christ? It is use- 
 less to inquu-e. Be these purposes what they may, if they 
 fall short of an atonement for sin, I may venture to say 
 that it will be found impossible, on any ground which these 
 pm-poses can afford, to reconcile his sufferings and death 
 with the plainest dictates of unalterable justice. Justice 
 then did imperiously demand an atonement, for it de- 
 manded the sufferings and death of Christ ; and upon no 
 inferior ground can the justice of the demand be vindi- 
 cated. 
 
 But in maintaining the doctrine of atonement, we are in 
 the habit of using language much more displeasing to those 
 who deny it, than when we say that an atonement was 
 required by the justice of God. For we are very apt to 
 talk of the wrath of God against sin : and while the Scrip- 
 tures tell us that God is augiy with the wicked every day, 
 
84 CIIIMST OUR J^IilEST. 
 
 nay, that his soul abliorretli the wicked ; and while they 
 describe his wrath in terms of the most terrific import, we 
 hold it to be the very reverse of modesty to comply with 
 the enervated delicacy of modern theolojjry, and reject 
 such expressions as harsh and inappropriate. For it is 
 quite clear that sin must be the object of supreme hatred 
 to God, since it not only tramples upon his authority, but 
 denies his very existence, and would, were it permitted to 
 I)roduce its full effect, involve the w^hole universe in im- 
 distinguished ruin. It is perfectly true that T\Tath is not 
 in God, as it is in us, an agitating, distm-bing passion, 
 excited by some strong impulse, and following out its 
 career with blind ungovernable fury. God is totally un- 
 susceptible of any passion ; but we can speak of him only 
 in human language, and we ascribe to him wrath, much 
 in the same way that Ave ascribe to him hands and feet. 
 But then there is something in God analogous to wrath 
 in us ; and that it is not in him an agitating passion, ren- 
 ders it just so much the more dreadful. Passion would 
 abate, its fervour would cool ; and the same weakness 
 that gave it birth would ensure its termination. But 
 wrath in God is not an emotion, and therefore can no 
 more change than any other part of the Divine character 
 can change. And while the Scriptures call this particular 
 manifestation of holiness and justice — for it is nothing else 
 — by tiie names of wrath, and abhorrence, and indigna- 
 tion, we need not scruple to call it by the same names ; 
 since it will infallibly produce all the same effects that 
 these passions tend to produce among men, and that in 
 a manner hifinitely more terrible to the objects of it. 
 
 Now, the question is, how are wc to escape this wrath ? 
 As it is not a passion, it does not render God unwilling to 
 forgive ; but, derived from tlie purity of his holiness, and 
 the inflexibility of liis justice, it plainly renders forgiveness 
 impossible, unless that forgiveness can be rendered per- 
 fectly compatible with these perfections, — with the sanc- 
 tity of the law, and the safety of the universe. God can- 
 not deny himself, nor act in a way contrary to his own 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 85 
 
 perfections. Xow, an atonement, which shows the hateful- 
 uess of sin more impressively than either our obedience or 
 our destruction could do ; and displays all the perfections 
 (jf God, in a way in which they never otherwise could have 
 been displayed, does render it not only a just but a glori- 
 ous thing for God to forgive the sinner. Pardon commu- 
 nicated through this medium, shows God to be just, while 
 he is "the justifier of him which beUeveth in Jesus." 
 " He washed us from our sins in his blood;" but if his 
 blood was shed merely as a testimony to the truth of his 
 doctrines, or as an example of siiffermg patience, or as a 
 preparatory step to the resurrection, this cannot be true ; 
 we are as yet imwashed, and the wrath of God abideth 
 upon us still. But that wrath Jesus in veiy truth did feel 
 to the uttermost, when he cried out, "I am poured out 
 like water, and all my bones are out of joint : my heart is 
 like wax ; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My 
 strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue 
 cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the 
 dust of death." ^ Sin, strictly speaking, is never pardon- 
 ed. The sins of unbelievers are not pardoned ; for they 
 are driven away in their iniquities. The sins of the be- 
 liever are transferred to Christ. He took them upon him, 
 and while they are fully and freely pardoned to the be- 
 liever, they were not pardoned to his substitute. The 
 penalty of them was exacted of him who was able to en- 
 dure it without siiildng under it. And when he had en- 
 dured that penalty, it not only becomes a just thing to re- 
 mit it to the believer, but it would be unjust to inflict up- 
 on him personally that which he has already endured in 
 his surety. I hold it,- therefore, to be language most Scrip- 
 tural and true, to say, that we can escape the Avrath of 
 God only through the sufferings of Christ, who was made 
 a cm'se for us. Hence the Chm'ch is called a " purchased 
 possession," we are expressly declared to be -'bought with 
 a price," and the price is stated to be '' the precious blood 
 of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 
 
 ' Tsalra xxii. 14, 15. 
 
86 ■ CHRIST on; piuest. 
 
 Nay, so completely was the notion of purchase^ in early 
 times, associated Avith atonement, that the very word 
 U^ly^ came to signify a price. ' 
 
 Now, if any person choose to say that this represents 
 God as implacable, — as determined to have pnnishment, 
 and an infinite amount of it, which Christ endures for so 
 many, while the divine wrath still continues unabated to- 
 ward all others, — that it represents the Father and Son as 
 actuated by different, and even opposite feelings toward the 
 sinner, I can only reply, that I am totally at a loss to dis- 
 cover upon what part of the statement the objection can 
 be founded. If we look to the sufferings of Christ, I say 
 that X\\Q infliction of these sufferings can be reconciled with 
 justice, on no other ground than the supposition that they 
 formed an atonement for our sins ; for on no other ground, 
 that has ever yet been alleged, were they imperiously re- 
 (juired by the necessity of the case. And taking a highc]- 
 view of the matter, I say that had God, as Supreme Ruler 
 of the Universe, after he had declared that death was the 
 wages of sin, forgiven sin without any atonement, — with- 
 out actually inflicting the penalty, then the plainest dic- 
 tates of justice had been violated, and the very foundations 
 of his moral government subverted. That the Father was 
 less deeply interested in the salvation of sinners than the 
 Son, or that the Son is less unalterably repugnant to the 
 salvation of sinners, excepthig through the medium of 
 atonement, tlian the Father, — that the love of the one is, 
 or at any time ever was, greater than that of the other, is 
 most distinctly and unequivocally denied. Kor am 1 
 aware that from any part of the preceding statement a dif- 
 ference of affection toward fallen man, in the different per- 
 sons of the Trinity, can be di*awn. I have already shown 
 why neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost could become 
 incarnate. But if J have said any thing from which it may 
 be fairly inferred, either that they were less deeply inter- 
 ested in the success of the atonement, or that the Sou 
 would have been more ready to forgive the sinner without 
 
 1 See note E. Aiipeiidix, 
 
CUEIST OUR PRIEST. 87 
 
 it, in so far I am not only willing to admit, but anxious to 
 announce, that I must have mis-stated the doctrine of 
 Scripture upon the subject. 
 
 But the mercy of God, it is thought, would have been 
 much more highly honoured, and more conspicuously dis- 
 played, had that mercy been at once applied to the sinner, 
 Avithout any atonement being required. God, it is said, 
 cannot be considered as exercising mercy at all, in the par- 
 don of the sinner, when he docs not grant the pardon with- 
 out first inflicting the penalty upon the sinner's Surety. 
 Xow, if one attribute of the Divine character can be con- 
 sidered, as more imperiously demanding atonement than 
 any other, mercy is assuredly that attribute ; for I appre- 
 hend that without the atonement, the very existence of 
 such an attribute as Mercy in the Divine character is in- 
 capable of any satisfactory proof. We want to know that 
 God is mercifid, — that lie is infinite in mercy, — that there 
 is no case of guilt to which his mercy will not extend. 
 And how are we to leara this ? Should God forgive some 
 sinners, and condemn others ? this would prove that his 
 mercy was limited. And as every sinner, when made ac- 
 quainted with the plague of his own heart, very naturally 
 thinks himself to be the chief of sinners, every sinner 
 would in this case, when he felt his need of mercy, feel also 
 that he was placed beyond that limit to which mercy ex- 
 tends. Even the death of Christ does not always prevent 
 him from thinldng this. But let us suppose that God 
 should pardon every sinner, without requiring any atone- 
 ment, would this prove him to be merciful ? No, this ab- 
 rogation of the law, this encouragement to sin, this utter 
 subversion of his moral government, would be the very re- 
 verse of an act of mercy. And, moreover, should God 
 pardon all sin, the inference would be, not that God is 
 merciful, but that sin is no evil. Even the atonement does 
 not prevent the sinner from thinking that God is like him- 
 self, and does not hate sin. If sin were pardoned without 
 any atonement, this would be an undeniable truth. Now, 
 
88 ciiuisT orn niiKsx. 
 
 wc know that God is merciful, not simply because he par- 
 dons sin, but because he pai'dous it after he has awfully 
 demonstrated how infinitely and unalterably hateful it i." 
 to him ; and because he gave up his Son to death in order 
 to rendi3r pardon possible. This was an act of mercy so 
 great, that none other can ever surpass, or even equal it. 
 '' Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
 us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 
 And we hold the Apostle's reasoning to be irresistible, 
 '' He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up 
 for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all 
 things V" This is an argument with which we can go to the 
 mourning sinner, whose soul is troubled, while conscience 
 is setting all his sins in an-ay before him, and who is ready 
 to say, " There is no hope ;" and we can tell him that God 
 is perfectly willing to bestow upon him all the glory and 
 blessedness of heaven. And we can show him that he has 
 no reason whatever to doubt this ; for when God brings 
 liim into that city of which such glorious things are spoken, 
 and crowns him with glory, honour, and immortality, he 
 is in all this giving him a much smaller expression of 
 love than that which he has already given, in giving up his 
 Son to death for sinners. Here is an act of mercy so much 
 greater than any other that ever can be displayed, that we 
 need not wonder that unbelief, — that doubts as to whether 
 God really loveth us, and be willing to fulfil to us every 
 promise that he has made, should be set forth in Scripture 
 as the worst of sins. After such an expression of his love, 
 after such a manifestation of mercy as the cross of Christ 
 affords, — the very highest that heaven could furnish, — 
 can any thing so deeply mark the depravity of the human 
 heart, or offer such an insult to God, as still resolutely to 
 doubt whether he be willing to " forgive us our sins, and 
 to cleanse us from all our iniquities V 
 
 But, let it be supposed that the death of Christ was not 
 strictly and properly an atonement, demanded by the jus- 
 tice of God, and necessary to avert from us the curse of 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 89 
 
 a broken law, and we are not only effectually deprived of 
 this, the only sufficient argument by which we can combat 
 the sinner's fears, the only satisfactoiy gi'ound upon which 
 we can call upon the sinner to tnist in God, but it becomes 
 altogether impossible to prove that there is any such attri- 
 bute in the Divine character as mercy at all. The most 
 plausible arguments that could be used for this purpose 
 might be readily met by equally plausible objections. And 
 even without any objections whatever, take away the 
 atonement, and there is no argument that will lead the 
 sinner to rely on the mercy of God. This is a feeling which 
 does not uatiu-ally nor easily enter into the guilty heart. 
 The sinner is more inclined to dread God, and when sen- 
 sible of his guilt, like Adam, to hide himself from the face of 
 the Lord. Even the atonement is not imifonnly and im- 
 mediately successful in removing the fears which guilt has 
 awakened, and in leading the sinner to believe that, after a 
 thousand sins and follies past, God still views him with a 
 Father's love, and will welcome him back with every ex- 
 pression of a Father's tenderness. Take the atonement 
 away, and the mourner in Zion is left without the hope of 
 comfort. 
 
 So far then is it from being true, that the mercy of God 
 would have been ready to forgive the sinner without atone- 
 ment, had justice allowed it ; and that it would have been 
 highly honom-ed by so doing, that the very existence of 
 mercy can be proved only by the atonement. Remove that 
 proof of it, and I may very safely challenge all the wisdom 
 of human philosophy to prove that any such thing as mercy 
 exists. I know not if this view of the matter be urged up- 
 on the attention of the Church with sufficient frequency 
 and prominence : but if it were, I can hardly think that so 
 strange an objection to the atonement could ever have 
 been conceived, as that which considers the atonement, — 
 the only fact by which the very existence of mercy, and 
 much more its infinite extent, can be proved, — as a draw- 
 back upon the fulness and freeness of that mercy. 
 
90 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 I need not dwell upon a remark, which however it is ne- 
 cessary that I should here make ; that if Christ did not die 
 solely as our substitute ; if the imputation of our jjuilt was 
 only partly the cause of his death ; if he was a fallen sin- 
 ful man, and died of necessity because he was so, then the 
 argument which we draw from the atonement, in proof of 
 the boundless extent of the Divine mercy, in order to lead 
 the mourning sinner to " peace and joy in believing," 
 totally fails. The sinner, in such circumstances, it is well 
 known, is peculiarly ingenious in finding out arguments 
 against his title to embrace the salvation oftered to him in 
 the gospel. We can triumphantly repel every argument 
 that his fears suggest, against his having ground to hope 
 in the mercy of God, by referring to the cross of Christ. 
 Let it be the cross of a fallen sinful man, — let the imputa- 
 tion of our guilt be only one of the causes that placed him 
 there, — and it would require but a small portion of that 
 argumentative skill which an awakened conscience never 
 fails to supply, to neutralize, if not to annihilate, every 
 ground of comfort that we can draw from the cross. The 
 death of one fallen sinful man is far enough from proving 
 that God is infinite in mercy, and that all men, however 
 fallen and sinful they may be, may safely rely upon that 
 mercy, nay, may " come boldly to the throne of grace, that 
 we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of 
 need." The death of a fallen sinful man could never, by 
 any possibility, prove this. The death of Christ does prove 
 it, else it is yet unproved, and our receiving of mercy . and 
 grace, instead of being so certain that they may be sought 
 with all holy boldness, rests only upon a peradventure. 
 
 In order to give effect to the atonement, the free and 
 voluntary consent of all the parties concerned is essen- 
 tially necessary. If God do not consent to acce];tofthe 
 obedience and sufferings of a INIediator, as affording a more 
 glorious display of the Divine perfections, and more 
 solemnly confirming the principles of his moral govern- 
 ment, than either our obedience or our death could have 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 91 
 
 ever done, the obedience and sufferings of the Mediator 
 can be of no avail ; for God has an unquestionable right 
 to determine whether he will forgive the sinner at all, 
 and on what gi'ounds he will do so. And this is the very 
 ground of our reliance upon the atonement of Christ, that 
 it was appointed by God himself : and that it was accom- 
 plished to the full extent that he required, was proved by 
 his raising up of Christ and giving him glory. Not less 
 necessary is the consent of the sinner. For if he declare, 
 that while he seeks for eternal life, he will not accept of it 
 as the free gift of God in Christ Jesus, but depends for his 
 justification before God, in whole or in part, upon some- 
 thing else than the atonement, aU Scripture — nay, all rea- 
 son — declares that he can have neither part nor lot in the 
 matter. If the work of atonement be sufficient to reconcile 
 us to God, and to render the pardon of our sins compa- 
 tible with his perfections, then nothing needs to be added, 
 or can be added, to that which is already perfect. And if 
 his work be not perfectly sufficient for that pui-pose, it is 
 vain, and worse than vain, to hope that we are capable of 
 supplying the defect. The consent of the Mediator him- 
 self is also clearly necessary. If he were appointed to the 
 sufferings which he endured, against his own will, and was 
 dragged reluctantly to the altar, and was compelled to 
 resign a life which he would have gladly retained, and to 
 endure sufferings which he would have avoided, had it 
 been in his power, then nobody, I suppose, will maintain 
 that sufferings thus inflicted could form any gi'ound for his 
 successfid intercession, or in any way be rendered avail- 
 able for our good. If, from the period of his appointment 
 to his office, down to the period when he shall have fully 
 accomplished the purposes for which he assumed it, there 
 was one step which he did not voluntarily take — one 
 moment when he would have withdi-awn from his work if 
 he could, that one step, that one moment vitiates the 
 whole proceeding, and destroys the gi'ound of om* reliance 
 upon it. For that is a step — a moment — with regard to 
 
92 CHRIST OUR PRIKST. 
 
 which, instead of looking on the travail of his soul and 
 being satisfied, he must regard as subjecting his soul to a 
 travail which he did not expect, and which, had he an- 
 ticipated it, would have prevented him from undertaking 
 the work at all. Ilis consent was consequently given, un- 
 der a mitigated and mistaken view of what would be re- 
 quired of him ; — a consent which, had he foreseen that 
 step, — that moment, — he never would have given. Can 
 we believe this of Christ? Can we suppose that when he 
 consented to take our iniquities upon him, he had not a 
 clear and most distinct view of the whole extent of suffer- 
 ing to which his undertaking subjected him ? Or can we 
 suppose that even during the most agonizing moments of 
 his course, he regretted, that is, virtually cancelled the 
 consent which he had given to undertake it ? If so, then 
 at that moment the benefits which we derive from him, 
 supposing we could in such a case derive any benefits 
 from him, were not the free gifts of his gi'ace, but 
 were forcibly wrung from a reluctant and unwilling bene- 
 factor. ^ 
 
 Christ then voluntarily consented to be made sin for us ; 
 and he gave that consent with a distinct view of all the 
 sufferings to which it would expose him ; and the most 
 agonizing of these sufferings never once induced hhn to 
 withdraw that consent, by making him express or feel a 
 wish that he had withheld it. Xow this is one of the 
 considerations that lead most directly to the proof of his 
 divinity. Supposing him to have been a mere creature, 
 then either he was a creature, created originally for a dif- 
 ferent purpose, but was induced to consent to undertake 
 the work of man's redemption ; or he was a creature 
 created originally for that express pm-pose. In neither 
 case could he have given that consent which is essential to 
 the validity of atonement. If he was originally created 
 for a diff'erent purpose, then wo must admit a want of pre- 
 
 * See note F. AiTcndix. 
 
cnPvisT OUR rniEST. 93 
 
 science in God. He created this being for one purpose, 
 but afterwards found it necessary to alter this creature's 
 destination, and employ him for a different purpose. But 
 in this alteration of his destination, he, as a creature, 
 totally dependant upon God, could have no consent either 
 to give or to withhold. But let us take the very highest 
 idea of him that has been, or that can be, framed by 
 those who deny his divinity. Let us suppose him to be a 
 super-angelic Spuit, created for the express purpose of 
 manifesting the glory of God, in the work of redemption. 
 It is plain that he could not in this case, any more than 
 in the former, give that voluntary consent to being ap- 
 pointed to make atonement, without which atonement is a 
 nullity. For if he was a creature — a super-angelic crea- 
 ture, created specifically for the pm-pose of becoming in- 
 carnate and making atonement, then it is clear that he 
 was appointed to this work, and to all the labours and 
 sufferings which it imposed upon him, before he had a 
 being at all, and consequently before he was capable of 
 either giving or withholding his consent. To say, then, 
 that Christ was a mere creature, even making him the 
 very highest of aU created beings, is effectually to deny the 
 atonement. 
 
 It must also be observed, that if he became, in his Incar- 
 nation, a fallen sinful man, it does not follow indeed that 
 he withdi'ew his consent to endure all the sufferings which 
 his undertaking imposed upon him ; but we have no evi- 
 dence that he did not, and we have strong groimd for 
 thinking that he did. And upon a point of such funda- 
 mental importance, it is surely necessary that we shoidd 
 have evidence of the most indisputable kind. And such 
 evidence, I shall in the sequel have occasion to show, we 
 have in abundance. I merely remark here, in passing, 
 that if Christ became a fallen sinful man, then he became 
 a man as liable to death, as unable to avoid or resist it, as 
 any other man, — an opinion that is openly and strenuously 
 maintained, as of plain necessity it must, by those who 
 
94 CHRIST OUR rniEST. 
 
 say that Christ was fallen and sinful. He was then bound 
 to die by two diflferent obligations, — by that voluntary 
 consent to become obedient unto death, without which 
 his death could be no atonement, — and also by that per- 
 sonal constitution which rendered his death unavoidable, 
 whether he had been under any covenant obligation 
 to die or not. Now, it is obvious, that the existence of the 
 latter of these obligations altogether obscures the evidence 
 of the former, by showing that he must have died though 
 that obligation had never existed. It is of the utmost 
 importance for us to know, that though every step of the 
 painful process through which he passed, the benefits 
 derived to us by his sufi'erings, were not by constraint 
 wrung from him, but willingly purchased for us, — that he 
 was not bound down to endurance by the iron chain of his 
 own fallen and sinful personal constitution, but by the 
 golden chain of that love to God whose glorious perfec- 
 tions he was manifesting to the universe, and of that love 
 to men through whose salvation he was making the mani- 
 festation, which no waters could quench, and no floods 
 could drown. For aught that we can tell, that love was 
 effectually quenched ; and in the intensity of his suffer- 
 ings, he regretted that he had ever undertaken to bear 
 them, and would have escaped from them, had he not, as 
 if distrusting his own resolution, placed himself in a situa- 
 tion which rendered escape impossible. For aught that 
 we know, the reproach cast upon him on the cross was 
 true — " He saved others, himself he cannot save." It 
 may be that the insulting challenge, " Let him come dowTi 
 from the cross now, and we will believe," was a challenge 
 which he declined, from total inability, through personal 
 weakness, to meet it. And if so, what becomes of the 
 atonement? 
 
 I may here notice what is often said as to the bearing of 
 the atonement. It is said that as God is unchangeable, 
 atonement, therefore, can have no bearing upon him. If, 
 therefore, it have any bearing at all, it must be upon us. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 95 
 
 If the Church taught that the great, and, indeed, only ob- 
 ject of atonement, is to render God willing to forgive the 
 sinner, then the remark would be perfectly correct. But 
 the Chiu'ch teaches no such doctrine ; nor have I met with 
 it any where, save in the waitings of Socinians, who very 
 often represent the doctrine of the Church in this manner, 
 that they may be able to overthrow it ; a task which they 
 would find not quite so easy, if they would take the trouble 
 to acquaint themselves with what it is that the Church 
 really believes upon the subject. If, indeed, it could be said 
 with truth of any of the offices of Christ, that it bears not 
 upon men at all, but solely upon God, it is of his Priesthood 
 that the remark would be made. The bearing of the other 
 offices upon us is palpable. As a Prophet he enlightens 
 us ; as a Bang he subdues us to himself, rules, and defends 
 us ; and what more do we want ? or what is left for the 
 Priesthood to accomplish ? If then the Priesthood can have 
 no bearing upon God who is unchangeable, and is unne- 
 cessary to us who are renewed without it, there seems to 
 be no room for it whatever. This mode of reasoning has 
 often been employed against the doctrine of atonement. 
 And were the atonement that which the Socinian makes it, 
 when he attempts to refute it, a means of rendering God 
 willing to forgive, the reasoning would be good. But the 
 Priesthood has an essential bearing upon us. It cancels the 
 sentence of condemnation, and of aliens and enemies makes 
 us childi'en of God ; placing us in that situation in which 
 we must of necessity be, before any grace whatever can be 
 conferred upon us. But in changing the relation in which 
 we stand toward God, it has as distinct a bearing upon 
 him as upon us. It is not indeed requisite in order to ren- 
 der him willing to forgive ; but as " God cannot deny him- 
 self," it is requisite in order to render forgiveness compa- 
 tible with his own perfections, and the interests of the uni- 
 verse : and if, therefore, it do not bear upon the whole 
 character of God, upon every perfection of his nature, and 
 upon every principle of his moral government, then it has 
 
96 CIIUIST OUR nil EST. 
 
 failed in attaining its object. When atonement, in this 
 vicAV of it, is shown to be unnecessary ; and when it is 
 shown what possible purpose such a being as man can pos- 
 sibly serve in the government of God, without such an 
 atonement, it may be necessary to enter into a more minute 
 consideration of the bearing of the atonement. But as long 
 as the opponents of the doctrine hunt a phantom of their 
 own formation, they may be allowed to pursue it without 
 molestation, as the Catholic doctrine is not at all concern- 
 ed in the result of the chase. 
 
 So far, then, it appears certain that Christ was a Priest, 
 and that his death was truly an atonement ; for he suffer- 
 ed for no sin of his own ; yet he did die for ^in ; " For the 
 iniquities of my people was he smitten." His death, then, 
 was the penalty due to our sins, for on no other ground 
 can it be reconciled with justice. And as the justice of 
 God demanded the death of Christ, when he took our ini- 
 quities upon him, so the mercy of God no less imperiously 
 demanded his death, because without it, the very existence 
 of mercy could never have been proved. It appears, too, 
 that the efficacy of the atonement may be securely relied 
 upon, because it was appointed by God, and its accom- 
 plishment rewarded by him ; and also because it was vo- 
 luntarily undertaken by Christ, and voluntarily carried on 
 by him tiirough its every step. The consent of the sinner 
 alone, therefore, is necessary to enable him to reap all the 
 benefits of atonement. 
 
 Having mentioned one of the necessary qualifications of 
 Christ for the making of an atonement, that he could un- 
 dertake it with his own voluntary consent, and a consent 
 given with a clear vicAv of all the sufl:erings to the endur- 
 ance of which his undertaking w^ould expose him, — a con- 
 sent without which his sufferings could have had no atoning 
 efficacy, and a consent which, had he been a mere creature, 
 however exalted, he never could by any possibility have 
 given — I cannot choose a better place for noticing some 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 97 
 
 Other qualifications that were necessary to enable him to 
 make an atonement for our sins. 
 
 It was essentially necessary to the accomplishment of 
 the atonement, that he who undertook it should be God. 
 Without being Divine, our great High Priest could have 
 been only such a Priest as were those under the law, and 
 he could have offered no more effectual a sacrifice than 
 they did. His Divinity was necessary not merely to en- 
 able him to give that voluntary consent to his appoint- 
 ment, without which his death could have been no atone- 
 ment ; but was no less necessary in order to furnish him 
 with an offering. " It is of necessity that he should have 
 somewhat to offer." One, among many reasons, why the 
 sacrifices under the laAv were of no avail to the taking away 
 of sin, was, that the animals offered were already as com- 
 pletely the property of God as they could be made, by be- 
 ing presented to him in sacrifice. " I will take no bullock 
 out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds ; for every 
 beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand 
 hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the 
 wild beasts of the field are mine." And had our Saviour 
 not been God, his sacrifice must have obviously laboured 
 under the same defect. He could not have said of that 
 life which he gave for a lost world, what no created being 
 can say, " No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
 of myself ; I have power to lay it down, and I have power 
 to take it again." This, I say, is what no created being 
 could ever say ; for the highest of created beings has re- 
 ceived his life from God, holds it in dependence upon God, 
 and has no authority whatever to lay it down. But 
 Christ, in giving his life for that of the world, was giving 
 that which was strictly and properly his own, that which 
 he assumed at his own pleasure, that which could be de- 
 manded from him by no law, and that which could be 
 wrung from him by no power ; but was assailed in vain 
 by death, and him that had the power of death. In lay- 
 
OS CnRIBT OUR PRIEST. 
 
 ing down his life for his sheep, therefore, he was laying 
 down that which was entirely his own, — his own in such 
 a way as no creature ever did, or by any possibility ever 
 can, call his life his own ; and which he had consequently 
 the most indisputable right to dispose of as he pleased. 
 
 But it is obvious that our Saviour's sacrifice altogether 
 wanted that indispensable characteristic of an acceptable 
 and efficacious sacrifice, that it should be offered by him 
 who can say that it is his own, and that he has an un- 
 questionable right to ofier it, if we suppose that Christ 
 was a fallen and sinful man. For then he had no more 
 control over his own life than we have over ours ; and 
 could not say that he had power to lay down that which, in 
 reality, he had no power to retain ; but which he must 
 give up, whether he pleased or not. To maintain, then, 
 that Christ was a fallen sinful man, is most clearly and 
 directly to deny the atonement ; for it is to deny that he 
 had any right to dispose of that life which he gave for the 
 world. This matter will require a more extended consi- 
 deration at a more advanced period of our discussion ; but 
 the remarks just made are, I think, sufficient to show that 
 Christ was neither a mere creature, nor, as to his manhood, 
 fallen and sinful. 
 ^k In order to make the atonement, it was not less neces- 
 sary that he should be truly Man, than that he should be 
 tnily God. Had he not been truly man, then the serpent's 
 head could not have been bruised by the " woman's seed." 
 Had he not been truly man, by whom our foe was con- 
 quered, then, as Iremeus remarks, our foe had not been 
 fairly overcome, for as " by man came death," even so was 
 it necessary that by man should come " the resiurection 
 from the dead." Again, the atonement was to be made 
 by suff*cring. But the Divinity caimot sufi'er. It was ne- 
 cessary, therefore, that the Son should assume, and assume 
 into such union with himself, a nature capable of suffering, 
 as would render his sufferings in that nature his own suf- 
 ferings, just as certainly as his Divine personality is his 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 99 
 
 own ; so that the Scriptures speak of God purchasing the 
 Church with his own blood, and of the crucifixion of the 
 Lord of Glory. It was necessary also that the atonement 
 should be made by him who was truly man, not only be- 
 cause it was man that was to be redeemed, but because 
 man is the only rational being who is capable of suffering 
 without personal guilt. Had Christ assumed the angelic 
 nature, in order in that nature to have manifested the per- 
 fections of God, he could in that nature have endured no 
 other death than spiritual-dfiaUj, which is identical with 
 sin. But assuming a human natm-e, he could, by an exer- 
 cise of Divine power, die, without doing, and without 
 knowing sin. Moreover, it was necessary that he should 
 be man, and should make the atonement, from which all 
 the rational families of God were to learn wisdom in that 
 natm-e which is at present the lowest of rational natures, 
 but which, from its uniting of the only two substances of 
 which we have any knowledge, matter and spirit, in its 
 composition, is capable of becoming the most perfect of 
 created natures ; for had the atonement been made in a 
 higher nature, that knowledge of God, which it alone can 
 give, would have been unknown to man, one of the rational 
 families of God. And had it been made for fallen spirits 
 alone, it might have been doubted whether it could descend 
 so low as to us. Thus, had the atonement been made in 
 ^a higher nature than that of man, the lessons taught by it 
 would have been neither so extensively nor so impressive- 
 ly taught. This subject also, however, will require more 
 particular notice hereafter. In the meantime, it seems suf- 
 ficiently plain, that he who made the atonement must of 
 necessity be man. 
 
 It was also necessary that he who made atonement for 
 the sins of men should himself be perfectly holy. Under 
 the law no person could be found possessed of this perfect 
 holiness : but the utmost care was taken to render the Le- 
 vitical high priest, as far as possible, a striking type of 
 Christ in this respect. He was required to be perfectly 
 
100 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 free from all bodily defect and deformity. He was to be 
 bom of a mother who had been, not a widow, but a virgin, 
 when married to his father. He was consecrated to his 
 office by ceremonies of the most solemn kind. He wore 
 npon his forehead a golden plate, on which was graven, 
 like the engravings of a signet, " holiness to the lord." 
 He was not permitted, like other men, to mom'n for those 
 that died, nor to contract any ceremonial uncleanness, even 
 for his father or his mother. And on the great day of 
 atonement, when he entered into the sanctuary, he pre- 
 pared himself for the solemnity by oifering first an atone- 
 ment for himself. Thus, the utmost degree of ceremonial 
 holiness was conferred ujwn him, that he might be a pro- 
 per type of the immaculate holiness of om* gi'eat High 
 Priest. 
 
 Now, if all this ceremonial holiness was necessary in 
 those priests who were only types of the great High Priest, 
 how much more necessary was all the reality of that holi- 
 ness in our great High Priest himself? If this ceremonial 
 holiness was necessary in him who appeared before the 
 Shechinah, how much more necessary was all the reality of 
 that holiness in him who is the Shechinah ? If the one was 
 necessary in him who appeared only once in the year in 
 the earthly tabernacle, how much more necessary must the 
 other be considered to be in him who appears continually 
 in the heavenly sanctuary to bless us, not once in the year, 
 but always from thence? If such was the awful solemnity 
 to be observed in passing, on one appointed day, into the 
 holy of holies, how unspeakable the holiness of him whose 
 death rent asunder the veil that concealed that holy 
 place from mortal eye, thus profaning the typical repre- 
 sentation while he went into the reality, even into holy 
 places not made with hands, there to appear before God 
 for us ? 
 
 Now, it is not denied that Christ was perfectly iinmacn- 
 late ; but it is maintained, at the same time, that he was 
 fallen and sinful. The one of these positions appears to 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 101 
 
 me to be a direct contradiction of the other. If the pro- 
 pensities of fallen man were in him, these propensities 
 were in themselves criminal before God, entering into and 
 unfitting him for the presence of God, imtil, like the high 
 priest under the law, he had first ofi'ered sacrifice for his 
 own sins. And that he did redeem his own creatm'e sub- 
 stance, is a tenet openly avowed by some of those wlio 
 maintain that he was fallen and sinful. But if he who was 
 fallen and sinful could redeem himself, I see not why we, 
 who are also fallen and sinful, should not be able to re- 
 deem ourselves. If it be said that we have been guilty of 
 actual sin, which he never was, I reply that still he was in 
 the state of an infant, a fallen sinful creature, but without 
 actual sin. If, then, his death redeemed himself, — or his 
 own creature substance, which was just as much him- 
 self as his Divinity was himself, — then, with regard to in- 
 fants at least, we may atfii'm, that their death is a redemp- 
 tion of themselves. Now, while I maintain the salvation 
 of all infants, dying before actual sin, I deny that any one 
 of them is or can be saved by its own death, but only by 
 the death of Christ. Besides, if the death of Chi'ist, a 
 fallen, sinful, but actually guiltless being, could redeem not 
 only himself but others also ; why should not the death of 
 other fallen, sinful, but actually guiltless beings, be suffi- 
 cient to redeem not only themselves but others also ? And 
 upon what principle can we find fault with those who of- 
 fered to God their "first-bom for their transgression, and 
 the fruit of then- body for the sins of their soul," excepting 
 that the infants themselves had not given their consent to 
 the sacrifice ? If the sacrifice of one fallen, sinful, but 
 guiltless being, be sufiicient to redeem the souls of others : 
 the sacrifice of another fallen, sinful, but guiltless being, 
 must have equal efficacy, unless some exception of this 
 kind be taken ; an exception, be it remarked, which has 
 no reference whatever to the personal constitution of the 
 being excepted against, — a personal constitution which fits 
 the fallen, sinful, but guiltless infant, as effectually for 
 
102 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 either priest or sacrifice, as the fallen, sinful, but guiltless 
 Saviour could be. 
 
 For, it must be remarked, that Christ was required to 
 be holy, not merely as the Priest who offered the atoning 
 sacrifice, but also as the Lamb which was offered. To 
 offer to God that which was not perfect in its kind was, 
 even under the law, an offence of the most giievous nature. 
 " Cursed be the deceiver that hath in his flock a male, and 
 voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing : for I 
 am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and ray name is 
 dreadful among the heathen." In this respect, also, the 
 divinity was essentially necessary to our Lord, in order to 
 give that dignity to his person, and that value to his suf- 
 ferings, which they could not otherwise have possessed. 
 His sufferings are available for our salvation, not simply 
 as they are sufferings, but as they are the sufferings of the 
 " Lord of glory ;" his blood cleanseth us from all sins, not 
 simply as it is pm-e, and innocent, and holy blood, but as 
 it is the blood of him who is " God over all, blessed for 
 ever, Amen." He was not divested of the divinity on the 
 cross, for he could not be divested of himself; and his di- 
 vinity was himself, as much as the humanity which suffer- 
 ed was himself The Godhead in him was not separated 
 from his Godhead properties, but inseparably united to his 
 own humanity, sustained it to endure what would have 
 overwhelmed any other, until he could say, " It is finished." 
 And this was what rendered his death an exhibition of 
 the divine perfection, from which angels learn wisdom, 
 that he who was " bruised for our iniquities " was not a 
 man emptied of the divinity, and dying in consequence of 
 the sinfulness of his flesh ; but was God purchasing his 
 Church with "his own blood." As the sacrifice offered, 
 then, the divinity was not less essential to him than it 
 was essential to him as the Priest by whom the sacrifice 
 was offered. 
 
 Both as the victim offered, then, and as the Priest who 
 offered it, it was necessary that Christ should possess all 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 103 
 
 the perfection of holiness, — a holiness not resulting from a 
 successful resistance of the motions of sin in the flesh, but 
 a holiness resulting from the total absence of any such 
 motions. For an inclination to sin, however successfully 
 resisted, and however completely repressed ft'om going forth 
 into actual transgression, is itself criminal, and totally in- 
 compatible with the holiness of the " Lamb «f God, which 
 taketh away the sins of the world." If such inclination 
 was in Christ, then was he under the same necessity as 
 the Levitical high priest, to prepare himself for appearmg 
 before the Lord, by offering first a sacrifice for his own 
 sins. The holiness of him, therefore, who, "through the 
 eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," was 
 not a holiness that resulted from a successful repression of 
 the sinful inclinations of the flesh, or from a successful 
 overcoming of the renitency of the human will against the 
 Divme will ; but fi'om the total absence of any such incli- 
 nations, or such renitency in the INL^n anointed, in the 
 moment of conception, with all the plentitude of the Holy 
 Ghost. Had he been in any manner, or to any degree, in- 
 volved in the guilt of men, he could not have substituted 
 hunself in the room of guilty men, but must have died for 
 his own guilt. 
 
 Upon this subject I shall again avail myself of the lan- 
 guage of Augustine. After stating that a sacrifice can be 
 offered only to God, that it must be offered by a righteous 
 and holy priest, that it must be accepted by those for 
 whose sakes it is offered, and that it must be without 
 blemish, he thus goes on : — "Who then was so righteous 
 and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need 
 to purge away his own sins, original or actual, by sacrifice ? 
 And what could be so properly taken from men, to be of- 
 fered for them, as human flesh? And what so fit for this 
 immolation as mortal flesh ? And what so pm-e for purify- 
 ing the sins of mortal men as flesh bom in the womb, and 
 from the womb of the vfrgin, without any contagion of 
 carnal concupiscence ? And what so grateful could be of- 
 
104 CDRIST OUR PIUE8T. 
 
 fered or received as the flesh of our sacrifice, the prepared 
 body of our Priest ? That as four things are considered in 
 every sao'ifice, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offer- 
 ed, what is offered, and for whom it is offered, the self-same, 
 only, and true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sa- 
 crifice of peace, remained one with him to whom he offered, 
 made one in himself of those for Avhom he offered, and 
 was himself both the person who offered and the thing 
 offered." i 
 
 Another part of the office of Christ as our Priest is to 
 make intercession for us. All that I have to do at present 
 is to show that Christ actually does intercede for us, and 
 to notice one or two of the principal circumstances con- 
 nected with that intercession. That he interceded for his 
 people before his appearance in the flesh is, I think, very 
 distinctly shown in the first chapter of Zechariah. There 
 it is written, " Then the angel of the Lord answered and 
 said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy 
 on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, against which 
 thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years ? 
 And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me 
 with good words, and comfortable words." 'Now it requires 
 no very nice attention to the structure of the prophecy 
 from which this quotation is made, to show that the an- 
 gel who is here represented as hiterceding for Judah and 
 Jerusalem, and who was answered with good and comfort- 
 
 ' " Quis ergo tam Justus et sanctus sacerdos, quam unicus Filius Dei, qui non 
 opus haberet per sacrificium sua purgare peccata, nee originalia, nee ex hu- 
 mana vita quae adduntur ? Et quid tam congrucnter ab hominibus sumere- 
 tur quod pro eis offerrctur, quam hijimana care ? Et quid tam aptum huic 
 immolationi, quam caro mortalis ? Et quid tam mundum pro mundandis 
 vitiis mortalium, quam sine ulla contagione carnalis concupiscentiai caro 
 nata in utero et ex utero virginali ? Et quid tam grate offerri et suscipi possit, 
 quam caro sacrlficii uostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri ? Ut quoniam 
 quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid 
 offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse unus verusque Mediator, per sacri- 
 ficium pacis reconcilians nos Deo, unum cum illo manci'et cui offerebat, 
 nnum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui oflFerebat, et quod 
 offerubat."— Z>e Trinitate, Lib. iv. Cap. 14. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 100 
 
 able words, was no other than the angel of the covenant, 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, who is distinctly recognized as 
 Jehovah. In this prophecy he is here stated very plainly 
 to have exercised the office of intercessor, and to have ex- 
 ercised it with efficacy, long before his appearance in the 
 flesh. That he exercised the same part of the priestly 
 office while he was on earth, needs no proof to those who 
 are in the habit of reading the Bible. We have there a 
 most instructive specimen of his intercession for his people 
 in general, in the seventeenth chapter of John, and we 
 have also a proof of his intercession for every individual 
 believer, in his declaration to Peter,—" I have prayed for 
 thee, that thy faith fail not." I do not stop just now to 
 show how clearly this proves him to have been a Priest 
 when he was on earth, but go on to remark that he con- 
 tinues to make intercession for his people now. Of this I 
 can offer no more satisfactory proof than that which is 
 furnished by the following texts of Scriptui'es : " Who is he 
 that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather that 
 is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
 also maketh intercession for us."i " Wherefore he is able 
 also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God 
 by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for 
 them."2 
 
 With regard to this intercession, I shall not inquh-e whe- 
 ther he makes use of words, or only presents himself silent- 
 ly before God, as it were a " Lamb that had been slain; " 
 neither shall I mquire whether actual prostration be em- 
 ployed in his intercession,— questions which I sm-ely cha- 
 racterize very gently when I say that they are foolish. 
 They have arisen, I suppose, from considering the inter- 
 cession of Christ as having a reference solely to our prayers. 
 Now it is certain that om' prayers can find acceptance with 
 God only through the intercession of Christ. This is 
 indeed acknowledged in our prayers, all of whicli we offer 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 34. ' Heb. vii. 25. 
 
106 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 up in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and beg an 
 answer to our prayers only for his sake. But every duty 
 that we perform, every grace that we exercise, and every 
 blessing that we receive, is as intimately connected with 
 the intercession of our Mediator as our prayers are. The 
 very word intercession has received an improper and in- 
 correct limitation, fi'om its supposed exclusive connection 
 with prayer. But the intercession of Christ just means 
 that he stands between God and men, as the medium 
 thi'ough whom alone every deed of man becomes accept- 
 able to God, and every blessing that God confers upon 
 man is conveyed. We are wrong if we suppose that any 
 prayer can be heard, if we do not offer it in the name of 
 Christ ; but if we suppose that any work of righteousness 
 that we do can be accepted of God, or rewarded by him, 
 if it be not wi'ought in the name of Christ, we are equally 
 wrong. If we offer up any prayer to God, on the ground 
 of our own righteousness, and desire to be heard because we 
 deserve to be so, we are thus setting aside the intercession of 
 Christ, and cannot by any possibility be heard. But if we 
 work any deed of righteousness, which we hope will be ac- 
 cepted of God and rewarded by him on account of its own 
 excellence, we are equally setting aside the intercession of 
 Christ, and are equally deceiving oui'selves. " The plough- 
 ing of the wicked is sin." And why? Just because the 
 ungodliness of the principles upon which he acts, having 
 no reference whatever to his dependence upon God, com- 
 municates its contamination even to his most indifferent 
 actions. The prayers and alms of the Pharisee, though 
 excellent deeds in themselves, are hateful in the sight of 
 God, for they are performed without any regard to the au- 
 thority of God, and without a reference to him for their 
 reward. In the same way, not only the good deeds of the 
 believer, but his most indifferent actions, derive their 
 complexion from his general principles, and, wrought in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus Christ, they become sacrifices of 
 righteousness, accepted of, and rewai-ded by God, as ex- 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 107 
 
 pressions and fruits of faith in the Redeemer whom he hath 
 provided. If, then, we do not recognise the intercession 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ in every deed of righteousness 
 that we, do, and in every grace that we exercise, and in 
 every blessing that we receive ; if, in short, we confine 
 our views of his intercession to our prayers alone, in which 
 that intercession is distinctly and fonnally acknowledged, 
 we are limiting our views in a way that cannot fail to 
 prove most injurious both to our progi'ess in the Christian 
 life, and to our enjoyment of spiritual pleasure. 
 
 While I think it of the utmost importance to inculcate 
 upon my reader the fact, that for every step that he takes 
 in the Christian life he is indebted to the intercession of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, — that he can make no progress 
 until he can say, " I live, nevertheless not I, but Christ 
 liveth in me," I hold it also important to remark, that the 
 intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ must be always 
 successful. What we ask in his name, believing, we 
 shall, we must receive. Nothing can be more certain than 
 this. He is the well-beloved Son, and what we ask for 
 his sake, if it be agreeable to his will, cannot be denied. 
 God requii'es us to hear him when he instructs us ; and can 
 we suppose that God himself will refuse to hear him when 
 he calls upon his Father to fulfil those petitions which his 
 instructions alone have taught us to offer ? His intercession 
 must prevail, because, in asking every blessing that the 
 Gospel promises in his name, we are asking nothing but 
 that which we have a covenant right to ask. We deserve 
 nothing, but Christ hath deserved all things ; and if it be 
 true, as I apprehend it most clearly and certainly is, that 
 our sins were imputed to Christ, and that his righteous- 
 ness is imputed to us, then there is nothing that we may 
 not ask. The terms of the covenant of salvation have 
 ah-eady been fulfilled by our Divine representative, and 
 whatever he deserved we may confidently ask ; for if the 
 covenant has been fulfilled on our part, we may rest as- 
 sured that it will not fail to be fulfilled on God's part. 
 
108 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 His faithfulness and justice are now pledged to forgive us 
 oar sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. When, 
 therefore, we ask for all blessings, we ask only for that to 
 which we have an undoubted right, if we be truly members 
 of the body of Christ ; for in him all fulness dwells, and 
 dwells just for our sakes, that " of his fulness we may all 
 receive, and grace for grace." 
 
 It is the most delightful privilege of the Gospel, that 
 the believer has at all times access to God, with the per- 
 fect certainty of being heard. His prayer is considered as 
 being the prayer of Christ himself, — as in truth it is, for 
 the salvation of the believer is the glory of Christ, — and it 
 rises to the throne of grace with all the efficacy which such 
 a consideration can give it ; and is enforced with all the 
 weight of his merits, and with all the sanctity of his peace- 
 speaking blood. " This is the confidence that we have in 
 him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he 
 heareth us. And if we know that he hears us, whatsoever 
 we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we de« 
 sired of him."i From this view of the matter, I think 
 two conclusions appear to be perfectly certain. The first 
 is, that a prayer offered up to God, without any reference 
 to the intercession of Christ, cannot, by any possibility, be 
 granted ; for this would be to prove that there is some 
 other way of access to God than through Christ Jesus, 
 and that, in fact, his mediation is unnecessary. The next 
 Is, that a prayer offered up to God, with reference to, and 
 dependence upon, the intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 must, to an absolute certainty, be heard and answered. 
 VVTicn Christ intercedes for us, our prayer must be grant- 
 ed ; because he asks only what is agreeable to the will of 
 the Father, and what, therefore, the Father has pleasure 
 in granting. He asks only what he has paid for, and 
 what, therefore, justice requires to be granted. He asks, 
 as Mediator, only what, as God, he has the power and the 
 privilege of bestowing, and what therefore must, most 
 
 1 1 John V. 14. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 109 
 
 certainly, be bestowed. The prayer of faith, therefore, 
 must prevail. 
 
 But both these positions, it will perhaps be said, are di- 
 rectly contradicted by well-established facts ; and against 
 facts there is no reasoning. A slight examination however 
 will, I apprehend, be sufficient to show that this is not the 
 case. With regard to the first of these conclusions, that a 
 prayer not offered in the name of Christ cannot be grant- 
 ed, I need enter into no discussion ; for they who " deny 
 the Lord that bought them," may be presumed to be but 
 little in the habit of praying at all. Spiritual blessings 
 they cannot receive, for they depend not upon the Spirit of 
 God, but upon their own exertions, for all the virtue that 
 they hope to acquire. Temporal prosperity they may pos- 
 sess. But while the aiTangements of Providence render it 
 necessary that temporal good should be indiscriminately 
 distributed, with little regard to moral character, prospe- 
 rity is far from being always a blessing. " The prosperity 
 of fools destroys them." 
 
 With regard to the other conclusion, that the prayer 
 of faith, offered in the name of Christ, must be heard, I 
 conceive nothing can be more derogatory to the Divine 
 character than to doubt it. The facts which seem to mili- 
 tate against this conclusion maybe satisfactorily accounted 
 for by such considerations as the following. Fu'st, it must 
 be recollected that the prayer even of a true Christian is 
 not always a Christian prayer. I refer not to that coldness 
 of heart, and deadness of affection, and poverty of expec- 
 tation, and distrustful timidity which so often characterize 
 our prayers ; but to that mere formality of which the 
 Christian may occasionally be guilty. There may be a want 
 of any exercise of faith in the prayers which we offer up. 
 The name of Christ may be mentioned merely as a form, 
 and without any real specific believing reference to, or 
 reliance upon, his Mediation. Now, we cannot hope that 
 he is to adopt as his own, and enforce with all the efficacy 
 of his intercession, a prayer which we are offering up in a 
 
110 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 way which clearly indicates to his all-seeing eye, that wc 
 are taking no interest in, and feeling no anxiety about, the 
 matter, but are praying in mere formality. 
 
 Agam, we may have offered up our prayer in faith, but 
 we may then have gone away and forgotten it. But if we 
 wish to have our petitions granted, we must not only pray, 
 but we must also " look up," waiting for and expecting an 
 answer. If we have engaged some person to intercede for 
 us with some great man from whom we expect a favour, 
 we wait with the most anxious expectation to learn the re- 
 sult of the application. But if, when we have applied to 
 God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, we go away, and 
 think no more about the matter, nor make use of the means 
 which he may actually be putting into our hands, for the 
 very purpose of enabling us to obtain the blessing that we 
 desired, then no doubt our prayer fails ; yet is it not the 
 less true that the prayer of faith fails not. Om- petition 
 may have been heard, while our subsequent carelessness 
 has thrown away the blessing. 
 
 Farther, we may often pray for things, the possession of 
 which would prove really hurtful to us, and the denial of 
 which things, therefore, is the most gi-acious answer to our 
 prayer. God alone can tell what is reaUy good for us, and 
 graciously reserves to himself the prerogative of determin- 
 ing whether the petitions which we offer be fit to be gi'ant- 
 ed. " Me have ye bereaved of my children," said the 
 mourning patriarch ; " Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and 
 ye will take Benjamin away. AU these things are against 
 me." Nay, Jacob ! but these arc the steps whereby God 
 is providing a place, where thou and thine may be satisfied 
 in the days of famine. How often does the wayward child 
 struggle and cry, while the tenderest hand is performing 
 offices essentially necessary for its health and comfort ! And 
 how often are we, in the hands of God, very wayward 
 children, fretting and murmuring at that which is neces- 
 sary for our spiritual health and comfort ! God may there- 
 fore often deny cm* petitions, because he sees that to grant 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. Ill 
 
 them would be detrimental to us. But in this case there 
 is no reason to doubt, that he will always give us a bless- 
 ing more appropriate to our situation, and of gi-eater value 
 than that which he has refused. In this case, then, though 
 our petition be denied, yet the prayer of faith is not in 
 vain. A beloved child may ask an indulgent father for 
 something which the father sees would be hurtful. This 
 therefore he refuses ; and the child, who knows both that 
 his father is wiser than he, and knows much better what 
 is good for him, and also that he is so good that he will re- 
 fuse him notliing that is really good for him, will rest per- 
 fectly satisfied with the decision. 
 
 One or two objections to the doctrine of Christ's inter- 
 cession may deserve a passing notice. It is said, if the 
 Father himself loveth us, as our Lord declares, then there 
 can be no need of any intercessor to induce him to grant 
 all necessary blessings to those whom he himself loves. It 
 is also said that if, as we maintain, God has actually de- 
 creed to confer upon the believer eveiy thing necessaiy to 
 fit him for the kingdom of heaven, and to bring him into 
 it, then can we want no intercessor to obtain for us those 
 blessings. These objections, if they have any validity, 
 must put an end not merely to the doctrine of Christ's in- 
 tercession, but to the propriety of any prayers on our part. 
 For, on the principle on which they are founded, we must 
 say, that it is useless to make known om- wants and de- 
 sires to God, who knows what things we have need of be- 
 fore we ask him, and better than we can know, and who is 
 abundantly disposed to supply all our wants. God has, 
 indeed, determined to give all necessary blessings to the 
 believer ; but he has also determined to give them only 
 through the mediation of his own Son. And surely it ar- 
 gues no defect of love on the part of God, that in order to 
 render our salvation compatible with the interests of the 
 universe, and the blessings appointed for. us perfectly se- 
 cured to us, he has appointed his own Son to be the me- 
 
112 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 dium through whom our desires may be addressed to him, 
 and his blessings conveyed to us. 
 
 There is one objection, however, which, if it can be esta- 
 blished, will effectually destroy the doctrine of the inter- 
 cession, and remove all the comfort that we derive from 
 the thought, that when we approach God in prayer, we are 
 sure to be heard, because we are introduced to him by the 
 Son of his love. If Christ was not a Priest when he died, 
 then his death was no atonement ; and the atonement de- 
 nied, the whole foundation of his intercession is removed. 
 But if I have succeeded in showing the necessity and the 
 reality of the atonement, then the certainty and the pre- 
 valence of his intercession necessarily follows. It must be 
 farther remarked, that as a fallen, sinful, but regenerated 
 man, was totally unfit to make atonement ; even so such a 
 man could give us no security in the character of interces- 
 sor. For if one fallen, sinful, but regenerated man, can 
 effectually intercede for us with God, then why should not 
 another man of the same character perform for us the same 
 service ? Or rather, why should any regenerated man place 
 any reliance whatever upon another man, who is exactly 
 in his own situation, fallen, sinful, but regenerated? It is 
 useless to say that his intercession avails, because he was 
 appointed by God to the office of intercessor ; for if he was 
 not a Priest while he was on earth, if he became a Priest 
 only by virtue of his resurrection, then he has no such ap- 
 pointment that we know of; and, moreover, without the 
 atonement, there is no ground laid for his intercession, 
 which is just the constant application of the benefits of the 
 atonement. And as little can it avail to say, that his in- 
 tercession may be relied upon, because he is God as well 
 as man ; for they who maintain that he was a fallen sinful 
 man, maintain also that in him the divinity was quiescent, 
 was self-suspended, Avas limited ; in other words, was a 
 non-entity. It is declared, that in him the Godhead per- 
 son was separated from Godhead properties. Now, I would 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 113 
 
 remark, not only that if this separation existed while 
 Christ was on earth, his intercession can have no place, for 
 he could lay no effectual ground for it ; but I would re- 
 mark farther, that if this separation be possible at any 
 time, then it is perfectly clear that there is no such being 
 as God at all. If God can, at any time, or under any cir- 
 cumstances, cease to be " infinite, eternal, and unchange- 
 able, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, good- 
 ness, and truth," then he never could possess these charac- 
 teristics at any time, — that is, he never existed. And if 
 Christ be God as well as man, then that was his character 
 when he was on earth as certainly as it is so now. And if 
 this was not his character when he was on earth, — if he 
 had divested himself of these, the essential characteristics 
 of Godhead, then not only do atonement and intercession 
 fail ; but he was not God then, he cannot be so now, nor 
 can there be a God at all, if he is capable of being separat- 
 ed from his Godhead properties. 
 
 Such are some of the results of the system that teaches 
 us to believe that our Lord's humanity was fallen sinful 
 humanity ; results not di-awn from that system by remote 
 and dubious deduction, nor wrung out of it, by torturing 
 it into conclusions which would not readily suggest them- 
 selves to the supporters of that system ; but results direct- 
 ly and unavoidably springing from what they expressly 
 avow. For the quiescence, the suspension, the limitation 
 of the Godhead in Christ is openly avowed. And this is 
 much worse than maintaining that he was a mere man ; for 
 they who maintain that he was a mere man, yet leave un- 
 touched the principles by which the existence of God is 
 proved. But if we believe that in Christ the Godhead was 
 quiescent, suspended, limited, we may continue to believe, 
 if we please, that there is a God ; but our belief is perfectly 
 gratuitous ; we have swept away every gi'ound upon which 
 his being can be proved ; we have left ourselves no defence 
 against the arguments of him who denies that there is a 
 God ; for a Godhead that is capable of quiescence, suspen- 
 
114 CHRIST OITR PRIEST. 
 
 sion, and limitation, is plainly no Godhead at all. At least 
 so thought Elijah, when, deriding the divinity of Baal, he 
 said to the priests, " Cry aloud, for he is a god ; either 
 he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or 
 peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." ' 
 
 Christ, then, was really and truly a Priest, an unfallen 
 and sinless Priest. He had a life which was strictly his 
 own, which he could by no law be requu-ed either to as- 
 sume or to lay down ; a life which, in this respect, differed 
 essentially fi'om the life of every created being ; for no 
 created being assumes life, but receives it at the will of 
 God, without the possibility of giving his own previous 
 consent to its reception, and without the possibility of hav- 
 ing or of acquiring any right to dispose of that life as he 
 pleases. Christ thus having a human life, differing from the 
 life of every created being, had power to lay it down at his 
 own pleasure, and in any manner that he might think pro- 
 per. He did lay it down, and his death was really and truly 
 an atonement. It was the payment of our debt, the ransom 
 of our redemption, the endurance of our penalty, the price 
 by which we were pm'chased, the removal of the wrath of 
 God from us, by its transference to our substitute. This 
 atonement was demanded by all the attributes of the Di- 
 vine character, all of which are gloriously illustrated by 
 it. It was demanded by the interests of all the rational 
 family of God, which would have been involved in dismay 
 and in ruin, had sin been pardoned without that proof of 
 its unalterable hatefulness in the sight of God, which the 
 atonement alone could furnish. The justice and mercy of 
 God are the attributes most commonly brought into view 
 when speaking of the atonement ; of the foraier of which it 
 is said, that God might very justly have departed from his 
 right to punish, and the latter would have been much bet- 
 ter displayed by the absence of any atonement. It has 
 been shown that such a statement results from a total mis- 
 
 » 1 Kings xviii. 27. 
 
CHKIST OUR PRIEST. 115 
 
 apprehension of the nature of atonement : — that justice did 
 imperiously demand it ; and that, without it, the very ex- 
 istence of such an attribute as mercy in God is totally un- 
 susceptible of any satisfactory proof. By the atonement, 
 Christ has laid a gi'ound for an intercession which must 
 always be effectual, so that the prayer of faith offered unto 
 God through him can never fail to be heard. " For Christ 
 is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which 
 are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to 
 appear in the presence of God for us." ^ We have seen al- 
 so at eveiy step, how utterly ruinous to the Priesthood of 
 our Lord, and to all the hopes that we found upon it, and 
 to all the comfort that we draw fi-om it, is the system which 
 maintains that he was a fallen sinful man, and entered up- 
 on the Priesthood only in consequence of his resuiTCCtion 
 from the dead. I proceed now to mention some of the du- 
 ties which we owe to Christ as oui* High Priest. 
 
 The most important duty, and that which we most 
 clearly and obviously owe to our great High Priest, is to 
 renounce every self-righteous thought, and every self-de- 
 pendent feeling, and account the pardon of our sins and 
 eternal life as solely the free gift of God through him. 
 That we can be justified by any deeds of the law, or by 
 any works of righteousness, is a notion so often and direct- 
 ly denied in Scripture, — is so utterly inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of atonement, and is so clearly repugnant to right 
 reason, that it is matter of wonder that any man, and espe- 
 cially men believing the Scriptm'cs to be the word of God, 
 could ever for a moment adopt such a notion. That every 
 deed of righteousness that we do is not one of the causes 
 but one of the 'effects of our justification, is a truth of the 
 very utmost importance ; and a truth which may, perhaps, 
 be most satisfactorily proved by considering some of the 
 most common objections that are opposed to it. 
 
 It has been objected to the doctrine that we are justified 
 
 * Hebrews ix. 24. 
 
116 CHRIST OUR PRIKST. 
 
 solely by the atonement made by. Christ, that no necessary 
 connection can be discovered between the pardon of a 
 guilty person and the death of an innocent one ; nor can 
 any one explain how the latter can be the cause of the 
 former. To this it has been answered, — and the answer 
 is a complete counterpoise to the objection, — that there is 
 just as little connection that we can see between pardon 
 and repentance, or between pardon and anything else that 
 may be considered as its cause, -as between pardon and 
 atonement. If it be said that this reply is calculated 
 rather to silence the objector than to remove the objection, 
 it may be farther remarked, that both the objection and 
 the answer are particular instances of a universal truth, 
 which is, that no necessary connection is discoverable 
 by us between any two events, which, nevertheless, we 
 are accustomed to consider as cause and eflfect. And if no 
 such connection be discoverable in any case, then it can 
 form no objection to the doctrine of atonement, that such 
 a connection is not discoverable in it. It may also be ob- 
 served, that the will of God has established a connection 
 between the atonement of Christ and the pardon of the be- 
 liever ; and what, besides the fiat of the Almighty, is re- 
 quisite to establish a connection between any two things ? 
 or what else has made any one thing in the universe to be 
 the cause of any other thing ? Fire consumes what is sub- 
 mitted to its action. Is this a power residing in the ele- 
 ment itself, which has not been conferred upon it by God, 
 nor can be suspended at his pleasure ? No man who ad- 
 mits the being of God will pretend to say this. And if, 
 even in physical things, the will of God be allowed to be 
 the sole ground of the connection between cause and effect, 
 much more clearly must the same admission be made with 
 regard to the pardon of sin. If a man has been offended, 
 he may prescribe Avhat terms he pleases as the condition 
 of pardoning the offence ; and surely we cannot reasonably 
 deny to God a privilege which we allow that every man 
 possesses. It is true that a man may prescribe tenns that 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 117 
 
 are foolish and unreasonable, a supposition which we can- 
 not for a moment admit with regard to God. If, there- 
 fore, we could see no reason why the pardon of sin is com- 
 municated through the expiatory sacrifice of Christ Jesus 
 — if we could see no necessity for atonement whatever, yet, 
 when the fact is revealed to us by God, that we can be 
 pardoned only through a crucified Redeemer ; it would be- 
 come us, as offending creatures, depending altogether on 
 the mercy of God, to receive the annunciation with all hu- 
 mility and gratitude. Even in this case it would be most 
 irrational to object to it. But when God has graciously 
 permitted us to see, in part at least, the absolute neces- 
 sity of atonement, and some of the important moral pur- 
 poses answered by it, it is worse than foolish, it is the very 
 perfection of rationalism, to find fault with this method of 
 communicating pardon ; and to say that if we cannot be 
 permitted to purchase our own pardon, instead of receiv- 
 ing it as the free gift of God, through the redemption which 
 is in Christ Jesus, we will not accept of it at all. Nothing, 
 I conceive, can more efiectually or more justly subject a 
 man to condemnation, than to say that he does not see the 
 wisdom of the medium through which God is pleased to 
 communicate the pardon of sin, and rather than ask for it 
 through that medium, he will not accept of it at all. 
 
 When it is said that God is willing to pardon us upon 
 our repentance without any atonement, it is taken for 
 granted that we can repent when we please. For if re- 
 pentance be something entirely out of our power, then it 
 can aflbrd us no comfort to tell us, even if it were true, that 
 repentance will purchase our pardon. For, besides that it 
 seems just as difficult to perceive the connection between 
 repentance and pardon, as to perceive the connection be- 
 tween atonement and pardon, I know not that even the 
 most determined rationalism has ever promulgated a 
 tenet more clearly absurd, or more decidedly opposed to 
 all experience, than the tenet that a man can repent of 
 himself without being led to do so, and enabled to do so 
 
118 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 by the Holy Spirit. Many a sinner is, no doubt, soothing 
 himself to peace by the promise of a future repentance. 
 But he neither knows as yet what repentance is, nor his 
 own need of repentance, else he would build himself up in 
 no such foolish delusion. For what does the sinner do when 
 he promises himself a future repentance? He just says, to- 
 day nothing shall induce me to abstain from indulging 
 every appetite and every desire, nothing shall lead me to 
 think of God at all, or to think of him without dread and 
 aversion ; nothing can make me delight to contemplate 
 his perfections, or find any pleasure in drawing near to 
 him : to-morrow I will sit down and mourn in the utmost 
 anguish of spirit those indulgences from which nothing 
 shall induce me to-day to abstain, and wish a thousand 
 times that I had never yielded to them ; nothing shall give 
 me such delight as the contemplation of these glorious per- 
 fections which to-day I hate to think of ; and I shall ac- 
 count nothing such a privilege as to draw near to that 
 throne of grace before which nothing shall induce me to- 
 day to bend the knee. This is exactly what the sinner 
 says when he promises himself a future repentance. He 
 promises that to-morrow he will hate with the most cor- 
 dial detestation that to which to-day he clings with the 
 most ardent affection. He who says, to-day I am bowed 
 down with all the weight of threescore years and ten, but 
 to-morrow I am resolved that I shall flourish in all the 
 vigour of unbroken youth, forms a resolution quite as ra- 
 tional, and quite as much within his power to accomplish, 
 as he who says to-moiTow I will repent. He who says I 
 will make to myself a new heaven and a new earth, makes 
 a promise just as much within his power to accomplish, as 
 he who says I will make to myself a new heart and a new 
 spirit. Repentance and renovation are not sacrifices which 
 we give to God as the price of our justification ; but gifts 
 which God bestows upon us, and which God only can be- 
 stow in consequence of our having been freely justified. 
 That man has surely little reason to lay claim to the ap- 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 119 
 
 pellation of rational, who goes so directly in the face of 
 common sense and of all experience, as to teach the sinner 
 that he is capable of repenting, and that repentance will 
 pm-chase his pardon ; a tenet which, whether it be more 
 deplorably absurd, or more fearfully fatal, I shall not take 
 upon me to detennine. He who is brought tnily to see 
 his need of repentance, neither fancies that he can repent 
 of himself, nor defers to to-morrow his seeking of repent- 
 ance from God. 
 
 I have already noticed, and may notice again, the ob- 
 jection which says, that the doctrine of atonement repre- 
 sents God as a sanguinary and vengeful being, who, hav- 
 ing once acquii-ed a right to gi'atify his thirst of blood on 
 the human race, refused to forego his claim till a nobler 
 victim was oflfered in their stead. This objection, though 
 often urged, and dwelt upon by the new theology, with 
 many a pathetic and many a tragic exclamation, is pro- 
 bably brought forward rather for the purpose of perplex- 
 ing, than from any weight that even they who make it 
 can suppose it to possess ; and were it not that as some 
 are weak enough to make it, others may perhaps be weak 
 enough to be influenced by it, it would be altogether un- 
 worthy of any answer. They who make it know, or, at 
 least, ought to know, that we who maintain the doctrine of 
 atonement actually do not consider God as a sanguinary 
 being any more than they do. On the contrary, we con- 
 sider him as a God of love, and we consider the atonement 
 as a proof of love so gi'eat that no language can do it jus- 
 tice. Had he been of a sanguinary or cruel nature, he 
 would not have provided a ransom for us, and, especially, 
 such a ransom as the blood of his own well-beloved Son. 
 It was the love of God that laid our help upon one that is 
 mighty to save ; that gave up his Son to death for us ; 
 that sustained him throughout the whole of his work of re- 
 demption ; that " raised him up, and gave him glory, that 
 our faith and our hope might be in God." He communi- 
 cated pardon through atonement, not because he delights in 
 
120 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 blood, but because in no other way could it be communicat- 
 ed without producing the most fatal consequences. They, 
 therefore, who believe the atonement, when they see the 
 absolute necessity of it, and the many important moral 
 puqjoses answered by it, are very far, indeed, from consi- 
 dering it as a proof of any thing vindictive in the divine 
 character, but consider it as a proof of exactly the con- 
 trary ; and are well disposed to adopt the language of the 
 Apostle, that " it became him, for whom are all things, and 
 by whom are all things, in brhiging many sons unto glory, 
 to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suf- 
 fering." 
 
 But the gi*and objection to the doctrine of atonement is, 
 that it is hostile to the interests of morality. It is said, 
 that to tell a man that he is justified, not by his obedience 
 to the law of God, but solely by the merits of our great 
 High Priest, is to cut the very sinews of exertion ; to place 
 a pillow beneath the head of the sluggard ; to spread a 
 couch for the repose of indolence ; to take away the most 
 powerful motives to diligence in doing good, and to sted- 
 fastness in resisting temptation. It is very natural, say 
 such objectors, for a man to reason thus — As my justifica- 
 tion depends not at all on my own holiness, therefore, it is 
 unnecessary for me to put myself to the pain and trouble 
 of cultivating holiness. I need take no care, since I have 
 a sufficient surety to answer for all my failures. That 
 some men should be found who turn the grace of God into 
 lasciviousness, is what any one acquainted with human 
 nature would be prepared to expect ; — and that there- are 
 men who reason in this manner I am far from being dis- 
 posed to deny. But the Gospel is not responsible for the 
 errors of those who pervert it to their own destruction ; 
 and did I conceive that the view of atonement held by the 
 Church, and which I have endeavoured to state, afforded 
 the slightest ground for such reasoning, or were in any 
 way hostile to the interests of morality, I trust I should 
 not be the last to renounce that view, however reluctantly. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 121 
 
 For I conceive that no truth is more certain than that the 
 promotion of holiness is the gi'eat end of all that Christ 
 has done and suffered for us, — that to raise man from his 
 state of moral weakness and degi'adation, and to lead him 
 to the perfection of his moral natm-e, is the grand pm-pose, 
 as far as we are concerned, for which the gi-eat plan of our 
 redemption was devised and carried into execution. But 
 the atonement is not only not hostile to this pm'pose, but 
 furnishes the only means by which it can be accomplished. 
 Indeed, the reasoning of those who say, that if our holiness 
 do not justify us, it is therefore unnecessary, hardly needs a 
 refutation ; since it involves two very obvious en'ors, viz. : 
 that justification is all that is essentially necessary in our 
 salvation, and, consequently, what does not promote that 
 can be of no use,^and that the only adequate motive to 
 the cultivation of holiness is the di'ead of condemnation ; 
 since, if that be removed, there remains, it seems, no longer 
 any motive to its cultivation. Now, if men will adopt rea- 
 soning that involves such palpable eiTors, there does not 
 appear to be a possibility of stating any doctrine, in tenns 
 80 plam that they will not misunderstand it. If a man 
 will make no exertion whatever, then, no doubt, a cobweb 
 will bind him ; and surely he must be incapable of making 
 any exertion who is bound by such a cobweb as this rea- 
 soning ; and who does not see, that though our holiness 
 does not, and cannot justify us, it may be essentially ne- 
 cessary notwithstanding ; and that though the abyss of 
 woe were shut up, and its fires extinguished, and the un- 
 dying worm were dead, yet neither the number nor the in- 
 fluence of the motives which urge the believer on to the 
 cultivation of holiness would be in the slightest degree 
 diminished. He who can adopt such a view of the doc- 
 . trine of atonement, as held by the Chm'ch, has little pre- 
 tension to set himself up as an improver of received Chris- 
 tianity, since it shows such a grossness of intellect, and 
 such a destitution of moral feeling, as exhibits, if not to 
 himself, at least to others, a powerful proof of the necessity 
 
 F 
 
122 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 of having the understanding enlightened, and the heart re- 
 newed from above. 
 
 That the doctrine of atonement tends to diminish our 
 veneration for the law of God, and to abate our dread of 
 sin, can be supposed only by those who do not understand 
 it. It will be granted that religion consists in regarding 
 our Maker with all those feelings which his perfections are 
 calculated to inspu-e ; or, as the sacred writers emphati- 
 cally call it, having the " heart right with God." To be- 
 lieve in the being of God is the first article in religion ; and 
 to know his nature is the first step toward religious perfec- 
 tion. Consequently, whatever tends most efi'ectually to 
 instruct us as to the character of God, and most deeply to 
 impress upon om- hearts a sense of his glorious perfections, 
 must also most efi'ectually tend to produce holiness, by im- 
 pressing us with the deepest veneration and the warmest 
 love for him who unites in his character all that is vene- 
 rable, and all that is lovely. Now, which of the two has 
 the clearest and most impressive view of the divine cha- 
 racter, he who believes in the atonement, or he who con- 
 siders it as unnecessary ? In the death of Christ, viewed as 
 a sacrifice for sin, the one sees the holiness of God, and the 
 " exceeding sinfulness of sin" so awfully displayed, that, 
 were he asked if he knew of any thing that could display 
 it more strongly, or convince him of it more deeply, he 
 would reply that he could not forai the most distant concep- 
 tion of any thing that could display it in a manner half so 
 striking, — that not even the destruction of the whole human 
 race could, in so awful and impressive a manner, manifest 
 the holiness of God, and the utter and inconceivable hate- 
 fulness of sin, as the humiliation and death of the Son of 
 God. He deeply feels the force of the exhortation which 
 says, " Be ye holy, for I am holy ;" and he feels also the 
 force of the reason given why we should pass the time of 
 our sojourning here in fear, namely, that we " were not 
 redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, fi'om 
 our vain conversation, received by tradition from our 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 123 
 
 fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
 without blemish, and without spot."i In the death of 
 Christ the other sees no such sacrifice, nor any manifesta- 
 tion whatever of the holiness of God, or of the evil of sin ; 
 and he would tell us that the Deluge, the destruction of 
 Sodom, or the final perdition of any one human being, is, 
 beyond all comparison, a much more awful proof of the 
 hatefulness of sin than the death of Christ. Is it possible, 
 then, that the latter can have as deep and impressive a 
 view of the holiness of God as the former ; or have his 
 heart so effectually aroused to a dread of sin and a sense 
 of its malignity? Can he enter at all into the feelings 
 which make even angels veil their faces with their wings, 
 when they minister before the throne of God, and con- 
 template his holiness ? or into the feelings of the people 
 when they cried, " Who can stand before this holy Lord 
 God ? " or into that sense of the meanness, and worthless- 
 ness, and imperfection of the highest human excellence, 
 when brought into comparison with that which is divine, 
 which made Job exclaim, " Now mine eye seeth thee ; I 
 abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes ? " It is alto- 
 gether impossible. As far, then, as veneration for God 
 and dread of sin enter into morality, so far the interests of 
 morality are not injured, but inconceivably strengthened 
 and promoted by the doctrine of atonement. 
 
 Again, with regard to love to God, that important prin- 
 ciple of morality, what can be so well calculated to awaken 
 it as a belief of the doctrine of atonement ? " We love 
 him because he first loved us ;" and it is in the atonement 
 that we witness the exhibition of a love ineffable and in- 
 conceivable. He who, awakened to a sense of his guilt, 
 has felt himself ready to sink under its insupportable weight, 
 and has found safety and peace in the blood of the " Lamb 
 that was slain," finds himself totally unable to express his 
 sense of the mercy of God, in providing such a ransom for 
 
 1 1 Peter i. 16. 
 
124 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 his offending creatures. He feels it to be a love that pass- 
 eth all understanding. It is in the very God against whom 
 he has rebelled that he finds his help ; and a life devoted 
 to his service is the necessary consequence of that supreme 
 gratitude and affection which have been implanted in his 
 heart. Who will love God most? He who sees him pro- 
 viding a way by which pardon may be granted, while wo 
 are placed in a situation in which pardon was so difficult, 
 that without the shedding of blood there could be no remis- 
 sion ? — or he who only considers him as pardoning, while 
 there was no obstacle whatever to the granting of that 
 pardon ? 
 
 While, then, in the cross of Christ, all the perfections of 
 God are clearly displayed, and every error into which we 
 can fall with regard to his character is coiTCCted ; while the 
 holiness of God, his love to men, and the hatefulness of 
 sin, are so awfully manifested, that foundation is laid upon 
 which alone the principles of morality can ever be securely 
 built. He who persuades himself that God is all mercy, 
 and will never treat his creatures with severity, and thus 
 encourages himself in his evQ ways, will see in the cross a 
 fearful proof, that unless we become new creatures in 
 Christ Jesus, then " he that made us will have no mercy 
 upon us, — he that formed us will show us no favour." 
 And he, on the contraiy, whom guilt has taught to look 
 on God with terror and dismay, will have his slavish dread 
 changed into filial veneration and love, when he sees God 
 manifesting such love to the world as to give up his Son 
 to death for its ransom. It is here that apparent incon- 
 sistencies are reconciled, and apparent impossibilities are 
 accomplished. The justice and truth of God are fully vin- 
 dicated in the punishment of sin, while mercy triumphs in 
 the salvation of the sinner. It is here alone that God can 
 be just and yet justify the sinner. Here the unalterable 
 sanctity of the law is most impressively manifested, and 
 every motive that either hope or fear can supply to urge 
 U3 to the cultivation of holiness, ia exhibited with the most 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 125 
 
 resistless force. It is by habitually turning his eye to the 
 cross, which exhibits at once the perfection of mercy and 
 of judgment, which unites all that is awful with all that is 
 encouraging in the character of God, that the Christian is 
 impressed with a veneration, which the attending proofs of 
 mercy prevent from degenerating into despondency and 
 servile di'ead ; and with a confidence of love, which is pre- 
 vented by the accompanying proofs of holiness and justice 
 from swelling into a presumption, Avhich might produce 
 security and carelessness. 
 
 And who treats the law of God with the greatest respect, 
 — he who considers its claims as so limited that he is fuUy 
 able to satisfy them ? — or he who considers it as so pure 
 and so extensive, that he only looks forward to confonnity 
 to it as the completion of his salvation, and the perfection 
 of his nature ? — he who considers every deed of righteous- 
 ness which he performs as so much of the labom* accom- 
 plished, which is to pm'chase heaven for him, and for 
 which he looks on God as his debtor ? — or he who considers 
 it as a new step gained in his progress to perfection, and a 
 new ground of gratitude to God ? In eveiy view which can 
 be taken of the subject, the law appears to be '' made 
 void," not by the man who sets it aside as the gi'ound of 
 justification, because he has so high an idea of its sanctity, 
 that he considers justification, and all the blessings con- 
 nected with it, as so many means adopted to produce con- 
 formity to the law ; but by him who considers it only as a 
 means for attaining a farther end ; and a means, too, which 
 we are perfectly capable of employing. The end of the 
 one is to be justified, and conformity to the law the means 
 by which it is to be accomplished. The end of the other 
 is to be renewed after the image of his Maker, in right- 
 eousness and true holiness ; and justification is only one of 
 the means by which that end is to be attained. The one 
 obeys that he may be justified ; the other obeys because he 
 has 6een justified. Much has been forgiven him ; therefore, 
 he loveth much. Upon what possible ground, then, can he 
 
126 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 wlio denies the atonement, and thus subverts every moral 
 principle, triumph over him who adopts it ? or talk of his 
 regard for the interests of morality after he has degraded 
 holiness from its lofty situation as the very end of our be- 
 ing, the end for which we were created and redeemed, into 
 the rank of a means for the attainment of some farther and 
 more important object? or how can he pretend that he is 
 exalting the dignity of human nature, who contends for the 
 debasing doctrine, that if the di-ead of punishment be re- 
 moved, there is no longer any sufficient motive to the cul- 
 tivation of holiness ? 
 
 It is, then, the first and most sacred duty that we owe 
 to Christ as our Priest, to consider the pardon of our sins 
 as resulting solely from his work as our Priest, — as freely 
 gi'anted antecedently to any holiness that we do or can 
 possess, and, consequently, as being in no sense, and to no 
 degree, the effect of that holiness. And this belief, so far 
 from being hostile to the interests of morality, affords the 
 only ground upon which the principles of morality can be 
 securely built ; as it makes holiness not the means to some 
 farther attainment, but the ultimate attainment, the final 
 perfection of man ; and as it not only furnishes the only 
 effectual means for the successful cultivation of holiness, — 
 a consideration into which I am not called upon here to 
 enter, — but sets before us motives for its cultivation of a 
 more impressive urgency, than any thing else than we can 
 conceive possibly could do. 
 
 Another duty which we owe to Christ as our Priest is, 
 to consider him as the only Priest through whom we can 
 have access to God, or receive any blessing from him. 
 While some who call themselves Christians deny that 
 Christ is a Priest at all, or at least deny that he was so till 
 after his resurrection, and thus, I conceive, plough up the 
 very foundations of Christianity ; there are others who do 
 the same thing as effectually, by maintaining that there 
 are many priests under the Christian dispensation. By 
 some professing Christians, the ministers of the Gospel are 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 127 
 
 very commonly called priests. There would be a less 
 glaring impropriety in calling them prophets or kings. 
 There is no minister who has the slightest pretension to 
 be called a priest. He can offer for the sinner no sacrifice, 
 without which he can be no priest ; he can make no inter- 
 cession for us farther than one man may do for another. 
 That his intercessions are more likely to be available than 
 those of another man, I am most ready to admit, on the 
 ground that he is appointed by the great Head of the 
 Church, the gi'eat High Priest of our profession, to perform 
 this duty. But his intercession is totally different from 
 that of Christ.- He can intercede only through the medium 
 of another intercessor ; his intercession is not necessarily 
 and certainly successful, for he cannot so frame his pray- 
 ers that they shall be certainly agi'eeable to the will of 
 God, as his knowledge is limited ; and he can offer no sa- 
 crifice which pledges the faithfulness and justice of God to 
 grant whatever he may ask, as Christ has done. 
 
 Christ hath, " by one offering, perfected for ever them 
 that are sanctified," and if there can be no more offering 
 for sin, then there can be no other priest. If the death of 
 Christ was perfectly sufficient for om* justification, then 
 nothing needs to be added to it ; and if it were not per- 
 fectly sufficient for that purpose, then it could not effect it 
 in any degree ; for no idea can be more utterly absurd, — 
 more totally unworthy of any serious refutation, than the 
 supposition that om- own righteousness will justify us as 
 far as it goes, and that the righteousness of Christ will 
 supply what is wanting m om- own. He justifies us wholly, 
 or he justifies us not at all. And our justification is com- 
 plete and unalterable before we can have any acceptable 
 communion with God, or can receive any spmtual blessing 
 from him. For God can grant no such blessings to the 
 man who stands to him in the relation of an impenitent 
 and unpardoned rebel. And if we possess justification at 
 all, we possess it with a completeness to which no addi- 
 tion can be made ; for it is not a thing that admits of de- 
 
128 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 grees. We must be perfectly justified, or we are not jus- 
 tified at all. Holiness admits of all possible degrees, and 
 our sanctification is gradual, and is made to depend con- 
 siderably on our own diligence ; but our justification is as 
 perfect at the first moment of our being quickened from our 
 death in trespasses and sins, as it will be when openly de- 
 clared before an assembled world of men and of angels ; and 
 is no more derived from our own exertions, than the atone- 
 ment of Christ was derived from them. One |^man may 
 very well be more perfectly sanctified than another ; but 
 no one man can be more completely justified than another. 
 
 Now, if that justification which admits of no degrees, 
 which must be perfect, or exists not at all, Avhich is equally 
 possessed by all that possess it, be founded solely upon the 
 atonement of our great High Priest, then it follows very 
 clearly that there can be no other priest, and that the man 
 who assumes the title of priest, or who professes to per- 
 form the office of a priest, is guilty of the most daring in- 
 vasion of the prerogative of Christ. In this respect the 
 Church of Kome is grievously guilty. But upon this sub- 
 ject, where it would be easier to write a volume than a 
 page, I am not called to enter. Without, however, looking 
 to the errors of others, I would urge upon my reader very 
 seriously to consider, whether an error of the same kind 
 do not exist in his own heart. Self-righteousness is not so 
 much a speculative error embraced by any particular 
 Church, as a practical error derived from the depravity of 
 the heart, whatsoever may be the creed believed. There 
 is always a tendency to substitute something in ourselves, 
 in part at least, as the ground of that grace which can be 
 derived from our great High Priest alone — a tendency 
 Avhich manifests itself in a great variety of ways. 
 
 When the sinner becomes sensible of the danger of his 
 state, and of his need of pardon, his first impulse naturally 
 is, to recommend himself to the favour of God by the re- 
 formation of his conduct. When he becomes sensible of 
 the folly of this attempt, and of the impossibility of sue- 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 129 
 
 cess ; when he becomes sensible that the pardon of sin 
 could be purchased by the blood of Christ alone, that it 
 has already been pmxhased by that blood, and cannot be 
 purchased agam, but must be sought only as the free gift 
 of God, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; 
 his next impulse is, that if he cannot recommend himself to 
 the favour of God, but must seek it through the mediation 
 of Christ, he must, at least, recommend himself to the fa- 
 vour of Christ, and render himself worthy of his mediation 
 before applying for it. He feels the weight of his sins to 
 be so great, that he is altogether unworthy that Christ 
 should at all interest himself in his favour, and imagines 
 that he must remove, or at least diminish, that unworthi- 
 ness, before he can venture to apply, or to hope for the 
 mediation of Christ in his favour. Now, it is perfectly 
 easy to show the folly of this notion,— to prove that we 
 are no more capable of recommending ourselves to the 
 mediation of Christ, than we are capable of recommending 
 ourselves to the favour of God without it. That we can- 
 not first repent and sanctify om'selves, and then carry them 
 to Christ as the price of his mediation ; but must go to 
 him destitute of these and of all spiritual good, that we 
 may receive them from him ; and that nothing can be more 
 irrational than to say that we will of ourselves take the 
 first and most difficult steps in the work of our ovra. salva- 
 tion, and then having successfiiDy begun that work our- 
 selves, we will go to him to complete it : all this it is very 
 easy to prove ; but unhappily against moral weakness and 
 spiritual blindness, the clearest logic and the best-con- 
 structed arguments avail nothing ; and most believers 
 have probably experienced in some degree this manifesta- 
 tion of a self-righteousness, which far other means than 
 logic and argument are necessary to subdue. And he in 
 whom it has been subdued, while, on looking back, he 
 wonders that he ever could for a moment be influenced by 
 such palpable delusions, at the same time feels that, had 
 it not been for the operation of the Holy Spirit, the spell 
 
 jf2 
 
130 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 would have been unbroken still, and no force of reasoning 
 would have availed to convince him of the error of what 
 he now sees to be so utterly foolish and in-ational. No- 
 thing can well be simpler than the truth that our sins can 
 be forgiven us only through the blood of Christ, — that 
 through that blood God is perfectly ready to forgive them, 
 — and that the more guilty we are we have the less rea- 
 son to delay our application, since not one spiritual gift can 
 we receive till we be first forgiven. But simple as all this 
 is, and clearly as it is stated in Scripture, so deeply rooted 
 is the feeling of self-righteousness, so dark our hearts, and 
 so averse to believe the love which God hath to us, and so 
 little disposed to rely on the gi*ace of our High Priest, that 
 unless we be divinely taught these simple truths, we shall 
 never leani them. " For what man knoweth the things of 
 a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so 
 the things of God knoweth none save the Spirit of God. 
 Now, we have received, not the spirit of the world, but 
 the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things 
 that are freely given to us of God." " But the natural 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they 
 are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned." ' 
 
 One of the most insidious forms in which self-righteous- 
 ness, and a distrust of oiu: High Priest, manifests itself, is 
 in that of an apparently holy dissatisfaction with our own 
 works, and our own prayers, and our own services. Now, 
 the Christian will never feel that he is entitled to look 
 upon his own performances with aught of the feeling of 
 self-complacency ; and even when he has done his duty, 
 and has reason to feel satisfied that he has been enabled to 
 do it, still he will also feel that it becomes him to say, that 
 he is an unprofitable servant, and has done what it was his 
 duty to do ; and, far from glorying before God, will admit 
 that his best services require to be oftered to God through 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ii. II, l:^, 14. 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 131 
 
 the mediation of Christ in order to be accepted. To the 
 Christian boasting is most effectually excluded ; for every 
 attainment in righteousness that he makes, and every deed 
 of righteousness that he does, so far fi'om making God his 
 debtor, is nothing more than a new favour conferred upon 
 him through the atonement, and renders him so much more 
 deeply a debtor to divine grace. But it sometimes happens 
 that the Christian is so far from boasting of his services, 
 that he goes as far wrong in an opposite du'ection, — as we 
 are natm'ally more ready to overvalue than to undervalue 
 ourselves ; this happens not often, it may be, but it does 
 happen, and I have met with it. In this case the Christian, 
 for I have never met this insidious form of self-righteous- 
 ness, excepting in cases where the evidences of genuine 
 faith were of the most decisive kind — so far from looking 
 back upon his sei'vices with the satisfaction of thinkhig 
 that he has been enabled to glorify God, looks upon them, 
 not only with dissatisfaction, because they have not been 
 so perfect as they might have been, but with a feeling of 
 distress ; for he now sees distinctly how he could have ren- 
 dered the service more perfect. He dwells upon the dcr 
 fects of his service, or upon some impropriety of motive 
 that has mingled with his performance of it, till he looks 
 upon it with pain instead of pleasm-e. Few thmgs are 
 more disgusting than the canting whine about the defects 
 of their best services, which we not unfrequently hear from 
 those who are only anxious to catch a compliment : and 
 few things are more calculated to awaken our sympathy, 
 than to see the truly humble Christian deploring that im- 
 perfection of his best services, which nothing but the an- 
 guish that it occasions him induces him to mention. This 
 is one of the ways in which Satan attempts to destroy the 
 peace, and retard the progress, of the established Christian. 
 In this case, I have found the following mode of address 
 effectual in removing the delusion, and restoring peace. I 
 have said to the sufferer, ' Your sorrows arise from your 
 indulging a self-righteous spiiit.' The charge is, of course, 
 
13Z CHRIST OUR TKIEST. 
 
 eagerly and conscientiously repelled. ' But then,' I ask, 
 ' do you expect that your services are to be accepted, and 
 your prayers heard, only through the mediation of our 
 great High Priest, or on account of their own intrinsic and 
 faultless excellence ? ' the latter supposition is also ear- 
 nestly repelled. ' Well, then, you expect that your de- 
 sires and prayers can be accepted by God only through the 
 mediation of our great High Priest ; but you suppose, at 
 the same time, that his mediation is of so little efficacy, 
 that it will procm-e no acceptance to your services and 
 prayers, unless they in themselves possess that absolute 
 perfection, which would enable you to look uix)n them with 
 satisfaction, and to hope for then* acceptance without any 
 reference to his mediation at all.'- This also is strongly 
 denied. ' Then you admit that if your services and pray- 
 ers are conscientiously presented to God, through the me- 
 diation of Christ, they will be accepted of him on the 
 ground of that mediation, even though they possess no 
 such intrinsic excellence and perfection as would make 
 them acceptable without it ; and if, therefore, you are dis- 
 tressed, because you can detect imperfections in them, you 
 are clearly distrusting the sufficiency of the mediation of 
 Christ.' This mode of reasoning appears to admit o'fno 
 reply ; and I have found it successful in enabling the 
 mourner to detect the source of his causeless sorrows, and 
 to recover that peace which results from a simple and un- 
 hesitating reliance upon our great High Priest, for the par- 
 don of all our sins, and the acceptance of all our services. 
 rt Another duty which we owe to our great High Priest is, 
 '"^ to live up to our privileges ; and that both as it regards 
 our advancement in the spiritual life, and our enjoyment 
 of spiritual pleasure. The Christian life is essentially a 
 progressive thing ; for if the Christian be not improving, 
 he is degenerating ; if he be not going forward, he is 
 backsliding. Kotliing can be a greater mistake tlian the 
 opinion which seems to be entertained by many, that when 
 a man has once reason to think himself a Christian, no far- 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 133 
 
 ther improvement in his character can be expected, or needs 
 to be sought after ; — that there can be no reason why he 
 should possess a stronger faith, or more lively hope, or a 
 larger measure, or a more active exercise, of all Christian 
 graces, when he is forty years of age than when he was 
 thu-ty. He who entertains such a notion has abundant 
 reason to doubt, whether he yet knows any thing about the 
 Christian life. The Christian cannot be satisfied with his 
 attainments in righteousness. He has felt the blessedness 
 of being able to approach God as a Father, and of being 
 delivered from the distressing and degrading bondage of 
 sin, and of havmg " a conscience void of offence ;" and he 
 win not, and cannot, be satisfied with any measure of that 
 blessedness which he may attain. Every new attainment 
 only communicates a warmer desire, and additional power, 
 for making still fm'ther attainments. He comes to no pe- 
 riod in his course, at which he mil conceive he may safely 
 stop, or at which, if he be animated by the genuine spirit 
 of Christianity, he will feel disposed to stop. He looks for- 
 ward to perfect conformity to the image of God, — to the 
 complete extinction of that body of corruption which 
 dwells in him, — to the consummation of holiness, as tlie 
 final end of all his exertions, the ultimate aim of his being. 
 And with all the glories of heaven in his view, and animated 
 by that faith which is " the substance of things hoped for, 
 the evidence of things not seen," he will consider every day 
 lost which does not add to the treasures which it is the 
 grand object of his life to lay up there, "where neither moth 
 nor rust corrupt, nor thieves break through to steal."' 
 
 But among all the manifold and powerful motives that 
 urge the Christian on in his course, the fact that his duty 
 to his great High Priest imperiously requu-es a continual 
 growth in grace, is fitted to operate with peculiar force, — 
 " He died that he might redeem us from all our iniquities," 
 and he entered into heaven — there to appear before God, 
 in order to procure for us, and bestow upon us, all the grace 
 and all the power necessary to enable us to make our path 
 
134 CHRIST OUR TRIEST. 
 
 " as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto 
 the perfect day." And while our Priest stands ready to 
 procure for us all spiritual blessings and all heavenly gifts ; 
 and feels himself honoured and gratified, the more largely 
 that we draw upon him for those fruits of righteousness 
 which are " to the praise of his grace ;" how can we pretend 
 to be his disciples at all, or with what feelings can we hope 
 to meet him, if we can permit days, and months, and years 
 to pass away, without even calling upon him at all, or call- 
 ing upon him only in a feeble and formal manner, for the 
 exercise of his sacerdotal office on our behalf; and are 
 living as if, so far as we are concerned, it were a matter of 
 no consequence, whether Christ be, or be not, a Priest, — 
 whether he do, or do not, possess the power of procuring for 
 us every thing necessary to enable us to go on from grace 
 to grace, and from strength to strength, till we appear per- 
 fect before God in Zion. The Son of the Sovereign an- 
 nounceth to the discovered and condemned rebel, that he 
 possesses an influence which enables him to secm-e to the 
 rebel, not only his Father's pardon, but such favour as will 
 advance him from step to step, and from rank to rank, till 
 he occupy a high and honourable place in the court of the 
 King against whom he had rebelled ; and that he will, 
 with delight, exercise that influence on his behalf, both be- 
 cause he loves the rebel, and because every exercise of that 
 influence manifests his own poAver, and adds to his own 
 honour. Now, if the rebel never applies for the exercise 
 of that influence in his behalf, if he act just as if no such 
 offer had ever been made to him, Avho will believe him 
 when he says, that he not only believes the announcement 
 made to him, but receives it with all joy and gratitude, and 
 glories in having such a Mediator? Is it not plain, that 
 through some fatal delusion, — some unaccountable infatua- 
 tion, he in reality prefers his imprisonment, his chains, and 
 his condemnation ? Or would it at all mend the matter for 
 him to say, that though he was making no use of the pri- 
 vilege ofl"ered him now, he was fully determined to avail 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 135 
 
 himself of it hereafter ? Would not such a profession be 
 still considered as amounting to absolute insanity ? And 
 would not the rebel be justly held to be treating the offer- 
 ed mediation with insult, and to be rendering his execu- 
 tion both certain and unpitied ? 
 
 Now, I need hardly say, that the conduct of this sup- 
 posed rebel, is the very description of the conduct of many 
 who call themselves Christians. Our gi'eat High Priest 
 stands before the throne of God ready to procure for, and 
 bestow upon us, justification, adoption, and sanctifica- 
 tion ; together with that assurance of God's love, peace of 
 conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of gi'ace, and 
 perseverance therein to the end, which in this life do either 
 accompany or flow from them ; and, finally, to make us 
 perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eter- 
 nity. Yet there are many of us who call ourselves 
 Christians, and profess that we believe all this, and that 
 the all-sufiiciency of Christ is all our hope and all our de- 
 sire, while in fact we are regarding all these blessings as 
 something that we profess to hope that we shall some time 
 or other obtain, but which we are, in the meantime, 
 neither possessing, nor even seeking to obtain, as a present 
 possession ; — nay, nor even seeming to be at all sensible, 
 that as a present possession, they are at all to be either ob- 
 tained or sought after. Salvation is looked upon as some- 
 thing to be obtained and enjoyed in a future state, and to 
 be seriously sought for, only when we can engage in world- 
 ly concerns no longer ; not as something which it is the 
 first concern of man to obtain, and the possession of which 
 alone is able to carry us comfortably through all the duties 
 and trials of life. This is exactly as if the rebel should 
 say, that when actually brought to the scafi'old, it would 
 then be time enough to think of the effectual Mediator of- 
 fered to him ; or as if the sick man should say, that he 
 would enjoy his disease as long as possible, and then when 
 death seemed inevitable, would apply to the physician who 
 could, and who alone could, certainly heal him. Can this 
 
136 CDRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 delay in seeking for salvation, and for all the blessings 
 which attend it, be considered as any thing else than the 
 most grievous insult to our High Priest ? And if the rebel 
 or the sick man just mentioned would be considered as 
 clearly insane, should they act in so absurd a manner when 
 life is at stake ; upon what possible grounds can we con- 
 sider those as less clearly chargeable with insanity, who 
 act in this manner, when eternal life is in question ? "The 
 children of this world are wiser m their generation than the 
 children of light ;" and were.it not that our hearts are de- 
 praved, and our minds blinded, and our moral perceptions 
 so blunted, and our moral judgments so perverted, that we 
 call " evil good and good evil," it is utterly impossible that 
 any man could ever be guilty of conduct with regard to 
 the salvation of his immortal soul, which no man could be 
 deemed sane who should follow with regard to his world- 
 ly concerns. And will not every mouth be stopped before 
 God, and every one be totally incapable of offering the 
 slightest reason, why the vials of a righteous indignation 
 should not be poured out upon us, when we have refused 
 to seek a salvation which he so long waited to bestow up- 
 on us ? " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great sal- 
 vation ?" 
 
 And how often is even the true Christian chargeable with 
 living far below his privilege ! He not only believes in the 
 efficacy of Christ's mediation, but has, in some measure, 
 experienced that efficacy, and has been brought out of dark- 
 ness into light, and made a partaker of the glorious liberty 
 of the sons of God. But is he then ahvays found rejoicing 
 in the step which he has already gained, and animated by 
 the experience of the past, pressing onward to new attain- 
 ments, in the hope of still higlicr enjoyments ? With a 
 power put into his hands to enable him ever to renew his 
 strength, to mount up with wings as eagles, to run and not 
 be weary, to walk and not faint ; is he always found ap- 
 plying this power to the utmost, and rejoicing as a strong 
 man to run his glorious race ? How often, on the contrary, 
 
CHRtST OUR PRIEST. 137 
 
 does he seem to forget that he has a race to run, and a 
 warfare to wage ! and, loitering amidst the occupations or 
 the cares or the pleasures of life, to need the monitory re- 
 buke, "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which re- 
 main, that are ready to die ; for I have not found thy works 
 perfect before God !" And can our High Priest fail to be 
 offended, and his Holy Spirit giieved, when he sees the 
 grace which he is so ready to give so little used, and so 
 sparingly sought ? 
 
 The Christian life ought to be, because Christ has amply 
 provided the means by which it may be made, a life of ala- 
 crity and joy. It is not more the privilege of the Christian, 
 than it is a duty which he owes to his High Priest, to " re- 
 joice always." " Woman, why weepest thou ?" were the 
 first words of the risen Saviour to Mary, and they seem to 
 be generally applicable to the life of the Chilstian. He can 
 look upon that rich field of privilege and of promise placed 
 before him in the Bible, and can say that it is all his own. 
 And where is the want that the blessed fi'uits of that field 
 cannot supply, the distress which they cannot relieve, the 
 wound that they cannot heal, the fear that they cannot 
 quell, or the sorrow for which they do not furnish abund- 
 ant consolation ? WTiere, then, is the cause for depression ? 
 Friend of Jesus, why weepest thou ? If you have " an Ad- 
 vocate with the Father," thi'ough whom your sins are all 
 forgiven, and you are made a child of God ; and the Holy 
 Ghost is given you as yom' sanctifier and comforter ; and 
 you are assured of having Almighty power for your sup- 
 port, and unerring wisdom for your guide, and heaven for 
 your eternal home, what can overbalance or suppress the 
 joy which natm-aUy results fi-om such privileges as these ? 
 Trials we may, we must meet with ; but can these depress 
 us, when we know that " our light affliction, which is but 
 for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding, even 
 an eternal weight of glory ?" If tried by bodily pain, we 
 just feel more keenly the happiness of the hope, which an- 
 ticipates the time when we shall have " a building of God, 
 
138 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." 
 Worldly losses will not ovenvhelm us, if we know that we 
 are undoubted heirs of an " inheritance that is incorrup- 
 tible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away." Friends may 
 change ; but we will be comforted by the assurance, that 
 in Christ we have a '' brother born for adversity," nay, '' a 
 friend that sticketh closer than a brother." There rolls be- 
 tween us and our Father's house, the deep and restless tide 
 of this world's corruption, through which we must of neces- 
 sity pass, and the deeper and still more dangerous tide of 
 the coiTuptions of our hearts, and we are surrounded by 
 enemies on every side ; and when we feel our o'wn weak- 
 ness, we may be ready to fear, lest we should one day fall 
 by the hand of some of them. But every distressing fear 
 is removed when we recollect, that we " shall not be 
 tempted beyond what we are able to bear," and that, in 
 point of fact, there is no limit to our power, for we " can 
 do all things, through Christ strengthening us," and that 
 the life that is in us is the life of Christ, a life which no 
 power can extinguish in any one of Christ's members, any 
 more than it can extinguish it in our glorious Head. 
 
 In erery thing, therefore, does it become the Christian to 
 give thanks, — even for those trials which call into exer- 
 cise, and thus strengthen his graces ; for though '' no chas- 
 tening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but giievous : 
 nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of 
 righteousness to them which are exercised thereby." The 
 Christian can, therefore, " glory in tribulation," well know- 
 ing, that when he comes to the end of his course, and looks 
 back on all his blessings, and on all his trials, when he 
 sings of mercy, he will see reason to sing of judgment too. 
 But when we di'ag on heavily, as if there were dishearten- 
 ing difficulties to be met, and heavy penalties to be endur- 
 ed at every step, we bring up an evil report upon the good 
 land ; and make the world believe that we serve a harsh 
 master, who demands much while he gives little ; and con- 
 firm the too readily adopted notion, that religion is a dull 
 
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 139 
 
 and gloomy thing, the death of all pleasure, and the grave 
 of all enjojnnent. And if we go to the discharge of every 
 duty, as if there were a " lion in the way," and go to meet 
 trial and temptation with feelings like those with which 
 Saul went from Endor to GUboa, what but discomfiture 
 can we expect, when we engage under the depressing in- 
 fluence of anticipated defeat ? We are invited to come, and 
 that even " with boldness, to the throne of grace." And 
 why should we not do so ? If, indeed, we depended for ob- 
 taining the petitions that we ask upon our own merits, and 
 might ask nothing but what we deserve, then it would be 
 useless to go to a throne of grace, or to take the name of 
 God into our lips at all, smce we have deserved only wrath. 
 But if our petitions be founded on the merits of Chi-ist, then 
 we can ask nothing that he has not deserved, and nothing 
 that, if it be really good for us, he is not willing to bestow. 
 In this case, to come to God with fear and hesitation, to li- 
 mit our petitions to small matters, because we feel that we 
 have no claim to ask larger, or to make our own merits, in 
 any degree, the measure of our acceptance, or to ask, as if 
 God would grudge what he bestows, — in all this we are just 
 dishonouring our great High Priest, and living far beneath 
 the privileges which he bestows upon us. To consider re- 
 ligion as being our business, but the world as the source 
 from which we must draw om- pleasures, — to approach God 
 in prayer as a duty which it is right, and proper, and 
 profitable to perfonn, but without any notion or feeling of 
 its being a privilege which it is delightful to enjoy, — to 
 come to him as a Judge, whose good will it is our interest 
 to conciliate, without being able to look upon him as a 
 Father, whose power, and riches, and kindness, it gives us 
 pleasure to contemplate and celebrate, and whose approv- 
 ing smile, the light of whose countenance, is a gi-eater trea- 
 sure than com, and wine, and oil, — is to take a view of 
 that communion to which God calleth us, and of the privi- 
 leges which he has confeiTed upon us, that must gi'eatly 
 mar both our peace, and our progi'ess in the Christian life. 
 
140 CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 
 
 While, therefore, every thing approaching to presumption, 
 or to that aftected familiarity with God, which some appear 
 to mistake for filial confidence, is to be guarded against 
 with the most sedulous care ; with equal care ought we to 
 guard against that distrust of our High Priest, which makes 
 us dread to exercise and to enjoy, with the most perfect 
 confidence and freedom, the privileges which in Christ Jesus 
 we possess. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 I PROCEED now to the consideration of our Lord's regal 
 office ; and here it -will be seen that his death, and conse- 
 quently his incarnation, was essentially necessary to the 
 due discharge of his functions as a King. From all eter- 
 nity he was Lord over all ; possessing, in common with 
 the other persons of the Godhead, power to sustain and to 
 bless his true worshippers, and to involve his enemies in 
 destruction. But as Mediator, he was the Father's Ser- 
 vant, and could have no kingdom which was not conferred 
 upon him. And no kingdom could be conferred upon him 
 which he did not gain ; nor could he be the Saviour of 
 men without conquering men's foes ; nor could he be Lord 
 of all things visible and invisible, for the purpose of effectu- 
 ally securing the salvation of his people, without purchas- 
 ing this dignity, by a full and faithful discharge of the 
 duties imposed upon him, and undertaken by him in the 
 covenant entered into between him and the Father. A 
 kingdom was given to the Son by the Father ; a kingdom 
 which he will continue to hold, imtil the mystery of re- 
 demption be finished, when he shall again deliver up the 
 kingdom, that God may be " All in All." It is to this 
 kingdom that we refer, when we speak of Christ as a King ; 
 and not of that underived lordship, which, as God, he pos- 
 sessed from all eternity; which could not be conferred 
 upon him, and which cannot be taken away from him ; 
 
142 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 which had no beginning, and can have no end ; which ad- 
 mits of no increase, of no diminution, and of no change. 
 Of this kingdom we speak not. 
 With regard to the Mediator's kingdom, we must first 
 A inquire how far it extends. The answer to this inquiry is, 
 that his kingdom extends over all things visible and invi- 
 sible,— over all the works of God, and is just as extensive 
 as the dominion which he possesses as God. In confir- 
 mation of this, I refer not to those texts of Scripture in 
 which he is declared to be the Maker of all things, and 
 consequently their possessor ; for nothing gives so strong 
 a rio-ht to dominion, so plain a title to lordship, as creation ; 
 because these texts refer to his absolute dominion as God. 
 But I refer to the numerous passages in which it is de- 
 clared that God hath committed to him all rule, and all 
 authority, and all judgment,— that he hath " set him at his 
 own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all prin- 
 cipality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every 
 name that is named, not only in this world, but also in 
 that which is to come ; and hath put all things under his 
 feet, and given him to be the head over all things to the 
 Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that fiUeth all 
 in all ;"*— that " God hath highly exalted him, and given 
 him a name which is above every name ; that at the name 
 of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
 glory of God the Father."^ 
 
 The possession of this universal dominion is plainly ne- 
 / cessary to the Mediator. For if there exist in the universe 
 some power or influence which he cannot control and di- 
 rect at his pleasure, then it is clear that he can give us no 
 absolute assurance of salvation ; because that power may 
 become adverse to our salvation, and Christ being unable 
 to control and dh'cct it, having no dominion over it, can- 
 
 > Ephesiansi. 20. 2 Phllippians ii. 10. 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 143 
 
 not accomplish his gi'acious design toward us. The pos- 
 session then of all power and authority, over all things 
 visible and invisible, must, of plain necessity, be in the 
 Saviom-. We are held in bondage by the " god of this 
 world," and are opposed by all the powers of a fallen world, 
 by temptations from without, and by corruption within, — 
 we contend not merely with flesh and blood, but "with 
 principalities and powers, with the rulers of the darkness 
 of this world, and with spiritual wickednesses in high 
 places." Xow, if our Sa^iom' possesses not the most un- 
 limited dominion over all these, he plainly cannot accom- 
 plish om- salvation. 
 
 It is plain, too, that this miiversal dominion must have 
 been conferred upon him, and must have been exercised by 
 him from the moment when man fii'st became dependant 
 upon a Mediator. For if he saved men from the beginning, 
 then fi'om the beginning was he universal King. But this 
 seems to be in direct opposition to those texts of Scripture, 
 — and they are neither few nor of doubtful import, — which 
 represent the conferring of dominion upon him, as the re- 
 ward of his obedience unto death. These texts, however, 
 do not contradict, but perfectly harmonize with the asser- 
 tion, that Christ as Mediator possessed and exercised uni- 
 versal dominion, long before his death or his incarnation. 
 In order to show the perfect agreement of these texts with 
 this assertion, I would remark that there never was any 
 other Saviour besides the Lord Jesus Christ ; and that he 
 never saved sinners through any other method than by 
 atonement. Abel and the primitive saints were saved 
 only in consequence of the death of Christ ; and yet they 
 were saved, long before he actually accomplished his de- 
 cease at Jerusalem. They were washed from their sins in 
 his blood ; yet the washing was effected long before his 
 blood was shed. To suppose that they were saved with- 
 out the mediation of Christ, is to suppose that that media- 
 tion was altogether unnecessary. Without the shedding 
 of blood there is no remission of sin. But sin was remitted, 
 
144 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 and remitted only in consequence of the shedding of a 
 Saviour's blood, and yet remitted long before the shedding 
 actually took place. Again, the gift of the Holy Ghost is 
 one of the fruits of Christ's death and intercession. Thus 
 at one period we read that " the Holy Ghost was not yet 
 given, because Christ was not yet glorified," and our Lord 
 himself, showing the necessity of his death, says, "Never- 
 theless, I tell you the truth ; it is expedient for you that I 
 go away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
 come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." 
 But had the Holy Ghost never been given before the death 
 of Christ actually took place ? Yes, often, both in his mi- 
 raculous and in his saving efficacy. Yet it is not the less 
 true that the Holy Ghost never could by any possibility 
 be given, except as the fruit of Christ's death. From these 
 instances we may see how the universal dominion of the 
 Mediator was conferred upon him in consequence of his 
 becoming obedient unto death, and was yet enjoyed and 
 exercised by him long before that death actually took place. 
 From the moment that he undertook to obey unto death, 
 from that moment did he receive power to confer all the 
 benefits of his death, and from that moment men were 
 made partakers of the salvation which is in him. ' Had 
 there been a possibility that he might fail in his engage- 
 ment, — that his sufferings might overcome his resolution, 
 or overtask his ability, then no pardon could have been 
 given, no sanctification conferred, and no blessedness be- 
 stowed, until he had actually died, and thus fau'ly proved 
 that failure was no longer possible, nor to be feared. 
 
 But there was also a real exaltation of Christ after his 
 death, and in consequence of his death, in that humanity, 
 which, having no existence previous to his Incarnation, 
 could not possibly have any participation in that dominion 
 which belongs to the Mediator. But that exaltation of 
 Christ, after his death, was not the conferring upon him of 
 any new power or glory which he did not previously pos- 
 sess. It was an o^cn manifestation of that glory which he 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 145 
 
 had from the beginning, — an open declaration of that which 
 M'as not pre\iously known. Appearing in the flesh, his 
 condition was one of lowliness and humiliation. His glory 
 was but partially known. But his assumption of human- 
 ity was not a limitation of his Divinity ; and after per- 
 forming his appointed work, he was in that humanity 
 publicly and openly in the presence of his Apostles re- 
 ceived up on high. But this exaltation was no conferring 
 upon him of that which he did not previously possess. It 
 was giving him the same glory in a new condition. But 
 the glory was the same, as he himself declares — " And no 
 man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down 
 from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven ;"' 
 and again, " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man as- 
 cend up where he was before ?"2 And when he prayed that 
 he might be openly glorified, he prayed for no new acces- 
 sion of glory which he had not previously possessed, but 
 that, in his humanity, he might possess that same glory 
 that he possessed before his Incarnation. — " And now, O 
 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
 glory which I had with thee before the world was."^ 
 
 In his exaltation, therefore, he received no new power 
 which he had not exercised long before. But its exercise 
 was founded on his death ; and after that death had ac- 
 tually occurred, then was he exalted in his humanity, and 
 his exaltation was then openly declared and manifested to 
 the world, and the condition upon which it depended was 
 shown to have been satisfactorily accomplished. As the 
 king can and does exercise all the functions of royalty pre- 
 vious to that solemn coronation which formally invests 
 him with these functions, even so our Divine King dis- 
 charged all the duties of his office, long before that assump- 
 tion of humanity, and obedience unto death, which form- 
 ed the ground upon which he received, and was the open 
 declaration that he had received, the kingdom. 
 
 ' John iii. 13, ' John vi. 62. ^ jotn xvii. 5. 
 
 G 
 
h 
 
 146 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 That Christ was a King from the beginning may there- 
 foi e be considered as proved. This, however, forms one of 
 the most important points in discussing the question as to 
 the sinfulness of his humanity, and therefore calls for a 
 more minute and extended proof. It will, however, be 
 better given, after shortly noticing the titles by which he 
 holds his kingdom. He holds his kingdom by the Father's 
 gift^ as has been ah*eady observed. Of this I need pro- 
 duce no proof whatever, both as it must be perfectly 
 familiar to all readers of the Bible, and because I know not 
 that it is doubted or denied by any who acknowledge that 
 he is a Kmg. He holds the kingdom also by the title of 
 conquest. Mankind were the slaves of Satan, who had 
 brought them into a bondage from which no human being 
 was ever found who could emancipate himself. Christ 
 became man, and conquered him, and, ascending up on 
 high, led captivity captive. Satan, therefore, is the " god of 
 this world" no longer. We may continue to obey him, 
 and yield to his suggestions, and promote his designs, and 
 reject Christ if we will. We are not, however, the less the 
 subjects of Christ. The Master whom we serve is Christ's 
 vassal, and we are as completely dependent upon him as 
 his most devoted worshipper. When as man he reduced 
 Satan beneath his power, he reduced at the same time 
 beneath his power all the subjects of Satan. And this I 
 conceive to be a suiScient answer, besides other answers 
 that may be given to the question put to us by the new 
 theology, in support of the doctrine of universal redemp- 
 tion, — '' If Christ did not redeem all, what right can he have 
 to judge the unbeliever, whom he did not die to redeem ?" 
 The question, though triumphantly asked, is silly enough, 
 and is nearly similar to another. Our Lord says of be- 
 lievers, " Thme they were, and thou gavest them me." 
 Hence it may be asked, what right has he to sit in judg- 
 ment upon those who were never given to him ? I would 
 reply, that in one sense, even the impenitent were given 
 to him, though not in the sense used by our Lord in the 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 147 
 
 above expression ; but it is a sufficient reply to both ques- 
 tions, that our Lord holds his kingdom not merely by gift, 
 — a gift that in one sense includes all mankind — but also 
 by conquest. And becoming, as Man, Lord of the sinner's 
 master, he becomes Lord of the sinner too. 
 
 He holds his kingdom also by purchase. This, in these 
 days, is a very obnoxious expression. There is, however, 
 no help for it, as the matter is undeniably true. He pur- 
 chased us not from Satan ; but took us as a prey from the 
 mighty, and as captives from the strong. But we were 
 held fast also by the law of God, bound down to punishment 
 by his truth and justice. These could not be conquered ; 
 nor, excepting by fallen sinful beings, could they be op- 
 posed. Christ could not, by any exercise of power, wring 
 us out of the hands of the law, nor could he at all exercise 
 any power in opposition to it. He fully admitted all its 
 demands. He made no attempt whatever to abate the 
 slightest iota of them ; but, acknowledging, nay, proclaim- 
 ing the justice of its claims, he satisfied these claims to the 
 full, — endm-ed its penalty, — paid all its demands, and, by 
 purchase, set its victims free. The whole of its rights, 
 therefore, were fully transferred to him, to bind or to loose, 
 to remit or to retain men's sins, as he should see good. 
 
 It was necessary to prove that Christ actually exercised 
 all the functions of the priesthood while he was on earth, 
 because the tenet that he was not anointed to the priest- 
 hood untd his resun-ection from the dead, which has long 
 been one of the leading tenets of Socinianism, and is now 
 maintained by a dififerent class of theologians, is an eflfec- 
 tual denial of the atonement. For if he was not truly and 
 properly a Priest when he died, then it is clear that his 
 death could be no atonement. For a similar reason, it is 
 necessary to enter a little more largely into the proof that 
 he was a King from the beginning ; for this is also denied, 
 and it is maintained by some that he was anointed as a 
 King only at his resurrection, and by others that he is not 
 anointed to that office yet ; and this doctrine, as will be 
 
148 CHRIST OUR KLS'G. 
 
 seen by and by, is quite as eflfcctual a denial of the atone- 
 ment. In proof, tlien, that Christ was a King from the 
 beginning, I would refer to Psalm ii. It may, indeed, be 
 said, and truly said, that that Psalm is a prophecy which 
 yet remains to be fulfilled. But that it refers to the past, 
 as well as the future, may, I think, be very decisively 
 proved. Into that proof, however, I need not here enter, 
 both because satisfaction upon that point may probably be 
 met with in any commentary, and because I have abundant 
 proof of my proposition, even if the argument from that 
 Psalm should be held to be disputable. 
 
 I would refer also to Psalm xlv. There the prophetic 
 character of Christ is first spoken of, when it is said, 
 '' Grace is poured into thy lips; therefore, God hath blessed 
 thee for ever ;" and then follows this splendid description 
 of his regal power and authority, " Gii'd thy sword upon 
 thy thigh, O Most Mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. 
 And in thy majesty ride prosperously, because of truth, 
 and meekness, and righteousness ; and thy right hand shall 
 teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the 
 heart of the King's enemies ; whereby the people fall under 
 thee. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; the sceptre 
 of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteous- 
 ness, and hatcst wickedness ; therefore, God, thy God, hath 
 anointed thee with tlie oil of gladness above thy fellows." 
 In Psalm xxii, also, his prophetic and royal characters are 
 so blended, as to render it impossible to suppose that the 
 one of these could commence at one period, and the other 
 at another. In Psalm ex. his regal character is, in the 
 same way, combined with his priesthood, leading irresisti- 
 bly to the conclusion, that all these characters he adopted, 
 that to all these offices was he anointed at one and the 
 same time. Indeed, a perfectly conclusive proof of this, to 
 all who have not pledged themselves to the support of some 
 hypothesis with which it is inconsistent, would, I should 
 think, be found in the fact, that he saved men from the 
 beginning; and surely he could save no man without 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 149 
 
 being Prophet, Priest, and Kjng. At least, if he could 
 save men while destitute of any of the powers of any of 
 these offices at one time, I can see no reason why he should 
 not be capable of doing the same thing at another time, 
 and at all times, nor, consequently, why he should assume 
 at all any office which was not necessary to enable him to 
 save sinners. 
 
 The prophet Daniel has determined an appointed time 
 "to anoint the Most Holy;" but he has taken no notice 
 whatever of a variety of anointings at very different times. 
 But if Christ was in reality to be anointed at very differ- 
 ent times, and for different pm-poses, then the statement 
 of the prophet, with regard to a time appointed for anoint- 
 ing him, is not merely defective, but has a strong tendency 
 to mislead. 
 
 That Christ was a King at his coming into the world is 
 proved by the fact, that the first specific character under (T. 
 which he is presented to us in the New Testament is that 
 of a King. " Now, when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of 
 Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came 
 wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying. Where is he. 
 that is born King of the Jews ?" Now, when these men 
 were led by the Holy Spirit from a far country to proclaim 
 the birth of this King, and when they must have come to 
 worship him, not merely as King of the Jews, a person in 
 whom they could have no concern, but as that generally- 
 expected King, who, arising in Judea, was to obtain the 
 dominion of the world, who was to be the " Salvation of 
 God to all the ends of the earth," — " a light to lighten the 
 Gentiles, as well as the glory of Israel," — a King, the ex- 
 pectation of whose coming was so general, that the flatter- 
 ers of Vespasian professed to find the fulfilment of the 
 prophecy in him ; upon what possible gi'ound can it be ra- 
 tionally maintained that the person so distinctly announ- 
 ced as the long-promised King, was in reality at that time 
 no king at all, nor to be made a king till after his death ? 
 He was revealed to, and distinctly announced by, the wise 
 
150 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 men as a King ; and I cannot conceive how any man can 
 deny this statement, and maintain that Christ was no 
 King till after his death, or that he is no King even yet, 
 without seeing that he is as flatly as possible contradicting 
 the Bible. Nothing can be more clear than that Jesus is 
 at his birth designated a King. If, then, he in reality was 
 not a King, the conclusion is unavoidable that the Scrip- 
 ture statement is not true. 
 
 Again, when om- Saviour entered into the temple, which 
 the Jews were making a house of merchandise, and when, 
 " Having made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all 
 out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen ; and poured 
 out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables ; and 
 said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence ; 
 make not my Father's house a house of merchandise," he 
 was surely, in thus purging the temple, not only assuming 
 to himself both a sacerdotal and royal prerogative, but was 
 giving a most unequivocal manifestation of his royal autho- 
 rity. For who is this who not only utters so unpleasant a 
 command, but who so imperiously compels an instantane- 
 ous obedience to it ? Is this the carpenter's son, the de- 
 spised Nazarene, the obscure peasant from the polluted 
 land of Galilee of the Gentiles ? Assuredly no. Had he 
 appeared in the temple under no other character than this, 
 and attempted such a purgation of it, he would at once 
 have been stoned to death, or torn in pieces. It is plain 
 that they who thus submitted to be di'iven from the temple, 
 which they had converted into a house of merchandise, who 
 even saw their money poured out without daring to resist, 
 must have beheld in him who thus drove them away, the 
 unequivocal manifestation of a majesty that was not to be 
 opposed, — of a regal authority and power that might not 
 for a moment brook resistance. He was at that time 
 claiming to himself the honour and the submission due to 
 a king, and as assuredly and as fully possessed that clia- 
 ractei' then, as he does now or ever will do. 
 
 All tlie prophets describe Cluist as a King. Their tes- 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 151 
 
 timony, however, I shall not quote, because it might be 
 alleged — especially considering the mode of interpreting 
 prophecy now adopted, or rather the mode of rambling 
 through it in a style that bids defiance to all iutei-pretation 
 — that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled. One, 
 however, with regard to which no such allegation can be 
 made, I shall quote. "Rejoice gi-eatly, O daughter of 
 Zion : shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King 
 Cometh unto thee : he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, 
 and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an 
 ass."i Here it is most distinctly declared that Christ 
 should come as a King ; and the prediction was fulfilled to 
 the very letter, when, at the triumphant entrance of our 
 Lord into Jerusalem, "The whole multitude of the dis- 
 ciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, 
 for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, Bless- 
 ed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord ; 
 peace m heaven, and glory in the highest." Now, the 
 evangelists do expressly declare that, by this entrance of 
 our Lord into Jerusalem, the prophecy of Zechariah was 
 fulfilled. If, then, Christ was no King at that time, the 
 plain consequence is, that the evangelists were mistaken. 
 And can any man then deny that Christ was a King, and 
 yet pretend to reverence the Scriptm-es ? Moreover, when 
 the Pharisees were offended at the open declaration made 
 by the disciples that Christ was Messiah the King, and de- 
 sired him to rebuke them ; so far was he from complying 
 Tv-ith their request, and repressing the voices that hailed 
 him as the long-promised King, that " He answered and 
 said unto them, I tell you that if these should hold their 
 peace, the stones would immediately cry out ;" thus de- 
 claring it to be a matter of the most absolute necessity that 
 he should be openly announced as King. Indeed, had there 
 been any one of his ofl&ces in which he did not distinctly 
 announce himself to the Jews, then, so far ^ had they been 
 
 1 Zech. ix. 9. 
 
152 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 guiltless, they could not be charged with the guilt of re- 
 jecting that which was never oftered to them. 
 
 That Christ was distinctly announced to the Jews as a 
 King is certain, not only fi'om the fulfilment of the pro- 
 phecy just quoted, but from the terms in which they ac- 
 cused him to Pilate, — " ^Ve found this fellow perverting 
 the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caisar, say- 
 ing that he himself is Christ a King." And was he, who 
 thus distinctly announced himself to the Jews as the long- 
 t^xpected King, whom their eyes were almost failing with 
 looking for, — who was acknowledged by Xathanael, and 
 hailed by the multitude as " King of Israel," — who was 
 accused by the priests of this very thing, that he declared 
 himself to be a King, — and who distinctly acknowledged 
 himself before Pilate to be a King, whose kingdom was not 
 of this world ; was he, after all, no King in reality, but 
 only a King in expectance ? And are we to suppose that it 
 was without the providence of God, and without the dic- 
 tation of his Holy Spu'it, that Pilate wrote, and, though 
 entreated by the offended Jews, refused to alter that inscrip- 
 tion, which officially, and more truly than Pilate knew, de- 
 clared that he who was suspended on the cross was " King 
 of the Jews ? " In short, if the proofs given us in Scripture 
 that Christ was a King when he was on earth, still leaves 
 that matter doubtful, nay, if, in the face of all that proof, 
 we are to believe that in reality he was no King, then we 
 may at once set aside the Scriptures altogether. They are 
 totally incompetent to establish any fact ; for there is no 
 fact that they more clearly and decidedly teach than that 
 Christ was a King. 
 
 But Christ came not only as King of the Jews, but he came 
 that in man's natiu'e he might overthrow man's foes, might 
 spoil the spoiler, divest Satan of his long-usm*ped dominion, 
 enter into the strong man's house, bhid him, and take from 
 him his goods, and cast out the prince of this world. He 
 came as a King, that he might meet and conquer him who 
 had become the king of this world, and for this reason the 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 153 
 
 contest was earned on in such a way as to render the con- 
 quest of Christ, and tlie fall of Satan as lightning from 
 heaven, perfectly manifest to all. I might refer in proof 
 of this to what is related by different authors with regard 
 to the silencing of the heathen oracles. Thus we are told 
 by Nicephorus, Lib. i. cap, 17, that when the Roman em- 
 peror consulted the oracle of Apollo with a double heca- 
 tomb, he received for answer, " A Hebrew child, a God 
 who rules the gods themselves, has commanded me to de- 
 part and to retmii to my di'eary home. Henceforth, there- 
 fore, let the suppliant retu-e unanswered from my altars." 
 I prefer, however, confining myself to what is related in 
 Scripture. One of the most prominent facts recorded in 
 the Gospels is, that Satan was, about the time of our Lord's 
 appearance, permitted to take possession of men in a very- 
 extraordinary manner, thus openly manifesting and exer- 
 cising his power over them in a way which they were 
 plainly incapable of resisting ; and a gi'eat proportion of 
 our Saviour's mu-acles consisted in casting out devils. 
 Now, all the different hypotheses that have been resorted 
 to for the purpose of accounting for the possession of the 
 demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel, I hold to be just so 
 many expedients for evading the plain and palpable state- 
 ments of Scripture. Having but little reverence for the 
 learned arts, by which the obvious meaning of Scripture is 
 refined into somethmg too sublime for vulgar apprehen- 
 sion, I conceive the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel, 
 just to have been persons possessed by Satan, who was 
 thus permitted to exercise an unusual degree of power, 
 both that it might not be thought that the woman's seed 
 assailed him at a time when his power was either more re- 
 strained, or less energetically exercised than usual, and that 
 his defeat and Christ's superiority might be more clearly 
 manifested to all. This view of the matter our Lord him- 
 self teaches us to take. When the seventy returned again 
 to him rejoicing, that through his name even devils mqyq 
 subject to them, his remai'k upon their communication is, 
 
 g2 
 
154 . CHRIST OUK KING. 
 
 " I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Yes, the 
 devils kneAv him to be the " Holy One of God," they 
 trembled at his name, they shunned his presence, they fled 
 his approach, they offered no resistance to his commands, 
 but, to the utter astonishment of the people, showed their 
 complete subjection to him ; thus proclaiming with their 
 own mouths the fall of Satan from his seat of usurped 
 power, and the complete victory of him who proved himself 
 to be his long-expected conqueror by this, that the people 
 from what their o'vvn eyes saw could say, "What thing- 
 is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority 
 commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey 
 him." They did obey him, and in many cases openly con- 
 fessed who he was ; and we wonder at, and mourn over, the 
 hardness of their hearts, who could look upon the manifest 
 victory of Christ, and his resistless destroying of the works 
 of the devil, and yet could refuse to believe ; while Ave our- 
 selves can look upon the same thing, and yet coolly deny, 
 that, when he conquered Satan, he was a King at all. 
 
 When man was made, there was given to him " domi- 
 nion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, 
 and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 
 By his fall, man in a great measure became divested of that 
 dominion. But our Lord, as an unfallen man, possessed 
 all that dominion which fallen man had lost ; as is plainly 
 declared in Psalm viii. ; and is amply proved by the record 
 of his life. But not only as an unfallen man did he pos- 
 sess all the dominion over the inferior creatures, which was 
 lost by the fall ; but angels ministered to him, devils were 
 subject to him, the elements of nature obeye'd him, death 
 gave up his prey at his command, and yet he was no King. 
 Can the power and influence of theory be more fatally 
 manifested than in them who maintain this ? Some of the 
 people said, " When Christ cometh, will he do more mira- 
 (•les than this man doeth ?" So would I say, when he is 
 anointed a King, will he do any thing of a more decidedly 
 rei,Ml character than he did when he was on earth ? Will 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 155 
 
 lie do more than rule over the material and spiritual world, 
 — over that which is fallen, and that which never fell, — 
 over the dominion of Satan and the power of death ? That 
 his power will be more visibly exercised, and more exten- 
 sively manifested, I most willingly grant ; that it will, or 
 can be more really exercised, or more truly manifested, I 
 am inclined to think impossible. 
 
 During his life the devils had no power over our Lord, 
 but then* defeat was made manifest by the resistless autho- 
 rity with which he issued his commands to them ; so that 
 they could assail him only through the instrimientality of 
 wicked men. But the horn' of then- power did come, — the 
 hour when the soul of Jesus began to be " amazed and 
 very heavy," words which fall far short, indeed, of the 
 energy of the original, as the original, and all other lan- 
 guage, must fall far short of expressing, in an adequate 
 manner, all the feaiftdness of that amazement and hoiTor 
 which then seized him. The hour did come which made 
 him cry out, " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I 
 say ? Father, save me from this horn* : but for this cause 
 came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name." Now, 
 what was it that made the prospect of this hour so terrible 
 to Jesus ? Was it the mere dread of death ? The supposi- 
 tion is totally inconsistent with the whole of his conduct 
 and character ; and no less inconsistent with the fact, that 
 he knew well that death had no power over him whatever, 
 farther than he himself was pleased to allow. Many of his 
 disciples have endured the cross, and submitted to the most 
 cruel tortures ; and even women and childi'en have suffer- 
 ed all these tortures without a groan. And did Jesus look 
 on the mere pain of dying, with more than all the terror, 
 and cling to a troubled life with more than all the weak- 
 ness of mortal man ? No. It was not dying that he dread- 
 ed, but the fearfid conflict by which his death was to be 
 preceded. The powers of darkness were all let loose upon 
 him, to assail him with their utmost force. A broken law 
 came to demand of him the restitution of its violated bo- 
 
166 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 nour, and to inflict upon him the curse due to its violation. 
 And was it only a part of its demands that it then insisted 
 upon ? No, it came armed with all the authority of inflexi- 
 ble justice, and not one iota of what that justice entitled it 
 to claim was remitted. " The Lord laid on him the ini- 
 quities of us all," and he " bare them in his own body on 
 the tree :" and he bare them not in outward seeming mere- 
 ly, without in reality feeling all their final consequences. 
 And the amazement and soitow that these consequences 
 inflicted upon liim, he himself could not express, and we 
 cannot conceive. For if, when the sinner is first awaken- 
 ed to a sense of his guilt, or when the backslider begins to 
 be filled with the fruits of his own ways, — when conscience 
 is setting all his sins in array before him, and the law is 
 stamping all the bitterness of its curse upon every one of 
 them, thus filling his heart with terrors that can find ex- 
 pression only in gToanings unutterable, and more fearful 
 by far than the teiTors of death ; — if the guilt of one indi- 
 vidual can thus fill the heart of that individual >Wth such 
 anguish and such agony, who may venture to form any es- 
 timate of the agony endured by Christ when he made his 
 soul an offering for sin, — when the deceit of Jacob, the 
 adultery and murder of David, the denial of Peter, and the 
 persecutions of Paul, — when the sins of an apostate world 
 were collected into one dark mass, and its whole burden 
 laid upon him ? The law, inexorable as the stony tablets 
 on which it was engraved, was there, setting all the sins by 
 which a guilty world had been polluted, and its sanctity 
 violated, in array before him, filling his soul with all their 
 terrors, and exacting from him the penalty due to them all. 
 And death was there, armed with a power, and clothed 
 with ten-ors, with which he never before or since assailed 
 living behig. It is sin that forms the sting of death, and 
 invests him with all his powers. And if his assaults be ter- 
 rible to every individual of us, on account of our own indi- 
 vidual sins, — and if he be temble to us often, even when 
 wt' know that these sins are all forgiven, who may esti- 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 157 
 
 mate the power and the terror with which he assailed our 
 Lord, when armed with the power, and invested with the 
 terrors, not of the sins of an individual, but of those of a 
 lost world ? And he who had the power of death, even 
 Satan, was there, with all his powers unfettered and unre- 
 strained, to try what they might avail against the " second 
 man," in the horn* of his sorest travail. And the prince of 
 the power of the air spread darkness over all the land, and 
 made the earth to quake in the mightiness of his efforts. 
 But these were only faint and feeble shadows of the dark- 
 ness and commotion which were raised in the soul of the 
 sufferer in that hour of his dismal conflict, when his power 
 to accomplish the original promise was put to its last fear- 
 ful trial ; when he fully realized the hope Avhich fallen man 
 had long been given to cherish, that we should be deliver- 
 ed fi'om our bondage, and raised from om' fallen and sinful 
 state, by a suffering conqueror. 
 
 Xow, had there been, in any department of Christ's per- 
 son, any thing to which the tenns fallen, sinful, rebellious, 
 could, with the most distant approach to truth or justice, 
 be applied, was his escape from this hour of the power of 
 darkness a thing within the bounds of possibility ? Had 
 the law found in him the slightest taint of sinfulness, to 
 which it might attach the curse due to its violation, it 
 would have held him fast in its adamantine chain, as a 
 debtor on his own accoimt ; and never would he have been 
 able to rescue himself, much less us, fi'om its mexorable 
 grasp. Had death, and he who had the power of death, 
 found the slightest gTound in which the sting of death could 
 be planted, then, assuredly, had death had forcible domi- 
 nion over him, and the blackness of that darkness which M^as 
 around him, and within him, in the garden and on the 
 cross, had been his portion for ever. But he endured their 
 utmost rage, deeply tried, tried with a trial beyond aught 
 that mortal man may ever comprehend, yet unsubdued, and 
 unsubdued just because there was in him nothing fallen or 
 sinful. He endured till the law had no farther claim, till 
 
158 CHRIST OUK KING, 
 
 the powers of darkness fled, their utmost efforts defeated 
 and baffled, and with thera passed away the darkness from 
 the land, and from the soul of the victorious and triumph- 
 ant sufferer, and Satan saw that his long usurped dominion 
 over the world was now utterly and hopelessly broken. He 
 endured till he could say, "It is finished," till " having spoil- 
 ed principalities and powers, he made a show of them open- 
 ly, triumphing over them in his cross." He endured till the 
 agony which wrung from him the bitter complaint of being 
 forsaken was past, and holy peace and joy returned, with 
 the light of his Father's countenance, to his soul, from 
 which they had for a time withdrawn ; and then having 
 openly shown that the prince of this world had nothing in 
 him, he freely and voluntarily gave a life which was still 
 his own, to give or to keep, for the life of a lost world. 
 Fearful was the conflict that he sustained during the hour 
 of the " power of darkness," but happy and glorious was 
 the result, and splendid and blessed was the victory in 
 which his sufferings terminated, and most royally triumph- 
 ant was his death. 
 
 From these remarks, as to the regal character of Christ's 
 death, the inference is very fauiy deducible, that his death, 
 even up to the last moment of his mortal existence, was per- 
 fectly voluntary, — that at that moment, whether he would, 
 or would not, die, was a thing so completely within his 
 power to determine, as, previous to his Incarnation, it was 
 within his power to detennine, whether he would or would 
 not become man. But this is a point of by far too much 
 importance to be left without more direct and abundant 
 evidence : for the decision of this question will very effec- 
 tually decide the question, whether our Lord's humanity 
 was fallen and sinful ; and I may add, that it will also de- 
 cide, whether his death was an atonement or not. They 
 who maintain that the humanity of Christ was fallen sin- 
 ful humanity, also maintain, — as of plain necessity they 
 must,— that he died by the common property of flesh to 
 die, because it was accm'sed in the loins of our first parents, 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 169 
 
 — that he died just for the same reason that other men die, 
 that he was just as incapable of shimning or resisting death, 
 as any of the fallen race of Adam. And if he was fallen 
 and sinful, this conclusion there is no avoiding. If, then, 
 it can be shown that death had no power over him, that 
 he died because he pleased so to do, when he pleased, and 
 how he pleased,* then is it also decisively shown that he 
 was not fallen and sinful. 
 
 In support of the position that Christ was not subject to 
 death, but that he laid down his life of his own accord, I 
 quote his own express declaration to that purpose, — 
 " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down 
 my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
 me, but I lay it down of myself ; I have power to lay it 
 down, and I have power to take it again. This command- 
 ment have I received of my Father." 2 Nothing, it ap- 
 pears to me, can possibly be sunpler, or clearer, or more 
 unambiguous, than this declaration of our Lord, that his 
 life was at his own disposal. This he spoke of his human 
 life ; for it would be worse than absm'd to suppose, that 
 before he had a human life, he coiild have used any such 
 language, or could have said of his Divine life, that he had 
 power to lay that down. And when he stated, with regard 
 to the human life which he had assumed, that he had power 
 to lay it down and to take it up again, he was stating what 
 was not ti'ue if he were a fallen sinful man, and just as 
 liable to death as other men, and for the same reason. 
 He could not say that he had power to lay do^vn his life, 
 and to take it up again, in order to show that he was Lord 
 both of life and death, if, in fact, he was just as incapable 
 of avoiding or resisting death, as those to whom he spoke. 
 
 1 " Demonstra^it Spiritus Mediatoris, quam nulla poena peccati usque ad 
 mortem caniis accesserit, quia non eam deseruit invitus, sed quia voluit, 
 quando voluit, quomodo voluit." — Augustine De Trinltate, lib. iv. cap. 16. 
 A chapter, the object of which is to prove that the death of Chiist was spon- 
 taneous. But upon this subject I shall have abundant extracts to produce 
 from the primitive vrriters in the sequel 2 johu x. 17, 18. 
 
160 CHRIST OUIi KING. 
 
 Nor could he say at all that he had power to lay down his 
 life, if, in point of fact, he had no power to retain it. If he 
 was not God, and had not assumed human life at his own 
 jileasure, then he could have used no such language ; for 
 no created being can, by any possibility, possess the power 
 here claimed by Jesus. But if he was God, and if the hu- 
 man life which he had assumed was as truly his own life as 
 his Divinity was his o^vn, then he unquestionably did pos- 
 sess a sovereign right to dispose of that life as he pleased. 
 And if he had not that power over his own life which no 
 created being can have, then it was not possible to present 
 that life a voluntar}^ offering for the world. It was not his 
 to give. In that case he did no more than Codrus, Curtius, 
 and a hundi'ed more have done. Being bound to die at 
 any rate, he was generous enough to anticipate the date of 
 Iiis death, in order to accomplish an important purpose, and 
 acquire a deathless fame. Though what important pur- 
 pose could be accomplished by his death, if he had placed 
 himself in a situation where death was unavoidable, it is 
 not easy to see. 
 
 It manifests little reverence for Scriptm-e to attempt to 
 mystify so very plain and explicit a declaration of the fact, 
 that our Lord's life was not taken from him ; a declaration 
 that might safely be left, without comment, to produce its 
 own effect upon every unsophisticated mmd. When our 
 Lord's auditors saw him standing before them in living hu- 
 manity, and heard him say, '^ I have power to lay down 
 my life, and I have power to take it up again," can Ave 
 suppose that they would, or possibly could, think of any 
 other life than just that human life which they saw him to 
 possess, or could understand the words which they heard 
 to be equivalent to these, " I may truly say that I have 
 power to lay down my life, because though notc^ in conse- 
 quence of the constitution which I have taken, I am as little 
 capable of escaping death as other men, yet I took that 
 constitution voluntarily, and had it in my power to choose 
 whether I woidd take it or not ?" They neither could so 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 161 
 
 understand him, nor did so understand him. And the plain 
 meaning of the text is undeniable, that even after Christ 
 had become Man, he was under no other obligation to die 
 than the obligation resulting from his covenant engagement 
 to lay down his life for his sheep, and to become obedient 
 unto death. 
 
 Should the possibility of a doubt yet remain whether the 
 text under consideration just means what it so very plainly 
 states, — should it be thought possible, without impiety, to 
 understand our Lord to mean any thing else than just that 
 at the moment when he was speaking, he had absolute 
 power over the life wliich his hearers saw him possess, to 
 lay it down and to take it up at his pleasure, let us consider 
 the purpose for which he made the declaration. His object 
 was to convince his auditors that he was the Life, and that, 
 therefore, all who committed themselves to him would be 
 perfectly safe, for none could pluck them out of his hand, 
 which would, in fact, be equivalent to the plucking of them 
 out of his Father's hand, with whom he declares his unity. 
 And the proof that in him their life was safe was, that he 
 himself had a life which no man could take from him, — a 
 life over which death had no power. Xow, this is just the 
 ground on which our confidence in him rests, that " as the 
 Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to 
 have life in himself." But if, when the hour of trial came, 
 it was found that he could not resist the power of death in 
 himself, nor realize the declaration that he made, that no 
 man could take his life from him, — then how can we pos- 
 sibly rely upon him, that he can repel the power of death 
 from us, or fulfil the promise that he has made to us, that 
 none shall ever be able to pluck us out of his hand? 
 Surely, the power that wrested his owti life out of his hands, 
 may well be supposed capable of plucking ours out of his 
 hands. He who could not save himself from the grasp of 
 the king of terrors, can afibrd us little confidence in his 
 power to save us. K, then, to mamtain that Christ, as a 
 fallen sinful man, was as incapable of resisting the power 
 
162 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 of death as we are, — if, to maintain that when the hour of 
 trial came, he conquered not death, but death conquered 
 him, if this be not dh'ectly to falsify his own express decla- 
 ration, and to overthrow the very pillars of the Christian's 
 hope, I know not what can be considered as doing so. 
 
 It is of no avail to tell us that, at his resm-rection, this 
 gift of having life in himself, — this power by which the life 
 of every one of his members is infallibly secured against all 
 assaults, was restored to him. For how do we know that 
 he holds that gift now by a firmer tenure than that by 
 which he held it before ? Or rather, how can we help 
 knowing that he holds it by no fii-mer tenure ? When he 
 made the declaration to the Jews with regard to his power 
 of laying it down and taking it up again, he had all the ful- 
 ness of the Godhead dwelling in him, to enable him to re- 
 sist any violence by which he might be assailed. Can he 
 have more than all the fulness of the Godhead to guard it 
 now ? Yet we are told that a stronger than he came, and 
 by violence took away the gift which the Father had given 
 him for the life of the world. After the restoration of that 
 gift, are we not left to dread, that by similar violence, it 
 may again be taken away ? since, assuredly, it can be se- 
 cured by no stronger power now than it was at first. 
 
 The text now commented upon is very frequently quoted 
 by the early writers ; and, as far as I recollect, not the 
 slightest doubt as to its meaning just what it so plainly 
 expresses, is manifested by any of them. Ample proofs 
 of their clear and unvarying conviction that our Lord's 
 life was not taken from him, but voluntarily given, will 
 occur in the sequel. In the mean time, as a confinnation 
 of my own view of the text, I shall quote two justly cele- 
 brated fathers. Gregory Nyssen says, ' Remember what 
 our Lord says of himself, and you will know his power, 
 and how, by his own will, and by no necessity of nature, 
 he separated his soul from his body, — 'Trug ccvroK^xro^tK-fi 
 i^ovaix, y.cti ov (pvaecog ctuccuKri ^ioc^evyuvat rvju -^vx^iv ix. rov 
 aa/^otros—for no man, saith he, taketh my life from me, 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 163 
 
 but I lay it down of myself. This being so, what is sought 
 will easily appear ; for he who disposes of all things by his 
 own authority, awaits not any necessity arising from his 
 being betrayed, nor the assault of the Jews as of thieves, 
 nor the sentence of Pilate, that their malice should be- 
 come the principle and cause of the common salvation of 
 men,' &c. ^ Gregory understood the Christian system too 
 well to suppose that, if Christ died by the necessity of a 
 fallen sinful nature, his death could be any atonement. 
 Augustine says, 'There is much weight in that/; for/ 
 lai/ down^ saith he, / lay down my life^ I lay down. What 
 means, / lay it down ? Let not the Jews glory ; they can 
 rage, but power they can have none. Let them rage as 
 much as they are able, if I choose not to lay down my life, 
 what will their raging avail ? ' &c. ^ 
 
 Another text, which very clearly evinces our Lord's vic- 
 tory over death, is thus written, — " Who in the days of his 
 flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, 
 with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to 
 save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." ^ 
 To him, as man, death was natm-ally terrible ; and coming 
 to him armed with terrors incalculably gi'eater than he 
 ever assaulted any other man with, awakened prayers and 
 supplications of the most earnest and pathetic description. 
 One of them we have recorded in Psalm xxii. which he 
 repeated on the cross : " Deliver my soul from the sword ; 
 my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the 
 lion's mouth, for thou hast heard me from the horns of the 
 unicorns." Such were his prayers in the horn' of his fear- 
 ful conflict with the powers of darkness. And how was he 
 
 1 Sermon I. On the Resurrection, Works, Vol. II. p. 821. 
 
 - " Cum magno pondere dictum est Ego; quia egopono, iiiquit,^ono animam 
 imam, ego pono. Quid est, ego pono ? Ego illam pono ? non glorientur Judsi ; 
 soevire potuerunt, potestatem habere non potiierunt. Soeviant quantum pos- 
 sunt; si ego noluero animam meam ponere, quid soeviendo facturi sunt?" 
 With mucli more to the same purpose. On John. Tract 47. Section 6. 
 
 ■* Hebrews v. 7. 
 
164 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 heard? Was it by being given up a bound captive into 
 the power of death, and of him who had the power of 
 death, that is, the devil ? No ; but he was heard by being 
 sustained against all their violence, till he triumphed over 
 them on the cross, and death, and he who had the power 
 of death, fled away balfled, and found that they had met 
 with one man against whom their utmost efforts could 
 avail nothing. And then he voluntarily laid down a life 
 which was still his own to give or to retain ; and he en- 
 tered into the domain of death, not as a captive, but as a 
 conqueror, to fulfil the prediction, " O death, I will be thy 
 plagues ; O grave, I will be thy destruction." Could he 
 accomplish this prediction by being overcome by death on 
 the cross? No; had death, and he who had the power of 
 death, for one moment overmastered him, then was every 
 hope of a lost world extinguished, and that for ever. 
 
 I would refer, also, to the peculiar phraseology used with 
 regard to the death of our Lord by the Evangelists Matthew 
 and John : cc<py])cc ro Truivf^x, he sent forth the ghost; 'ttoi^s- 
 loiKi TO 'Tirviv^ot, he gave up the ghost. This language is ap- 
 plied to Christ alone ; and though a variety of phrases are 
 used both in the Hebrew and Greek, to express the act of 
 dying, no such phrases as these are ever applied to any 
 other. I am aware that to give up the ghost is repeatedly 
 applied to others in our translation, but in not one instance 
 does the original sanction the translation. I am aware, 
 too, that, in the Greek classics, a phraseology somewhat 
 similar is employed; for example, ov yoc^ vj^ccli -^vxnv 
 a(pYiKe MiuiT^sag, EuHp. Hel. For Menelaus died not here. 
 But the -^^vxYi of the poet is not equivalent to the 'Trvevfcx 
 of the apostles. And even if it were, yet the careful ap- 
 ])ropriation of this phraseology to Christ alone, woidd af- 
 ford sufficient gi'ound for the supposition that they meant 
 10 speak of his death, as dilfering from that of other men 
 in its being voluntary. In short, the Greek phrase i^y^j^v 
 (t(pn}ce has little analogy to that of the apostles, and the 
 Latin efflare animam has none whatever. Emisit animam, 
 
CHRIST OUK KING. 165 
 
 non amisit^ is the appropriate remark of one of the fathers, 
 I forget at the moment which of them. 
 
 There is another declaration of our Lord, ntteredjust 
 before his last fearful conflict, which sets the voluntary' na- 
 ture of his death in a very clear light, — " The prince of 
 this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the 
 world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father 
 gave me commandment, even so I do."* Had the prince 
 of this world found any thing in Christ with which he 
 could claim alliance, any thing, however slight, derived 
 from him, either mediately through the guilt of our first 
 parents, or immediately through his 0'\^^l temptations ; had 
 he found in him aught of that law of the members which 
 warreth against the law of the mind, then this would have 
 been quite sufficient to authorise and enable him to inflict 
 upon our Lord that death, the power of inflicting which 
 had been delegated to him. But our Lord declares that 
 though he was about to meet Satan, and was also about 
 to die, he died not in consequence of any power which the 
 prince of this world, the prcepositus mortis^ had over him, 
 — against this fatal idea he carefully guards his disciples, 
 — but he died solely to show the world the depth of his 
 love to the Father ; to show that though the command of 
 the Father required him to submit to the very last extre- 
 mity of mortal suftering, his love was sufficient to make 
 him obey even unto death. But what becomes of this 
 proof of his love, if in reality he was suspended on the 
 cross because he could not help it, and his life was wnmg 
 from him by a violence which he could not sustain ? If the 
 prince of this world conquered Christ upon the cross, and 
 violently took his life away, then it is clear that Christ was 
 not then " King of kings, and Lord of lords ;" he had met 
 with his superior ; he was not even a King at all, but a 
 fallen sinful man. But how then could he save men from 
 the beginning of the world ? And if the cross was the scene 
 
 1 John xiv. 30. 
 
166 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 of his defeat, and the monument of his weakness, how can 
 it also be the foundation of our hopes and the ground of 
 our glorying? Or with what truth could the Apostle say 
 that he triumphed over principalities and powers on the 
 cross, if there they in reality triumphed over him ? If he 
 died not as a King, and as a conquering suiferer, unques- 
 tionably his cross was the reverse of a triumph, and the 
 Galatians were not so much to be blamed for being ashamed 
 of it. 
 
 I appeal also, as a proof of the regal, the triumphal cha- 
 racter of our Lord's death, to the circumstances that at- 
 tended it, all of which strongly show that, at the moment 
 when it took place, it was perfectly voluntary. When the 
 band of men and officers went out to take him, he showed 
 how easily he could not only have escaped out of their 
 hands, — that he could have done long before, for he knew 
 well of their intention to come and take him, and could 
 have frustrated the traitor's purpose by going out of the 
 way, — but how easily he could have resisted their utmost 
 power, for, " As soon as he had said unto them, I am he, 
 they went backwards and fell to the gi'ound," overwhelmed, 
 evidently, by some exhibition of his Divine power. And 
 when his disciples would have defended him, he told them 
 that if he wanted defence, he could have for that purpose 
 not twelve unarmed apostles, but twelve legions of angels. 
 " But then how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus 
 it must be?" Even after he was fastened to the cross, he 
 showed that he was still the life ; and even there did he 
 exercise his regal functions in the promise that he made 
 to the penitent thief. What could possibly induce that 
 malefactor to apply in such circumstances to a fellow-suf- 
 ferer, to one who, we are assured, was as incapable of re- 
 sisting the death to which both had been doomed as him- 
 self? It is unquestionable, that he had observed in Christ 
 something more than mortal, when he addressed to him 
 the prayer, " Lord, remember me when thou comest into 
 thy kingdom." And why has the Holy Ghost recorded 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 167 
 
 the fact, but to show that he who, in such a situation, 
 could make the magnificent promise, " Verily I say unto 
 thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," was not 
 himself the weak victim of death ? And are we to say that 
 he who thus, almost with his dying breath, confeiTed eternal 
 life, was unable to save his own life from the assault of 
 death ? And when he had endured all that his foes, whether 
 men or devils, could inflict ; when the darkness passed 
 away, and the victory was won ; then did he cry out, not 
 mth the feeble breathings of a man whose agonies had 
 worn him down to the very loAvest stage of existence, 
 and of whom death had all but taken possession, but 
 with the shout of a conqueror, whose life, after all the 
 assaults of death, — after innumerable deaths had been in- 
 flicted upon him, was yet as whole within him as it had 
 ever been ; thus plainly intimating, that even at that 
 moment, instead of bowing his head and giving up the 
 ghost, he could have stepped down from the cross. " But 
 then how should the Scriptures be fulfilled?" When the 
 centm-ion saw " that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, 
 he said. Truly this man was the Son of God." And deeply 
 is it to be regretted that Christian divines, and masters in 
 our Israel, should adopt systems of theology, or rather ne- 
 gations of all system, which compel them to deny a fact so 
 clearly evinced to the centurion by the evidence of his own 
 senses, as to draw fi'om him this confession, — a confession 
 which the Holy Ghost has thought good to record for our 
 conviction, that this ivian fi'eely gave up, for the redemption 
 of a lost world, a life which neither earth nor hell could 
 wring from him, and over which death had no power, and 
 which, at the very moment of giving it, he could have re- 
 tained had he chosen so to do. And the completeness of 
 his death is also to be remarked. They who are crucified 
 with him were not so clearly and undoubtedly dead, as to 
 render the breaking of their legs an unnecessary ceremony. 
 But Jesus was so evidently dead that not a bone of him 
 was broken ; for when the soldiers " came to Jesus, and 
 
168 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs." 
 And Pilate wondered at his being dead so soon, for when 
 Joseph of Arimathea begged his body, it is said " Pilate 
 marvelled if he were already dead." How much more 
 would he have marvelled had he seen what the centurion 
 saw ; had he seen Jesus at one moment crying out, " It is 
 finished," with a " loud voice," and seen him the next mo- 
 ment so certainly and so unquestionably dead, that even 
 the soldiers noticed it, and brake not his legs ? And yet 
 we are most dogmatically called upon to deny the very 
 facts which awakened the wonder both of Pilate and the 
 centurion, and to say this was the death, not of the Son 
 of God, who, fi'om love to the Father, and in obedience to 
 his command, gave up his life fi-eely, but the death of a 
 fallen sinful man, who died by the common property of 
 flesh to die. This new gospel I believe not, nor, in the face 
 of such evidence, can believe. I believe that on the cross 
 Christ defeated the powers of darkness, and that by death 
 he destroyed them. He laid down his life of his own ac- 
 cord, in order to show that he had a power which no 
 created being can ever possess, power to lay down his life, 
 and power to take it again. He laid it down that he might 
 be Lord of the quick and the dead. He laid it do\\Ti that 
 death, as well as life, might be subservient to the happi- 
 ness and glory of his people, and that they might have no- 
 thing to fear from the former more than from the latter. 
 He laid it down that he might be able to address his 
 Church in this cheering language, " I am he that liveth, 
 and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, 
 and have the keys of hell and of death." 
 
 And is it possible, in the face of such facts as these, to 
 believe that this suffering conqueror had in him any thing 
 whatever, which could justify the application to him of the 
 terms fallen and sinful ? It was essentially necessary that 
 he who was to deliver others from their sins, should him- 
 self be perfectly free from any thing to which such terms 
 could have the remotest application. And it was necessary 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 169 
 
 that we should have the clearest and most decisive evi- 
 dence of this ; for npon the certainty that Christ was not 
 fallen or sinful, depends the reality of the atonement, and 
 the certainty of all our hopes. And never was any thmg 
 so severely tried, and never was any testimony so decisive, 
 as that which proves the total and perfect sinlessness of 
 the Man Christ Jesus, at all times, and in all respects. 
 The traitor who betrayed him pronounced him innocent. 
 His accusers he could boldly challenge to convince him of 
 sin. The sentence of the judge who doomed him to the 
 cross was, " I find no fault in him ; I will scourge him 
 and let him go." Much guilt, however, might have been 
 in him which no mortal eye could detect ; and in a matter 
 in which we are so deeply and vitally concerned, much 
 stronger evidence than that of the Jews and of Pilate was 
 necessary ; and much stronger evidence is given. The 
 justice of God assailed him, armed with all the demands 
 of a violated law, saying, " Pay me that thou owest." The 
 debt was paid, the penalty was endured, every demand was 
 satisfied, and divine justice retired, saying, " I find no fault 
 in him ; I have scourged him with every stripe due to an 
 apostate world ; let him go." The powers of darkness 
 were let loose upon him to try if their malice could find 
 aught in him with which they might claim alliance, or on 
 which they might ground the slightest charge against him ; 
 and after efibrts the power of which we can little appre- 
 hend, they fled baffled away, howling out in anguish their 
 own hopeless doom, while forced to say, ' We find no fault 
 in him ; wc have scourged him with worse than scorpion's 
 stings, and have been compelled to let him go.' And 
 while heaven, and earth, and hell, are thus proclaiming to 
 us the entire and perfect sinlessness of God's holy child 
 Jesus, and pouring on our hearts the resistless conviction, 
 that in him was no fault,— nothing which the inexorable 
 justice of heaven could condemn, and nothing on which 
 even the unmitigated malice of hell could lay hold, who 
 are they who dare to come forward and tell us, that had 
 
 H 
 
170 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 they been at the fierj^ trial they could have found some- 
 thing sinful in him, and could have proved that if he had 
 never been led into actual sin it was from no want of incli- 
 nation, from no absence of a sinful disposition, for that all 
 the propensities of fallen man were as truly and as strong- 
 ly in him as they are in us ? — who tell us that while our 
 Lord teaches us to pray that the will of God may be done 
 on earth as it is done in heaven, he himself was far from 
 exemplifying that petition ; for he obeyed, if, indeed, he 
 did obey, not fi'om filial love, and with the feeling of de- 
 light, as the angels do in heaven, but from that compul- 
 sion which makes even the devils, against then* will, pro- 
 mote the purposes of God, — that in his manhood he obeyed 
 not, as he himself declares, because it was his meat and his 
 drink so to do, but because " the will of the Spirit enforced 
 the flesh to do it univilling service." Who are they who, in 
 a Christian land, venture to utter such daring impieties, and 
 that too under the name of Christian doctrines ? and who 
 tell us that when om- Lord gave up the ghost, it was not 
 the ineffable goodness of God purchasing his Church with 
 his own blood, but the weakness of fallen manhood sinking 
 beneath the oppression of superior force, and who, when 
 they have cast the most unjust reproach upon the flesh of 
 Christ, extend that reproach in the most unmeasured 
 terms to all who are zealous in defending his honour? 
 And who can listen to such impieties, without exclaiming, 
 in the language of Gregory Nazianzen, " I am filled with 
 gi-ief and anger, — and would that ye could sympathise 
 with me, — on account of my Christ, when I see my Christ 
 dishonom-ed for that very reason for which he should be 
 honoured most. For, tell me, is he unworthy of honour, 
 because he was humbled for thee ? Is he, therefore, a crea- 
 ture, because he careth for the creature ?"' Who are they 
 
 ay/tfis 6s koh v,uei?. oletv ida "htoc lovlo cfUfixi^ofcivov f/.ov loi/ 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 171 
 
 who come forward to astound the world with the porten- 
 tous novelty, that, from his cradle to his cross, the humanity 
 of Christ was fallen sinful humanity, — a tenet only not lu- 
 dicrous from its complicated absm'dity, because its total 
 subversion of every hope which the Gospel affords, compels 
 us to regard it with a very different feeling — and who un- 
 spaiingly doom to perdition all who dare to deny that 
 which the voice of heaven, and of earth, and of hell, alike 
 compels us to deny ? And where have they learned that 
 when the " Second man," who is the " Lord fi*om heaven," 
 came to accomplish a work of incomparable greater diffi- 
 culty than that which was assigned to the " First man," 
 who was " of the earth, earthy," he was not sent forth 
 to his work with aU the immaculate purity and spotless 
 holiness with which the first man was endued ? This ques- 
 tion, indeed, they will very readily answer : and with as 
 unhesitating and unfalteriug an accent, as if they were 
 giving utterance to a trath of which no man can be igno- 
 rant, and which no man can deny, and which does not 
 even need any proof, they can tell us, and that in the face 
 of evidence the most ample, the most direct, and the most 
 decisive, that this has been the doctrine of the Church in 
 all ages. Now, I most distinctly assert, that the Church 
 never in any age either beUeved or taught that the huma- 
 nity of Christ was fallen sinful humanity; and in asserting 
 this, I am asserting no more than that the Church never re- 
 nounced Christianity. This is not the place to produce the 
 proof of this assertion, but ample proof of it shall be given 
 in the sequel. In the meantime, I think enough has been 
 stated to show that the death of Christ was perfectly 
 voluntary at the moment when it took place, and that 
 his own declaration, " No man taketh my life fi'om me," 
 remains an undeniable truth. We must, therefore, on 
 looking to Chi'ist as our King, not only reject as a ground- 
 
 oflifiog, sere [/,oi, 61, S/ot <rg locTTstvog ; S/«t lovlo Kiiaf^oc oil 7ot/ 
 Kitajicoc'log Krihfiai ; k. 1. A. Seirao?i xxxi. 
 
172 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 less vision, but explode as a fatal heresy, the tenet, that 
 when, the Word was made flesh, he became fallen sinful 
 flesh. 
 
 It may be proper here to notice one or two of the conse- 
 (]ucnces of this tenet, as they aft'ect the regal character of 
 Christ. If his death was involuntary, — if he died '' by the 
 common property of flesh to die, because it was accursed 
 in the loins of om* first parents," then it is as clear as the 
 light of day, that the Godhead had withdrawn from our Lord 
 previous to his death ; for I suppose the most hardy main- 
 tainor of the new theology will hesitate to assert, that had 
 he been sustained by all the fulness of the Godhead dwell- 
 ing in him bodily, he could have died by any violence that 
 either men or devils were capable of inflicting, — could have 
 died QiQa(p(x,yo)g, as it is strongly expressed by Cyril of Je- 
 rusalem, > or could have met with any assault which he was 
 not able to repel. It will surely not be maintained, that 
 death and Satan overcame God on the cross. The God- 
 head must, therefore, have been withdrawn, and our Lord 
 forsaken, not simply as to personal comfort, but as to ef- 
 fectual support, before he died. And whether the God- 
 head voluntarily withdrew from him, and left him the 
 helpless victim of death, or was forcibly expelled from 
 him, these consequences are obvious, that his death was 
 no atonement, and his resurrection no pledge whatever of 
 ours.2 His death could be no atonement for sin, for an in- 
 
 ' OvK ciuxyKex.iag u(pinKilnv, ^uriu, ovhi Qioa(pot,yo)<; ocui^Yi^vi. 
 He gave iwt up hit life hy necessity, neither by violence was it taken away ; fw 
 hfar what lie hvnself saith, " / luxve power to lay down my life" d:c. — Catechesis. 
 xiii. 3. 
 
 - It ha.s, indeed, been very distinctly maintained that there was no Divi- 
 nity in Christ, that in him the Divinity was emptied of itself, that he brought 
 to eartJi a Godhead person, but no Godhead properties. But this limiting of 
 the Godhead, this separation of a Godhead person from Godhead properties, 
 as I have already had occasion to remark, goes so very directly and imme- 
 diately to the establishment of Arianism, that one may hope that it was 
 hastily— tljough repeatedly— put down, in the desperate attempt to support a 
 monstrous dogma, without adverting to its real character. We shall pro- 
 bably hear no more of it ; and perhaps we may hope that when it is with- 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 173 
 
 voluntary atonement is very nearly a contradiction in terms, 
 and was never maintained by any one that I ever heard of. 
 Even the heathens held it an unpropitious omen, if the 
 animal sacrificed had to be dragged reluctantly to the 
 altar. Moreover, the presence of the Divmity was essen- 
 tially necessary to the " Lamb of God," in order to sustain 
 him under the pressure of sufferings which, without such 
 Almighty support, no mere man could have endm'ed ; and 
 also to give to his sacrifice that dignity and value which it 
 could not otherwise possess. Besides, if the Divinity were 
 withdra\\Ti from Jesus before his death, — as, I repeat, it 
 must have been if his death was not voluntary, — then it 
 was not the Lord's Christ that died ; he was reduced to the 
 condition of a mere man. His death could be no sacrifice 
 for sin, because in him, as in us, it was a debt due to na- 
 ture which he could no more avoid paying than we can. 
 But it could not be both a debt due to nature, and also a 
 price freely paid for our redemption. Indeed, the new 
 theology utterly rejects the very expression as a low huck- 
 stering contract. Christ was bound to die at any rate as 
 well as we are, and for the same reason, the sinfulness of 
 his nature ; and was chosen to carry away our sins with 
 him into the land of forgetfulness, upon some principle of 
 which I know nothing, can find no intimation in the Bible, 
 can hear no tidings in the Church, and can form not the 
 most distant conception. As to life being restored to him, 
 if it be true that he was fallen and sinful, and died because 
 he was so, then I see not how God could restore his life to 
 him, upon any principle upon which he might not as justly 
 and as properly have restored it at once to Adam, when 
 he became fallen and sinful. 
 
 If his death was involuntary, then his resuiTCction is no 
 pledge of ours ; for if the Divinity was separated from him. 
 
 drawn, it \\ill also be seen and admitted, that that can be no Christian doc- 
 trine, the defence of which could suggest such an argument, or wliich such 
 an argument is capable of supporting. 
 
174 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 — and that it was separated from his dead body has been 
 distinctly maintained, — then Christ was never buried and 
 never rose. Jesus of Nazareth was buried, and was raised 
 up by the power of God ; but the Lord's Christ rose not. 
 And we can derive no information, and no more hope from 
 the resurrection of Jesus, than we can derive from the re- 
 surrection of Lazarus, or of Jairus' daughter, or of any other 
 who was raised from the dead. That it is not an impos- 
 sible thing for God to raise the dead these instances teach 
 us, and that of Jesus teaches us no more. That he who is 
 our Head is the Resurrection and the Life^ and that, there- 
 fore, the dead in Christ shall rise to the possession of that 
 life which is hid with Christ in God, it teaches not, for 
 Christ never rose. 
 
 Now, this is just a revival of the old doctrine of the 
 Gnostics. They made a distinction between Jesus and 
 Christ. Jesus they maintained to be a mere man, — many 
 of them, indeed, that he was only a phantom, — that Christ 
 descended upon him at his baptism, and left him when he 
 was affixed to the cross. Li this way they completely eva- 
 cuated the doctrine of the resuiTection, a doctrine which 
 they denied. They were willing enough to admit, with the 
 modem Socinian, that Jesus was raised up fi'om the dead. 
 The resmTCCtion of Christ they denied ; and the Catholic 
 writers easily saw, what indeed the Gnostic did not attempt 
 to conceal, that while the resuiTCction of Christ was denied, 
 the resurrection of Jesus proved nothing whatever as to a 
 general resurrection. Now, to maintain that the death of 
 our Lord was not perfectly voluntary, at the moment when 
 it took place, is just to teach as clearly as any Gnostic ever 
 taught, that the Divinity was separated from him at that 
 time, and thus effectually to destroy both the atonement 
 and the doctrine of the resurrection, for " if Christ be not 
 raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins." The 
 resurrection of Jesus is no security that we shall rise. 
 
 Again, if the death of Christ was involuntar}^, if he was 
 a fallen sinful man, and died because he was so, then the doc- 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 175 
 
 trine of Imputation, as it has been always held by the Church, 
 is a mere human figment, having no place whatever in the 
 scheme of human redemption. According to the commonly 
 received theology, there is an imputation of the behevers 
 gmlt to Christ, who endured its penalty ; and a transfer- 
 ence of Christ's righteousness to the believer. The sutfer- 
 ings of Christ are considered as being entii'ely vicarious, 
 and therefore entirely voluntary. We were in debt ; he 
 paid it. We were in bondage ; he gave the ransom. We 
 were slaves, and he purchased us with his own blood ! The 
 matter may be illustrated thus : A rebel is taken, tried, and 
 condemned. As he is led out to punishment, the King's 
 Son, the heir of his crown, steps forward and proposes to 
 purchase the life and liberty of the rebel, by having the 
 sentence transfeiTed to himself, and consenting to undergo 
 its infliction. His father consents, and his offer being ac- 
 cepted, the law has the same hold upon him that it had up- 
 on the rebel, while upon the latter it ceases to have any 
 farther claim. And though it be now his own Son upon 
 whom the sentence is to be inflicted, the King abates not 
 one iota of its severity, but causes it to be earned into exe- 
 cution to its fullest extent. This shows, on the part both 
 of the Father and the Son, how highly they prize the safety 
 of the rebel. It shows the unpardonable guilt of rebellion, 
 that even the heir to the throne cannot deliver the rebel 
 otherwise than by undergoing his sentence. It shows the 
 majesty of the government, and the sanctity of the law, in 
 a much more striking manner, than the death of the rebel 
 himself could have done, when the King's Son is spared no- 
 thing of what the rebel was doomed to bear. 
 
 This view of substitution the new theology characterizes 
 as a destructive falsehood, and says that in this case the 
 King's Son dies by a legal fiction, — he is treated as that 
 which in reality he is not, and the king who so treats him 
 is a king of fictions, a king of make-believes. The King's 
 Son cannot in this case justly die for the rebel, because he 
 is not in reality under condemnation. The law has no 
 
176 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 hold upon him but by a legal fiction, and to exact from 
 him the penalty due to the rebel would be to treat him sls 
 being that which he is not. If, then, he wislies to die for 
 the rebel, he must give the law exactly the same hold upon 
 him that it has upon the rebel. And this he can only do 
 by becoming what the rebel is. He must raise a rebellion 
 against his Father, — must withdraw from their allegiance 
 as many subjects as the rebel has withdrawn, — must slay 
 as many faithful subjects as the rebel has slain, — must 
 create as mu^h devastation and misery in the kingdom as 
 the rebel has created, and then he is in a condition to die 
 for the rebel. Then the law has a real, not a fictitious hold 
 upon him, — then when he has placed himself exactly in the 
 situation of the rebel, — not by voluntarily consenting to 
 be considered and treated as standing in that situation, but 
 by voluntarily consenting actually to become a rebel, then 
 he may die, nay, he must die. It was in his own power 
 to determine whether he would place himself in this situa- 
 tion or not ; but having agreed to place himself in it, he 
 can no longer choose whether he will die or not. He might 
 choose whether he would give the law not a fictitious but 
 a real hold upon him or not ; but having given it that hold, 
 he can no longer choose whether he will submit to its sen- 
 tence or not. He stands before it in all the helplessness of 
 one who does not voluntarily bind himself to endure its 
 sentence, though he has never deserved it, but who has vo- 
 luntarily consented to place himself in a situation in which 
 it has a hold upon him, and will inflict its sentence upon 
 him whether he choose or not. 
 
 This is the new theory of imputation which is connected 
 with the tenet that Christ, as a fallen sinful man, died by 
 the common property of flesh to die, and not merely be- 
 cause he voluntarily bore the penalty of our sins, Avithout 
 having any connection with their guilt. Now, upon this 
 theory I would remark, in the first place, that it actually 
 involves the fiction which it is professedly got up to avoid. 
 The rebellion of the son against his father arises from 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 177 
 
 no discontentment with his father's government, and no 
 dislike to his father's person, and no dissatisfaction with 
 his father's measm-es ; but is got up simply with the view 
 of qualifying himself for legal execution. There is, in fact, 
 ail the while no rebellion. It may produce all the miseries 
 of rebellion, but it is a mere pretence of rebellion designed 
 for a very different pm-pose than that of dethroning the 
 king, or compelling him to change his measures. Its sole 
 design is to fit the son for being punished instead of him 
 who really rebelled, and the fiction accordingly remains in 
 all its force. I would remark next, that, in this case, if it 
 can be proved against the son that there is one atrocity 
 for which the rebel, whom he wishes to save, has been con- 
 demned, of which he has not made himself guilty, then so 
 far his substitution fails, — the law cannot, but by a legal 
 fiction, exact of him all the claims that it has against the 
 rebel, but only those of which he has made himself really 
 guilty. The father knows very well that his son is not 
 really intending to endanger his government, and that he 
 need take no steps to oppose his pretended rebellion. He 
 has only to watch and see that his son makes himself guilty 
 up to the proper extent, lest he should inflict upon him 
 more than he has really earned ; and then he knows that 
 his son will of his own accord deliver himself up to justice. 
 To fit him for becoming the rebel's substitute, he must be 
 careful to make himself guilty up to the full extent of the 
 rebel's criminality, j^ow, the result of this theory, when 
 applied to Christ, is just this, that if there be one sinner 
 on earth more guilty than he was, more widely alienated 
 from G od than he was, more deeply enslaved by the devil, 
 the world, and the flesh, than he w^as, then that is a sinner 
 whom Christ cannot save, — the penalty of whose crimes the 
 law cannot exact of him, without a legal fiction, — without 
 making God a God of fictions and make-believes. I remark, 
 finally, on this theory of substitution, that, besides the blas- 
 phemy of making Christ a sinner up to the utmost limits 
 of human criminality, — for he cannot, without a legal fir- 
 
 h2 
 
178 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 tion, endure the penalty of, or forgive, any sin that he has 
 not committed, — it renders substitution not a " precious 
 truth," as oui' new theologians, in their OAvn view of it, ad- 
 mit it to be, but a complete non-entity. There is no such 
 thing as substitution. When he has committed the guilt, 
 that he may be able to die for it, without a legal fiction, he 
 then sm-ely dies for his own guilt, and not by the imputa- 
 tion of ours. All the lessons taught by redemption, too, 
 on this theoiy, utterly fail to be taught ; and, again, the 
 question recurs, (the question to which neither revelation, 
 in this view of it, has furnished, nor reason can discover 
 an answer,) why, unless as a blot in creation, — as a mo- 
 nument of any thing rather than the perfections of God, was 
 such a being as man made, and such a work as redemp- 
 tion appointed? 
 
 Such are some of the fatal consequences resulting from 
 the doctrine that our King was no king in his death, that 
 that death was not perfectly volimtary at the moment when 
 it took place, but that he died by the common property of 
 flesh to die. Nor are these consequences wrung by remote 
 inference from the new system. They meet us in every page 
 of the writings in which that system is promulgated, and 
 expressed in language stronger by far than I have thought 
 it right to copy. The only objection that I can find urged 
 against the common view of imputation, which I have illus- 
 trated above, and which supposes that, fi'om the first ap- 
 pointment of Christ down to the final consummation of the 
 mystery of God, every step that he took, every pang that 
 he endured, was perfectly volimtary on his part, and was 
 inflicted upon him by no desert of his otmi, is one which 
 Socinians have been in the habit of urging, till, I suppose, 
 they are either wearied with repeating it, or ashamed of its 
 silliness, for they seem to have abandoned it. It is, that if 
 God treated Christ as if he had been guilty, while in reality 
 he was not guilty, then he treated him as he had not de- 
 served to be treated ; and to represent God as treating his 
 creatures as that which they are not, is to represent him as 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 179 
 
 unjust. Now, when we say that God punished Christ, 
 though he had merited no suffering, we do not represent 
 him as considering Christ to be what he was not. He con- 
 sidered him to be, and acted toward him as bemg, what he 
 really was, — the representative of his people, standing in 
 their place, sustaming theii- person, but only by substitu- 
 tion, and bearing then- iniquities, but only by imputation. 
 I observe farther, that God does not always treat his crea- 
 tm*es according to then* deserts. We do not deserve that a 
 Saviour should be provided for us ; and yet God has given 
 his Son to die for us. Nor will it avail to say that this was 
 the claim of justice yielding to the entreaty of mercy. Jus- 
 tice in the Supreme Ruler can never yield to any thing ; 
 and the extension of mercy to fallen man was not only 
 sanctioned, but required by the justice of God ; — not by 
 justice toward us^ who might very justly have been left to 
 perish, but by justice toward himself^ and toward all his 
 uufallen creatures, that he might, for his own glory and 
 their happiness, vindicate the perfections which the fall of 
 angels and of men seemed to bring into doubt. Justice re- 
 quired that vindication. That we were chosen, as the beings 
 through whose redemption that vindication should be ef- 
 fected, was no deserving of ours. The Socinian objection, 
 therefore, rests upon both a contracted and a perverted 
 view of the Divine justice. But the objection is an inti- 
 nitely worse thing in the mouths of the new theologians, 
 than it is in the mouth of a Socinian. He means to deny 
 the imputation of our sins to Christ in any sense, being fully 
 aware that if that imputation were the ground of Christ's 
 death at all, it must be the sole ground of it ; while they 
 maintain imputation, and m-ge the objection for the pui'- 
 pose of shovving that there was much more in the death of 
 Christ than his merely consenting to bear the punishment 
 of om' iniquities, — for the purpose of proving that if God 
 treated him as a sinner, while in reality he was no sinner, 
 then he was treating him as that which he was not, and in 
 so doing was acting unjustly, — was a God of fictions and 
 
180 CHRIST OUR KIKG. 
 
 uiake-believes. And this appears to me to be much worse 
 than Socinianism. Yet for the whole unmitigated weight 
 of these fearful consequences, must that system be held re- 
 sponsible, which teaches that when the Eternal Word be- 
 came man, he became a fallen sinful man, and had no longer 
 the power to choose whether he would die or not. These 
 consequences may be, and very probably will be denied ; 
 but till the whole system out of which they grow be aban- 
 doned, there is no evading them. 
 
 When it is declared that Christ died by the common 
 property of flesh to die, I would ask, do they who main- 
 tain this really believe, that when the Word became man 
 he ceased to be God ? They must mean this, I suppose, 
 when they talk of his being limited, — of his emptying him- 
 self of his divinity, — of his bringing a Godhead person into 
 the world but no Godhead properties. Yet it is perfectly 
 plain, that if he could cease to be God, then he never was 
 God at all. It is, therefore, very cordially believed by the 
 Church, that when he became what he previously was not, 
 he did not cease to be what he previously was. '' Do not 
 [ fill heaven and earth ?" saith the Lord. And who is he 
 who saith this but the Divine Word, who speaks in all the 
 prophets ? And was it not as true after his incarnation as 
 before it ? To say that when the Word was made flesh he 
 was less the Word and the power of God, was less the 
 light and the life of men, less the ruler and Lord of all 
 than he was before his incarnation, is an impiety which I 
 shall not attempt to characterise. Yet how can they plead 
 guiltless of that impiety who teach us, that in consequence 
 of the fallen sinful nature which he had assumed, the AVord 
 was as incapable of resisting the power of death as we are ? 
 — that he, the life of all, was compelled, not merely by the 
 covenant entered into with the Father, not by substitution 
 or imputation only, but by the physical constitution of 
 that humanity which he had assumed, to yield himself a 
 prey to the king of terrors ? But there is no ground for 
 the supposition. When he became man, he was not tho 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 181 
 
 less God. When he bore hunger and thu'st, he was never- 
 theless showing, by changing water into wme, and by feed- 
 ing thousands with a few loaves, that he it was who was 
 indeed supplying the wants of every living thing ; and that 
 he endured hunger and thirst from no defect of powers. 
 When he had not where to lay his head, he was not the 
 less " God over all, blessed for ever." When wearied, he 
 rested on Jacob's well, the pillars of heaven and the foun- 
 dations of the earth rested securely on his sustaining 
 power. And never did he give so splendid a proof that he 
 was indeed the Life^ as when he died. For the mystery 
 and the marvel which angels desired to look into was, how 
 he by any possibility could die. Had he been fallen and 
 sinful, and thus incapable of escaping death, there could 
 have been no mystery, nothing strange in the matter. 
 But they knew not all the extent of his power, they knew 
 not that he had the keys of hell and of death, and that re- 
 belling as they were against heaven, they were stUl com- 
 pletely subject to him, till they saw him tread the region 
 of mortality, and enter at his own pleasure, unsubdued, 
 unharmed, and as a conqueror, into their dreary domain. 
 Then, indeed, when he died did they know, and for the 
 first time know, in all the extent of its meaning, that he 
 was the Life. In the depth of his humiliation he was not 
 less God, nor less powerful and glorious, than in the height 
 of his exaltation. Nay, in his death he was giving the 
 most decisive proof of his Godhead ; for he was showing 
 that he possessed a power which no mere creature can ever 
 possess, a power to lay down a life which had been forfeit- 
 ed by no sin, was demanded of him by no law, and could 
 be taken from him by no power. In dying he proved him- 
 self to be the Lord of both life and death. When crucified 
 he was still the " Lord of glory," not less, nor, to the in- 
 telligent eye, less conspicuously than when ascending up 
 on high he led captivity captive, and received gifts for 
 men. It is justly argued by Gregory Ni/sson^^ that the 
 
 1 Catechetical Oration, chap. xxiy. 
 
182 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 humiliation of our Lord was a much more splendid exhibi- 
 tion of his divine power than the magnitude of the heavens, 
 the splendour of their luminaries, the embellishments of 
 the universe, or the pei'petual admu-ation of all nature. 
 
 K this view be correct, — and if it be not, the Church in 
 every age has been miserably deceived, — then it is clear 
 that all the hosts of hell could never have overpowered 
 Christ, could never have borne do^vn to the grave that 
 flesh in which he did not dwell, with which he did not as- 
 sociate, but which was his own flesh — himself — as 
 much as his divinity is his own — or himself. Nor, when 
 they assailed him, did he consent to die till he had repelled 
 their utmost hostility, and sent them conquered away ; and 
 then, and not till then, did he descend into the tomb, as 
 fi'eely and as voluntarily as he shortly afterwards ascend- 
 ed up on high. 
 
 To the fact that Christ died by no necessity of nature, 
 but because he pleased so to do, to show his love to the 
 Father, a fact established by such overwhelming evidence, 
 there is only one objection that I recollect which requires 
 any notice. Nor would that require any notice either ; 
 only I observe that it is insisted upon, and silly things are 
 sufficient to influence silly people. It is this, that man is 
 by nature mortal, and, therefore, if Christ did not become 
 mortal, and as liable to death as we ai-e, then he did not be- 
 come truly and completely man. To this objection I shall 
 reply in the words of two ancient writers. The first is 
 Theophilus^ Bishop of Antioch in the second century, who 
 thus treats the question, — " But some will say, was man 
 made mortal by nature ? By no means. What, then, im- 
 mortal ? Neither do we say this. Was he then made no- 
 thing ? Nor this either do we say. But I say he was made 
 neither mortal nor immortal. For if he had made him im- 
 mortal from the beginning, he would have made him a god. 
 Again, if he had made him mortal, God would have seem- 
 ed to be the cause of his death. He made him, therefore, 
 neither mortal nor immortal, but, as I said above, capable 
 of both, that he might gradually attain immortality, keep- 
 
CHRIST OUR KLNG. 183 
 
 ing the commandment of God, and receiving from him the 
 reward of immortality, might become aged ; but if he should 
 turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he might be 
 to himself the cause of death." i 
 
 But I know of no writer who has treated this question 
 either so largely or so well as Anselm, who was Archbi- 
 shop of Canterbury in the eleventh century. In a dialogue 
 with his friend Boso^ the latter comes upon the question of 
 our Lord's mortality, not seeing clearly how he could die, 
 if he were not mortal as other men. In reply to this, An- 
 selm, after observing that men would have been tnily men 
 though they had never fallen or died, — that mortality is 
 not essential to human nature, else man could never be- 
 come immortal, — that coiTuptibUity and incomiptibility 
 belong not to the natm-e, as they neither make nor destroy 
 it, thus proceeds — " But because there is no man who does 
 not die, therefore, ' mortal' is put into the definition of 
 man by philosophers who did not believe that the whole 
 man ever was, or is, capable of becoming immortal. 
 Wherefore, when you have proved him to be traly a man, 
 this is no sufficient proof that he was mortal. Boso. Seek 
 you then some other reason by which it may be proved 
 that he was capable of dying ; for I know none, if you 
 know not. Anselm. There can be no doubt that, being 
 God, he must be omnipotent. B. True. A. If, then, he 
 chooses, he must be able to lay down his life, and to take 
 it up again. B. If he cannot do this, it does not appear that 
 he is omnipotent. A. He will be able, therefore, never to 
 die, if he so pleases ; and he will also be able to die and to 
 rise again. But whether he lay down his life without the 
 interference of any other, or whether some other, by his 
 own permission, cause that he lay it down, makes no dif- 
 ference as far as his power is concerned. B. That is clear. 
 A. If, then, he be pleased to permit he may be slain ; 
 and if he do not choose to permit, he cannot be slain. B. 
 
 1 To Autolyens, Book ii. 
 
fy 
 
 184 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 To this conclusion reason inevitably leads US. A. Reason 
 also teaches us that he must have something greater than 
 any thing that is below God, which he may give to God, 
 not as a debt, but of his own accord. B. It does so. A . 
 But this cannot be found, either below himself or out of 
 himself. B. True. A. It must, therefore, be found in 
 himself," &c.^ To maintain that our Lord's life was en- 
 tirely at his own disposal, and never could be taken from 
 him by any power, will not henceforth, I hope, be consi- 
 dered as a denial that he was as truly and properly a man 
 as we are. 
 
 Christ, then, was King when he was on earth, — a King 
 in the lowest state of his deep humiliation ; and in that 
 /y^ very humiliation giving the most splendid and decisive 
 proof of his omnipotent power. Before proceeding far- 
 ther, it will be proper to notice the duties which we owe to 
 Christ as our King. In doing this, I cannot do better than 
 avail myself of a paper that I wi'ote upon this subject long 
 ago, and which I shall here nearly copy. 
 
 One duty which we owe to Christ as our King, is to obey 
 
 ) his laws. To neglect this obedience is to deny that he is 
 
 King. " Why call ye me. Lord, Lord, and do not the 
 
 things which I say?" He came to save us from our sins, 
 
 and, therefore, we can have no part in his salvation while 
 
 " ' In the treatise, Cur Deus Homo ? Book II. Chap. xi. Besides his clear 
 view of the mortality of man, it will be seen that, towards the end of the ex- 
 tract, he enters upon a line of argument which he repeatedly elsewhere 
 takes up, which goes distinctly to show, that, in his view, that humanity 
 which Christ otfered to God must have been something superior to anything 
 below God, that is, to any created being. I suppose that on so simple a mat- 
 ter, on which there can be but few who can contrive to get into error, I shall 
 be readily excused from loading my page with the originiUs of the above 
 quotations. It is truly painful to see that while such sound and simple 
 views of human nature were held by such early writers, men should be found 
 in the present advanced state of the world's age, who, swelling with that 
 spirit which " despises others," and loudly proclaiming their intimate ac- 
 quaintance with the Fathers, can yet blunder so grossly. We talk of mortal 
 man, and it would be strange if we did not. But they who can argue upon 
 the word "mortal," as if it fonued a part of the definition of man, are pro- 
 bably too ignorant to know how much they have yet to learn. 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 185 
 
 we are living in sin. It is not to be doubted that many 
 profess to rely on Christ as their propitiation, who pay no 
 great regard to his laws ; and think themselves perfectly 
 safe while living in the habitual neglect of some of his com- 
 mands ; nay, who are the less careful to avoid sin just on 
 account of the sufficiency of him on whom they profess to rely 
 for its pardon. But wx may rest assured that if Christ be 
 not a King whom we obey, neither is he a Priest who will 
 save us. To hope that we can be saved without obedi- 
 ence, is to hope not merely against hope, but against pos- 
 sibility ; for surely it is not possible to be saved from sin 
 while yetwe are living in sin. " His servantsareye to whom 
 ye obey," saith the apostle ; and if we obey sin, then it is 
 plain that we are not the servants of Christ. Though our 
 conformity to the laws of Christ be not the cause of our 
 salvation, it may not on that account be neglected ; for it 
 is something more than the cause of salvation, it is the 
 thing itself. When we are made holy, then are we saved, 
 and not till then. Obedience, therefore, is essentially ne- 
 cessary. Nor is that obedience to be limited by our con- 
 venience or our pleasure ; or to be neglected because it 
 may in some instances tend to om* disadvantage, or be- 
 cause they whose good opinion we are most anxious to ob- 
 tain may call us precise, and narrow-minded, and right- 
 eous overmuch ; or because the things that we find it 
 necessary to avoid, are things freely indulged in, even by 
 those who maintain a respectable character in the Church. 
 That is no obedience w^hich extends only as far as we find 
 it perfectly convenient. It was not such an obedience that 
 was yielded by the " cloud of witnesses," whose examples 
 are recorded for our imitation. It was not such an obedi- 
 ence that was yielded by Christ for our sakes, when he 
 submitted to " learn obedience by the things which lie 
 suffered." Xor was it such obedience that he required of 
 us, when he said, " If any man will come after me, let him 
 deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me," 
 or when he declared, '' If any man come to me, and hate 
 
186 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and 
 brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot 
 be my disciple." 
 
 Nor are we to suppose that our obligations to obedience 
 are discharged by attention to the positive institutions of 
 Christianity, as they seem to think, who, if they read the 
 Scriptm-es, and worship God in their families, and attend 
 his public sei-vices, and take the sacraments, and maintain 
 a zealous profession, and treat the ordinances of religion 
 with gi-eat respect, and contribute to its advancement in 
 the world, — imagine that this is fulfilling theu- obedience to 
 Christ. They observe with regularity the stated days and 
 hours of religious duties ; but when the stated period is 
 past all thoughts of religion are dismissed, and they are 
 not to be distinguished by any thing in then' conduct as 
 the disciples of Christ. All these things are necessary to 
 promote in ourselves and others the principles of piety and 
 holiness ; but unless they be attended to only as a means 
 to this end, they can be of no service to us. Yet they are 
 often attended to, not as a means of promoting holiness, 
 but as a substitute for the want of it, as duties which it is 
 necessary to perform, but from the perfonuance of which 
 we never even look for any growth in gi-ace. Our Lord 
 tells us what will be the sentence of men of this character. 
 " Many will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, have we 
 not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name have cast 
 out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? 
 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; 
 depart fi'om me, ye that work iniquity." 
 
 Neither are we to suppose that we have fuUy obeyed 
 Christ, when, besides attending to aU his institutions, we 
 have scrupulously regulated our conduct according to his 
 laws. This is all the obedience that an earthly ruler re- 
 quh-es. If we do not resist his laws, he leaves us at liberty 
 to disapprove of them, and openly to express our disappro- 
 bation. But it is not so with our heavenly King. He re- 
 quires us not only to obey his laws, but to approve of 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 187 
 
 them, — to love them. In his eye obedience is of no vahie 
 unless it proceed from the heart. Every man does many 
 things that are materially good : but if such good deeds 
 proceed from ostentation, or the prospect of advantage, or 
 the dread of censure, or from any secular motive, — if they 
 do not flow fi'om that charity which predominates in the 
 renewed heart, they are the works of one still " dead in 
 trespasses and sins," and are properly denominated "dead 
 works." They want the living principle which alone can 
 render them good in the eye of him who searches the 
 heart ; and however excellent in the outward performance, 
 are earthly and immoral in thefr motive and design. They 
 are corrupted in their som'ce ; and if the root be rotten- 
 ness, the blossom can be but dust. Bodily service profit- 
 eth nothing ; and our external compliance with a law 
 which we hate in om- hearts, is by our King considered as 
 no obedience at aU. The reason of this is sufficiently ob- 
 vious. Our obedience is requked that it may do good, — 
 not to God, who needs not our services, but to ourselves 5 
 that it may establish in us such habits as will fit us for the 
 occupations and enjoyments of a higher state of existence. 
 But if it proceed from any improper principle, then its ope- 
 ration will be in direct opposition to this end, and, conse- 
 quently, must meet the disapprobation of him, " the end 
 of whose commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and 
 of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." Every ac- 
 tion strengthens the principle from which it proceeds ; and, 
 being often repeated, renders the exercise of that principle 
 necessary to om- happiness. And when our love to God 
 and man has been so " rooted and grounded" in us by a 
 long course of holiness, that the exercise of it constitutes 
 all our felicity, we are then fitted for the kingdom of 
 heaven. Whereas, the most perfect obedience, were it 
 possible for such obedience to proceed from any other 
 principle, would not in the slightest degree promote our 
 moral improvement, nor our meetness for the society of 
 angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. 
 
188 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 If, then, we truly acknowledge Christ our King, we shall 
 not be satisfied with offering to him the external expres- 
 sions of esteem and respect, nor with adding to these ex- 
 pressions a scrupulous attention to his laws in our conduct. 
 We shall not be satisfied unless our thoughts, and feelings, 
 and desires, be agreeable to his law, as well as our actions. 
 We shall not consider our salvation from sin complete 
 while there is one imagination in our heart that exalts it- 
 self against him. When every thought of our heart is 
 brought into captivity to Christ, — when we not only ap- 
 prove of his laws, but delight in them, — when we not only 
 consider obedience to be our duty, but feel it to be our 
 pleasure, — when we do not seek excuses for neglecting, but 
 opportunities of obeying his commands, — when we feel 
 such a sense of his kindness to us as to be delighted with 
 every opportunity of expressing our gratitude by word or 
 by deed, — then, and not till then, shall we consider our 
 conformity to his law to be such as will give us confidence 
 when we appear before him in judgment, and will prepare 
 us for that vision of God which communicates to the pure 
 in heart joys that are '' unspeakable and full of glory ;" 
 but from Avhich the unholy, even supposing them admitted 
 to it, would fly away, and seek a refuge in the regions of 
 darkness, and in the society of spuits more congenial with 
 their own. 
 
 Another duty that we owe to our King is, to depend upon 
 his power. If such an obedience as has been described be 
 essentially requisite, it may be said, " Who then can be 
 saved ? " Had outward obedience only been necessary, 
 even that is diflicult. Still, however, we can conceive it 
 possible for a man of firm resolution to regulate his actions 
 by any law however strict. But who can change the whole 
 current of his thoughts, affections, and desires, — can bring 
 himself to hate and despise what he loves with all his 
 beart, — and to love and delight in all that he is most averse 
 to ? We may abstain from taking vengeance on our ene- 
 mies, but can we love them that injure us ? AVe abstain 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 189 
 
 from appropriating to ourselves what does iiot belong to 
 us ; but, if it be really desirable, who can help desiring it ? 
 " Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
 spots ?" Can we make ourselves new creatures ? No. We 
 could as easily have created ourselves at first. But this 
 will by no means form any apology for disobedience. For 
 as the wisdom of our Prophet removes our ignorance, and 
 the sacrifice of our Priest removes our condemnation, so 
 that we are without excuse if we be either ignorant or in 
 a state of alienation from God, in the same manner the 
 power of our King removes our moral weakness, and en- 
 dues us with strength to triumph over the foes whom he 
 has conquered, so that we are inexcusable if we remain 
 the servants of sin. To doubt this is to doubt the Eedeem- 
 er's sufficiency to perfect his work. It is to say that God 
 lias given us a Saviour who does for us some things that 
 are necessary for our. salvation, but leaves other things 
 equally necessary undone. But to render us personally 
 holy is the very end for which he came ; and it is impious 
 to suppose that he is either unable or unwilling to accom- 
 plish it. For which of our enemies is he unable to subdue ? 
 He assures us that he has " overcome the Avorld ;" and 
 assures us also that if we believe we shall overcome it. ' 
 Throughout his life, and in his death, he conquered Satan, 
 and so conquered him that his fall was perfectly manifest to 
 all. This is strongly denied ; but I hope it has been placed 
 beyond all doubt, both by the direct evidence that has been 
 adduced, and by a view of the fatal consequences that flow 
 from the opposite supposition. Satan, therefore, is a con- 
 quered foe. He can lead us captive no more. If we serve 
 him, it is willingly ; for if we resist him stedfast in the 
 faith, he will flee from us ; if we be begotten of God, we 
 are enabled by his grace so to keep om-selves that that 
 wicked one toucheth us not. But then we are tried by the 
 corruptions of our own evil hearts, and how do we know 
 that he can subdue this foe, if he was not himself tried by 
 
 1 Sermon on 1 John y. 4. 
 
190 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 it as a fallen and sinful man ? How do we know that he 
 can subdue in us what he never subdued in himself? I 
 put not these questions foolishly or unnecessarily, foolish 
 and useless as they may seem to be. The argument has 
 been urged in support of the tenet that he was fallen and 
 sinful, that unless he were so, we know that he can sub- 
 due two of our foes, the devil and the world, but do not 
 know that he can subdue the thu-d, that is, the flesh. We 
 do not know, it is said, — Yes, we do know that he can 
 " subdue to himself," and can conquer the most inveterate 
 corruption of om- nature. We know it from many very de- 
 cisive texts of Scripture. We know it, because if he has 
 subdued the sources of corruption, he can subdue the corrup- 
 tion itself, — if he has bound the strong man, he can spoil 
 him of his goods. We know it from the fact that he has 
 actually renewed, and sanctified, and saved thousands. 
 But upon this point, especially, I beg to refer the reader 
 to the Sermon which concludes the first part of this trea- 
 tise, where he will find the sympathy of Christ mth the 
 believer, in all his temptations, treated in a manner which, 
 I think, must give him the most perfect satisfaction with 
 regard to both the reality and the depth of that sympathy. 
 At least, if it do not satisfy him, I should feel it altogether 
 hopeless to attempt giving him satisfaction. But the ar- 
 gument, that we know not that Christ can subdue in us 
 the propensities of the fallen manhood, if he never sub- 
 dued them in himself, I shall have occasion more particu- 
 larly to notice, and to show that it not only removes the 
 .foundation of every duty which we owe to Christ as our 
 King, but makes him, undeniably, guilty of both original 
 and actual sin, when I come to discuss in the sequel the 
 testimony of Lactantius. In the mean time, I observe, 
 that the power of our King, upon which we are called to 
 depend, completely destroys every apology for disobedi- 
 ence that may be drawn from the weakness and depravity 
 of our nature. We cannot be allowed to adopt the im- 
 pious language of the Israelites, " If our transgressions 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 191 
 
 and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how 
 should we then live ? " This we are veiy ready to do, and 
 to say, God has given _^us such propensities, and, therefore, 
 cannot condemn us for indulging them. But the heart re- 
 pels the argiimeut even at the moment when the lips are 
 giving it utterance. And the Gospel proves its futility by 
 directing us to the strength which our King gives. If, in- 
 deed, we attempt to subdue these propensities by our own 
 power, without daily seeking his aid, then to a certainty 
 our weakness will be proved by our failm^e. We shall 
 never be able to make to ourselves a new heart and a new 
 spu'it, as we are commanded to do, unless we derive power 
 from him. And as the renovation of the heart is a gra- 
 dual thing, the grace that enables us to do it must be 
 sought from him daily. The soul is as dependant upon 
 him as the body, and it is, like the body, limited in its ca- 
 pacity ; and neither will he give, nor are we capable of re- 
 ceiving at once, a degree of gTace sufficient to serve us for 
 a lifetime any more than we are capable of receiving at 
 once a quantity of nourishment that may be sufficient to 
 sustain om* bodies for a lifetime. The soul needs its daily 
 bread not less than the body. 
 
 But then we know that om* King is ever ready to be- 
 stow upon us the gi-ace and the power that may be neces- 
 sary for the supply of our present wants. We are assured 
 of this by his own holy word, and by the fact that to many 
 has he given — to many who wait upon him is he now giv- 
 ing — that continual supply. The prophets, apostles, and 
 martyrs, were just such men as we are, — as corrupted and 
 as weak by nature ; and as incapable of doing or thinking 
 anything good of themselves. " By the grace of God, I 
 am what I am," said Paul, and all that are now in the 
 kingdom of heaven will readily admit, nay, glory to record, 
 that it was the grace of God alone that fitted them for that 
 happy state, and mth feelings of heartfelt gratitude wdll 
 say, — " Not imto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy 
 name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake." 
 
192 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 Now, we have the same access to the fountain of wisdom 
 and power that they had : and if we be equally diligent in 
 seeking, we have no room whatever to doubt that we shall 
 be equally successful in obtaining. " The Lord's hand is 
 not shortened, that he cannot save ; nor his ear heavy, 
 that he cannot hear." He who commands our obedience 
 knows well our weakness. He issues his commands not- 
 withstanding ; because he has put into our hands the 
 means of obtaining power, so that we are inexcusable if 
 we obey not. He who is conscious of his own weakness, 
 if he really Avishes to succeed in being delivered from the 
 power of sin, will habitually rely upon the power of the 
 Saviour. He will meet temptations as David met Goliath, 
 " In the name of the Lord," knowing that the reason why 
 so many fail is, because they forget that their strength 
 comes from above, and, therefore, are not sufficiently dili- 
 gent and earnest in seeking it. When we leave off com- 
 munion with him, or, what is the same thing, when our 
 prayers degenerate into cold formality, we necessarily lose 
 our strength, and become as a branch cut off from the 
 trunk, from which it derived all its fruitfulness. He never 
 gives us so much power as to render us independent upon 
 his daily aid. We, therefore, err dangerously, when we 
 attempt to make any progress in the Christian life, with- 
 out doing so in entire dependence upon his aid, who alone 
 is King over all our foes. The example of Peter should 
 teach even the best not to be too confident in their own 
 powers, and should make " him that thinketh he standeth 
 take heed lest he fall." 
 
 Since our power is in the hands of our King alone, we 
 ought equally to avoid despondency and presumption. We 
 ought never to fear any temptation that we meet with in 
 the path of duty, being confident that he will never call us 
 to any duty without giving us strength to perform it. To 
 avoid a trial to which we are plainly called, is to distrust 
 either the truth or the power of our Saviour. And he 
 who, in the strength of the Son of Man, shrinks not from 
 
CHRrST OUR KING. 193 
 
 encoimtedng a fiery furnace, or a den of lions, will always 
 find that he has chosen a safer path than he who. like 
 Jonah, endeavours to escape a disagreeable duty. But we 
 ought, on the other hand, always to avoid temptations, 
 when we can do so consistently with our duty ; for our 
 King has promised no assistance to those who rashly run 
 into danger that he calls them not to meet. Our Lord 
 himself has taught us this by his own example. He would 
 neither, on the one hand, distrust God, by changing stones 
 into bread ; nor, on the other, tempt him, by needlessly 
 throwing himself from the top of the temple. And the 
 Israelites afford us an example of both errors. When God 
 commanded them to enter in and possess the land of Ca- 
 naan, they distmsted him, and refused to go ; and then 
 their presumption rose in proportion to their former de- 
 spondency, and they went up in opposition to his command, 
 and were defeated. If we own Christ as our King, then let , 
 us obey him, neither doubting his power to carry on unto/ 
 perfection the work of our sanctification ; nor yet making 
 that power a pretence for our own want of care and vigi- 
 lance, by expecting it to deliver us from the efi'ects of our ' 
 own rashness and presumption, or to cany us onward in j 
 our heavenward course, while we are not labouring to 
 " work out om' own salvation with fear and trembling." 
 
 Another duty which we owe to our King is, to confide 
 in his goodness. It is for the purpose of delivering us out 
 of the hand of all om- enemies, and of promoting our wel- 
 fare, that the Mediator is exalted to the throne of the uni- 
 verse, and appointed the sole disposer of every event in 
 which we are concerned. We cannot for a moment doubt 
 that he is abundantly able to give us eveiy thing neces- 
 sary for our happiness. He may, indeed, take such steps 
 with regard to us, as may, in our superficial view, be cal- 
 culated to subvert, rather than promote our welfare. But 
 we may surely believe, that, as he is wiser than we are, 
 and knows much better than we do what is proper for us, 
 so he is also full of goodness, and can derive no pleasure from 
 
 2^ 
 
194 CHRIST OUn KING. 
 
 our pains, and will, therefore, never require us to do, or to 
 suffer, any thing that is not for our profit. It is the duty 
 of a King to protect his subjects ; and we cannot, without 
 impiety, doubt that Christ will perform his duty. After 
 all the proofs of kindness which he has given, nothing can 
 be more offensive than still to distrust him. He has given 
 us these proofs of his love to little purpose, if we "faint when 
 we are rebuked of him," and, when he tries us, presently 
 conclude that he has forsaken us. This is a sin for which 
 Israel was often reproved. " Why sayest thou, O Jacob, 
 and speakest, O Israel, my way is hid from the Lord, and 
 my judgment is passed over from my God?" " But Zion 
 said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath for- 
 gotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that 
 she should not have compassion on the son of her womb ? 
 yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." And 
 surely, if we distrust our King, who assumed our nature, 
 and submitted to our infirmities, that we might be the 
 more certainly assured of his sympathy, we can have less 
 excuse than Israel had. There is no duty more frequently 
 inculcated upon us than this, of confiding in the goodness 
 of our Ruler, — none of which more examples are recorded 
 for our imitation. If, then, we should be placed in a si- 
 tuation, in which our hearts are ready to fail, let us think 
 of these examples ; of Abraham, who " staggered not at 
 the promise of God," however unlikely its fulfilment ap- 
 peared ; of David, who, when in distress, still said, " When 
 my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will 
 take me up ;" of Asaph, who, when tempted to suspect 
 that the mercy of God was clean gone, that his promise 
 had failed, and that he had forgotten to be gracious, yet 
 in the end said, " This is my infirmity ;" of the apostles, 
 who, though tried with so many evils, yet never question- 
 ed the faithfulness or goodness of their King, but could all 
 adopt the language of Paul, " I am persuaded that neither 
 death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, 
 nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 195 
 
 depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us 
 from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." If, 
 therefore, we be visited with severe trials, let us not hasti- 
 ly say with Jacob, " All these things are against us ;" for, 
 if our distmst do not lead us to take improper means to 
 escape from them, we shall find that all these things are, 
 in reality, working together for om- good. If we knew that 
 an earthly king, or any man of great power, loved us with 
 all the affection of a brother, we should feel perfectly se- 
 cure, with regard to all the events of life. We may surely 
 place at least as much confidence in him, who, though King 
 of Kings, and Lord of Lords, yet is " a friend who sticketh 
 closer than a brother." On the mountain of transfigura- 
 tion, Peter said, " Lord, it is good for us to be here," and 
 there he wished to build tabernacles for a permanent abode. 
 But the Lord, who knew much better than Peter what was 
 good for them, knew well that that state of enjoyment was 
 not good, as a permanent condition in this world, but good 
 only as an encouragement to fit them for sustaining the 
 labours and trials, which are necessary for man here be- 
 low. And nobly did they prove, in then- after conduct, 
 how well they had learned the lesson ; with what a simple 
 and unreserved faith they could commit themselves to 
 Christ, for time and for eternity. Destitute of every 
 earthly comfort, they were yet the happiest of men. Look 
 at Tiberius, with all the resources of the Roman empire at 
 his command, apparently free fi'om any thing that could 
 give him the slightest uneasiness, yet writing to their se- 
 nate in such terms as these : — " Conscript Fathers, what I 
 should write to you at this time, or how I should write, or 
 what I should not write, may all the gods confound me, 
 worse than I feel that I am already confounded, if I can 
 tell."^ Look, on the other hand, to the apo sties, treated as 
 the "offscourings of all thmgs," " set forth last as a spec- 
 
 1 Quid scribam vobis, patres conscriptL, aut quomodo scribam, aut quid 
 omnino non scribam hoc tempore, Dii me deoeque pejus perdant, quam perire 
 me quctidie sentio, si scio. — Tahiti Annal. Lib. vi. Cap. 6. 
 
196 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 tacle to the world, to angels, and to men ;" how complete- 
 ly they were fortified against all the assaults of this world ; 
 look, for example, to Paul and Silas, thrust, in a strange 
 city, into the innermost prison, and their feet made fast in 
 the stocks. Can men be placed in more depressing cir- 
 cumstances ? Truly, if in this world only they had hope, 
 they would have been, of all men, most miserable. Yet, 
 while the Roman Emperor was trembling, he knew not 
 why, upon his throne, their feelings burst forth in songs of 
 thanksgiving and praise. Is there on record a more de- 
 lightful, or a more affecting, proof of the happiness of be- 
 ing able completely to detach ourselves from this world, 
 and commit ourselves to the care and keeping of our King, 
 than this? "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and 
 sang praises unto God : and the prisoners heard them." I 
 cannot dwell upon the subject, and, therefore, can only 
 say, that if we possess not the same power of rejoicing in 
 the Lord, under the most adverse circumstances, it is sim- 
 ply because we do not live up to our privileges ; do not 
 detach ourselves, as completely as they did, from all de- 
 pendence upon the world ; but live only partly by faith, 
 and partly by sight. That this is unreasonable, how diffi- 
 cult soever it may be for us depraved creatures to escape 
 it, is easily proved. We can trust Christ with our im- 
 mortal souls, and with our eternal conceras ; is it not then 
 unreasonable to refuse to trust him with om- temporal in- 
 terests ? We profess to rely upon Christ to assign us our 
 eternal abode by the river of the water of life, and 
 to feed us with the fruits of the tree of life ; and we pro- 
 fess to believe, that all the vivifying and cheering effi- 
 cacy of that river, and of these fruits, is derived from him 
 alone ; and yet we can fear, and doubt, and distrust him 
 with regard to matters of infinitely inferior importance ! 
 When Peter, after being called to come to our Lord on the 
 water, began to sink, and cried out in terror, he met with 
 the just rebuke, " O thou of little faith, wherefore didst 
 thou doubt ?" How often do we still more deeply deserve 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 197 
 
 the same rebuke ! A want of that simple, unhesitating re- 
 liance upon the power and faithfulness of our King, 
 forms one of the most effectual impediments in the way, 
 both of om* comfort, and of our advancement in the 
 Christian life. 
 
 Another duty that we owe to our King is, to preserve ^ 
 the peace of his kingdom. In all kingdoms men are re- 
 strained, by proper laws, from invading the person, pro- 
 perty, or reputation of others ; and without such laws no 
 community could exist. And wherever these laws are 
 disregarded, and men are divided into factions and parties, 
 it is obvious to every one how much the strength of that 
 kingdom must be weakened. The subjects of Christ's 
 kingdom are commanded to love one another, and that 
 even as Christ has loved them. Had this law been al- 
 ways acted upon, it is not easy to estimate the happiness 
 of the effect that would have been produced. And the miser- 
 able effects that proceedfrom the dissensions among Christ's 
 subjects, and the weakness that has been introduced into 
 his kingdom, by its being divided into so many different 
 parties, need not be pointed out. Christ's kingdom has 
 thus been rent, and its peace destroyed, by the pride of 
 men, who, having exalted their own opinion upon some in- 
 different matter, into an article of fundamental importance, 
 have renounced the communion of all who refuse to adopt 
 the same notion. And whenever communion among 
 Christians is broken off, a heavy weight of guilt attaches 
 to that party which causes the schism. In order to avoid 
 this guilt, every disciple of Jesus ought to be very cautious 
 in refusing to hold communion with a fellow-subject, lest, 
 when both parties stand before their King, this refusal be 
 decided to have proceeded from no sufficient cause. Even 
 the errors of Christians afford no just ground of separating 
 from their communion, excepting in one of these two cases, 
 — either when they err fundamentally, and, by so doing, 
 cease to be Christians ; in which case, their communion is 
 iu reality no communion, and in renouncing it we make 
 
198 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 no schism ; — or when, supposing their errors to be of a 
 less important nature, they require us distinctly and for- 
 mally to profess our approbation of those errors against 
 our own convictions ; in which case, we cannot hold com- 
 munion with them, without being hypocrites, and are bound 
 to separate from them ; but the guilt of the schism rests 
 with them. But to separate from the communion of men 
 whom we believe to be true Christians, merely because, on 
 some points of inferior moment, they maintain opinions 
 different from om- own, — while they do not require us to 
 adopt or profess these opinions, — is a degi'ee of presump- 
 tion and aiTOgance which it is hard to reconcile with the 
 spirit of genuine Christianity. Surely he has much need 
 to inquire what he can offer to his judge as an apology for 
 his conduct, who has burst asunder the Redeemer's per- 
 fect bond of charity, and cast away that cord of love, by 
 which the great Head of the Chm'ch has united all the dif- 
 ferent members of his mystical body in the closest inti- 
 macy ; who has by his conduct declared, that, unless he 
 himself be the head, he will be no part of the body ; and 
 who, refusing to acknowledge the disciples of Christ as his 
 fellow-subjects, has renounced their communion, unless 
 they would renounce every opinion which he does not ap- 
 prove, and adopt, on his authority, terms of communion 
 which Christ never appointed. 
 
 The peace and unity of Christ's kingdom are infringed, 
 not merely by the open interruption of communion among 
 his subjects, but in a way no less offensive, by those who, 
 while they maintain external communion, are not at all 
 united in spirit, but entertain toward each other the most 
 unchristian feelings. It is a fearful thing to see men sit- 
 ting down at the same communion table, who entertain 
 toward each other feelings so hostile, that they would re- 
 fuse to exchange the common courtesies of civil life, or to 
 sit down together at the same board of common hospita- 
 lity. Shall we eat the body, and drink the blood, of our 
 crucified Redeemer with men, with whom we would not 
 
CHUIST OUR KING. 199 
 
 participate at the same table, in the common bounties of 
 providence, and yet be guiltless? Impossible. ForAvhat, in 
 this case, is our external communion? It is the solemn pro- 
 fession of a falsehood, — a profession, before God, that we 
 love as brethren, for whom we are ready, if need be, to 
 lay down our lives, those whom in reality we are regard- 
 ing with feelings of enmity and bitterness. We ought to 
 remember that the Church, like the gi'ave, levels all 
 ranks, and extinguishes all human distinctions. " The 
 small and the great are there, and the sei-vant is free from 
 his master:" and unless we can repress every feeling in- 
 consistent with this truth, and enter the Chmxh with all 
 the cordiality of affection for our fellow-worshippers, we 
 ought not to enter it at all ; nor profess our unity with 
 those with whom we are perhaps in a state of active en- 
 mity. 
 
 The peace of Christ's kingdom is also often disturbed, 
 and a way prepared for endless divisions, by the manner 
 in which disputes about controverted points are managed. 
 There is no impropriety in discussing the doctrines of 
 Christianity. Much advantage may be derived from such 
 discussion. But then the discussion ought to be conducted 
 upon Christian principles. To quote fi'om an opponent 
 language that he never used, for the purpose of burden- 
 ing him with the guilt of impieties which he can appeal to 
 God that he never either entertained or uttered, — to at- 
 tach to his language, even when fauiy quoted, a meaning 
 which it is perfectly clear that it was never intended to 
 express, nor, by any fau' construction, can be made to ex- 
 press, — to manufacture quotations out of respectable, but 
 not easily accessible writers, in order to make them ap- 
 pear to support tenets which they most cordially detest, 
 and most unequivocally condemn, are arts which so com- 
 pletely outrage, I say not Christian principle, but common 
 honesty, and common decency, that even the most viru- 
 lent Sectarianism has but rarely stooped to employ them. 
 As the number of those who can adopt such arts can be 
 
200 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 but small, in any age, I need not stop to show how ut- 
 terly inconsistent they are with the peace of Christ's king- 
 dom. A more frequent error in this way is to advance 
 om- opinions, not with the firmness of men confident in 
 the truth, but with an arrogance of dogmatism, and an 
 implied, if not expressed, contempt of all others ; as if 
 truth had never visited the earth till we brought it, which 
 associates our opinions, even if coiTect, with a feeling of 
 disgust ; and which, if they happen to be the result of the 
 most palpable and astounding ignorance, deepens that 
 disgust to a pitch which it is useless to attempt to ex- 
 press. It is doubtless men who thus force theii* tenets 
 upon us, whom the apostle has in his eye, when, exhort- 
 ing us to be at peace with all men, he annexes the condi- 
 tions, — "if it be possible," and " as far as in you lieth," 
 well knowing that when we are imperiously required to 
 adopt the most foolish and the most fatal notions, under 
 the penalty of being denounced as all that is ignorant, 
 and all that is perverse, and all that is unchristian, to be 
 at peace with men who thus assail us is impossible, — 
 nay, that in such a case, peace with those who are openly 
 subverting the foundations of our faith would be trea- 
 son against truth ; — an unprincipled abandonment of that 
 faith for which we are required earnestly to contend. 
 But in entering into such contention, which may often 
 be a most sacred duty, we ought to consider, not 
 merely whether we have sufiicient ability, but what is of 
 equal importance, and perhaps of still rarer occurrence, 
 whether we possess a sufficient command of temper for it. 
 The man who cannot bear to have the provoking epithets 
 which adorn the controvertist's vocabulary applied to him, 
 without being tempted to adopt them, — who cannot unite 
 mildness of disposition with active zeal for the truth, nor 
 inflict wholesome castigation upon its most furious or its 
 most petulant opposers, without losing his temper, ought to 
 avoid all disputes. The disputant ought, with the greatest 
 caution, to guard his zeal from being mingled with the un- 
 
CHRIST OUK KING. 201 
 
 hallowed fire of human passion, remembering that '' the 
 wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." 
 
 Another duty that we owe to our King is, to extend his «-^ 
 kingdom. That this is our duty hardly needs to be proved. 
 We are commanded to exhibit in our conduct the excel- 
 lence of the principles of Christianity, in such a manner 
 as to allure others to cultivate them, — to make " our 
 light so to shine before men, that they may see our good 
 works, and glorify our Father who is in heaven." We 
 are soldiers of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and as a soldier 
 considers any expression of disrespect towards his king 
 as a personal insult to himself, and will maintain, at all 
 hazards, the honour of the standard under which he 
 fights ; even so will the Christian soldier be always ready 
 to repress any insult that may be ofi'ered in his presence 
 to the Captain of his Salvation, and will maintain the 
 transcendent excellencies of the King whom he serves, 
 and the glories of that kingdom which it is his duty and 
 his delight to defend and to increase. As a good soldier, 
 he will do every thing in his power to promote the de- 
 signs of his leader : and if it be the end of God's moral 
 government to put an end to sin, and establish righteous- 
 ness, — if the hosts of heaven be employed in promoting 
 this end, he will consider it as the highest honour to be a 
 fellow-worker, in however naiTOw a sphere, in furthering 
 the same happy design. To rescue an immortal being from 
 the dominion of sin, and make him a subject of the King of 
 kings, he will consider as a nobler victory than any that the 
 historian has recorded, or the poet sung. Well may the 
 soldier of Jesus Christ leave to the great and the mighty, 
 the wretched boast of having written theh' title to celebrity 
 in the blood of their fellow-creatm-es, — of having made the 
 widow's teai' and the orphan's cry the heralds of their fame, 
 — of having exhibited the proofs of theii' prowess in cities 
 overthrown and provinces laid waste. More soothing to 
 him will be the reflection, that he has wielded, with courage 
 and success, those weapons which, though not carnal, •• are 
 
 i2 
 
202 CHRIST OUR KING. 
 
 mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds,"' 
 — that he has been enabled to repel the assaults of the 
 enemies of Christianity, to subdue them to the truth, and 
 to cheer and to strengthen his feeble fellow -soldiers, — 
 that, united with angels as a messenger of mercy to men, 
 he has been able to alleviate the load of human guilt and 
 misery, and to increase the sum of human virtue and hap- 
 piness. Victories that are obtained over ignorance and 
 guilt may pass Avithout notice in the world, or the notice 
 which they attract may be of a very unenviable kind ; 
 but they are recorded in an imperishable register ; they 
 are a cause of joy in heaven, and will be remembered 
 with honour when every earthly monument of power and 
 splendour shall have mouldered in the dust, together with 
 the hands that reared them. If ever enthusiasm be ami- 
 able or useful, then surely it is so when it regards the 
 tioblest object that ever awakened the desires, or called 
 forth the exertions of any human being ; and the Chi'is- 
 tian may be permitted to indulge no ordinary degree of 
 ardom", in the prosecution of a design, for the accomplish- 
 ment of which the Son of God did not hesitate to die. If 
 he whose heart exults amidst the spirit-stirring sights and 
 sounds of war, whose courage is only wound up to a higher 
 pitch of intensity by scenes of carnage, and by all the engines 
 of death in active and fatal operation, who glories in the 
 midst of danger, and rushes forward, with irresistible ar- 
 dom*, to snatch the wreath of victory, through the shouts 
 of the warrior, and garments rolled in blood, — if he excite 
 our admu-ation, — is the same ardour to be viewed with 
 sentiments the very reverse of admiration, — to be stigma- 
 tized as the effect of a weak mind and a heated imagina- 
 tion, when it is felt in reference to an object of infinitely 
 greater importance than any for which even kings con- 
 tended or warriors bled ? If Alexander wept at the tomb 
 of Achilles, to think that he himself had no Homer to ce- 
 lebrate his deeds, and perpetuate his fame ; is the Chris- 
 tian to be reproached if he feel, — or is he not rather to be 
 
CHRIST OUR KING. 20o 
 
 considered as destitute of the Spirit of his Master if he do 
 not feel, — an irresistible desu'e to achieve those victories 
 which, if they find no place in the poet's song, will be ce- 
 lebrated throughout eternity in the anthems of heaven V 
 If, then, we regard either the authority or example of our 
 heavenly King, — if we would wish, when our days are at 
 an end, to say that they have not been spent in vain, and 
 that we have not been useless members of his kingdom, 
 nor careless of its prosperity, — if we would wish to be 
 able to say, when we stand before his judgment-seat, 
 that as he was, so have we been in the world, — if we be 
 ambitious for the honour that perisheth not, and for a 
 crown that doth not fade, — if we wish to associate at last 
 with the glorious men who have instructed the Church by 
 their wisdom, adorned it by their holiness, and cemented 
 its foundations with their blood, then let us exert our- 
 selves by example, by instruction, by every means in our 
 power, to promote the prosperity, and extend the limits of 
 that kingdom into which we om'selves have, by the grace 
 of God, been brought. For " they that be wise shall 
 shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that 
 turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 GENERAX REMARKS. 
 
 We have thus traced Christ in the discharge of all his 
 offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. For the discharge of 
 the whole of them, his death, and consequently his Incar- 
 nation, was essentially necessary. He discharged the du- 
 ties resulting from these offices from the beginning. He 
 discharged them all during his sojourn on earth. But we 
 have seen that, without dying, he could not fully have dis- 
 charged the duties of any one of his offices. And at every 
 step we have seen the absolute necessity of the total ab- 
 sence from him, of any thing to which the terms fallen and 
 sinful could, in any sense, be applied. AVe have seen, upon 
 the clearest and most indisputable evidence, that had he 
 been fallen and sinful, his death could have afforded us no 
 more instruction, as to the character of God, than the death 
 of any other man, — that it could have been no satisfaction 
 to the Divine justice for our sins, — and that it must have 
 been the very reverse of a triumph over death, and him 
 that had the power of death, that is, the devil. It clearly 
 appears, that had he been follen and sinful, neither could 
 his life nor his death have revealed to us the perfections of 
 (lod in any other way, though, perhaps, in a somewhat 
 higher degree, than the life and death of any other good but 
 sinful man, who has by grace been made a partaker of the 
 Divine nature. Neither in his life nor in his death could 
 he have taken our sicloiesses, and borne our iutirmities, or 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 205 
 
 have offered nptliat resistless intercession, " Father, IwiU^ 
 that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where 
 I am." Neither in his life nor in his death could he have 
 manifested to all the overthrow of Satan's kingdom, nor 
 have made his victory the earnest and assurance of ours. 
 
 I have already had occasion to observe that in Christ 
 these three offices were never separated ; that he at all 
 times possessed all the fulness of the power, and performed 
 all the duties pertaining to them all. If there ever was a 
 moment in which he was destitute of any one poAver be- 
 longing to any one of his offices, then at that moment he 
 was destitute of all the powers belonging to them all ; and 
 was neither Prophet, Priest, nor King at all. This remark 
 may at first sight appear to be a matter of little import- 
 ance ; it is, however, in reality one of the most important 
 principles in theology, that Christ never could possess any 
 one of the powers of any one of his offices, without possess- 
 ing all the plenitude of the powers belonging to them all. 
 To deny this, and to maintain, as is strenuously done by 
 the new theology, that he was first anointed as Prophet, 
 next as Priest, and then as King, is, as I shall presently 
 have occasion to show, to deny that he is a person at all ; 
 and to reduce him to the state of a mere attribute or influ- 
 ence. If Jesus Christ was at one time anointed a Prophet, 
 at another time anointed a Priest, and at another a King, 
 then he may be the personified poAver of God, or wisdom of 
 God, but a distinct person in the Holy Trinity he is not, 
 and cannot be. That he saved men fi'om the beginning, 
 and, therefore, from the beginning was possessed of all the 
 powers and prerogatives of all his offices, I have repeatedly 
 been called upon to notice. If he was capable of receiving 
 any one of the powers of any one of his offices, without at 
 the same time receiving all the powers of them all, then it 
 may be that he was a mere man acting under a Divine in- 
 fluence, but, on this supposition, totally destitute of any 
 Divine personality ; and, consequently, that the doctrine of 
 the Trinity is very much what Socinians call it will pre- 
 
206 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 sently appear. A few remarks on the inseparable union of 
 his different offices will be previously proper. 
 
 As in the Trinity we ascribe to each particular person 
 some particular part in the work of our salvation, more 
 especially and immediately than to any of the other per- 
 sons, yet would deem it impious to suppose that there is 
 any one act of any of them in which they do not all equally 
 concur ; even so, while one portion of Christ's work is 
 ascribed, and properly so, to one of his offices, more espe- 
 cially and immediately than to any other of his offices, yet 
 would we deem it impious to suppose that Christ was ever 
 divided, or that any one of these offices was ever separated 
 from the others, or was ever exercised apart from, and ex- 
 clusively of, the others. When speaking of the two natures 
 united in his person, we sometimes ascribe one thing more 
 particularly to the one nature, and another thing to the 
 other nature, — and often improperly enough, — yet would 
 consider it inconsistent with piety to forget that there is 
 but one Christ, to whose undivided person every character- 
 istic, and every action, is to be ascribed, whether more pe- 
 culiarly appropriate to the one nature or to the other; 
 even so, when speaking of his different offices, we ascribe, 
 and properly ascribe, one action, or one characteristic, to 
 one office more peculiarly than to another, yet ought we 
 never to forget that in his one person the three offices were 
 inseparably united. Throughout his life these offices were 
 inseparably combined, and were uniformly manifested to- 
 gether. For what is it that gives to his every prophetic 
 act, by which he manifests the Father, a claim upon our 
 reverential regard far beyond aught that is due to the phi- 
 losopher, the sage, or the modern theologian ? Is it not 
 this, that his every prophetic act combines with it all the 
 sacredness of his sacerdotal character, and all the autho- 
 rity of his regal power ; so that, if we refuse to be taught 
 by him, we cut ourselves off from all participation in his 
 sacerdotal grace, and expose ourselves to be crushed be- 
 neath the weight of that iron rod by which he will dash his 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 207 
 
 enemies to pieces? Hence it is said, that " the people were 
 astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one hav- 
 ing authority." And when he performs any sacerdotal act, 
 as when he said to the sick of the palsy, " Thy sins be for- 
 given thee," is not this also a prophetic act, manifesting the 
 grace and the power of the Godhead? and is it not an effi- 
 cacious act, simply because what, as a Priest, he has grace 
 to promise, as a King he has power to bestow ? And his 
 every regal act is performed for the pm-pose of giving to his 
 prophetic revelations, and to his sacerdotal gi-ace, that 
 power and efficacy which they could never otherwise pos- 
 sess. And the offices thus united in him through his whole 
 life were not separated at his close. His sufferings in the 
 garden, and on the cross, not only constituted a perfect sa- 
 tisfaction to Divine justice for om- sins, but found, at the 
 same time, by far the most impressive and instructive por- 
 tion of his prophetic manifestation of the Divine character, 
 and also the most victorious and triumphant exhibition of 
 his regal power, when the serpent's head was bruised, and 
 principalities and powers defeated and triimiphed over. 
 Hence, while sacrifice, in general, presented a type of his 
 dying for sin, on the gi'eat day of atonement two goats 
 were provided to give a more complete representation of 
 his work on the cross. While one was sacrificed as an 
 atonement, another can'ied away the sins of the people in- 
 to a land not inhabited, where they might be heard of no 
 more. Even so, om* Lord did not merely shed his blood 
 for our sins, but he took them upon him, and carried them 
 away into the land of forgetfulness, and bm-ied them for 
 ever. 
 
 It would require a much more lengthened detail than, I 
 conceive, can be at all necessary on so plain a point, to en- 
 ter into all the Scripture proof that might easily be pro- 
 duced, in order to prove that Christ was at all times truly 
 and fully Prophet, Priest, and King ; and that the func- 
 tions of all these offices were combined in every act. Two 
 texts only I shall quote, " Bemg made perfect, he became 
 
208 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 the author of eternal salvation unto allthem that obey him. "^ 
 Now, he is not perfected as a Saviour, nor can be the au- 
 thor of salvation, through the perfection of any one of his ofl&- 
 cial characters, but through the perfection of them all. And 
 as we are informed, both in the preceding verse, and in a 
 previous part of the same epistle, that he was " made per- 
 fect through suflferings," it follows, that in the depth of his 
 sufferings, not one, but the whole of his official characteris- 
 tics had their most perfect exhibition. It is also said, " By 
 one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are 
 sanctified. "2 Now, as he does not, and cannot, perfect 
 them that are sanctified, by the exercise of one, but by the 
 exercise of all his offices, it follows, that in that one off'er- 
 ing, by which they that are sanctified are made perfect, 
 they were all combined. 
 
 There is between the diff'erent offices of Christ a real 
 and essential distinction ; but it is a distinction similar to 
 that between justification and sanctification. These are per- 
 fectly distinct and different things ; but in their communi - 
 cation, and in their possession, they are never separated. 
 Even so, the offices of Christ are perfectly distinct, but, in 
 their exercise, are never separated. No error can be more 
 fatal than what I conceive to be by no means an unfi-e- 
 quent practical error, to suppose that Christ may be divid- 
 ed, and that we may enjoy the blessings resulting from the 
 exercise of one of his offices, while we have neither part nor 
 lot in the other ; to suppose, for example, that we may be 
 pardoned by him as our Priest, while Ave are neither taught 
 by him as our Prophet, nor saved from sin by him as a King. 
 Tlie theology which teaches that Christ was anointed to his 
 different offices at different times, teaches very clearly, at 
 the same time, that this fatal error has a solid foundation in 
 truth. But neither in the exercise of his offices on earth, 
 nor in the application of the fruits of them to the believer 
 on earth, can there be any separation, though there is a 
 wide and palpable distinction. And in proof of this, I may 
 
 I Ileb. V. 9. * Heb. x. 14. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 209 
 
 refer to the experience of the believer, an argument which, 
 in this case, I hold to be perfectly legitimate. If this 
 should happily be the character of my reader, he will be 
 able to say, that he never makes any thing like a separa- 
 tion between the persons of the Trinity ; never feels any 
 emotion, nor cherishes any sentiment towards one of these 
 persons, in which the others have no share. He has per- 
 haps been attending the public ministrations of God's 
 ^ord, — or has been joining in his solemn ordinances, — or 
 has been devoting an hour to private meditation and 
 prayer, and, like Nathanael under the fig-tree, has been 
 holding communion with God where no eye, save that of 
 God, was upon him ; and God has met him, and blessed 
 him. He has found him Avhom he sought, and feels that 
 his faith is strengthened, and his hopes enlivened, and his 
 humility deepened, and his charity enlarged, and his soul 
 enabled to exult in the joy of God's salvation. And when 
 this does happen, he never doubts that it is by the influ- 
 ence of the Holy Ghost,— that it is the Spirit of promise 
 sealing him to the day of redemption, and enriching him 
 with a foretaste of his future inheritance. But are his 
 gratitude and his praise specifically directed to the Holy 
 Ghost ? No : but knowing that this is the Father cheer- 
 ing him with the manifestations of his los^e, — that this is 
 the Son giving to the Spuit the things that are his, to 
 show to the believer, and enriching him by the com- 
 munications of his grace, through the communion of the 
 Holy Ghost, his gTatitude and his praise ascend, without 
 being more specifically directed to one person than to 
 another, to the holy and undivided and indivisible Jeho- 
 vah. Even so, when in the life and in the death of 
 Christ, he has learned to know him " whom to know is 
 life eternal;" and when he has "washed his robes and 
 made them white in the blood of the Lamb that was 
 slain ;" and when, looking to the Saviour's power, he can 
 say, " I can do all things through Christ who strengthen- 
 eth me :"— and when he is thus enjoying the blessings re- 
 
210 GENERAL REMAKES. 
 
 suiting from all the offices of Christ, and rejoicing in him 
 who is made of God unto him " wisdom, and righteous- 
 ness, and sanctification, and redemption ;" and feels that 
 he is " complete in him who is the Head of all principality 
 and power," is it as his Prophet, as his Priest, or as his 
 King, separately, that he rejoices in him ? No : for it is 
 not in the exercise of any one of the Redeemer's offices 
 that his completeness stands, but in the exercise of them 
 all ; and in such an hour no such distinction is thought of, 
 but he rejoices in him who is Prophet, Priest, and King in 
 one, — in whom there is no division and no defect. He 
 rejoices in him who is not now a Prophet, then a Priest, 
 and at some other period either made, or to be made, a 
 King ; but in him who is always Prophet, Priest, and 
 King, — who is each in every act that he performed, and 
 in every pang that he endm-ed. 
 
 Take away then from Christ, at any one period, any 
 one of these offices, and you at the same time effectually 
 divest him of the others. They are so interwoven, that 
 neither in the exercise of the duties resulting from them, 
 were they ever separated in Christ, nor in the enjoyment 
 of the fruits which they produce in believers are they 
 ever separated. If the different offices were assumed by 
 the Mediator at very different times, then the man who, 
 devoted to his sins, declares his reliance on the blood of 
 Christ for the full and free forgiveness of all his sins, while 
 he shows that he neither is, nor desires to be, separated 
 from any one of them ; and the self-righteous man who 
 tells us that being now instructed by Christ as his Pro- 
 phet, and furnished with all necessary means of grace, he 
 no longer feels any farther need of divine interference, but 
 conceives that he can now justify and save himself, will 
 each have it in his own power to show that his error is 
 built upon a fundamental principle of the Gospel. 
 
 But these errors, fatal as they are, are by no means the 
 most fatal and deadly results that spring from the doctrine 
 that our Lord was anointed at various times to his vari- 
 
GEXERAL REMARKS. 211 
 
 ous offices. I need not stop to show how this notion as 
 to our Lord's various anointings is connected with, and 
 springs from, the tenet that his humanity was fallen and 
 sinful ; for the "writers who maintaia the latter tenet 
 openly avow and contend for the former, as indeed they 
 must, for the one of necessity flows from the other. Let 
 us look then at one or two more of the consequences to 
 which these various anointings lead. We have just seen 
 that they make a wide separation between the offices of 
 Christ, and du'ectly sanction the most ruinous practical 
 errors. But they go much farther, and estac)lish the 
 Gnostic doctrine, which makes a separation between Jesus 
 and Christ. The Docetae, one class of Gnostics, maintain- 
 ed that Jesus was a mere phantom, having the appear- 
 ance of a man, but nothing more, and was assumed by 
 Christ in order to render himself \isible. Other classes of 
 Gnostics admitted that Jesus was a real man, but main- 
 tained that he was a mere man, and that CJirist descend- 
 ed upon him at his baptism by John in Jordan. Christ 
 was, according to them, one of the iEons, who, descending 
 upon the man Jesus, filled him with, or rather, through 
 him exercised, all T\isdom and power ; and at his cruci- 
 fixion left him and returned to the Pleroma. They openly 
 maintained, therefore, that Jesus and Christ were two 
 persons as different as possible. 
 
 Now, admit that om* Lord was no Prophet until his bap- 
 tism, and no Priest untU his resmTCCtion, and no King 
 until his resun-ection, or his second advent,— for that ap- 
 pears to be a point not yet decided, — and the same sepa- 
 ration between Jesus and Christ clearly and unavoidably 
 follows. The Christ., or the Messiah., is the official appella- 
 tion of our Lord, who is so called on account of his being 
 anointed as the Prophet, Priest, and King of the human 
 race ; anointed with all the fulness of the Holy Ghost, 
 which was not given by measm'e to him. Now, if he was 
 never anointed till his baptism, it is too plain to need, or 
 even to admit of proof, that Jesus lived thirty years be- 
 
212 GENERAL REMARICS. 
 
 fore he was Christ at all. A more palpable' separation 
 between Jesus and Christ no Gnostic ever did make, or 
 was ever capable of making. I need not waste time in 
 proving to any one, who has a Bible in his hand, how ut- 
 terly repugnant this is, both to the spirit and to the very- 
 letter of Scripture, which speaks repeatedly, and in ex- 
 press terms, of the birth of Christ; a mode of speaking 
 totally inconsistent with the tenet that he was born a 
 fallen sinful man, and was not Christ till he was anointed 
 at his baptism. 
 
 This palpable separation between Jesus and Christy which 
 so directly and inevitably results from the fundamental 
 tenets of the new theology, cannot be evaded by saying, 
 as the revivers of these tenets do say, and sincerely enough 
 I am willing to admit, that they do believe that Jesus was, 
 at his conception, anointed with all the fulness of the 
 Holy Ghost. For if he received all the fulness of the 
 Holy Ghost at his conception, then he could not receive at 
 his baptism more than all that fulness, that is, more than 
 he possessed already: unless, indeed, it be maintained, 
 that having received the fulness of the Holy Ghost at his 
 conception, he had lost it before his baptism, and needed 
 to have it restored. Tliis notion, no doubt, is in perfect 
 nnison with the tenet, which is openly avowed, that he had 
 different measures of the Holy Ghost at different times, 
 but totally inconsistent, I apprehend, with the fact of his 
 having been anointed with all the fulness of the Holy Ghost 
 in his conception. Besides, it is of no use whatever to say 
 that we believe him to have been anointed with all the 
 fulness of the Holy Ghost in his conception, unless we can 
 show some purpose which was answered by that anomt- 
 ing. And on the principles of the new theology, I cannot 
 form the most distant idea of any one pui-pose that could 
 be answered by that anointing. Many of the Ebionites, a 
 Gnostic sect, believed in the miraculous conception of 
 Jesus. They nevertheless, however, believed him to be a 
 mere man, and that he became Christ only at his baptbsm. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 213 
 
 In this case, the belief in the miraculous conception was a 
 mere gratuitous article in their creed. It was of no use 
 whatever in their theology, and, therefore, gradually sank 
 into oblivion among them, so that the gi-eater part of them 
 at least renounced it, and became mere Cerinthians.^ And 
 the anointing of our Lord with all the fulness of the Holy 
 Ghost in his conception, is an equally gratuitous article in 
 the creed of those who maintain, that he was conceived and 
 bom a fallen sinful man. For, besides that it stands in 
 direct and uTeconcileable contradiction to the doctrine that 
 he was anointed with the Holy Ghost at his baptism, 
 there is not one pui-pose that it can answer in their creed, 
 and will, therefore, deliver their system from a grievous 
 incumbrance if it be altogether dismissed. 
 
 It is equally useless to say, that the anointing with the 
 Holy Ghost was necessary to constitute him man, — that by 
 it a body was prepared for him. For if it Avas fallen sinful 
 flesh that he took, the miraculous conception was totally 
 unnecessary. And that the flesh which he took was fallen 
 and sinful, and that it continued to be so during the whole 
 of his life on earth, is the gi-and fundamental tenet of the 
 new theology. Now, he could surely have taken fallen sin- 
 ful flesh without any extraordinary operation of the Holy 
 Ghost ; for that would just have been the character of his 
 flesh had he descended fi'om Adam, like all other men, by 
 ordinary generation. If the design of the Word was to be 
 made such flesh as this, then the interposition of the Holy 
 Ghost would have defeated the design ; for where he works 
 all is perfect purity, and he would never have interposed 
 his extraordinary agency to form flesh such as would, with 
 unerring certainty, have been produced without such inter- 
 position. 
 
 As little can it avail to say, that the miraculous concep- 
 tion w-as necessary to render him independent upon a Re- 
 deemer, as all other men are dependent upon him. For if 
 
 1 See note G. Appendix. 
 
214 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 he was fallen and sinful, then he was not independent npon 
 a Redeemer ; but needed to be both redeemed and regene- 
 rated. And, in point of fact, we are expressly taught that 
 he did redeem his own creature substance ; and that sub- 
 stance was just as much himself sls his divinity was himself. 
 And we are, moreover, taught that he actually was rege- 
 nerated, — nay, that if he was more than a regenerated 
 man he can be no Saviour of ours. The miraculous con- 
 ception, then, which prevented him not fi'om being bom 
 fallen and smful, did not, and could not, exempt him from 
 the necessity of being redeemed and regenerated ; and we 
 are expressly taught that, in fact, he possessed no such 
 exemption. The angel tells Mary that, in consequence of 
 the coming of the Holy Ghost upon her, and the over- 
 shadowing of the power of the Highest, the fruit of her 
 womb was generated a ''holy thing," and, consequently, 
 could neither need nor be capable of regeneration. But 
 the new theology teaches that he was generated a fallen 
 sinful thing ; and both needed and received regeneration. 
 We are assui-ed that Jesus Christ was bom the " Son of 
 God," and, therefore, never could be " born again." But 
 that which was bom fallen and sinful could not possibly 
 be the Son of God without being " born again ;" and even 
 after the new biilh could be the Son of God in no other 
 sense than every regenerated man is his son. The theo- 
 logy, therefore, which teaches that our Lord received, or 
 was capable of receiving, the Holy Ghost at his baptism, 
 does effectually separate between Jesus and Christ 
 
 But to revive the wi'etched follies of Gnosticism, which 
 taught that difference between Jesus and Christ, which 
 was merely a grosser and more aggravated form of that 
 doctrine which, under the name of Nestorianism, at a later 
 period rent the Church in pieces, is not the worst effect of 
 the doctrine which teaches us that our Lord was anointed 
 at his baptism as our Prophet, and at his resurrection as 
 our Priest. The Gnostics admitted the personality of 
 Christ ; but this doctrine effectually denies that he was a 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 215 
 
 person at all, and reduces him to the rank of a mere attri- 
 bute or influence, showing that he may be the personified 
 power of God, or wisdom of God, but that a person he 
 cannot be. For it is plain that a person could not be par- 
 tially communicated to Jesus, but if communicated at all, 
 must be completely and totally communicated. Of this 
 the Gnostics were very well aware ; and, therefore, ac- 
 knowledging the personality of Christ, they never dreamed 
 of teaching that he was partly communicated to Jesus 
 at one time and partly at another ; but considered him as 
 at once taking up his abode in all his fulness in the man 
 Jesus. But if he was a mere attribute or influence, then 
 he might be communicated in all possible variety of de- 
 grees, — might be given in such measure as to endue him, 
 now with Prophetic, then with Sacerdotal, dead finally with 
 Kingly powers. And if our Lord was so anointed as to 
 receive gradually, and at diff'erent times, the diff'erent 
 powers belonging to his offices, then are we compelled to 
 conclude that the man Christ Jesus was not the very Word 
 made flesh, — the very soul and body of the Incarnate 
 Word, but merely a man actuated and operated upon by 
 a divine influence, beyond the usual lot of the children of 
 men ; but at the same time as truly and as certainly a 
 mere man as we are. Let the various anointings of our 
 Lord to his various offices be admitted, and then that " all 
 the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily," is so far 
 from being a glorious truth, — a truth upon which the;reality 
 of atonement, and the truth of every Christian doctrine 
 depends, that it is a very easily demonstrable falsehood. 
 A divine influence he possessed in a high degree ; of any 
 divine personality he was as destitute as we are. Yet a 
 doctrine so pregnant with utter ruin to every Christian 
 principle, and to every Christian hope, is inculcated by men 
 who do not at all disguise how much they feel themselves 
 entitled to " despise others ;" and who, while they outrival 
 the Gnostics in the irrationality of their tenets, outrival 
 them also in their loud pretensions to superior illumination. 
 
216 GF.NEltAL REMARKS. 
 
 In proof of the utterly antichristian nature of any system 
 of tlieology, we need no better evidence tlian the fact, that 
 it teaches us that Christ was anointed at his baptism, 
 which is Gnosticism ; and, especially, when that fact is 
 given in the aggravated form which teaches us, that at his 
 baptism he was anointed to only one of his offices, expect- 
 ing, at a future period, the unction which was to invest 
 him with the powers belonging to the others. That this 
 tenet is totally subversive of Christianity, we have still 
 better evidence than that resulting from the preceding dis- 
 cussion, — a discussion, however, which must be considered 
 as decisive, because it consists not of any complicated pro- 
 cess of reasoning, so much as of a statement of palpable 
 and undeniable facts. We have the direct testimony of 
 holy Scripture. Gnosticism was coeval with, and, indeed, 
 among the Gentiles in general, somcAvhat prior to the 
 preaching of the Gospel. The apostle John lived to see 
 that wretched system producing the most disastrous and 
 fatal results. He was inspired by the Holy Ghost to take 
 up his pen in opposition to it. Besides the abundant and 
 conclusive internal evidence of this fact, furnished by his 
 first epistle itself, we have the express testimony of Ire- 
 naius, who learned it from Polycarp, the immediate disciple 
 of John, and ordained by that apostle bishop of Smyrna. 
 To quote the whole of the testimony afforded by that 
 epistle against the supposition that Christ was anointed at 
 his baptism, would be nearly to copy the whole epistle. A 
 few verses it will be proper to give : — " Who is a liar, but 
 he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, 
 that denieth the Father and the Son." ' " Whosoever will 
 confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, 
 and he in God." 2 " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ is born of God ; and every one that loveth him 
 that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. "3 In 
 these passages the apostle teaches very distinctly, Jirst^ 
 
 I 1 John il 22. 2 y^\^ jy. 15. • 3 i\y\± y. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 217 
 
 that Jesus is the Son of God as well as Christ, whom they 
 allowed to be the Son of God, in a certain sense, and, 
 therefore, that Jesus could not be either a mere phantom, 
 as some classes of the Gnostics taught, nor a mere man, 
 as others of them maintained, nor, I may fairly, and a for- 
 tiori, add, a fallen sinful man, as is taught by those who 
 have revived Gnosticism in more than all its original irra- 
 tionality. He teaches also that Jesus is the Christ, these 
 not being the names of two different individuals, but of one 
 and the same, — and, consequently, that the Gnostics, in 
 maintaining that Jesus was not the Christ before his bap- 
 tism, were maintaining a doctrine directly antichristian. 
 To say, then, that Jesus was anointed at his baptism, — 
 that he then was constituted the Christ, as if he had not 
 been always so, is the very thing that the apostle con- 
 demns, and condemns in terms of no measured reprobation. 
 And we cannot doubt that his reprobation would have 
 been still more emphatic and more severe had he heard the 
 doctrine, not only that Christ was anointed at his baptism, 
 but that he was then only partially anointed, anointed 
 only as our Prophet ; and that fi-om time to time he con- 
 tinued to receive fresh accessions to his Christhood, just 
 as if it had ever been possible for him to be the Christ at 
 all, without being fully and completely so ; or as if the 
 Divinity in him was no person, but, as it is in us, an influ- 
 ence which may be poured out upon us more or less abun- 
 dantly at different times. If he condemns with such merit- 
 ed severity the separation of Jesus from Christ, he would 
 unquestionably have condemned, with a still more pointed 
 severity, the still more fatal and impious doctrine which 
 separates Christ from himself, and teaches that he was 
 more the Christ at one period than he was at another, — a 
 doctrine obviously and irreconcileably opposed to any idea 
 of his Divine personality. 
 
 There is another passage in the same epistle which it 
 would be doing great injustice to my subject to omit. It 
 is this, — " This is he that came by water and blood, even 
 
 K 
 
218 GKNEUAL REMARKS. 
 
 Jesus Christ ; not by water only, but by water and blood ; 
 and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the 
 Spirit is truth. "' It gives me gi'eat pleasure to be able 
 to establish my own view of the apostle's doctrine, and 
 also to present to the reader by far the best commen- 
 tary on the verse just quoted that I have ever met with ; 
 a commentary too which, in the present instance, will not 
 be suspected of being got up for the occasion. I take it 
 from one of the ablest works with which the present age 
 has enriched the theological literature of England, and I 
 persuade myself no reader will think the extract a line too 
 long. 
 
 " The fifth chapter begins with these words, — * Whoso- 
 ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is bom of God.' 
 It will perhaps be allowed, that to be ' born of God' means 
 to he a Christian^ to have that faith which Christ requires 
 when he admits a person into his covenant. St John, 
 therefore, here says, ' Whosoever believeth that Jesus is 
 the Chfist,' has the true faith of a Christian ; fi'om which 
 it follows, that whosoever does not believe that Jesus is 
 the Christ, has not the true faith of a Christian. Now, 
 this was precisely the point which all the Gnostics, whether 
 Cerinthians or Docetae, refused to believe. They would 
 not say that Jesus is the Christ, at least they would not 
 say that he was the Christ at his birth, or before his bap- 
 tism. They held that Jesus was one person, and Christ 
 another. The two were united for a time, when Christ 
 had descended upon Jesus at his baptism ; but they had 
 existed separately before his baptism, and they were again 
 separated before his crucifixion. It Avas with good reason, 
 therefore, that • St John made this point the test of a 
 Christian's belief: it was necessary for him to say ex- 
 plicitly that Jesus is the Christ ; and St John is only pro- 
 ]wsiug a similar test when he says, in the fifth verse, 
 ' Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believ- 
 
 > 1 John T. 6. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 219 
 
 eth that Jesus is the Son of God ?' In the fourth verse 
 he had explained what he meant by overcoming the world. 
 'This is the victory,' he. says, ' that overcometh the world, 
 even our faith.' So that to overcome the world., and to be 
 born of God, are used by St John for the same thing, for 
 the true belief which it is necessary for a Christian to 
 hold. He tells us, therefore, that the true Christian must 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ.,^ and that Jesus is the Son of 
 God. The Gnostic would have said that Christ was 
 united to Jesus at his baptism ; or he would have said, 
 attaching his owti meaning to the words, that Christ was 
 the Son of God ; but St John rejected these imperfect and 
 evasive confessions, and required the true Christian to say 
 unequivocally that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jems is 
 the Son of God. He then continues, 'This is he that 
 came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by 
 water only, but by water and blood ; and it is the Spirit 
 that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.' The 
 Gnostics, no doubt, had heard in the preaching of the 
 apostles, and by this time they had seen it in the wi-itten 
 Gospels, that when Jesus rose out of the water the Spirit 
 descended upon him like a dove, and a voice was heard, 
 which said, 'This is my beloved Son.' This was the 
 foundation upon which the Gnostics built theu' doctrine 
 concerning Christ. They held that the Spirit, which de- 
 scended like a dove, was one of the ^ons called Christ : 
 that Jesus went into the water, either a delusive phantom 
 or a mere human being, but that when he came out of the 
 water Christ was residing in him. St John denies this in 
 the verse which I have read : ' This is he,' he says, ' that 
 came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ;' not Jesus 
 only, nor Christ only, but Jesus Christ ; not two separated 
 beings united for a time, but one person. Nor did this one 
 person, Jesus Christ, come by water only, or in the water 
 only, when he was baptized ; but he had been come long 
 before by blood when he was first made flesh and dwelt 
 among us. And as to the Spirit which descended like a 
 
Tl^) GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 dove, and which was said by the Gnostics to be the ^Eon 
 Christ, then for the first time coming down from heaven, 
 St Jolm goes on to say, ' It is the Spirit that beareth wit- 
 ness, because the Spirit is truth ;' or, in other words, The 
 Spirit was not Christ, as the Gnostics say, but it came to 
 bear witness of Christ, to testify that Jesus, on whom the 
 Spirit descended, was tlie Son of God ; and this witness 
 was given by God himself, when he said, 'This is my 
 beloved Son, in wiiom I am well pleased.' K any of the 
 (ruostic writings had come down to ns, we should perhaps 
 find that it was a common expression in them to say that 
 Christ came by water ^ or in the water. It at least seems 
 plain tliat some persons must have said so, or St John 
 would not have thought it necessary to assert that he did 
 not come by water only. But ecclesiastical history ac- 
 quaints us with no persons who would have said that 
 ('hrist came by water only., except the Gnostics ; and they, 
 whether Cerinthians or Docetae, would certainly have said 
 so, since this was their fundamental doctrine concerning 
 the descent of Christ. I would observe also, that though 
 our translators in each place wTOte ' by water,' the expres- 
 sions are not the same in the Greek ; and the literal trans- 
 lation would be, ' This is he that came by water and blood, 
 Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and 
 the blood,' ovk sv to v^xn f^ovov, ocXh! iv ru v^ocri kcci iu 
 utfiXTi, which last clause might perhaps be rendered, ' but 
 in the water and by blood ;' and the meaning of the whole 
 passage would be, that Christ did not come when the 
 Spirit descended upon Jesus in the water, but Christ was 
 with Jesus — more accurately., Christ was Jesus — both when 
 he was in the water, and before, when he was born into 
 the world.* 
 
 It may be said, perhaps, that the phrase coming by blood 
 is a very extraordinary one, to express being born into the 
 
 ' In the first clause of verse 6, it is B/ v^otrog., in the second £j/ ra 
 vhxri, and John the Baptist speaks of liimself as baptizing tv vhazi^ 
 John i. 3-1 In John iii. 6, we have yiuvri&Yi £^ vhcirog. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 221 
 
 world ; to which I would answer, that the fau-est and 
 safest way to interpret an author is by his own expres- 
 sions ; and when St John, in his Gospel, wished to speak 
 of the spiritual buth of a regenerated Christian, in oppo- 
 sition to his first or natui-al bu'th, he writes, ' Which were 
 bom not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
 will of man, but of God,' (i. 13.) It is plain, that to be 
 born of blood is used in this place by St John for a natural 
 or ordinary birth ; and so I conceive, that when he spoke 
 in his epistle of Jesus Christ coming by bloody he meant 
 to assert, contrary to the Gnostics, that Christ, as Avell as 
 Jesus, was bom of Mary ; or, as it is said, in the epistle 
 to the Hebrews, he was partaker of flesh and bloody (ii. 14.) 
 I have, perhaps, spent too much time upon what may 
 seem to some a matter of verbal criticism ; but I could 
 not pass over what appears to me so plain an allusion to 
 the Cerinthian heresy without discussing it at some length. 
 I am aware that this is not the usual interpretation, and I 
 offer it with the greatest diffidence ;i but when the whole 
 epistle is so pointedly directed against the Docetae. and 
 when this view of the passage enables us to explain it 
 literally, without any allegorical or mystical meaning, I 
 can hardly help concluding that the interpretation is right, 
 and that the false doctrines of the Gnostics concerning 
 Christ were those which St John intended to confute. "- 
 
 After all this, it will surely not be pretended that ihe 
 theology which teaches the various anointings of the Lord's 
 Christ, and the various generations, and the regeneration 
 of the Son of God, is a piece of mere harmless absurdity. 
 They who can pour the most ineffable contempt upon the 
 attainments of all living divines, and profess to unfold for 
 our instruction all that is profound in Christian theology, 
 
 1 Mich^lis understood this passage to be directed against the Cerinthian 
 notion of Christ descending upon Jesus at his baptism ; but he explains 
 eoming by blood to relate to the sufferings and death of Christ. Vol. iiL Part 
 i. c. 7, § 3, p. 283. 
 
 2 Bampton Lecture for 1829, page 187. Preached by Dr Burton, Regius 
 Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church. 
 
GKNEUAi. JiEMAKKS. 
 
 while giving at every step the most glaring proofs of their 
 total destitution of the most ordinaiy information, and 
 pushing Gnosticism to an extent more wildly extravagant, 
 and more directly fatal, than it ever received either from 
 Simon Magus, its first propagator, or from Valentinus, its 
 last improver, may perhaps be considered only as objects 
 of pity. They might well enough be left to proclaim 
 themselves by far the greatest divines that the world pos- 
 sesses without notice ; but when they proceed to overturn 
 every doctrine of Christianity, thek crude speculations -re- 
 quii'e to be met with the most uncompromising hostility ; 
 for it is no trifle that is at stake. They who talk of the 
 various anointings of Christ manifest an ignorance which 
 fully acquits them of any evil intention. They know not 
 that what they give us as the most profound theology, is 
 in reality the most extravagant Gnosticism ; as is well 
 known to every tyro in Ecclesiastical History. But the 
 goodness of their intentions is very far fi'om diminishing 
 the mischief of the eflbrts by which they mislead others, as 
 ignorant as themselves, into the most autichristian errors, — 
 errors, whose revival in the nineteenth century certainly 
 no man could have ckeaded. "The Spirit bearetli wit- 
 ness, because the Spirit is truth." He bore w;itness at our 
 Lord's baptism ; he bore witness dming the whole period 
 of his public ministry ; he bore witness at his outpouring 
 upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost ; he bore wit- 
 ness by the signs, and wonders, and mighty works by which 
 he enabled them to confirm their doctrines ; he beareth 
 witness still, taking of the things that are Christ's, and 
 showing them to us. But if all of these manifestations of 
 Christ, or if any of them, be considered as the anointing 
 of Christ ; and, still more, if we are to suppose him to 
 have been anointed at various times, receiving even new 
 nccessions to his Christhood, then we must admit that both 
 the ancient Gnostic and the modern Socinian attribute to 
 him a character somewhat too high. We must consider 
 him not merely with the former as a diifcrent person from 
 
GENERAL KEMAKKS. 223 
 
 Jesus, and in some sense the Son of God ; but with the 
 latter, as acting, it may be, under the impulse of a divine 
 influence, but destitute of any divine personality, as fal- 
 lible and peccable, nay, as actually fallen and sinful. If 
 either of these doctrines be true, then the Gospel certainly 
 cannot be called " a cunningly-devised fable ;" for it must 
 be described as the most blundering imposture that ever 
 bewildered the common sense of mankind. Of such a 
 doctrine, how well may we say, in the strong language 
 employed on a different occasion by Sam-in, if it be true, 
 ' Then were the apostles idiots ; the early opponents of 
 the Gospel were idiots ; and the primitive Christians 
 were idiots.' And of such writers how justly may it 
 be said, that they are kept from enunciating the ancient 
 heresies by the dogmatism of ignorance ; while in prin- 
 ciple, all the ancient heresies — and that pushed to an ex- 
 tent beyond what ancient heretics dreamed of — are in- 
 volved in what they write. 
 
(' 
 
 '" CHAPTER VI, 
 
 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 ]/ If any thing be capable of proof from Scripture, I think it 
 must be admitted that the view now given of the person 
 and work of Christ affords the most abundant, decisive, 
 and overwhelming proof that his humanity was the very 
 reverse of fallen sinful humanity. A conclusion which 
 rests upon general principles, is always more satisfactory 
 than one that is founded on particular texts. In the pre- 
 sent age, when the most loose, and vague, and unsatisfac- 
 tory views of Inspiration are commonly avowed, the autho- 
 rity of any particular text is very unceremoniously set 
 aside. But in the general view which has been taken of 
 the work which Christ came to do in the flesh, we have 
 seen, at every step in our progress, that to introduce the 
 tenet that his flesh was fallen and sinful, is totally to de- 
 stroy the nature of that work, and to render it incapable of 
 teaching any one of the lessons that we have been accus- 
 tomed to di'aw from it. Angels and men have learned the 
 character of God, from the manifestation of it in the per- 
 son and work of Christ. But if he was a fallen sinful man, 
 then the whole Christian world has hitherto been labour- 
 ing under the strangest misconception as to the natm-e of 
 that work, — have never had the most distant conception 
 of what Christianity is, but, instead of it, have been be- 
 lieving something not only totally different from, but es- 
 sentially opposed to it. For he who believes that the hu- 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 225 
 
 manity of Christ was fallen and sinful, and he who holds a 
 view of Christianity, every principle of which that tenet 
 overturns, are so opposed, that one of them must be fun- 
 damentally and fatally wi-ong. And as the Chnrch never 
 did believe, as I shall soon have occasion to show, that the 
 humanity of Christ was fallen and sinful, it follows that if 
 that tenet be right, then the Chm'ch has from the begin- 
 ning been training her members to the belief of something 
 which not only is not Christianity, but which stands in fun- 
 damental and fatal opposition to Christianity. 1 would 
 ask the reader who has accompanied me through the pre- 
 ceding pages, whether he has found the view that I have 
 given of the work which Christ came to do in the tiesii 
 something altogether new and strange, something totally un- 
 like aught that he ever heard before, and utterly subversive 
 of all his previous views of the gospel ? Particular mistakes 
 and incidental errors there may be ; but is the whole frame 
 work of that branch of theology which I have been treat- 
 ing in irreconcileable opposition to all that he has hitherto 
 been taught upon the subject, and to all that he has under- 
 stood to be the doctrine of the Chm'ch ? I apprehend lie 
 will say that the very reverse of all this is the truth, and 
 that in the preceding pages he has met with nothing but 
 the common current theology to which he has always been 
 accustomed, — has met with nothing either to startle him 
 by its novelty, or to overthrow the doctrines which he has 
 always been taught to consider as sound and orthodox. But 
 either I must have written, or he must have read, very care- 
 lessly, if he has not seen at every step how completely tlie 
 doctrines which I have advocated are subverted by the in- 
 troduction of the tenet, that the flesh of Christ was fallen 
 sinful flesh. He must have seen how eflfectually that tenet 
 sweeps away every principle upon which I have reasoned, 
 and every conclusion to which I have come. Christ came 
 that he might reveal to us the Father, — might manifest to 
 us, and to the whole rational creation, the infinite perfec- 
 tions of the incomprehensible Jehovah ; but if he Avas a 
 
 k2 
 
22b 8CiarruKE te.stimonii:s. 
 
 fallen sinfiil man, that manifestation has not yet been 
 made, the vindication of his perfections from the suspicion 
 cast upon them by the introduction of sin has not yet been 
 accomplished, and to our altars the inscription is still appro- 
 priate — " To the unlmown God." He came that he might 
 lay down his life for his sheep, and wash us from our sins 
 in his own blood ; but if he was a fallen sinfiil man, he 
 had no life that he had any power to lay down, nor if he 
 had, would such a " common thing" as the blood of a fallen 
 man have availed as an atonement for our sins. And when 
 the only source whence om- knowledge of God is drawn has 
 been dried up, and the only ground upon w^hich our hope 
 of being reconciled to him is swept away, I know not what 
 of Christianity remains that is worth defending, or that is 
 capable of defence. 
 
 A few of the many texts bearing upon the lucai-nation, 
 and w^hich have not ah-eady been particularly discussed, 
 may with propriety be noticed in this place. The expec- 
 tations that were entertained fi'om the beginning, concern- 
 ing the promised Deliverer, it would be long to trace, and 
 not here very necessary. Eve expected not a fallen man, 
 when, on the buth of her first-born son, hoping that the 
 promised Deliverer was sent, she called his name Cain, and 
 said, " I have gotten a man fi'om the Lord." Moses seems 
 to have had the same suffering conqueror in his eye when, 
 feeling that though " he was learned in all the wisdom of 
 Egypt, and mighty both in word and in deed," he was yet 
 all unfit for a w^ork which seemed too hard to be accom- 
 plished by fallen man, he said, " O my Lord, send, I pray 
 thee, by the liand of him Avhom thou wilt send." ' It may I 
 think be supposed, without any straining of the text, that by 
 " him whom thou wilt send," Moses referred to the Shiloh 
 whose coming Jacob had foretold, and to whom the ga- 
 tliermg of the people was to be. A very slight investiga- 
 tion would furnish us with many indications, that the an- 
 
 ' Kxodus iv. 12. 
 
SCKUTURE TESTIMONIES. 1:2 < 
 
 cient believers in the victoiy of the " woman's seed," had 
 no idea that he who was to deliver them from the conta- 
 gion of the fall was himself to be a fallen sinful man. 
 
 The first text to which I shall refer is Psalm xlv. 7, 
 " Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness ; there- 
 fore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad- 
 ness above thy fellows." That this should be read, " O 
 God, thy God hath anointed thee," I entertain no doubt ;^ 
 and thus we have the humanity of Christ, that which was 
 anointed distinctly called God. But the pm-pose for which 
 I principally quote the text is to introduce the opinion of 
 Augustine \\ith regard to the time when the anointing took 
 place. " Neither truly was Christ anointed with the Holy 
 Spirit then when it descended upon him as a dove at his 
 baptism ; for then he condescended to bear the figure of his 
 body, that is, his Church, in which they that are baptized 
 receive the Holy Spirit. But he must be understood to 
 have been anointed with that mystic and invisible unction 
 then when the Word of God was made flesh, that is, when 
 the human nature, without any preceding merit of good 
 work, was united to God the Word in the Virgin's womb, 
 so as to become one person with him. For this reason we 
 confess hmi to be born of the Holy Spirit, and the Virghi 
 Mary. For it is most absiu-d to suppose that when he was 
 thirty years old, — for at that age he was baptized by John, 
 — ^he received the Holy Spii'it ; but that he came to bap- 
 tism as altogether without sin, so not without the Holy 
 Spirit." 2 Augustine understood theology too well to admit 
 
 » See Schleusner'g Lexicon of the Old Testament Greek, under the word 
 
 2 Nee sane tunc unctus est Chiistus Spirita Sancto, quando super eum bap- 
 tlzatum velut columba descendit : tvuic enim corpus suum, id eat, Ecclesiam 
 Buam prjefigurare dignatus est, in qua prsecipue baptizati accipiunt Spiritum 
 Sanctum : sed ista mystica et invisiblli unctione time intelligendus est unctus, 
 quando Verbum Dei caro factum est, id est, quando humana natura sine tilhs 
 prsecedentibus bonorum openim mentis Deo Verbo est in utero Virgiiiis co- 
 pulata, ita ut cum illo una fieret persona. Ob hoc eum confitemur natuni de 
 Spiritu Sancto et Virgine JIaria. Absurdissimum est enim, ut credamus eum 
 cum jam triginta eoset aimorum, (ejus enim atatis a Joanne bajjtizatus est,) 
 
228 ftCUll'TLUE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 the fatal supposition that Christ was, at his baptism, 
 anointed as a Prophet, or as any thing else. The fathers 
 assign various reasons for the baptism of our Lord. Some 
 teach us that he was baptized that he might set us an ex- 
 ample, for if his sinless flesh was baptized, how much more 
 ought we to be so ; — some that he was baptized in order to 
 give authority to the baptism of John, — some that his pure 
 body might sanctify the waters of Jordan, — and communi- 
 cate to them the power of washing sin away. But not one 
 of them ever hints that he was baptized because, being 
 made fallen sinful flesh, he needed that regeneration of 
 which baptism is the outward sign, as well as we ; and 
 they were too much harassed by the inroads of the Gnos- 
 tics, for a moment to admit that at his baptism he received 
 his imction. 
 
 I next refer to the celebrated declaration, " Behold, a 
 virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his 
 name Immanuel."^ As the principle of this text has been 
 already sufficiently discussed, I do not quote it with the 
 intention of making any comment upon it ; but simply for 
 the purpose of repeating a remark ah-eady made, that if 
 our Lord took fallen sinful flesh, no imaginable reason can 
 be assigned for the extraordinary circumstances that at- 
 tended his birth. If his flesh diftered not from ours in any 
 thing, — if he, like us, was fallen and sinful, then why- was 
 his flesh generated in a manner so extremely different ? 
 And upon what ground can we suppose that God wrought 
 a miracle, Avhich does indeed surpass all miracles, for the 
 purpose of producing that which would, with unemng cer- 
 tainty, have been produced without it ? And upon what 
 l)rinciple can we account for God interposing, not merely 
 to produce that which would have been produced by the 
 ordinary course of nature, but to produce a fallen sinful 
 thing, which he denominates a " holy thing," and which, 
 
 jiccipisse Spiritum Sanctum : sed venisse ilium ad baptisma, sicut sine ullo 
 onininn ppociito, ita non sine Spiritu Sancto.— Z>e Trinitate, Lib. xv. cap. 46. 
 ' Isaiah vii. 14. Conipui-e Matth. i. '2d. 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 229 
 
 being generated by his immediate act, is called " the Son 
 of God?" 
 
 The next text to which I refer is — " The Lord hath 
 created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass 
 a man." ' A dangerous notion has sometimes been di'awn 
 from this verse, or at least this verse has been quoted in 
 support of it. The notion to which I refer is, that the flesh 
 of Chi-ist was a new thing created in the Virgin, but not 
 created of her. The necessity of believing that he received 
 from her all that every other man receives from a mother, I 
 have already pointed out, and need not here repeat. But it is 
 surely as foolish to say, that because the phrase, " to create 
 a new thing," is used^ where there is no actual creation, 
 therefore, we cannot infer from this text that Christ was a 
 new creatm-e. If we mean to be extremely precise in our 
 language, we would not perhaps say that Christ was a new 
 creation, because his humanity was produced by generation ; 
 but we can have no hesitation whatever in declaring him to 
 be a new creature. Yet the fathers had no scruples about the 
 word creation, as applied to Christ, being familiar with the 
 text, " The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for 
 his works," ^ a text which, being greatly relied upon by the 
 Allans, they were very much in the habit of discussing, in 
 order to show how an orthodox meaning could be drawn 
 from it. And, in truth, any scrupulosity upon the subject 
 is more than is either reqim-ed or authorized by either rea- 
 son or Scriptm-e ; for the Scriptm-es, speaking of the be- 
 liever, sometimes describe him as a " new creature," and 
 sometimes as regenerated ; and om* Lord himself is ex- 
 pressly called " the beginning of the creation of God." 
 
 In connection with this text, we may properly advert to 
 two others ; the first is — " Put ye on the Lord Jesus 
 
 1 Jer. xxxi. 22. Literally— The Lord createth a new thing in the earth, a 
 woman shall encompass a strong one. 2 lumbers xvi. 30. 
 
 * Kv^iog SKTKTS fee a^y^nu ohau ocvrov eig epycc ocvrov. Tliis is 
 the Septuagint translation of Proverbs viii. 22 ; and as very few of the fa- 
 thers knew Hebrev,', they were not aware of its being a very gross mistraus- 
 latiou. 
 
230 SCltlFrUKK TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Christ."' The following exhortation may, I think, be con- 
 sidered as perfectly equivalent to this, at least I see not the 
 diiference between them — " And that ye put on the new 
 man, which after God is created in righteousness and true 
 holiness."* On the authority of such texts as these, it 
 appears to me that the fathers were perfectly justified in 
 calling our Lord " the new man," even if it should be 
 urged that the " old man," whom we are required to " put 
 off," and the " new man," whom we are required to " put 
 on," 3 refer not at all to Adam and Christ, but are solely 
 descriptive of oiu- own character before and after regenera- 
 tion. For " if any man be in Christ he is a new creature." 
 Now, if by putting off the old man, and putting on the new 
 man, we become new creatures, then it is indisputable that 
 he who was foniied in the womb that " holy thing," by 
 conformity to which we become new creatures, was him- 
 self a new creature. As far as the covenants of God are 
 concerned, there are only two men in existence, Adam and 
 Christ, the first Adam and the last Adam, — the first man 
 and the second man. Every individual is in either the one 
 or the other of these men. If we be in the first Adam, we 
 derive from him, as a fallen sinful being, the inheritance of 
 guilt and death. We must, therefore, of necessity be se- 
 parated from him, and ingrafted in the last Adam, that in 
 him we may inherit righteousness and life eternal. But if 
 he, too, was fallen and sinful, then our ingi'afting into him 
 can never make us new creatures, nor can any imaginable 
 advantage be derived fi'om our being transferred fi'om one 
 fallen stock to another. We may, therefore, with perfect 
 safety and propriety, call Christ a new creature, in whom 
 we become new creatures. The only en-or against which 
 we have to guard, in the use of such language, is the sup- 
 position that he was not formed truly and really " of the 
 substance of his mother," an error of the most fatal nature. 
 But while we guard against this en-or, let us not forget that 
 
 ' Koiix. xill. 14. « Eplioa iv. 24. » CoL Ul. 9. 
 
SCKlp-rUKE TESTIMONIES., 231 
 
 " we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his 
 bones ;" to little advantage doubtless, if they be the flesh 
 and bones of a fallen sinful man like ourselves. 
 
 We may now pass on to the text, "The Word was 
 made flesh." ^ I have akeady shown that it was essen- 
 tially necessary for our Saviour to become man, as he could 
 not otherwise have discharged the duties of any of his 
 oflSces as Prophet, Priest, and King. Without being truly 
 God and truly man, he would have been totally unfit for 
 the duties of any one of these offices. But upon the ne- 
 cessity of his Incarnation I need not again enter. The 
 verse, however, suggests some other remarks which must 
 not be passed over. It expresses the perfect identity of 
 the Word and the flesh. It is not said that he assumed 
 the flesh, or dwelt in the flesh, but that he was made flesh ; 
 Non in homine, sed homo erat^ He was not in the man, but 
 was the man. The union between the divinity and human- 
 ity took place at the moment of his conception in the Vir- 
 gin's womb. It would utterly subvert all our views of 
 Chi'ist to suppose that his manhood was first formed, and 
 the divinity then united to it ; ^ for this would just be to 
 admit the possibility of a separation between the persons ; 
 and it would be to admit that Jesus was at one time not the 
 Christ : and in this case whether he was anointed at his bap- 
 tism as the Gnostics said, or was partially anointed then as 
 a Prophet, and at his resurrection as a Priest ; or whether 
 he was ever anointed at all, is a matter into which it is 
 of no consequence to us to inquire. Hence the Evangelist, 
 who knew well the errors that were afloat upon the sub- 
 ject, does not even say that he assumed manhood, but that 
 he was made fleshy his flesh from the moment of concep- 
 tion being as really and truly himself as his divinity was 
 himself. " For the one Chiist was both always the Son of 
 God by nature, and the Son of Man, who was assumed, by 
 grace, in time : I^or was he so assumed that being first 
 
 1 Johu L 14. 'See note H. Appendix. 
 
232 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 created, he might be afterwards assumed, but so that he 
 might be created in the act of assumption."' ^ The word 
 " assume" does by no means express all the reality and 
 extent of that union Avhich subsists between the two natures 
 in Christ, and which is expressed by the Evangelist when 
 he said, " The Word was made flesh." It has, indeed, got 
 a seat in our theologj', from which any attempt to dis- 
 lodge it would be useless : but I cannot help suspecting 
 that both in ancient and modern times, it has had its share 
 in misleading those who divide the one indivisible Christ. 
 For that which was assumed might possibly exist, nay, we 
 naturally suppose must exist, previous to its assumption. 
 And with regard to the human nature which the Word 
 assumed, this was no doubt the case. But when the idea 
 is applied to that flesh which was the very flesh of the 
 Word of God, it may lead to the supposition that that flesh 
 existed as a person before it became the flesh of the Word ; 
 in other words, that Jesus existed before he was the Christ. 
 Now, the ride observed by the sacred writers is, that all 
 the names, titles, attributes, which are applied to the one 
 person of Christ, are equally applicable to either of his 
 natures ; and that every thing that may be said of either 
 of the natures, may also be said of the whole indivisible 
 Christ. Thus, the Son of Man is in heaven, while talking 
 with Nicodemus on earth ; and God purchased the Church 
 with his own blood, and the Lord of glory was crucified. 
 To this rule I know not that any exception is to be found 
 in Scripture. 
 
 As to the manner in which he became man, after the 
 heresies by which the Prhnitive Church was infested, had 
 caused the assembling of repeated councils to condemn 
 
 > Ipse namque unusChristus et Dei Filius semper natura, et hominis filius 
 qui extempore assumptus est gratia : nee sic assumptus est lit prius creatus 
 post assumeratur, sed ut ipsa assumptione crearctur. — Augustine contra Ser- 
 mon-em Arrianonim, cap. 8. Tliis expression has been given with more point 
 by a more modern writer — Eaui simieU'lo creavit, et crcando suuipsit.— Zan- 
 efiius de Jiicarnalione, p. 57. 
 
SCRIPTURE lESTlMOXIES. 233 
 
 them, and had rendered necessary a more guarded mode 
 of expression than had been called for at an earlier period, 
 it was expressed by four Greek words, and the "Word was 
 
 said to have become man, a,7^n&ag, IsXsag, ec'hioci^fiu;, aer- 
 vyxviag, that is, truly, perfectly, indivisibly, unconfusedly. 
 The Docetae taught that he was not really man, but that 
 his humanity was a mere phantom. It was, therefore, 
 made a necessary part of the orthodox creed, to confess 
 that he was truly man, and not merely a phantom. The 
 ApoUinarians taught that he took only the body, but not 
 the reasonable soul of man. It was, therefore, made a 
 necessary part of the orthodox creed, to confess that he 
 became perfectly man, and not man merely as to his body. 
 Nestorius taught, that, in becoming man, there was still 
 such a difference between what was divine and what was 
 human in him, as to assign to him not only two natures, 
 but two persons. It was, therefore, made a necessary 
 part of the orthodox creed to confess that in him there 
 was no division, but that in his two natures he was only 
 one person. Eutyches taught that in becoming man, the 
 divine and human natures were so mingled together, as to 
 become but one nature distinct from either, — something 
 lower than the divine, and higher than the human. It was, 
 therefore, made a necessary part of the orthodox creed to 
 confess that in him the natm-es were never mingled nor 
 confounded together, and that in his one person there was 
 still two distinct natures. Thus, as the soul and the body, 
 though very different in their nature, make but one man, 
 without division or confusion, and are both necessary to 
 the complete existence of the man, so the two natures in 
 our Lord make but one Christ, who, as he was God over 
 all, even so was he man, truly ^ perfectly^ without division 
 of the persons, and without confusion of the natures. 
 
 Of the two former of these en-ors I am not aware that we 
 are at present in any particular danger, though the whole 
 Church has been loudly proclaimed to be deeply and exten- 
 sively affected with one or both of them. The third, that in 
 
234 8CRIPTUEE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Christ there were two persons as well as two natures, is at 
 present preached with a zeal that would do honour to a bet- 
 ter cause. They who promulgate it do, no doubt, deny, as 
 strongly as ever Nestorius did, that they are guilty of this 
 heresy ; while they are in reality pushing it to an extent to 
 which Nestorius had little suspicion that it could be ever car- 
 ried. To maintain that when the Word was made flesh, he 
 was made fallen sinful flesh, is to leave that heresiarch far 
 behind in the attempt to subvert the catholic faith. A 
 more convenient opportmiity, however, of showing this will 
 occur afterwards. At present I shall only observe, that 
 though it may very well be believed that God can ope- 
 rate upon a fallen sinful man by his divine influence, nay, 
 that he could dwell in such a man, without contracting 
 any impm'ity ; yet nothing strikes me as being more re- 
 pugnant to every sentiment of reverence and of piety, than 
 to say that God was actually made a fallen sinful man, — 
 that of God it may be said -that he was fallen and sinful. 
 And that this is maintained, or, at least, has very lately 
 been maintained,, aye, and maintained as the basis of all 
 sound theology, may be denied till earth ring again with 
 the negation ; but, as long as we have eyes to read what 
 i^ written, admits of neither doubt nor (lispute. That 
 they who have promulgated this fearful impiety, did so in 
 utter ignorance of the nature of what they were propagat- • 
 ing, and in reality meant no harm, may be readily grant- 
 ed ; and I should trust it may be reasonably hoped, that 
 they who deny that they ever taught it, will, at least, now 
 that they are better instructed, teach it no more. 
 
 The two natures united in Christ, at the moment when j 
 his humanity was first formed, were not separated at his 
 death. That they were so we are now distinctly taught. 
 The ruinous consequences of this I have already pointed 
 out, and shown distinctly how that separation eftectually 
 destroys the doctrine of atonement and of the resmTcc- 
 tion. " For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, 
 that he might destroy the works of the de^dl." It was on 
 
8CKIPTUKE TESTIM0XIE8. 235 
 
 the cross that he met the severest assaults of that enemy 
 of mankind ; and it was on the cross that he obtained the 
 most signal victory, — the last decisive triumph over him, 
 " destroying death, and him that had the power of death, 
 that is, the devil." But if the diviue natm-e was separated 
 from him then, then it was not Christ who died, who was 
 buried, an.d who rose again ; and, consequently, every 
 hope that we repose on him is vain. And as neither the 
 soul nor the body of Christ, while separated from each 
 other, were separated fi-om his divinity, so the resun-ec- 
 tion did not separate them fi'om it. United to divinity 
 when separated fi'om each other, they were not separated 
 from it when united to each other. Nor did his ascension 
 produce that separation. When he ascended up on high, 
 he no more ceased to be truly man, than he ceased to be 
 truly God when he descended. Nor have we any intima- 
 tion that, at any subsequent period, his human nature was 
 separated fi'om his divine nature. On the contraiy, we 
 have the most decisive evidence that no such separation 
 ever has taken, or ever will take place, — that the humanity 
 of Christ now is just as truly himian natm-e as ours is. A 
 doctrine so plain and so certain I need not stop to support 
 by any fonnal proof to any reader of the Bible ; nor would 
 it indeed have been necessary even to state it at all, were it 
 not that it has not only been denied, but held up to scorn, 
 by some of the more hopelessly ignorant propagators of 
 the doctrine, that om- Lord's humanity was fallen and 
 sinful. Of that doctrine, the denial that our Lord's hu- 
 manity now exists is the natural result. Of the principal 
 arguments that have been used in support of that doctrine 
 it is the necessary and unavoidable result. We need not 
 a more decisive proof that these arguments are founded 
 upon false piinciples, than the fact that they necessarily 
 involve the ruinous supposition that our great Advocate is 
 no longer man. If it be true that he could not be man 
 without being fallen and sinful, then it is equally true that 
 either he is fallen and sinful still, or he is man no more. 
 
236 SCRIPTITRE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 It is necessary to observe here, that in the present age 
 it would be proper to add a fifth to the four Greek words 
 mentioned above ; or rather, to give an additional appli- 
 cation to the second of them, Ti'heag. That word was 
 used, as I have said, to express the perfection of his man- 
 hood, in opposition to those who maintained that he took 
 only a human body, but not a reasonable soul. It may 
 now be also applied to express the perfection of his God- 
 head, in opposition to those who maintain that when he 
 was made man he emptied himself of his divinity, and 
 that he brought with him a Godhead person but no God- 
 head properties. Who was made man? The Word. 
 And what are the Godhead properties of the Word ? In- 
 finity, eternity, and immutability in wisdom, power, holi- 
 ness, justice, goodness, and truth. And what is the Word 
 when divested of these properties ? He is clearly God no 
 longer ; and it is equally clear that he never could be God 
 at all ; and it is still as clear that if he became man when 
 divested of these properties, then God was never incarnate, 
 for before his incarnation he ceased to be God. But still 
 he brought a Godhead person, and this was something 
 divine. Now, admitting for a moment the fearful supposi- 
 tion that God could divest himself of his Godhead pro- 
 perties, and yet retain his Godhead personality, and thus 
 become incarnate, it is clear that he was only partially 
 God. Divested of all his Godhead properties, he could 
 not be " perfect God." Now, besides that this notion, as 
 T have elsewhere shown, goes directly and immediately to 
 the establisliment of atheism, I would ask how could 
 Christ manifest to us the properties of the Godhead, the 
 great purpose of his coming, if before he came he divested 
 himself of all those properties for the very purpose of 
 manifesting which he was made man? But the fact is, 
 that divested of these properties, supposing the thing pos- 
 sible, he is divested at the same time of all personality. 
 In that case the Xoyo? zs^o(po(iiKog he might be ; the y^oyog 
 tult»diTOi he could not possibly be. It is, therefore, of the 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 237 
 
 Utmost importance to believe that he was "perfect God 
 and perfect man ;" and happUy the evidence of this truth 
 is as abundant as the reception of it is important. We 
 have not a Saviour in whom dwelt a limited, shackled, and 
 divided divinity, but a Savioiu" in whom dwelt all the ftd- 
 ness of the Godhead bodily. 
 
 As we believe that when the " Word was made flesh," 
 the two natures were so united in him that they never 
 have been, and never can be, separated, we hold it no less 
 essential to believe, that these two natures remained al- 
 ways perfectly distinct in the one person of Christ. The 
 divinity was not, and could not be, converted into flesh, 
 for it is not capable of change. As little could the flesh 
 be changed into the divinity, for that also would have 
 been to produce a change in the divinity, which is impos- 
 sible ; and it would have been to create a portion of the 
 divinity, which is equally impossible. The two natures, 
 therefore, remain inseparably united, and, at the same 
 time, unmingled and perfectly distinct. Nothing can be 
 more fatal than to suppose that the will of the Godhead 
 and the will of the manhood were both merged in the one 
 will of the Christ ; thus, by some unintelligible and un- 
 imaginable mingling of the two, producing something that, 
 instead of being both God and man, is neither the one 
 nor the other. Of this error, I do not apprehend that, in 
 the present age, we are in any great danger, though the 
 guilt of holding it has been loudly charged upon the 
 Church. I have met with it no where, however, except- 
 ing in the writings of some of those who make the charge, 
 where it may be seen occasionally broadly stated as a very 
 essential portion of Christian doctrine. A sense of de- 
 cency might, I think, secure the Church from any such 
 charge from such a quarter. 
 
 We believe, then, and that upon abundant Scripture 
 evidence, that when the "Word was made flesh," he be- 
 came man, oLkn^on;, nTiecos, othioct^izag, uavyx^rag. And we 
 believe no less firmly that the man was truly and perfectly 
 
H 
 
 23R fiCniPTlTRE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 God, existing " in two distinct natures, and one person for 
 ever." 
 
 Our Saviour is in Scripture called God's " holy child 
 Jesus." This refers specifically to his humanity ; for be- 
 fore his incarnation he was the Son of God, but not his 
 child. But when he became the child of God by incarna- 
 tion, he was a holy child, and consequently untainted by 
 that lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, which attaches 
 the character of unholiness to all the fallen race of Adam. 
 Moreover, he is called '' the Holy One of God." This too 
 is an appellation which could not be applied to him before 
 his incarnation, but which he receives in consequence of 
 his manhood ; for it would be absurd to say that God is 
 the Holy One of himself. Hence neither the Father nor 
 the Holy Ghost is ever called the " Holy One of God," 
 for neither of them was ever incarnate. But could that 
 humanity, in consequence of which our Lord receives this 
 title, be fallen sinful humanity ? I can conceive nothing 
 more uTational than the supposition that he acquired the 
 peculiar and distinguishing title of " the Holy One of 
 God," just by taldng into personal and perpetual union 
 with himself that which was fallen and sinful. 
 
 A text of much importance, in the present controversy, 
 is the following : — " For what the law could not do, in 
 that it Avas weak through the flesh, God sending his own 
 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned 
 sin in the flesh. "> Here Christ is declared to have been 
 sent '' in the likeness of sinful flesh." Now, had his flesh 
 been really sinful flesh, how could it possibly be also like 
 sinful flesh ? TSvo things completely exclude likeness^ either 
 total opposition or entire identity. Had the flesh of Christ 
 been in all respects diff'erent from smful flesh, then it could 
 not with truth have been said to be in the likeness of sin- 
 ful flesh. And it is equally plain, that had it been in all 
 respects the same as sinful flesh, that is, had it been sinful 
 
 ' Roin. viii. 3. 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 239 
 
 flesh, it could with as little truth have been said to be in 
 the likeness of sinful flesh. I cannot conceive a plainer 
 or a more decisive text, a clearer or more unequivocal tes- 
 timony to the fact that the flesh of Christ was not sinful 
 flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh. And I would put 
 it to my reader, whether he be capable of believing that 
 any man, reading this text, without a previous hypothesis 
 in his head, ever did draw, or ever could by any possi- 
 bility draw from it, the conclusion that the flesh of Christ 
 was sinful flesh, — a conclusion in such direct opposition to 
 its plain simple meaning ? 
 
 This text stands as a ban-ier against many heresies, and 
 has consequently been more violently distorted, in order 
 to T\Ting from it a meaning that it will not, without much 
 torture, express than perhaps any other. It was first laid 
 hold of by the Gnostics, who attempted to prove from it 
 that Christ had not real flesh, but only the likeness of 
 flesh. Thefr Catholic opponents, to a man, maintained 
 that the likeness was intended to qualify not the word 
 Jiesh^ which was real, but the word sinful^ because his flesh 
 was not sinftil. In this it must be admitted that they had 
 a much harder task than we who have to defend the lite- 
 ral meaning of the text from a much more palpable, and 
 much less plausible, perversion than that of the Gnostics. 
 How they performed their work I shall show by an ex- 
 ample, which will at the same time have the effect of con- 
 fii-ming the literal interpretation which I have given above, 
 — if, indeed, I may call that an interpretation at all, which 
 consists in merely understanding words to mean, what 
 they express as plainly, as any interpretation can do for 
 them. " For this purpose, therefore, the Son was sent in 
 the likeness of flesh of sin that he might redeem the flesh 
 of sin in a similar, that is, in a fleshly substance, which 
 might be like to sinful flesh, while itself was not sinful. 
 For this will show the power of God if he accomplish our 
 salvation in a similar substance. For it would be no great 
 matter were the Spirit of God to remedy flesh ; but if 
 
240 SCRirTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 flesh like to sinful flesh, while it is flesh, but not sinful 
 should do so : thus the likeness will belong to the words of 
 sin^^ and not infer a denial of the substance. For he would 
 not have added, of sin., if he had intended the likeness of 
 the substance to be understood so as to deny its reality. 
 In that case, he would only have said, the likeness of flesh, 
 and not of flesh of sin. When, therefore, he hath thus 
 expressed it, — ' in the likeness of flesh of sin^'' he hath 
 both established the substance, that is, the flesh, and hath 
 referred the likeness to the vice of the substance, that is, 
 to sin. "2 To so clear an exposition of the text, I know 
 not what the Gnostic can possibly object. And if the 
 Gnostic perversion of the text will not stand in opposition 
 to the simple Catholic view of it, then no other can hope 
 to be received ; for no other that I have met with is at all 
 to be compared with it in point of plausibility. 
 
 The text next fell into the hands of the Pelagians, who 
 felt it absolutely necessary to get its plain meaning set 
 aside. They were capable of going gi-eat lengths, but 
 still they had some scruples which the riper learning of 
 modern times has very completely dissipated, and did not 
 pretend that this text actually teaches their doctrine in 
 itself, and would no doubt have very gladly omitted all 
 notice of it. This, however, could not be done ; for when 
 
 1 The Greek of Rom. viiL 3, is iv 6f/,oiaf/,ocri acc^Kog Mf/^oc^iotg, 
 hteraXly, in the likeness 0/ flesh of sin. In our translation it is, with perfect 
 propriety, rendered sinful flesh. The two expressions are perfectly equivalent, 
 and I use the one or the other just as the convenience of the sentence in 
 which it occurs may require. 
 
 2 Ob hoc ig'ituT Missum Fihum in simihtudinem carnis peccati ut camem 
 siinili substantia redimeret, id est, camea, quae peccatrici cami simDis esset, 
 quum peccatrix ipsa non esset. Nam et haec erit Dei virtus, in substantia 
 pari perficere salutera. Non enim magnum, si Spiritus Dei camem reme- 
 diaret ; sed si caro consimilis peccatrici, dum caro est, sed non peccati. Ita 
 similitudo ad tituliun peccati pcrtinebit, non ad substantiaj mendacium. 
 Nam nee addidisset, peccati, si substantias similitudinem vellet intelligi, ut 
 negaret veritatem. Tantum enim carnis posuisset, non et peccati. Quum 
 vero tunc sic struxerit, carnis peccati, et substantiam confirmavit, id est, car- 
 nem ; et similitudinem ad vitium substantia; retulit, id est, ad peccAtum. 
 —Terti-Uian adversiis Marcionem, Lib. v. cap. 14. 
 
SCRIPTUKE TESTIMONIES. 241 
 
 it is declared that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, the conclusion seems inevitable, that, with the single 
 exception of his flesh, all human flesh is sinful; and thusV 
 the con'uption of the human heart is established and Pela- 
 gianism ruined. Urged by necessity, therefore, they la- 
 boured not only to neutralize the force of the text, but to 
 draw from it an authority in favour of their system. The 
 way in which they went to work was this : they endea- 
 voured to show that there is no difference whatever be- 
 tween our flesh and that of Christ, — that his flesh was 
 just such as ours ; and then, as it was miiversally admit- 
 ted by all, whether Catholics or heretics, ^ that the flesh of 
 Christ was not, and could not possibly be, sinful, conse- 
 quently, our flesh, which is the same as his, is not sinful ; 
 and the doctrine of original sin, and our consequent de- 
 pendence upon the gi'ace of God for all good, cannot be 
 true. This was, no doubt, also a sufficiently ingenious 
 perversion of the text, though far inferior in that respect 
 to the comment of the Gnostics. Their reasonings were 
 met by Augustine the first, and, as far as my experience 
 goes, the ablest opponent of that pernicious system. I 
 cannot think that I am over- stating the matter when I 
 say, that he has quoted this text a hundred times, and 
 uniformly understands it in its simple literal meaning. 
 The conclusion which he draws from it is, that our flesh 
 must be sinful, else it could not be said of the Word, that 
 when he was made flesh he was sent in the likeness of 
 sinful flesh, for this plain reason, that if there be no such 
 thing as sinful flesh, then there can be no such thing as 
 the likeness of sinful flesh, for that would be the likeness 
 of nothing. He farther argues, therefore, that if it be 
 true that there is no difference between our flesh and that 
 of Christ, then the inference must of necessity be, that the 
 flesh of Christ was sinful, since that ours is so is indisput- 
 able. As I have given TertuUian's refutation of the 
 
 1 One exception to this, occurring in the person of Parmenianus the Dona- 
 tist, will be noticed afterwards. 
 
 L 
 
242 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Gnostic comment upon this much abused passage, I shall 
 give one out of many of Augustine's refutations of the 
 Pelagian comment : — " Why should you attempt, by labo- 
 rious argumepts, to bring yom'self to the very precipice of 
 impiety, saying, that ' the flesh of Christ, because it was 
 bom of Mary, whose flesh, like that of all others, was 
 propagated fi'om Adam, dififers nothing from sinful flesh ; 
 and the apostle may have been understood to have spoken 
 without distinction when he said that he was sent in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh :' nay, rather insisting that ' there 
 is no sinful flesh, lest the flesh of Christ should be so ?' 
 What, then, means ' the likeness of sinful flesh,' if there be 
 no sinful flesh? You say that I do not understand the 
 apostle's meaning. You, however, have not so expoimded 
 it, that by your instruction we might know how one thing 
 can be like another thing which has no existence. If 
 none but a madman would say this, and there be no doubt 
 that the flesh of Christ is not sinful flesh, but like sinful 
 flesh, what remains for us to understand but that, Ms flesh 
 excepted^ all other human flesh is sinful? And hence it 
 appears, that that concupiscence by which Christ refused 
 to be conceived, is the means of propagating evil in the 
 human race ; because the body of Mary, though derived 
 from concupiscence, did not transmit it to that body which 
 she did not by it conceive. In short, whosoever denies 
 that the body of Christ is therefore said to be in the like- 
 ness of sinful flesh, because all other human flesh is sinful ; 
 and so compares the flesh of Christ to the flesh of other 
 men that are born, as to say that they are of equal purity, 
 discovers himself to be a detestable heretic."' This com- 
 
 ' Quid est quod laboras magnis argumentationibus peryenire ad impietatis 
 aljruptum, ut Christi caro, quia de Maria natm est, cujus Virginis caro, sicut 
 r/!terorum omnium et Adam fuerat propagata, nihil distet a came peccafi, et sine 
 Vila distinctiom Apostolus dixisse credatur, eum fuisse missayn in similitudine 
 '•amis peccati; immo potius instes, ut nulla sit caro peccati, nehoc sitet Christi f 
 t^uid est ergo, similitudo camis peccati, si nulla est caro peccati ? Sed hanc 
 upostolicam sententiam me non intellexisse dixisti : iiec earn tamen exposuisti, 
 ut te doctore nossenius, quod aliqua res possit esse similis ei rci quae non est. 
 
SCRIPTUKE TESTIMONIES. 243 
 
 ment of Augustine will probably be considered as vindicat- 
 ing the passage from the gloss of the Pelagians as satis- 
 factorily as Tertulliari's comment vindicated it against that 
 of the Gnostics. 
 
 The text has now been taken up by those who maintain 
 the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. They adopt substan- 
 tially the Pelagian interpretation of it, though they draw 
 from it a directly opposite conclusion. The Pelagian argu- 
 ment was this — There is no difference between om- flesh 
 and that of Christ ; but the flesh of Christ could not possi- 
 bly be sinful ; therefore our flesh is not sinful. The.mo- 
 dem argument is this — There is no difference between our 
 flesh and that of Christ ; but our flesh is undeniably sinful 
 flesh ; therefore the flesh of Christ was also sinful. They 
 agree in maintaining that there is no difference between our 
 flesh and that of Chiist, but the modern interpreter, with 
 a hardihood which it appears that Pelagianism could not 
 inspu'e, asserts that this identity of our flesh and that of 
 Chi'ist is the dii'ect literal declaration of the text. This is 
 a flight beyond the reach of Julian^ who only said that the 
 apostle might be understood to have spoken without any 
 distinction. And yet by all that we know of him, we 
 should be far from thinking him to have been overburdened 
 with scruples. Gennadius tells us, what indeed is acknow- 
 ledged by all, that he was extensively acquainted with 
 both Greek and Roman literature. But Marius Mercator 
 places a sad blot on the picture, when he states, — a state- 
 ment fully borne out by all that I have read of his writings, 
 — that he was a loquacious, ostentatious sciolist. Augustine^ 
 
 Quod si dementis est dicere, et sine dubio caro Cliristi non est caro peccati, 
 sed similis cami peccati ; quid restat ut intelligamus, nisi, ea excepta, omnem 
 reliquam humanam camem esse peccati ? Et hinc apparet illam concupiscen- 
 tiam, per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in genere humano propaginem 
 mali : quia MariaB corpus, quamvis inde venerit, tamen earn non trajecit in 
 corpus quod non inde concepit. Ceterum, corpus Christi inde dictum esse in 
 eimilitudine camis peccati, quia omnis alia hominum caro peccati est, quis- 
 quis negat ; et camem Christi ita cami comparat nascentium liominum cete- 
 rorum, ut asserat utramque esse puritatis aequalis, detestandus hereticus in- 
 yanitur. — Contra Julianum, Lib. v, cap. 15. 
 
244 SCUIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 who had been his father's friend, and was not disposed to 
 speak with unnecessary severity of him, calls him " a most 
 confident youth," and describes him as being " in discussion 
 most loquacious, in controversy most calumnious, in pro- 
 fession most deceitful." But with all his skill in Greek 
 literature, Julian had not sagacity to discover what would 
 have been of so great advantage to him, that o^o/w^tia lite- 
 rally means identity. The discovery has now been made, 
 tlie Pelagian interpretation of the text under discussion 
 confinned, and a much worse than Pelagian heresy founded 
 upon it. As Augustine is one of the fathers quoted in sup- 
 port of the assertion that all the fathers hold the doctrine 
 of the sinfulness of Christ's humanity, and support those 
 inteipretations of Scripture by which it is maintained, I 
 cannot do better than again avail myself of the language 
 of that venerable saint, and thus at once still farther esta- 
 blish the literal meaning of the text, and rescue his memory 
 from the imputation cast upon it. 
 
 In reply to the reproach of Julian., who charges with 
 Manichaeism those who make a distinction between our flesh 
 and that of Christ, he says : — " They are not Manichajans 
 who distinguish the flesh of Christ from the community of 
 ournatm-e ; but they whomaintain that Christ had no flesh. 
 Therefore, in joining to us the Manicha^ans, who are as 
 deeply deserving of condemnation as yourselves, you aid 
 their cause, saying, that they distinguish the flesh of Christ 
 from the community of our nature ; just as if they admit- 
 ted Christ to have flesh, which could in any way be distin- 
 guishedfi'om om'S. Leave then the ManichaBans, who dif- 
 fer much from both you and us as to the flesh of Christ, 
 and deal with us in your discussion of the matter, because 
 with us you confess the flesh of Christ, though after a dif- 
 ferent manner. For neither do we distinguish the flesh of 
 Christ from the community of the nature and substance of 
 our flesh, but from the community of its viciousness. For 
 our flesh is sinfid flesh, on account of which his is called, 
 not the likeness of flesh, because it is real flesh, but the 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 245 
 
 likeness of sinful flesh, because sinful flesh it is not. K, then, 
 our flesh were not sinful flesh, how, I ask, could the flesh 
 of Christ be the likeness of sinful flesh ? Ai*e you so utterly 
 wild as to say that a thing can be like^ when nothing exists 
 to which it is like ? Hear Hilary, a Catholic doctor, whom, 
 whatever you may think of him, you certainly cannot call 
 a Manichasan, who, when speaking of the flesh of Christ, 
 says — ' Therefore, when he was sent in the likeness of sin- 
 ful flesh, as he had flesh, so had he not sin ; but because 
 all flesh is from sin, derived namely fi'omthe sin of Adam, 
 he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, there being in 
 him, not sin, but the likeness of sinful flesh.' What wilt 
 thou say to this, thou double distilled extract of the super- 
 sublimated quintessence of all that is disgi'aceful in contro- 
 versy ? Was Hilary too a Manichsean ? But let me not be 
 angiy at your reproaches, which I receive in common, not 
 only with Hilary and other ministers of Christ, but even 
 with the very flesh of Christ, to which you have not feared 
 to offer such a reproach as to dare to make it equal to the 
 other flesh of men, which it is certain is sinful, unless it 
 be falsely said that Christ came in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh."» 
 
 » Manichaei non sunt, qui camem Christi a naturae nostrse communione dis- 
 tinguunt ; sed qui nullam camem Christum habuisse contendunt. Nobis ita- 
 que jungendo Manichseos, anathemandos vobiscum atque damnandos, etiam 
 eorum sublevas causam, dicens eos camem Christi a natm'se nostrae commu- 
 nione distinguere : quasi camem Christum habere fateantur, quam quoquo 
 modo a nostra came distinguant. Dimitte illos multum a nobis, multumque 
 et a vobis, in isti de came Christi distantes ; nobiscum age quod agis ; quia 
 nobiscum camem Christi, etsi dissimilitu, confiteris. Nee nos enim earn a na- 
 turae atque substantias camis nostrae, sed a vitii communione disttnguimus. 
 Caro est enim nostra peccati : propter quod ilia dicta est, non simUitudo car- 
 nis quia vera caro est ; sed sinulitudo camis peccati, quia peccati caranon est 
 Si ergo peccati caro, caro nostra non esset ; quomodo, rogo te, sinulitudo cami? 
 peccati caro Christi esset ? An usque adeo desipis, ut dicas aliquid simile esse, 
 sed cui simile sit non esse ? Hilarium audi catholicum antistitem quern certe, 
 quidquid de illo sentias, Manichaeum non potes dicere : qui cum de Christi 
 came loqueretur, " Ergo cum missus est, inquit, in simUitudine camis peccati. 
 non sicut camem habuit, ita habuit et peccatum ; sed quia ex peccato om- 
 nis caro est, a peccato scilicet Adam parente deducta, in similitudine peccati 
 camis est missus, exsistente in eo, non peccato, sed peccati camis similitudine." 
 
246 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 This may be considered as the dying testimony of Au- 
 gustine, as it occurs near the end of a work which he left 
 unfinished at his death. It will be seen with what irre- 
 pressible detestation he speaks of the doctrine of the sin- 
 fulness of the Saviour's flesh, and how he pours out upon 
 Julian for giving an interpretation of the text under discus- 
 sion, which naturally leads to that doctrine, a string of su- 
 perlatives which would have graced the iron style of the 
 stern TertulUan. And when the aged saint was thus de- 
 scending into the grave, with a protest against so impious 
 a tenet on his lips, could he possibly anticipate that men 
 would arise so devoted to that tenet, as to profane his me- 
 mory, by attaching to his venerable name the infamy of 
 maintaining a tenet which he characterizes in terms not 
 more severe than they are just, as a " detestable heresy," 
 and as an " outrageous blasphemy?" And have his merits 
 in the support of truth been so trifling, that his name may 
 be connected, in open defiance of truth, with a tenet that 
 ploughs up the very foundations of Christianity, while no 
 hand is lifted up in his defence ? It would well become 
 every Christian, who can handle a pen, to use that pen in 
 encii'cling the name of Augustine with the motto — Noli me 
 tangere. Shame on the man who can pass his cairn without 
 addmg a stone to it. With what justice he has been cited 
 as a patron of the doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
 will be farther seen by and by ; but, in the meantime, I 
 think we may rest perfectly satisfied, that, after all the 
 learned ofi'orts to distort the phrase, " the likeness of sinful 
 flesh," so as to wring from it any meaning save that which 
 it so plainly expresses, likeness really means neither more 
 nor less than likeness, and that, therefore, it is an undeni- 
 
 Quid ad ista dicturus es, improbissime, loquacissime, conturaeliosissime, ca- 
 lumniosissime? Numquid et HiJarius Manichasus est? Sed absit ut tuas acci- 
 pere dedigner injurias, non solum cum Hilario, ceteris que ministris Christi, 
 sed etiam cum ipsa carne Cliristi, cui tantam facere non expavescis injuriam, 
 ut audeas cam cosequare ccterte liominum carni, quam camem constat esse 
 peccati; si non mendaciter dictum est, Christum in similitudine carnis 
 venisse peccati.— Oi>em Iinper/edi contra Julianian, Lib. vi. cap. 33. 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 247 
 
 able scriptural truth, that Christ came not in sinful flesh, 
 but " in the likeness of sinful flesh." 
 
 I would now refer to the declaration, " And being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
 dient unto death, even the death of the cross."* The only 
 remark that I find it necessary to make upon this verse is, 
 that his humbling himself so as to become obedient unto 
 death, is stated to have been subsequent to his being found 
 in fashion as a man ; a statement du-ectly opposed to the 
 supposition that he unavoidably became subject to death 
 when he became man. Even after he became man, his 
 submitting to die was an act not of necessity, but of obe- 
 dience ; — an act flowing not from the weakness of the na- 
 ture assumed, which never bore down nor diminished the 
 power of the Word, but from the condescension of his 
 grace. If I may be permitted to add a practical commen- 
 tary to this verse, I know of none equal to that furnished 
 by the same writer : — " Ye know the gi'ace of oiu" Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he 
 became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich."* 
 
 I beg the reader next to refer to Hebrews vii., and to 
 read the first twelve verses, which would be too long here 
 to copy. He will thus see that one of the points of dis- 
 tinction between Chi'ist and Levi is, that Levi paid tithes 
 in Abraham, while Christ did not. Both, however, were 
 alike in the loins of the patriarch when Melchizedek met 
 him. It is plain, however, that the one was in his loins in 
 a sense in wliich the other was not. AVhat constituted the 
 difference is sufliciently obvious. Abraham was not only 
 the natural progenitor, but the federal representative of 
 Levi, and all the blessings conferred upon the latter were 
 conferred upon him, in consequence of the covenant made 
 with the former. Of Christ Abraham was also the natural 
 progenitor ; the federal representative he was not. If he 
 had been so, then had it been as trae of Christ as of Levi, 
 
 1 Philip, u. 8. 2 2 Cor. viu. 9. 
 
248 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 that lie paid tithes in Abraham, and was also blessed in 
 him ; and, consequently, as " without all contradiction, the 
 less is blessed of the better," Melchizedek was not the 
 type, but the superior of Christ ; and blessed not only him 
 who " had the promises," but him also who gave the pro- 
 mises, and upon whose atonement the fulfilment of them all 
 depends. Now, if Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham, 
 as Levi did, for the same reason he did not fall in Adam, 
 as all other men did. The total and utter absurdity, not 
 of this or that doctrine of Christianity, but of the whole 
 system, which necessarily and du-ectly flows from the sup- 
 position that Christ was federally represented by, and fell 
 in Adam, I need not stop to point out. It is suflScient to 
 remark, that he was and could be in Adam no otherwise 
 than he was in Abraham. Tucker, the father of the heresy 
 that Christ took a sinful natm-e, says, " When it is declared 
 that in Adam all have sinned, no exception is made of him." 
 He is, however, mistaken. The exception which is taken 
 to his having paid tithes in Abraham is an exception which 
 applies, with unabated force, to his having sinned in Adam. 
 It may be m-ged, and indeed has been urged, that when 
 Abraham paid tithes, Christ not only did not pay them, 
 but was actually the person who received them. Upon 
 this, however, I do not insist. It is quite enough to take 
 the declaration of the apostle that he did not pay them ; 
 and, consequently, that for the same reason he did not fall 
 in Adam. Indeed, that he fell in Adam, and became in- 
 volved in all the consequences of the fall, just as much as 
 any other of his race ; and that having first, as the seed of 
 the fallen man, become liable to all these consequences, he 
 then appeared to him, and promised that, as the " seed of 
 the woman," he would deliver him from the consequences, 
 is a supposition so utterly repugnant to both Scripture and 
 sense, so perfectly wild, that I shall not waste either my 
 own time, or that of my reader, in any examination of it. 
 Let those who insist that he fell in Adam show, if they can, 
 how he was in Adam when he fell in a different sense from 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 249 
 
 that in which he was in Abraham when he paid tithes, and 
 then the notion may be worth considering. 
 
 If, then, he neither fell nor sinned in Adam, did he sin 
 personally? This will not be said ; for though arguments 
 are addressed to the public in support of the tenet that he 
 was fallen and sinful, which go directly and unavoidably to 
 prove, that if he were not the chief of sinners, he cannot 
 save the chief of sinners ; yet that he ever personally sin- 
 ned will be, and has been vehemently, denied. The con- 
 clusion then appears to me to be inevitable, that if he nei- 
 ther fell nor sinned in Adam, nor ever fell or sinned person- 
 ally, then he was never fallen and smful. 
 
 I would next refer to the doom denounced against the 
 man who " hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and 
 hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
 sanctified, an unholy thmg," literally, " a common thing," 
 KQtuov.^ ISTow, how are they who mamtain that the huma- 
 nity of Christ was fallen sinful humanity, to escape this 
 doom ? For if to count his blood the blood of a fallen sin- 
 ful man, such as we ai'e, be not to count it a common thing, 
 then I know not how that sin can be committed. I am 
 well enough aware that it may be said, that the apostle is 
 here condemning merely a practical in'everence for the 
 blood of Christ. But, even supposing this to be true, it 
 is very plain, that where a practice is bad, the doctrine that 
 sanctions it is still worse. 
 
 Let us now read the following passage : — '' That which 
 was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we 
 have seen with om- eyes, which we have looked upon, and 
 our hands have handled, of the Word of life ; (for the Life 
 was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and 
 show unto you that Eternal Life which was with the Fa- 
 ther, and was manifested unto us ;) that which we have 
 seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
 fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the 
 Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 2 The purpose for 
 
 1 Hebrews x. 29. 21 john i. 1. 
 
 l2 
 
250 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 which I quote this passage does not require me to enter in- 
 to any lengthened commentary upon it. It will be ob- 
 served, that the apostle begins his Epistle in the same man- 
 ner as he begins his Gospel, stating at once, and without 
 preamble, the most important proposition which he means 
 to maintain. He commences the Gospel by declaring the 
 Divinity of the Word. Here he has in his eye those who ^ 
 denied the humanity of our Lord, maintaining that he was 
 a mere phantom, into which the ^on Christ descended at 
 his baptism, and dwelt for the purpose of making himself 
 visible. He, therefore, commences his Epistle in the same 
 bold abruptness of style which he had used in his Gospel, 
 -f declaring the reality of our Lord's humanity ; asserting that 
 it was no phantom made perceptible to one of our senses, 
 but a reality cognizable by them all, — something to be 
 heard, and felt, and handled, as well as seen. It was, we 
 may reasonably suppose, in consequence of this strong and 
 decisive testimony, that some of the Docetae, who believed 
 the humanity of Christ to be a mere phantom, were led to 
 say that that phantom was so compacted, by a particular 
 operation of God, as to be not only visible, but also pal- 
 pable, and even passable, as Irenaius tells us that some of 
 them taught. Now, if the tenet that the humanity of 
 Christ was not only real, but fallen sinful humanity, be not 
 only true, but be the foundation of all sound doctrine, as 
 we are assured that it is, then here the apostle might not 
 merely have been expected to teach it, but was imperiously 
 required to teach it, and that in terms as direct and unam- 
 biguous, as those in which he teaches the reality of that 
 humanity. How cordially he detested, and how zealously 
 he opposed, the heresy which denies that " Christ has come 
 in the flesh," no reader of this epistle needs to be told. 
 How, then, docs it happen that he omits distmctly to state, 
 not only that he had come in the flesh, but that he had 
 come in fallen sinful flesh ? Would our modern theologians 
 have acted thus? Would they have left the argument so 
 lame, and such a vital doctrine so doubtfully expressed? 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 251 
 
 No. They profess to have discovered that the heresy 
 which the apostle condemns has infected the Church at the 
 present day. They may be right, though I have found no 
 traces of it. It cannot, at least, be even pretended that the 
 heresy is either so openly avowed, or earned to so perni- 
 cious an extent, or productive of so fatal effects, as in the 
 time of John. Yet though the danger is certainly less ur- 
 gent, how cold, how feeble, how nerveless the language of 
 this " Son of Thunder" upon the subject, when compared 
 with the loud, the reiterated, the emphatic denunciations 
 to which we are now accustomed against all who doubt or 
 deny that Christ came in sinful flesh ! The character of 
 that flesh they do not leave as a matter of doubtftil import- 
 ance. They do not merely state that he was really man, 
 leaving it to be inferred that therefore he must have been 
 a fallen sinful man, an inference which all reason and all 
 Scripture disowns ; but they state that he was fallen and 
 sinful with a distinctness, and m-ge it with an earnestness, 
 which shows how very far, — if the tenet be true, — the holy 
 apostle was inferior to them in knowledge of the truth, and 
 in zeal for its interests. 
 
 If it be true that the humanity of our Lord was fallen 
 sinful humanity, there is no avoiding this severe and pain- 
 ftd reflection upon the apostle. He saw the heresy which 
 denies that Christ had come in the flesh, raging like "the 
 destruction that wasteth at noon-day," pei-verting the 
 principles, and overthrowing the faith of many. And yet, 
 while he most distinctly teaches the reality of Christ's 
 flesh, he neglected to teach, — he has no where distinctly 
 said, that that flesh was fallen and sinfiil. This is bad, 
 but what is still worse, he has most distinctly taught the 
 very reverse. He has not more clearly taught the reality 
 of Christ's flesh, than he has taught its perfect freedom 
 from all sinfulness. For what is it that was seen, and 
 heard, and handled ? Not the Divinity surely, but the 
 humanity of our Lord. Yet that which was seen, and 
 heard, and handled, was " the Word of Life," " the Life," 
 " Eternal Life." \\Tiile he strongly asserts the reality of 
 
252 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 liis flesh, he no less strongly guards against the equally 
 fatal extreme of supposing it to be fallen sinful flesh ; and, 
 therefore, studiously accumulates upon that humanity 
 which was seen, and heard, and felt, all the epithets which 
 more peculiarly belong to the Divine nature, but which, 
 from the indivisible unity of his person, the Apostle shows 
 may with perfect propriety be applied to either nature ; a 
 rule which, as I have already had occasion to remark, is 
 observed by all the sacred writers, to the utter condemna- 
 tion of the doctrine of his fallen manhood. And as he 
 commences, so does he close his epistle with the declara- 
 tion that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "is the tnie God 
 and Eternal Life." It is not Jesus apart, nor Christ apart, 
 but Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is " the true God 
 and Eternal Life." The heresy which teaches that the 
 humanity of our Lord was fallen and sinful, could not well 
 be more eiFectually met, than by a continued comment 
 upon the whole of this most delightful and instructive 
 epistle. This, however, would be altogether out of place 
 here ; I therefore proceed to another passage of Scripture, 
 and the only other which I shall produce on the present 
 occasion. 
 
 The passage to which I refer is the following : — " For- 
 asmuch, then, as the childi-en are partakers of flesh and 
 blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; 
 that through death he might destroy him that had the 
 l)ower of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them who, 
 through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to 
 bondage. For verily he taketh not hold of angels, but of the 
 seed of Abraham he taketh hold. Wherefore, in all things 
 it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he 
 might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things per- 
 taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 people."* In verse 14, the apostle states the fact of the 
 
 ' ITcbrews ii. 14. It will be observed, that I have adopted the mar- 
 ginal translation of verse 16, which I consider as being in this instance, as I 
 tliink it is in a great majority of instances, very superior to that placed in 
 the text. 
 
SCKIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 253 
 
 Incarnation, declaring that Clirist became a partaker of 
 flesh and blood. He then states the reason why he took 
 flesh and blood, — that he might destroy death and him 
 that had the power of death. He then shows why it was 
 necessary that he should take human nature, rather than 
 any higher created nature. He came not to help, but to 
 subdue fallen angels. He came to help fallen men ; and, 
 therefore, it behoved him to be made like to them. The 
 result of the whole is a striking and an afl'ecting con- 
 trast between the sovereignty of God, who chose to save 
 fallen man in preference to fallen angels, and the un- 
 speakable goodness of God, who, in order to save men, 
 assumed their natm-e. 
 
 All this appears to me perfectly plain, and is the way in 
 which I have always been accustomed to understand this 
 passage, from a period long before the present controversy 
 existed. I am perfectly aware, however, that there exists 
 a strong indisposition to receive this view of the passage, 
 even among those who are as little disposed to admit the 
 sinfuLaess of Christ's humanity as I am. Their idea is, 
 that if verse 16 be understood, as the common version 
 naturally suggests, that Christ had power to choose 
 whether he would assume the human or angelic nature, 
 then his pre-existence is proved ; for he could not have 
 chosen which he would assume, if he had not existed pre- 
 vious to his assumption of either. But they suppose that 
 if the marginal reading be admitted, and the meaning be 
 that Christ saved not angels but men, then the verse fur- 
 nishes no argument for his pre-existence. Hence Sociui- 
 ans are very anxious to maintain the accuracy of the mar- 
 ginal reading, while the orthodox are no less anxious to 
 \indicate the received text. Now, I would remark that, 
 in translating or commenting upon a text of Scripture, we 
 are not at liberty to depart fi'om the plain literal meaning 
 for the purpose of producing an argument against Socini- 
 anism. Sociaians do not, and cannot, pretend that the 
 verse in question furnishes any argument in their favour. 
 
254 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 They merely hope, by maintaming the marginal reading, 
 to escape a very direct argument against thcii' system. 
 Did the necessity of the case require, I should have no 
 hesitation in giving up the argument for the pre-existence 
 of our Lord that is drawn from this text ; because that 
 is a doctrine so clearly and so emphatically interwoven 
 into the Gospel, that if that doctrine be so doubtful, as to 
 render it necessary to mistranslate or misinterpret a single 
 text in support of it, we may as well give up Christianity 
 altogether. But the fact is, that the pre-existence of 
 Clirist is as certainly and as decidedly — though not quite 
 so obviously, I gi-ant — taught by the ancient, as by the 
 modern intei*pretation of the passage. If we should ever 
 lose our argument, therefore, against Socinianism, by 
 adopting the anciently received meaning of the text, that 
 loss, amidst such abundance, is little to be regi'etted. Still 
 less need we hesitate to admit that meaning, when, in 
 reality, we are required to make no such sacrifice, as the 
 passage, understood in either way, decidedly proves the 
 pre- existence of Christ. 
 
 With this view of the matter, I cannot admit that verse 
 16 contains a declaration of the Incarnation. The follow- 
 ing are my reasons. In the beginning of the passage 
 quoted, the fact of the Incarnation is declared, together 
 with the effect to be produced by it. The passage ends 
 by declaring the ground upon which the Incarnation was 
 necessary to the production of that effect. Now, to inter- 
 pose between these, merely a reiterated declaration of the 
 fact, is, at least as far as I can see, to introduce a bald 
 unmeaning tautology, which neither results from what 
 precedes it, nor leads to what follows, nor introduces one 
 new idea ; for that the nature in which Christ appeared 
 was not the angelic, but the human nature, I suppose the 
 most prejudiced Jew did not need to be taught. But let 
 verse 16 be a declaration of the fact, that it was the sove- 
 reign will of God; to extend to men that deliverance from 
 death Avhicli he extended not to faUeu angels, and that on 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 255 
 
 tills account it was necessary that he should, by Incarna- 
 tion, be like unto those whom he adopted as his brethren, 
 and then the verse both naturally flows from what precedes 
 it, and naturally calls for the conclusion which follows it. 
 Let the meaning now commonly insisted upon be admit- 
 ted, and the following is no caricature, but a fair para- 
 phrase of the train of reasonmg employed : — "For as we 
 are men, therefore, that he might destroy death, he also 
 became a man, for he became not an angel but a man, 
 therefore, it behoved him to become man." Adopt the 
 ancient meaning, and a similar paraphrase will run thus : 
 — " For as we are men, therefore, that he might destroy 
 death he also became a man ; for as he came to save not 
 angels, but men, therefore, it behoved him to become, not 
 an angel, but a man." I cannot hesitate as to which of 
 these two modes of reasoning I am to prefer. 
 
 Another reason why I prefer the meaning derived from 
 the marginal reading to that suggested by the received 
 reading is, that the former is the ancient interpretation, 
 adopted when there seemed to be no reason for adopting 
 any other view than that naturally suggested by the words 
 of the text ; whereas the latter was never heard of tiU the 
 Vulgate by the use of the ambiguous word assumo^ and the 
 teiTor of Socinianism, fmTiished a very natm-al introduction 
 to it. In support of this statement, it would be no diflicult 
 matter to accumulate testimonies from the Greek fathers ; 
 but I suppose it will be perfectly sufficient to produce the 
 testimony of Ernesti as quoted by Schleusner. The latter 
 TVTiter, citing the original of Heb. ii. 16, thus translates it, 
 and comments upon it : — ' For he assisted not angels, 
 but the seed of Abraham, where sT^i'Kccf/.'Zocvio'^oci is syno- 
 nymous with €o)5,^>3<7fi6; in verse 18. Compare Emesti's in- 
 terpretation of the New Testament, p. 201, who teaches, 
 that this is the only time and ancient intei^pretation given 
 of this place by the whole Greek Church ; but that the 
 common explanation of it concerning the incarnation, or 
 of the assumption, not of the angelic, but human nature, 
 
2i)6 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 arose among the Latins, who depended upon the word 
 assumat^ which the Vulgate uses.'' To the weight of the 
 testimony borne by two such distinguished wi-iters it is 
 adding nothing to say, that from personal examination, I 
 am perfectly satisfied as to the accuracy of that testimony ; 
 and, as far as authority is concerned, I greatly prefer, es- 
 pecially in such a case, the unbiassed interpretation of the 
 Greek Church, to the biassed, — naturally and blamelessly 
 biassed, I grant, — but still the biassed interpretation of the 
 Latin Church. 
 
 I prefer the former interpretation to the latter also, be- 
 cause the former is the simple literal translation of the text, 
 whereas we cannot get at the latter without an addition to 
 the text, for which I can see no warrant. No rule, I 
 apprehend, is better established than this, that we are not 
 at liberty to make any addition to a text, nor in the slight- 
 est degree to depart from its plain literal meaning, without 
 an obvious necessity. But where is the necessity here ? 
 We make an addition to the text, for the purpose of intro- 
 ducing an unmeaning repetition of the fact of the incarna- 
 tion, which the apostle had just declared already ; while 
 we utterly take away the argument by which he proves 
 the necessity of the^incaruation. He says, that because it 
 was not angels, but men whom he helped, therefore was it 
 necessary that he should be made like them. But let us 
 alter the text of verse 16, so as to make it signify that 
 Christ took not the angelic, but the human nature, and 
 what follows is just repetition accumulated upon repeti- 
 tion. He became not an angel, but a man, therefore it 
 behoved him to be made a man. I cannot think that any 
 
 1 Non enim angelis auxilium praestitit, sed posterls Abrahami, ubi iTri- 
 yidf^Qotviff^oit est idem quod QoYi^Yiaoit verse 18. Comp. Ernesti Interpr. 
 N. T. p. 201, qui docuit, banc esse unice veram et antiquam totius ecclesiJB 
 Graecae hujus loci interijrctationem, vulgarem vei'o de incarnatione, seu de 
 assumtione naturae non angclicaj, sed liumanae, explicationem ortam esse ab 
 Latinis, qui voce assumat, qua usus est Vuk/atus nitebantur.— ^'c/tfei«;«jr-» 
 Lexicon inN. T. sub voce i'7n'hoi,(/,^oe,vu. 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 257 
 
 addition to the text is authorised which brings ont such 
 reasoning as this. And, on the contrary, to say that be- 
 cause men and not angels were the beings whom he helped, 
 therefore it was necessary that he should become a man, 
 does not strike me as bemg so defective as to require to be 
 filled up at the expense of an addition to the text. 
 
 Besides, if an addition is to be made to the text at all, 
 is it quite certain that nature is the proper addition ? I 
 think not. At least, if we are not to be bound by the let- 
 ter of the text, I am quite as much at liberty to speculate 
 upon what it ought to be as another ; and, therefore, I would 
 propose that the interpolated word should be, not nature^ 
 but sm5, and that the verse should be read thus, " For 
 verily he took not on him the sins of angels ; but he took 
 on him the sins of the seed of Abraham." And were it 
 worth while to speculate upon the comparative merits of 
 two equally unnecessary additions to the text, I cannot 
 think that it would be at all difficult to show the great 
 superiority of the latter word to the former. ^ 
 
 These reasons have always appeared to me very deci- 
 sively to establish the superiority of the ancient over the 
 modem interpretation of the passage : and in this view of 
 it I have felt, and still feel, myself perfectly entitled, nay, 
 imperiously bound, to consider it as expressive "of the glo- 
 rious and consummating exemplification of a principle, the 
 exemplification of which is often recorded in Scripture. 
 The principle to which I refer is the preference of the 
 younger to the elder. Of the two fii'st-born of men, Cain 
 and Abel, the younger was chosen, and the elder rejected. 
 Of the three sons of Noah, the second great progenitor of 
 mankind, Shem, the youngest, was chosen as the heir of 
 
 1 They who are accustomed to parallelism will probably find, that the pas- 
 sage quoted, down to the word " brethren" in verse 17, forms a very perfect 
 Epanodos, which, if I have arranged it correctly, is completely destroyed by 
 the modem interpretation of verse 16, against which I am contending. 
 My arrangement of the passage I do not produce, as I am very far from rely- 
 ing upon its con'ectness. 
 
258 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 promise. Of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, 
 though the patriarch repeatedly prayed, " Oh that Ishmael 
 might Uve before thee," it was said, " In Isaac shall thy 
 seed be called." Of the two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, 
 before they were born, it was said, " The elder shall serve 
 the younger." Of the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim the 
 younger was preferred to Manasseh the elder. Of the sons 
 of Jesse, David the youngest, and whom his father did not 
 even think it worth while to present to the prophet, was 
 chosen to be king over Israel. And, to name no more, of 
 all the sons of David, Solomon was chosen to build a 
 temple to the Lord. 
 
 Now, a fact of this nature so fi'equently occm-ring, and 
 so sedulously recorded, must be considered as pointedly in- 
 tended to du'ect our attention to the principle involved in 
 it ; and the Apostle Paul, in expounding one of these in- 
 stances, has taught us how we are to understand all the 
 rest. They are intended to manifest the sovereignty of 
 the Lord, — to show that he seeth not as man seeth, nor 
 chooseth as man would choose, — to show that all power 
 and all excellency are from God alone. And, therefore, 
 " God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con- 
 found the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of 
 the world to confound the things that are mighty ; and 
 base things of the world, and things which are despised 
 hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring 
 to nought the things that are." And why? "That no 
 flesh should glory in his presence," — that all should own 
 that whatever grace, or goodness, or excellency, is in them, 
 it is not from themselves but fi'om God ; and that if they 
 differ from others, it is God alone that maketh them to 
 differ. This principle, then, which is involved in the pre- 
 ference of the younger to the elder, and to which our at- 
 tention is directed not once nor twice, but many times, is 
 seen in all the dispensations of God, that his own sove- 
 reignty may be manifested in them all. Thus, while every 
 thing in the works of men has a natural tendency to dege- 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 259 
 
 nerate, God has from the beginning shown that his works 
 have a very different character ; and are continually going 
 on from good to better in endless progi'ession ; and that 
 one dispensation only prepares the way for, and gives 
 place to, one that is more perfect. Thus, the patriarchal 
 dispensation prepared the way for the Mosaic ; the Mosaic 
 for the Christian ; the present state of the Christian for its 
 millennial state ; and that for something still more glo- 
 rious. And thus when the Gospel was fii'st established, it 
 was not by the wisdom, the wealth, or the power of man, 
 but by feeble means in opposition to aU these, lest its suc- 
 cess should have been attributed to the efficacy of the 
 means, rather than to the power of God. The treasure 
 was committed to earthen vessels, that the excellence of 
 its power might be seen to be of God. 
 
 All these are striking manifestations of the sovereignty 
 of God. They are, however, partial, and limited, and ob- 
 scm-e exhibitions of it, when compared with the universal 
 and glorious manifestation of it referred to in the passage 
 under discussion, where the choice lay not between one indi- 
 vidual and another, not between one nation and another, but 
 between two lost tvorlds. There stood before God two 
 faUen families, — fallen angels and fallen man. Alike they 
 were doomed to woe for thefr sins, and unless an Almighty 
 arm should lay hold on them, alike would they both have 
 sunk in remediless ruin. It belonged to God alone to de- 
 termine whether he would save one or both of these fami- 
 lies, or leave them both to perish. And when he had an- 
 nounced his intention to save one of these families, that 
 the work of their redemption might afford a new manifes- 
 tation of the divine perfections, and give a more clear and 
 more glorious revelation of these perfections than his crea- 
 tures could even otherwise have seen, it still remained with 
 him to determine which of the two fallen families should 
 be chosen as the objects in whose salvation this manifesta- 
 tion should be made. And well does it become us to re- 
 joice that here also the principle to which our attention is 
 
2C0 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 SO carefully directed throughout the whole course of Scrip- 
 ture, and so carefully directed that we might not fail to 
 see, in this case, its most glorious exemplification, was 
 acted upon. The younger was prefen-ed to the elder; 
 fallen men were chosen to salvation ; fallen angels were 
 left to perish; though carnal judgment would probably 
 have made the choice to fall on the elder, and originally 
 nobler family ; and would have left the meaner creature of 
 clay to perish. This is the glorious and happy truth, so 
 clearly and so pointedly expressed by the apostle when he 
 saith, " He taketh not hold of angels ; but of the seed of 
 Abraham he taketh hold." He plainly expresses the un- 
 speakable majesty of the Divine Sovereignty in choosing 
 fallen men as the objects of that work of redemption, 
 which, beyond all things else, reveals his own glorious 
 character, rather than fallen angels, who, to the eye of 
 sense, might perhaps seem to have a better claim. And 
 with this view of the Divine Sovereignty, he combines the 
 equally- astonishing view of the unspeakable condescension 
 of the Divine love. Of one of these fallen families, who 
 are alike in his hands, and not one word in favour of either 
 of which might any created being venture to speak, he 
 saith, " Let them be reserved in chains of darkness to the 
 judgment of the gi-eat day ;" while of the other he saith, 
 " Deliver from going down into the pit, for I have found 
 out a ransom." Here is his sovereignty. And what is 
 the ransom for the race to be redeemed ? " Without the 
 shedding of blood is no remission." The eternal Son, 
 therefore, becomes man, becomes partaker of flesh and 
 blood, similar in all respects, sinfulness excepted, to the 
 creatures of clay whom he came to redeem, and voluntarily 
 submits to die in their stead, that they may live. Here is 
 the depth of his love. And if it was a striking proof of 
 the free and sovereign goodness of God, that he chose 
 Israel when they were but " few men in number," — " the 
 fewest of all people," how much more illustrious a display 
 of the same grace and goodness did he give, when he chose. 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 261 
 
 men in preference to angels as the objects of redemption, 
 when these creatures of clay were few indeed, — the whole 
 race consisting of only two individuals ! Who would have 
 said, or who could have ventured to think, that these two 
 would be chosen in preference to a world of fallen angels ? 
 Any created judgment would have said, What are tiiiese two 
 feeble individuals, that they should for a moment be put 
 into the scale against a multitude of angels ? If one of the 
 fallen races may be saved, surely there cannot be a mo- 
 ment's hesitation as to which it should be. Of what con- 
 sequence can be the loss of two earthly creatures who may 
 be so destroyed that none shall ever spring from them, 
 compared with the loss of so many superior creatures? 
 But God determined in a diflferent manner. He took not 
 hold of fallen angels, but of fallen men he took hold. And 
 why? "Even so. Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
 
 And while the apostle is thus contrasting all that is 
 venerable in the sovereignty of God, with all that is attrac- 
 tive in his love, he leads us to see why, in that r^cvelation 
 of the Divine perfections, which the redemption of fallen 
 creatm-es alone could afford, the existence of more than 
 one fallen race was necessary. Had there been but one 
 fallen race, the lessons taught by the redemption of that 
 race would have been taught imperfectly. It might have 
 been supposed that there was something in the character 
 of God, or in the situation of the fallen creature, or in the 
 nature of sin, which rendered the offer of redemption, on 
 the part of God, a matter not of choice but of necessity ; 
 and thus the sovereignty of God in the pardon of sin could 
 not have been seen, nor could the danger and the hateful- 
 ness of sin have been displayed. 
 
 From this passage, too, we are led to see one reason 
 why fallen men were chosen to salvation rather than fallen 
 angels. For though we cannot in this world know the 
 whole either of the grounds or of the results of the work of 
 redemption, yet it is our duty and our privilege to trace 
 
2G2 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 them as far as we can. And I trust that it is not rashly 
 intruding into things not seen, nor rudely violating the 
 sanctity of that which God hath kept secret, nor speculat- 
 ing too curiously upon the designs of him who " giveth no 
 account of his matters," to say, that had angels been 
 selected as the objects of redemption, the lessons taught by 
 redemption would have been the same, but they would not 
 have been so impressively nor so extensively taught. Not 
 so impressively ; because, had the goodness of God been 
 exhibited in the redemption of fallen angels, it might still 
 have been doubted whether its extent were infinite, — 
 whether it could have gone down to the lowest order of 
 rational creatures, and have embraced even us worms of 
 the dust in its ample range. Not so extensively ; for, had 
 fallen angels been chosen as the objects of redemption, then 
 that work would have been transacted in a sphere alto- 
 gether beyond our view, and beyond the reach of our know- 
 ledge ; so that at least one rational family of God, man, 
 would have been left without any of that knowledge of 
 him, which that work alone is capable of conveying. 
 Whereas, when man was chosen as the object of redemp- 
 tion, the lessons taught by that work were taught to all 
 the rational creatures of God. And the fact that now the 
 character of God is known, as perfectly as created beings 
 can know it, both to fallen and to unfallen angels, needs 
 no proof. That it is through the work of redemption, — a 
 work traced with intense interest by both, that this perfect 
 knowledge is communicated, is suggested by almost every 
 page of Scripture. That it stamps the fate of one class 
 with the ineffaceable seal of despair ; and that it gives to 
 the other class an immoveable ground of assurance, that 
 they shall never sin and never suffer, might, I think, be 
 clearly established, did the present subject authorise any 
 speculations on the matter. The text under discussion very 
 plainly states the necessity of the Saviour's taking the 
 nature of those whom he came to save. He helped not 
 angels but men, and, therefore, the assumption of man- 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 263 
 
 hood was necessary. For the same reason, had he helped 
 angels, we must conclude that it wonld have been neces- 
 sary that he should have become an angel. Not a hint, 
 however, is given that in this case he must have become a 
 fallen angel, that is, a devil ; and neither is the remotest 
 hint given that when he helped fallen men, he must of 
 necessity become a fallen man. When he became man he 
 became cognizable by man. His words were audible to 
 human ears ; his deeds were visible to human eyes. Possess- 
 ing all the reality of our natm-e, — made flesh, and dwelling 
 among us, we could behold his glory, " the glory as of the 
 only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ;" — he 
 conld manifest to us aU the glories of the Godhead, while, 
 being man, his " terror did not make us afi-aid." But if 
 we go beyond this and say, that in order to help sinful 
 men, he must become a sinful man ; we must go still far- 
 ther and say, that to help the chief of sinners, he himself 
 must become the chief of sinners. The necessity for his 
 becoming man is obvious ; for we could have learned no- 
 thmg from, and received no atonement by, and have re- 
 posed no hope upon, one whom we could neither hear, nor 
 see, nor know. That he should be fallen and sinful, to 
 enable him to bring within the range of our observation 
 and knowledge the revelation which he came to make, 
 cannot even be pretended ; unless it be maintained that 
 an unfallen man could not make himself as audible and 
 visible to us as a fallen man. And still less, I should 
 think, can it be supposed that to be fallen and sinful were 
 necessary to endue him with, or, indeed, were capable of 
 existmg in communion with, — though that is strongly 
 maintained, — that perfect pmity which was necessary to 
 him both as Priest and a Sacrifice. 
 
 Hence, too, we see also what it is that constitutes at 
 once the danger and the dignity of man. God has permitted 
 a rebellion to be raised against his authority, that in the 
 progress of putting it down, he might give a manifestation 
 of his perfections, which otherwise could not have been 
 
204 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 given. And our world is the field on which the powers 
 of light and of darkness draw out their forces in hostile 
 array : and in that awful conflict which so deeply en- 
 gages and interests the attention of the whole universe, 
 the post of danger and of glory, — the van of the battle is 
 assigned to man. Everj-where is the contest carried on. 
 The human heart is itself the principal scene of strife ; 
 and the soul of man is the victor's prize ; and man himself 
 is the chief gainer or sufferer by the result. Angels "go 
 forth as ministering spirits to minister to them that shall 
 be heirs of salvation ; " and doubtless delight to promote, 
 as far as may be in their power, the work of our salva- 
 tion. A thousand worlds require instruction as to the 
 character of God ; and it is through the medium of man 
 that the instruction is conveyed. It is to the abode of 
 men that angels go forth, both that they may learn their 
 Maker's character, and perform their Maker's will. And 
 cheering and animating as it is to know, that holy angels 
 do go forth to our aid, and doubtless do render us essential 
 support, though at present we can neither know the ser- 
 vices that they do us, nor the means by which they do 
 them ; yet we cannot forget that they mingle, not as 
 principals, but only as auxiliaries in the strife ; that ours 
 is the danger in the war, and ours is the gain of the vic- 
 tory. 
 
 And who is he who mustereth the armies of the Lord of 
 Hosts ? Who is the Captain of Salvation, by whose 
 strength they are made strong, — in whose might they are 
 enabled to conquer ? Who makes them to triumph over 
 principalities and powers, over the rulers of the darkness 
 of this world, over spiritual wickednesses in high places ? 
 Who is he who so fully accomplished, under circumstan- 
 ces of incalculably greater difficulty, that which the " first 
 man" had failed to accomplish ? Was he one who, at his 
 coming into this world, was generated by the immediate 
 act of God, not only liable to, but actually burdened with, 
 all the wciglit of that displeasure which God ever beareth 
 
SCRIPTTJRE TESTIMONIES. 265 
 
 against all that is sinful ; and by God brought into per- 
 sonal union with that abominable thing which God hates? 
 ISTo. God calleth him, " Mine elect, in whom my soul de- 
 lighteth ;" "My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
 Can we suppose that he, in whose eyes the heavens are 
 not clean, and before whom the angels veil their faces 
 with then- wings, while in lowly adoration they ascribe 
 holiness to their Llaker, would address, or could address, 
 such language as this to him who, like ourselves, was fall- 
 en and sinful ; and who differed not, by however little, 
 from us, in alienation and guiltiness? Could it be ad- 
 di'essed to one who himself needed to be reconciled to 
 God before he could reconcile others ? No. When man 
 was made, Satan had come into the world, boasting that 
 he had led principalities and powers into sin ; and shall 
 this creature of clay stand ? And the easiness of his con- 
 quest, and the completeness of his dominion, left for 
 a time the wisdom and the power of God in doubt, and 
 gave apparently abundant ground for the reflection, that 
 man was a being who had been most unadvisedly made ; 
 and that such a being had been most un^^'isely placed 
 within the reach of his assault, who had prevailed even 
 upon angels to rebel. He had found one man who was 
 made after the image of God, and in whom he had no- 
 thing, and he soon implanted sinfulness in him, and made 
 him an easy prey. He is now compelled to meet, on the 
 field of his own conquered and polluted world, the Second 
 Man, coming in aU the untainted sinlessness of the First 
 Man, but surrounded with difficulties, and exposed to 
 trials of which the Fii'st Man, had he retained his inno- 
 cence, could have had no experience ; and yet so mightily 
 upheld by the Godhead dwelling in him in all its fulness, 
 that Satan and all his powers could find nothing in him, 
 and could implant nothing in him, with which they might 
 claim alliance, else most assuredly had he also become 
 their prey. And when Satan had tried him, and had found 
 nothing in him, then did he stir up his agents to plot his 
 
 M 
 
26(j SCniII'URE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 destruction ; not knowing tliat the death of Christ was 
 the appointed means of his own destruction ; that when 
 Christ gave a life wliich he did not owe, and which no 
 power could take from him, the life of a world dead in sin 
 was restored ; — that when he entered voluntarily into the 
 dominion of death, he entered there as a conqueror, and 
 that dominion was for ever broken. 
 
 And if the events of any war are calculated to arouse 
 our attention, and deeply to interest oui* feelings, surely 
 much more is that war calculated to do so, where more 
 than blood may be spilt, and more than empire may be 
 lost or won. When our own countrymen are abroad in 
 the field, — when the interests of our ovm country are at 
 stake, with what anxious expectation are the news of 
 every day waited for : and when they inform us that the 
 hostile armies are approaching each other, with what pal- 
 pitating eagerness are they read ! And when the day 
 does come that brings their power to actual trial and de- 
 cision, with what feelings do we read and re-read the 
 minutest details, and dwell upon every incident, and find 
 every thing, however trifling, possess a deep importance 
 from its connection with such a scene! They are our 
 countrymen, our friends, our brothers, whom we view ar- 
 ranged on the " cloudy edge of battle ere it join," and who, 
 under our eye, are passing into the fatal contest. We 
 hear from afar " the thunder of the captains and the shout- 
 ing." We place ourselves side by side with the warrior, 
 as he advances to the shock where, point to point, and 
 man to man, the embattled squadrons close in deadly 
 strife ; and while life and death hang in dreadful suspense, 
 our feelings are just the warrior's own, and our veiy nos- 
 trils become expanded with the intensity of a sensation 
 that hardly permits us to breathe, and every pulsation of 
 our heart bounds in perfect unison with the boundings of 
 his. It is useless at such a moment to enter into a dis- 
 cussion of the goodness or badness of the cause contested, 
 or to philosophize on the manifold crimes and atrocities 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 267 
 
 of war. When we have imbibed the very spirit of the 
 wanior, when we are glorying, exulting in the view, 
 in the very feeling of an energy which no toils can weary, 
 of an ardom* which no difficulties can abate, of a courage 
 which the multiplication of dangers only arouses into a 
 deeper intensity of daring ; at such a moment the coldness 
 of our moral calculations is melted away; the voice of 
 reason and of philosophy is drowned ; the " raptures of the 
 stiife" are all our own ; and to no voice can we listen, 
 till " the earthquake voice of victory" bm'sts upon our ear. 
 I ask not if this be a Clmstian or a righteous feeling. I 
 am merely stating a fact of which every man must be con- 
 scious, that on such an occasion such are our feelings. 
 Kor is the art of the poet or of the orator requisite to 
 awaken them. The interest lies in the facts themselves, 
 and the diy details of a despatch, or the prosaic insipidity 
 of a gazette, has doubtless often been read with an in- 
 tensity of interest which the most animated poetry never 
 excited. 
 
 But while there are few who do not in some degree ex- 
 perience these feelings, there are many who are totally 
 dead and insensible to the feelings that should naturally 
 be awakened by a much more important and eventful war, 
 — that moral and spiritual war which is carried on around 
 us and "within us, where more than mortal powers are op- 
 posed, and more than mortal interests are at stake. But 
 whatever we may be, the angels who have become ac- 
 quainted with the character of God, through the work of 
 man's redemption, are not insensible to the progress of 
 that work. They surroimd the throne of the Most High, 
 with golden harps in their hands ; and the events which 
 awaken these harps to heavenly harmony, and pour from 
 their strings that melody, to which God condescends to 
 listen, and which mortal ear may never hear, are just the 
 triumphs of " the redeemed of the Lord" over the influ- 
 ence of that " other lord" who has had dominion over 
 them ; and whose chains they have been enabled to burst 
 
208 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 through the power of him, who, amidst all the weakness of 
 human flesh, and under all the weight of the guilt of a lost 
 world, and all the deadliest efforts of Satan's power, never 
 fell, and never sinned, and never felt one unlioly desii-e or 
 emotion. "And the spirits of the just made perfect," 
 clothed in the spotless robe of a Redeemer's righteousness, 
 feel it their glorious privilege to tell how they have mani- 
 fested the glories of the Lord, by the toils which they have 
 been enabled to sustain in fighting the good fight, — by the 
 hardness which, as good soldiers of Christ Jesus, they have 
 been strengthened to endm-e, — and by the resistless energy 
 which they derived from the consciousness that when 
 " Christ was formed in them the hope of glory," their 
 hearts were enriched, not only with an uncorrupted, but 
 with an incorruptible seed, — a principle which Satan could 
 not subvert, nor death itself destroy. And can we hope 
 to participate in their raptures, and to unite with them in 
 singing the song of triumph and of praise to him who was 
 slain, and who redeemed us out of every kindred, and tongue, 
 and tribe, and nation, if we can contemplate the progi*ess 
 of the mighty warfare that is going on betAveen the powers 
 of light and of darkness, with the most perfect apathy, as 
 if we had no personal concern in the matter : and while 
 we have an ear open to the most trivial news of the day, 
 have neither an ear to hear, nor a heart to be interested 
 in the events of this mighty war ; but listen to any men- 
 tion of it, as if it were a matter of less importance than the 
 savage encounters of ferocious hordes of barbarians on the 
 banks of tlie Danube, or the shores of the Euxine ? 
 
 On this subject I have only another remark to make : 
 It is this ; that for man no middle fate is prepared, but 
 happiness or misery in the extreme must be his. The 
 selected instruments of caiTying on that war which God 
 condescends to wage with those that have rebelled against 
 him ; the weak vessels of clay chosen by him to confound 
 the mighty, through the power of him who was incarnate, 
 for the pui-pose of securing even to us wonns of the dust 
 
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 269 
 
 the victory, and of humbling the pride of apostate angels, 
 by making even us then- conquerors ; — if, wearied with the 
 toils of the warfare, or insensible to the glory of the vic- 
 tory, we desert to the enemy, and continue his willing and 
 unresisting slaves, then do we sink into condemnation un- 
 der the weight of a criminality which even fallen angels 
 could not contract ; for they at least have never treated 
 the offered mercy of God with contempt. And well may 
 they wonder to see in the human heart a blindness, a per- 
 versity, a madness, which can despise even the offered 
 friendship of God, and all the glories of heaven. And, on 
 the other hand, they who, through faith in Christ, enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven, enter there the admiration of 
 angels, purchased with a price which for the fallen por- 
 tion of then* own order was never paid, and rescued out of 
 dangers to which they themselves were never exposed ; 
 and therefore do they glorify God in his saints, and admire 
 him in all them that believe. 
 
 Human natm'e is at this moment the highest of created 
 natures, and more intimately united to the Godhead than 
 any other ; and where our head is, there shall all his mem- 
 bers in due time be. Let me entreat the reader then to 
 recollect, that in a few short years he shall occupy that 
 place, to which angels may look up with admu'ation ; or 
 else that on which devils may look down with the convic- 
 tion, that they have been less guilty. Christ came to save, 
 not fallen angels, but fallen man ; and higher than heaven 
 is the portion of him for whom the Sovereign of the uni- 
 verse became man, and shed his blood to redeem ; and 
 lower than hell must be the fate of him, who, even at such 
 a price, refused to be redeemed. How powerfully ought 
 this awful, yet animating consideration to arouse us to 
 hasten our escape from " the wrath that is to come," and 
 to " resist even unto blood, striving against sin !" How 
 powerfully does it enforce the admonition of the Apostle, 
 " Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmove- 
 
270 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 
 
 able, always abounding in the work of the Lord, foras- 
 much as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the 
 Lord !" 
 
 To the texts of Scripture now quoted and commented 
 upon, many more might be added were it at all necessary. 
 But if those already produced be not sufficient to show that 
 the human nature of Christ was not fallen and sinful, I 
 must consider the attempt to establish this, or any point, 
 on the authority of Scripture, to be desperate. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 
 
 I MUST now call the attention of the reader to a diflferent 
 view of the subject. In the course of this controversy, I 
 have repeatedly had occasion to observe that human nature 
 never fell. I have never entered into any discussion in 
 proof of this remark, because I took it for granted that the 
 remark need only to be made, in order to be at once ad- 
 mitted. That this has been the case in some instances I 
 have no doubt ; but I have no reason to suppose that there 
 are not still some who cling to the phrase, and, therefore, 
 a few remarks seem to be called for. The expression, 
 fallen nature^ is in common use for the purpose of express- 
 ing the universality of human conniption ; but nothing can 
 be more absurd than to reason upon the phrase, as if it were 
 expressive of a metaphysical fact. Nature is not an acci- 
 dent which may or may not be present in a being, but is 
 the very essence of the being whose nature it is. It can, 
 therefore, be produced by the direct act of God alone. It 
 is capable of only two affections. It may be generated, 
 and it may be destroyed. It admits of no alteration ; for 
 when we speak of nature^ alteration and destruction are 
 perfectly synonymous terms. If a being were changed into 
 a being of a different nature^ it is clear that one nature 
 would be destroyed and another generated. They who 
 profess to be familiar with Greek philosophy, should be 
 familiar also with all that can be said with regard to these 
 
'11'2 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 
 
 sentiments ; and they who can brmg but a small portion 
 of patient thinking to the subject, need not be indebted to 
 either Greek philosophers or Christian fathers for informa- 
 tion of so very simple a character. Now, it is clear that 
 if nature cannot be the result of accident, but can proceed 
 from the mimediate act of God alone, then the fall of man 
 could not alFect his nature in the least. If the nature of 
 man fell when man himself fell, some very singular results 
 nmst follow. A few of them I shall notice. 
 
 If, when man fell, his nature was changed, then it fol- 
 lows of plain necessity, either that he was not man before 
 the fall, or he was not man after it. Man may subsist in 
 an endless variety of situations — may suffer and enjoy an 
 endless variety of pains and of pleasures, and still be man. 
 But change his nature^ and he is man no longer. The 
 most untutored savage that roams his native wilds, hardly 
 to be distinguished from the beasts that he makes his prey, 
 is a man ; and as certainly and as completely a man as 
 the most exalted genius that ever extended the bounds of 
 human knowledge, or did honour to human reason. They 
 are as widely diff'erent as two beings well can be ; but 
 they are inseparably united by the bonds of a common na- 
 ture. The one cannot sink below it, nor can the other 
 rise above it. In all things else they may differ ; but 
 through whatever changes they may pass in this world, or 
 in that which is to come, they are alike men. Now, Adam 
 is distinctly called man before he fell ; and he is no less 
 distinctly called man after that event. I am, therefore, 
 compelled to infer that though his fall was so fearfully 
 fatal and destructive, yet it affected not his nature at all. 
 Indeed, if moral excellence or delinquency could alter the 
 nature^ then so far would the common axiom, that nature 
 •is the same in all, be from being true, that we must rather 
 say, that there are not two men whose nature is the same. 
 
 Again, we are fallen creatures, and, in consequence of 
 our fall, are suffering creatures. But if our nature be fallen, 
 then how are our sufferings to be accounted for ? "VVe are 
 
ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 27o 
 
 in a fallen condition : if our nature also be fallen, then our 
 natui'e and our condition are perfectly congenial to one an- 
 other, and suffering in this case is impossible. It is a law 
 that pervades the whole universe, and applies to all the 
 works of God, whether material or spiritual, whether ani- 
 mate or inanimate, that the presence of some good is es- 
 sential to the existence of suffering. Take away from any 
 thing whatever aU that is good in it, and you at the same 
 time completely divest it of the very capacity of suffering. 
 Look, for example, to a piece of wood in a state of decay : 
 as long as any portion of it remains sound, that portion re- 
 sists the progress of the coiTuption; and in having that 
 resistance overcome by the superior power of the corrup- 
 tion, it suffers ; while the part already decayed, already 
 fully possessed by the coiTuption, offering no further re- 
 sistance, suffers not. The same remark applies to our own 
 bodies. An inflamed limb suffers intense pain ; but when 
 mortification has taken place, when there is no longer any 
 sound flesh to resist the progTCss of corruption, the pain 
 ceases ; and the whole of the portion in which the corrup- 
 tion has completed its operation, has lost all capability of 
 suffering. In both these cases it is clear, that when the 
 nature of the objects operated upon by coniiption has been 
 changed by means of that corruption, all capacity for suf- 
 fering is completely extinguished. 
 
 The same law extends to our souls. Extinguish all 
 that is good in them, and you at the same time effectually 
 extinguish the possibility of suftermg. The hardened sin- 
 ner obtains a short and deceitful repose by the suppres- 
 sion, as far as he can, of every moral feeling. His repose 
 will teiminate by awakening in him the ceaseless undying 
 feeling, the suppression of which constitutes his repose, 
 that he is a man. When Colonel Gardiner groaned out in 
 anguish, — " Oh, that I were that dog !" had he been able 
 to accomplish his wish, — to divest himself of the nature of a 
 man and assume that of a dog, every one sees that the 
 anguish which dictated the wish would have instantane- 
 
 m2 
 
274 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 
 
 ously ceased ; and he would have enjoyed his career of 
 licentiousness without a check. It is evident that there 
 was still something good in him ; and that the existence 
 of that good was just what caused his anguish. Could he 
 have got completely rid of that good, he would at the 
 same time have got rid of his sufferings. But nature would 
 not change at his bidding ; and, therefore, he found no rest 
 till he found it there where alone the Author of nature has 
 placed it, in Christ Jesus. In the same way, when Satan 
 said, "Evil, be thou my good," every one sees that, could 
 he have realized his resolution, and have made evil to be 
 really his good, his sufferings would instantly have ceased. 
 But that he is totally incapable of doing. He is a fallen 
 angel ; but, unhappily for him, he is still an angel, and, 
 therefore, a sufferer. He cannot change that nature which 
 obeys the power of him alone by whom it was produced. 
 He cannot contract himself within its limits, so as to 
 escape any portion of the sufferings which an angel is cap- 
 able of enduring ; neither can he go beyond these limits, 
 so as to rise superior to these sufferings. Nature^ an un- 
 alterable nature, fonns the indisruptible chain which binds 
 him down to the rack. Change his nature, make it a fallen 
 nature suitable to his fallen condition, and you break his 
 chain and extinguish his sufferings. 
 
 It is evident, then, that, in fallen angels and in fallen 
 men, there still remains something good ; something which, 
 unaffected by the fall, renders them sensible to all its suf- 
 ferings. And what is good in either but that nature which 
 God created good, and which no accident and no power 
 can alter ? In us fallen creatures its every operation is ob- 
 structed, impeded, opposed. It is doomed by the misery 
 of our fallen condition to hold ceaseless converse with all 
 that is most abhorrent to it. And in the course of our re- 
 novation, during the process of extinguishing that law im- 
 planted in om' flesh which holds natm'e a prisoner, and of 
 setting the captive free, and restoring it to the unimpeded 
 exercise of all its native powers, how deep is the sorrow 
 
ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 275 
 
 that it awakens on every instance of the prevalence of un- 
 subdued corruption? and how delightful the feeling on 
 every instance of its free and unfettered movement toward 
 the great Father of our spmts ? The corruption that we de- 
 rive from a fallen progenitor forms no part of human nature, 
 as the sufferings which it inflicts upon us abimdantly testify. 
 Human nature existed in Adam before he fell. It exists 
 in us, his fallen childi'en, now. It exists in the redeemed 
 of the Lord, who enjoy all the blessedness of the kingdom 
 of heaven. It exists in those who are driven away in 
 their wickedness, and have no longer room to hope. From 
 the height of heaven to the depth of hell, men exist in an 
 endless variety of the most opposite conditions ; but in all 
 these conditions still they are men, and their nature unal- 
 terably human. 
 
 From all this, two conclusions appear to be clearly de- 
 ducible. The one is, that if the Eternal Word, in becoming 
 man, took a fallen nature, he took not our nature, which is 
 not, nor by any possibility could be, fallen. The other is, 
 that if he took a fallen nature, then there is no accounting 
 for his sufferings. He placed himself in that situation into 
 which man had brought himself by sin. He sustained all 
 the penal effects of the fall. But if he had a fallen nature, 
 these effects were wholly agreeable to that nature, and 
 must have been productive of enjoyment rather than suf- 
 fering. On the contrary, it appears to me, that his suffer- 
 ings possessed an intensity which we cannot fully estimate, 
 just because he possessed, even in his humanity, a purity 
 and holiness of which we can form no estimate. His 
 natm-e was exactly the same as oui's. But in us the ope- 
 rations of that nature are obstructed and perverted. We 
 can live strangers to God, and cut off from all communion 
 with him, and never feel it. His countenance may not 
 shine upon us, and yet we may not mom-n for, nor be 
 sensible of, the misery of such a separation from the foun- 
 tain of all good. We can lie under the burden of a thou- 
 sand sins, and yet be at perfect ease. But in Christ the 
 
276 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 
 
 human natui'e was not obstructed and perverted in its ope- 
 rations by that law of the flesh which dwells in fallen man, 
 for he took not a human person, but only a human nature ; 
 and, therefore, when he was tried by the contradiction of 
 sinners against himself, and had the guilt of our iniquities 
 laid upon him, and the sensible tokens of his Father s pi'e- 
 sence withdrawTi from him, he must have experienced an 
 anguish of which, at least till our nature be delivered from 
 the bondage of coiTuptiou, we can form no adequate con- 
 ception. 
 
 I observe farther, that if human nature be fallen, then 
 the fundamental principle of Manichjeus is an undeniable 
 truth. That heresiarch — we must call him so, because 
 he called himself an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ — 
 maintained, as is wellkno^ai, that there were two Creators ; 
 the one good, from whom every good nature had its origin ; 
 the other evil, from whom every evil nature had its origin. 
 His grand argument in support of his doctrine, put in its 
 simplest form, was this : An evil nature cannot by any 
 possibility proceed from a good creator. There must of 
 necessity, therefore, be an evil creator from whom eveiy evil 
 nature had its origin. He appears to have been a confused 
 and feeble wi'iter, incapable either of profound thinking or 
 close reasoning. He, like many of his predecessors, no 
 doubt, found it extremely difficult to account for the ori- 
 gin of evil. He was not sufficiently simple to suppose, that 
 after God had created a nature one thing, it could by the 
 fall, or by any accident whatever, become another thing. 
 He saw clearly enough that natm-e is not an accident, and 
 cannot be accidentally produced. He cut the knot, there- 
 fore, which he could not untie ; and determined that there 
 must be an evil creator, since there are evil natures whose 
 existence can no otherwise be accounted for. Now, grant 
 him his fact, that there are evil natm'es, and his reasoning 
 is incontrovertible : for an evil nature of necessity infers 
 an evil creator. He was attacked by Augustine, who un- 
 derstood the matter well, having once been a zealous Mani- 
 
ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 277 
 
 chaean himself, and was well acquainted with both the strong 
 and the weak points of the system, i He assails him upon the 
 fact, and strongly maintains, and, if I be any judge of rea- 
 soning, decisively proves, that there is not, never was, nor 
 by any possibility can be, any such thing as an evil nature, 
 — that every nature, as far as it is a nature, is good. It 
 is only a slight specimen of Augustine's reasoning that I 
 can here introduce. It is, however, essentially necessary, 
 to show his sentiments upon the subject m liis own lan- 
 guage. 
 
 In one place he thus speaks, — " Whence any one who 
 has eyes may see that every nature, in as far as it is a 
 nature, is a good thing : because from one and the same 
 thing, in which I find something to praise, and Manichseus 
 something to blame, if those things which are good be 
 taken away, there will be no nature ; but if those things 
 which displease be taken away, the uncoiTupted nature 
 will remain. Take from water that it be not muddy and 
 turbid, and pure and tranquil water wiU remain ; take from 
 water the concord of its parts, and it will be water no 
 longer. If, then, that which is evil being taken away, the na- 
 tm-e remains more pure ; but that which is good being taken 
 away, there remains no natura there ; that which is good 
 forms the nature, while that which is evU is not nature, 
 but contrary to nature."^ He proceeds at much greater 
 
 1 See note I. Appendix. 
 
 - Ex quo jam videt, qui potest videre, omnem nattiram, in quantum natura 
 est, bonum esse : quia ex una eademque re, ia qua et ego quod laudarem, 
 et iUe quod vituperaret invenit, si tollantur ea quee bona sunt, nulla natura 
 erit; si autem tollantur ea qu£e displicent, in corrupta natura remanebit. 
 ToUe de aquis ut non sint caenosas et turbidas, remanet aquae purae et tran- 
 quillai : tolle de aquis partium concordiam, non erunt aquse. Si ergo malo 
 illo adempto manet natura purgatior, bono autem deti-acto non manet ulla 
 natura ; hoc ibi facit naturam quod bonum habet ; quod autem malum, non 
 natura, sed contra naturam est.— Contra Epistolam Mankhosi, cap. 33. The 
 instance of -water here introduced may appear not to be the happiest that 
 might have been chosen ; but Augustine was led to adopt it, because Mani- 
 chjeus, in his Fundamenti, the epistle against which Augustine is here writing, 
 makes turbid and muddy water one of the worlds in his terra tenebrarum. 
 
278 ON THE PHRASE 'FAIXEN NATURE,' 
 
 length than I can here quote, to establish and illustrate 
 his position, that every nature is good, that in every thing 
 that, and that alone, which is good in it, constitutes the 
 nature^ and that which is evil in it is contrary to its na- 
 ture. 
 
 In another treatise, he shows that all good may be re- 
 ferred to mode., species., and order ; which three things are 
 from God. After illustrating this at some length, he says, 
 — " Where these three are great, the good is great ; where 
 they are small, the good is small ; where they are not, 
 there is no good. And, again, where these three are 
 gi-eat, the natures are great ; where these three are small, 
 the natures are small ; where they are not, there is no 
 nature. Every nature, therefore, is good."^ 
 
 From the testimony of Augustine, then, we learn, that to 
 maintain the existence of an evil nature, is to maintain the 
 fundamental principle of Manichseism. To say that the 
 nature was at first created good, but became evil by the 
 fall, only makes the matter worse. And they who teach 
 that our Lord took a fallen nature, must be labouring un- 
 der some strange delusion, if they deny that they are teach- 
 ing the very doctrine, upon which Manichaeism is built, 
 as clearly as ever Mauichaius taught it. 
 
 The danger is not in the slightest degree avoided, by 
 rejecting the expression fallen nature., and teaching that 
 Christ took not n fallen nature., but nature in 2i fallen state. 
 
 This is followed up by referring, for the same reason, to the icind, where he 
 remarks, that thougli a hm-ricanc be bad, yet that is not essential to wind, 
 which may blow a soft and gentle breeze. You may, therefore, have wind 
 without that which is evil in it ; but take away that similitude of parts which 
 makes the wind a body, and you have no nature at all. 
 
 1 Ilaec tria ubi magna sunt, magna bona sunt ; ubi parva simt, parv^a bona 
 sunt ; ubi nulla sunt, nullum bonum est. Et rursus, ubi hajc tria magna 
 sunt, magna; natura; sunt ; ubi parva simt, parvaa naturas sunt ; ubi nulla 
 sunt, nulla natura est. Omnis ergo natura bona est.— i>e Natura Jioni, cap. 
 3. The whole of this treatise, as well as the one last quoted, will richly repay 
 a careful perusal. Augustine also explains his sentiments upon this subject 
 very fully in his answers to Julian, who charged him with Manicha;ism for 
 maintaining the doctrine of original sin. 
 
ox THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 279 
 
 The one expression is quite equivalent to the other, for 
 unless nature could be fallen, it never could be in a fallen 
 state. We might just as well say, that that which could 
 never die, was nevertheless found in a dead state ; and 
 that which could never live, was found in a living state ; 
 and that which could never rise, was found in a risen state ; 
 as say that that which could never fall, was found in a 
 fallen state. If, then, nature was in a fallen state, nature 
 fell ; and, consequently, Manichseism is trae, and Chris- 
 tianity is to be abandoned. This consequence there is no 
 possibility of evading : and were it not that the tenet has 
 been maintained by those who profess to be intimately 
 acquainted with the writings of Augustine, it might have 
 been hoped, that in the face of a consequence so decisively 
 ruinous, even the most zealous assertors that our Lord took 
 a fallen sinful nature, would pause in their fatal career, 
 and admit that they were labouring under a fearful mis- 
 take when they maintained the existence of such a thing 
 as a fallen nature, or a nature in a fallen state. 
 
 If, then, a nature could be fallen, and if it be true that at 
 the fall of man human nature fell, then it is clear that Adam 
 could not be a man both before and after the change that 
 took place in his nature, — that the fall could have produced 
 no suffermg, — and that Manich^eus must be owned as that 
 which he declares himself to be, an Apostle of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Besides, even if it were admitted, in defiance 
 of aU these consequences,' that denature maybe fallen, I see 
 not what advantage could be derived from the admission, 
 to the cause of those who maintain that our Lord took 
 fallen human nature, or human natm-e in a fallen state. 
 For nature cannot exist excepting in a person. It floats 
 not an invisible and infectious thing, like the malaria of a 
 Campanian bog or a Batavian fen, ready to seize upon all 
 who may come within the sphere of its activity. If a fall- 
 en nature exist at all, it can exist only as the nature of a 
 fallen person. If, then, there was a fallen nature, or a 
 
280 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 
 
 nature in a fallen state existing in Christ, the conclusion is 
 inevitable that there was a fallen person in him ; and, con- 
 sequently, that either the humanity was a person^ or the 
 second person of the Holy Trinity was fallen. In every 
 point of view, therefore, in which the question as to hl fallen 
 nature can be placed, it appears to me clear as the light of 
 day, that he who persists in saying that our Lord took a 
 fallen human natm-e, or human nature in a fallen state, 
 has just to choose whether he will preach the impiety of a 
 fallen God, or the heresy of a distinct human personality, 
 in the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ 
 Jesus. 
 
 Few persons can estimate more lowly than I do the 
 value of metaphysical discussions, in settling a theological 
 question. When I first wrote upon this subject, therefore, 
 I contented myself with merely stating the absm'dity of 
 saying that human nature, or any nature^ ever fell, or sin- 
 ned, or died. To a few who are capable of thinking, and 
 who, therefore, needed only to have theh' attention called 
 to the fact, I have reason to believe, that the simple state- 
 ment of the matter was perfectly sufiicieut. To those 
 who still hesitate the above reasoning may probably 
 prove satisfactory : and perhaps there may be some ^Ith 
 whom the authority of Augustine will have more weight 
 than any arguments. They who are willing to be guided 
 by human authority cannot well choose a safer guide. Such 
 speculations I do not willingly introduce. The garden of 
 the Lord is before us, rich in all the fruits that can 
 strengthen the soul, and gladden the heart of man ; and I 
 know not why we should leave that garden, and go to 
 gather figs from the thistles, and grapes from the thorns 
 of metaphysical disquisition. But if we must leave this 
 region of light, to grope after the few scattered rays that 
 may happen to be met with amidst the gloom of meta- 
 physics ; if we must be sent inter silvas Academi qucerere 
 verum ; it is surely no unreasonable demand to insist, that 
 
ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 281 
 
 metaphysics shall keep some terms with common sense, — 
 shall not at every step outrage om* simplest perceptions, 
 and trample on om- best established principles, and com- 
 pel us, in defiance of all Scripture, and aU reason, and all 
 authority, to believe that the very corner-stone of Mani- 
 chseism is a profound and fundamental Gospel truth. 
 
CHAPTER Vin. 
 
 THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 
 
 The following Semion, with which I conclude this part of 
 my work, takes up one of the most important and interest- 
 ing points of discussion that arise out of the doctrine of the 
 Incarnation. But in order to render the bearing of the Ser- 
 mon, and the importance of the doctrine which it contains, 
 more distinctly seen, it will be proper first to notice a line 
 of argument which has often been pursued. That line of 
 argument owes its origin, I believe, to Lactantius, at least 
 he is the earliest writer in whom I recollect to have met 
 it ; and has often been urged by Socinians, and is much 
 relied upon by the supporters of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 humanity. The nature of the argument will be suffi- 
 ciently miderstood by the following extract from Lactan- 
 tius. In stating the necessity of the Incaniation, he 
 teaches that it was necessary that Christ should be man, 
 that he might not only give laws, but by his own obedi- 
 ence might exemplify them. In the com'se of illustrating 
 this view, which he does at considerable length, he says, — 
 ' Therefore that he — the teacher of laws namely — may be 
 perfect, there must be nothing that the disciple may be 
 able to object to him : so that, if the disciple should say, 
 — You command impossible things ; he may reply, — See, 
 I do them myself. But I am clothed with flesh, whose 
 property it is to sin. And I have the same flesh, yet sin 
 rules not in me. It is difficult for me to despise worldly 
 
THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 288 
 
 goods, because without them one cannot live in this body. 
 See, I have also a body, and yet I fight against all cupi- 
 dity. I cannot endui'e pain and death for righteousness' 
 sake, for I am frail. See, pain and death have power 
 upon me, and I conquer those very things which you 
 fear, that I may make you a conqueror over pain and 
 death. I go first through those things which you pre- 
 tend cannot be endui'ed. If you cannot follow me com- 
 manding you, follow me going before you. In this man- 
 ner every excuse is taken away.'^ By this means, no 
 doubt, all excuse is taken away ; but then it is very clear, 
 that at the same time all pretence to divinity in Christ is 
 also taken away; and his sinfulness is efifectually esta- 
 blished. For if he be a divine person, then this places 
 him at an immeasurable distance from his disciple. And 
 if the disciple can say, " I see another law in my mem- 
 bers, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing 
 me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- 
 bers," then the principle upon which Lactantius reasons 
 is completely subverted, unless the Saviour can say the 
 same. And if he can say, I have to contend with all the 
 spiritual deadness, and all the moral weakness, resulting 
 not only fi'om original sin, but from long and deeply rooted 
 habits of actual guilt ; what becomes of this principle un- 
 less the Saviour can say the same ? And thus not only is 
 the divinity of Christ denied, but he is made a sinner equal 
 at least to the very chief of sinners. 
 It is true that Lactantius had no design whatever to 
 
 1 Ergo ut perfectus esse possit, nihil ei debet opponi sib eo qui docendus 
 est ; ut si forte dixerit, impossibilia proecipis ; respondeat, ecce ipse facie. 
 At ego came indutus sum, cujus est peccare proprium. Et ego eandem car- 
 nem gero ; et tamen peccatum in me non dominatur, Mihi opes contemnere 
 difficile est, quia vivi aliter non potest in hoc corpore. Ecce et mihi corpus 
 est, et tamen pugno contra omnem cupiditatem. Non possum pro justitia 
 nee dolorem feiTe nee mortem, quia fragihs sum. Ecce et in me dolor, ac 
 mors habet potestatem ; et ea ipsa, quae times, vinco ; ut victorem te faciam 
 doloris ac mortis. Prior vado per ea, quae sustineri non posse praetendis ; si 
 praecipientem sequi non potes, sequere antecedentem. Sublata est hoc mode 
 omnis excnssitio.—Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. 24. 
 
284 THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 
 
 establish these consequences, for he neither doubted the 
 di\dnity of Christ, nor believed in the sinfulness of his 
 flesh, as we shall sec in the proper place. But if his prin- 
 ciple be correct, these consequences inevitably follow. 
 The reader, therefore, will not wonder that Lactantius 
 should be a favourite with Socinian writers. Doctor 
 Priestley says, ' I cannot help laying particular stress on 
 the omission of it — the doctrine of atonement, namely — 
 by Lactantius, who treats professedly of the system of 
 Christianity as it was generally received in his days. Yet, 
 in his Divine Institutions^ there is so far from being any 
 mention of the necessity of the death of Christ to atone 
 for the sins of men, that he treats of the nature of sin, of 
 the mercy of God, and of the efficacy of repentance, as if 
 he had never heard of any such doctrine.'^ But the doc- 
 tor has neglected to mention some circumstances which 
 must necessarily be taken into consideration, in order to 
 enable us to determine what stress is to be laid upon either 
 the omission, or the expression of any doctrine by Lac- 
 tantius. Nor can I here enter into any minute state- 
 ment of these circumstances ; but some of them must be 
 mentioned. Lactantius was a layman, a professor of rhe- 
 toric, and more anxious by far to emulate the polished ele- 
 gance of Cicero, than the Christian knowledge and energy 
 of Paul. And he had his reward. That his writings 
 have still a place in om' theological libraries, is a distinc- 
 tion for which they are indebted, not to the theological 
 information which they contain, but to the unrivalled 
 beauty of their style. In the earlier Books of his Institu- 
 tions^ where he assails the follies of the heathens, and 
 where he was master of his subject, he is indeed well 
 worthy to be read. But when he comes to state the doc- 
 trines of Christianity, we can only wonder that any man, 
 who had ever read the Bible, however carelessly, could 
 contrive to know so little about the matter. Jerome very 
 justly remarked of him, that he was much better fitted to 
 
 I History of the Corruptions of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 20t». 
 
THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 285 
 
 overtui-n heathenism than to build up Christianity. His 
 usual way of proving a doctrine is, by giving one quota- 
 tion from Hermes Trismegistus, another fi'om the Bible, 
 and a thu'd fi'om the sybilline verses, in the inspiration of 
 which he expressly avows his belief. 
 
 It is perfectly true, that, in treating of the death of Christ, 
 he never once mentions the pardon of om' sins as one of 
 the reasons of it : nor writes a single sentence, from which 
 it can be inferred, that he had ever heard of such a writer 
 as Paul having treated of the subject before him. But 
 when Priestley stated this fact, it would have been but 
 fair to state also the reasons which he does assign for our 
 Lord's death. He makes every circumstance attending it 
 typical. For example, the gall and vmegar signified the 
 bitterness and sorrow to be endured by his followers ; and 
 the crown of thorns meant that he would suiTOund himself 
 with a multitude of people taken fi-om among the wicked ; 
 for a multitude standing in a ring is called a crown — 
 Corona enim dicitur circumstans in orbem populus ; and 
 thorns represent the wicked from among whom he would^ 
 collect this crown of people. But amidst all his suffer- 
 ings his bones were not broken, but his body was kept 
 entu-e, lest it should be unfit for rising again, — inhabile ad 
 resurgendum ! Now, if such stress is laid upon his author- 
 ity, that his omission of a doctrine is a good reason for re- 
 jecting that doctrine, I conceive that his express assertion 
 of a doctrine is a still better reason for adopting it. As 
 far then as his authority goes, if we reject the atonement 
 because he makes no mention of it, we are bound, in con- 
 sistency, to adopt that typical view of the sufferings of 
 Christ, because he expressly asserts it. For it is surely 
 absurd to say that we will treat such notions mth utter 
 contempt, even though supported by all the weight which 
 the authority of Lactantius can give ; while yet we feel 
 such high respect for that authority, that we will deny the 
 doctrine of atonement merely because he says nothing 
 about it. 
 
286 THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 
 
 That he said nothing about that doctrine, because he 
 knew nothing about it, is, I think, abundantly evident ; 
 because, in a different part of his work, he teaches that the 
 remission of our sins may be purchased by ahns-giving ; 
 — nay, and teaches, too, that we may carry our alms deeds 
 to an extent beyond what is necessary for that purpose : 
 for he advises, that when a man has pm-chased the for- 
 giveness of all his sins, he should not then cease to give, 
 but should still give for the praise and glory of virtue !' 
 Are they, who reject the atonement on the ground that 
 Lactantius says nothing about it, prepared to show their 
 respect for his authority by adopting this doctrine ? If not, 
 they should say nothing about the authority of that writer, 
 since it plainly appears that they would just as stedfastly 
 have renounced the atonement as they do, even though Lac- 
 tantius had taught it as clearly as the Bible does. 
 
 The line of argument which Lactantius incautiously 
 adopted, without seeing its consequences, goes also very 
 directly, as I have observed above, to establish the doc- 
 trine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, — nay, to make him 
 guilty of both original and actual sin. For, if he were not 
 guilty of both, then it is useless for us to go to the sinner 
 and urge upon him the duty of obedience from the example 
 of Christ ; because he will at once reply, that if Christ 
 was not involved in all the guilt of original and actual sin, 
 then his obedience was yielded under circumstances which 
 unfitted it for affording any argument, that obedience either 
 would be requh'ed, or could be yielded by those who are 
 loaded with all the weight of both original and actual sin. 
 And Lactantius, and all who adopt his principles, must 
 admit these fearful consequences, or they must renounce 
 the principle itself. For if they should say that he had 
 no sin, either original or actual, then the sinner would at 
 once say, — 'If the doctrine which you teach be true, I can 
 
 1 Ut quod ante in medelam vnlnerum feccrat, post niodum faciat in laudem 
 gloriamque virtutis.— Lib. vi. cap. 13, 
 
THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 287 
 
 derive no hope from Christ. For you tell me that if he 
 differed from me by however little, he can be no Saviour 
 of mine ; and you tell me at the same time that he did 
 differ from me most widely, by wanting the most pro- 
 minent characteristics of my present state, original and 
 actual sin. Where is then my hope ? He could conquer 
 the devil, he could overcome the world, and he could con- 
 strain, and only by a perpetual and feaiful struggle con- 
 strain to unwilling obedience, flesh that was never conta- 
 minated by sin, either original or actual. But does this 
 afford me any hope that he can form my flesh to obedience 
 also, which is deeply tainted with both ? He could keep 
 sin out of sinless flesh ; but how do I know that he can 
 di-ive it out of flesh of which it has full possession? He 
 could keep pure humanity from falling into sin ; but can 
 he lift fallen humanity out of the guilt and impurity which 
 by many sins it hath contracted ? If with all the fulness 
 of tlie Holy Ghost, he ' all but yielded,' how can I possi- 
 bly hope that a smaller measm-e of the Holy Ghost is ca- 
 pable of doing for me, what all his fulness had just enough 
 to do to accomplish for him, under much more favourable 
 circumstances ?' In short, if the principle of Lactantius be 
 true, then we can derive no encom-agement from the ex- 
 ample of Christ, and no hope that he can make us con- 
 querors over all our foes, unless he engaged them under 
 all our disadvantages, and had the same original depravity, 
 the same weight of actual guilt, and the same force of habi- 
 tual transgression to meet with which we have to contend. 
 This result, I think, is a very satisfactory proof of the fa- 
 tal nature of the principle from which it so directly springs. 
 The following Sermon contains a sound, and clear, and able 
 view of the certainty with which we may rely upon the 
 S}Tnpathy of Christ in all our trials and temptations, and 
 of the confidence with which we may depend upon his 
 power to deliver us, without any necessity for supposing 
 him to be fallen and sinful, or for resorting to a prmciple 
 
 \ 
 
288 THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 
 
 SO fatal as that originating with Lactantius, and unhappily 
 so often adopted since. 
 
 The Sermon is the production of a friend, whose name 
 I regret that I am not permitted to give with it. It was 
 addressed to his own parishioners in the ordinary course 
 of his ministrations, without the remotest idea that it would 
 ever receive a wider publicity than he gave it fi'om the 
 pulpit. It was by mere accident that I heard of his hav- 
 ing preached upon the text ; and having an opportunity 
 of seeing him soon after, I asked him for the sermon. He 
 very readily replied, that if I could make any use of it, I 
 was perfectly welcome to it. He had no idea that I would 
 print it ; nor had I, at the time, any such design. But 
 on reading it, I concluded at once that the very best use 
 I could make of it was to give it entu-e. To this he has 
 not objected, and I have therefore sent it to the press as I 
 received it, without the alteration of a single word. I 
 make this statement as apiece of justice to the author, and 
 by no means as an apology for the sermon, for which I 
 think that the reader will agree with me that it has no occa- 
 sion. At least, had I conceived that it, in the slightest 
 degree, needed an apology, it should not have been here. 
 The ministers of our Church have of late been represented 
 as all that is careless, and all that is ignorant. When the 
 reader has perused this discoiu-se, and recollects that it 
 was never intended for the press, nor is sent there as being 
 at all superior to any other of the discourses which its au- 
 thor is weekly in the habit of addressing to his people ; 
 and is compared with the more laboured, and more care- 
 fully prepared, productions of some of those who are so 
 loud in their censure of the Scottish Clergy, he will pro- 
 bably think that these immoderate censures might very 
 well have been spared — and that of the people who are 
 constantly accustomed to such discourses, there is no rea- 
 son to complain that the word of life is not rightly divided 
 to them. 
 
A SERMON. 
 
 HEBREWS lY. 15. 
 
 FOR WE HAVE NOT AN HIGH PEIEST WHICH CANNOT BE 
 TOUCHED WITH THE FEELING OF OUR INFIRMITY ; BUT 
 WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, YET 
 WITHOUT SIN. 
 
 In these words, the fii'st thing that strikes us is the as- 
 sertion of a fact respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, in his 
 character of our high priest — that he is " touched with 
 the feeling of our infirmity." Next, this fact is traced to 
 its origin — the natural cause of its existence is assigned — 
 we are informed how it came to pass that he is so touched 
 — he "was in all points tempted like as we are." Being, 
 though Divine, yet possessed of a real and true humanity, 
 it is easy for men, by consulting theu' familiar experience, 
 to perceive clearly the connection betwixt this cause and 
 this consequence in his gracious soul. He is the grand 
 exemplification — the noblest practical exhibition — of that 
 standing maxim, that by being om'selves intimate with grief 
 we learn to succour the wretched; — as, ifhe had never tasted 
 pain, we could hardly have been prevented from applying 
 to him more than to any other, the reverse of that maxim, 
 which is of equal authority, — that those can never enter 
 fully into our soitow, who have felt nothing like it them- 
 selves. This reference of the inspired writer to a well-known 
 
 N 
 
290 A SERMON 
 
 Jaw of oui' nature gives additional clearness and force to that 
 delightful truth which is besides so plainly expressed in the 
 foimer clause of the text, viz. : that the compassion of 
 Christ for our afflictions is not the result of a merely ra- 
 tional conjecture or estimate of their severity, founded on 
 observation of their natui-al symptoms or effects, as one 
 who has never known ill health may judge of the violence 
 of another man's fever : — but that it proceeds from that 
 quick, tender, penetrating, thorough sense of our trials, 
 which perfect manhood could not fail to acquire, by experi- 
 encing personally, as tests of his o^vn obedience, the keen- 
 ness of bodily pain, and the anguish of a wounded spirit. 
 The extent also to which the sympathy of our Saviour 
 spreads, is illustrated by this mention of its origin. He 
 was tempted, " in all points," like as we are ; therefore, 
 " in all points," we may surely reckon upon finding in him 
 this fellow-feeling. It was not a few kinds only of our 
 earthly struggles, apart from others, that he admitted into 
 his heart, so that he could appreciate them by feeling as 
 well as judgment, and not the rest : but he stood success- 
 ively in all the main flood-gates of tribulation, and there 
 made trial of the worst that mortal man can endure, 
 whether fi-om the hostility of a disordered world, or from 
 the rage of fallen angels, or from the AATath of offended 
 Heaven. Yet it was with a certain modification that he 
 was so tempted : — it was "without sin." This is the only ' 
 difference which the inspired writer marks — the only re- 
 servation which he is careful to make. But then it is a 
 reservation of so much consequence, that in the eye of our 
 guilty apprehension, it seems at first sight to take back 
 nearly all that had been previously granted ; and to make 
 so essential a dissimilarity betwixt the temptations of the 
 high priest and those of his people, that the matter of 
 chief importance in the case, — the sympathy on his part 
 — is almost wholly deprived of its foundation. To beings 
 who see that very many of their temptations are the ef- 
 fects of previous sin, failing which, they had never exist- 
 
ON HEBREWS TV. 15. 291 
 
 ed ; and against whom temptation is so often prevalent, 
 that the very name no longer presents so readily the idea of 
 simple trial, as of trial inducing crime, this is a very natural 
 prejudice ; yet to beings entirely dependent, and that 
 through faith, upon the tender mercies of Christ Jesus, it 
 is a prejudice so fatal, that a little time can scarcely be 
 better employed than in endeavouring to see upon what 
 weak foundations it rests, or rather how utterly it is un- 
 founded. May the Spu-it of wisdom and grace vouchsafe, 
 in this exercise, not only to disentangle our minds from 
 all misunderstandings, but so to commend his truth to our 
 assured convictions, as to fill om- hearts with sacred en- 
 couragement and comfort ! 
 
 In illustrating the text by the ciurent usage and clear 
 authority of other Scriptures, if we can make it appear, 
 
 That temptation and sm, however closely related, are 
 yet things entii'ely and essentially distinct, so that there 
 may be real and true temptation, where there is no sin 
 whatever ; — this in the first place. 
 
 And if we can farther show, that those temptations 
 which are the most sifting, severe, and terrible in then- na- 
 ture, may be precisely those which are the farthest re- 
 moved from being sinful ; — this in the second place. 
 
 Then, thirdly, we shall the more readily see how the 
 temptations of Christ, notwithstanding theii' sinlessness, 
 were such as give him a most thorough experience and 
 feeling of human infirmity in the hour of trial : — 
 
 And, lastly, how this feeling on the part of Christ 
 amounts to a true and perfect sympathy with the infirmi- 
 ties of all who receive Him as their High Priest, under 
 every form and aspect of their temptations. 
 
 I. Let us advert, then, in the first place, to the truth, 
 That both in the nature of the things themselves, and in 
 the language of the inspked writers, temptation and sin are 
 entu'ely distinct and separate matters. We do not say 
 that temptation and sin are not intimately connected: — 
 we only say that they are not identified. Our assertion is 
 
292 A SEKMON 
 
 not tliat they have nothing to do with each other ; but 
 just that they are not one and the same thing. That 
 temptation is often mingled with sin, as wine is often 
 mingled with water, must be admitted : but as wine and 
 water are very different substances, and, though capable 
 of mixture, yet can and do exist in a separate state, so it 
 is also with sin and temptation. To say that there is ever 
 sin without temptation leading to it, might indeed be false ; 
 and if true, would have no connection whatever with our 
 subject : but there may be temptation that neither partakes of 
 sin nor produces it : — and that is precisely the assertion of 
 the text concerning the temptation of our Lord. If we at- 
 tentively look at the plainest facts, this truth must speedily 
 be apparent. How many are successfully tempted by 
 hunger, or the dread of it, to seek subsistence by unright- 
 eous practices ? Yet surely to be hungiy, and to dread the 
 pangs of hunger, are but mere infirmities, not sins. How 
 many crimes are committed under the influence of anger ! 
 Yet there is such a thmg as blameless anger, if the dic- 
 tates of God's Spii'it are of any authority ; for were anger 
 always criminal, the apostolic precept, " Be angry and 
 sin not," would just be an injunction upon us to sin with- 
 out sinning. The trutli is, that all the stronger appetites 
 and affections which God has implanted in our nature, 
 and which would have been necessary to its being and 
 well-being, though we had never fallen— affections most 
 fit, most becoming, most beneficial, most indispensable — 
 are every one of them converted into most dangerous 
 temptations, when they happen at any time to be power- 
 fully excited, under circumstances that preclude them from 
 being lawfully indulged. There may, no doubt, be ex- 
 citement without just cause,~or excitement that goes be- 
 yond due bounds, — and then, certainly, it is sinful excite- 
 ment ; — and if it lead to criminal conduct, here, without 
 question, is a sinfiU temptation producing sinful deeds. 
 But, on the other hand, the excitement may be quite un- 
 avoidable as to its occasion, and quite reasonable as to 
 
ON HEBEEWS IV. 15. 298 
 
 its degree ; whilst it may, notwithstanding, continue to 
 be a temptation of the most powerful kind. If, for in- 
 stance, a man is long shut out from every kind of nourish- 
 ment, he cannot but hunger and thu'st. If the privation 
 is continued, no feeling can be more reasonable than the 
 fear of death, as none can be more violent. In these cir- 
 cumstances, should he suddenly find an opportunity of 
 supplying his urgent want, but only through some act of 
 decided wickedness, who can fail to see that he would be 
 fiercely tempted to seek the relief by committing the sin? 
 Should he in fact commit it, he is guilty ; but his guilt lies 
 not in the temptation itself sm-ely, but in the success of 
 the temptation. It lies not in having felt the raging ap- 
 petite, but in having yielded to it ; — not in having feared 
 the death of the body, but in having forgotten the fear of 
 Him who, after the body is dead, can cast the soul into 
 hell. That no part of the sin belonged to the mere temp- 
 tation will, however, be stDl more evident, if, instead of 
 yielding to it, the sufferer has successfully resisted, and 
 died, rather than make shipwi-eck of faith and a good con- 
 science. In this case, let the bodily anguish have been as 
 great, the horror of death as violent, the impulses that 
 strove to conquer his better T\iU as frequent and as furi- 
 ous as before ; yet, seeing his hatred of sin, and trust in 
 God, and hope of eternal life, were stronger still, and were 
 prevalent at last against all inducements to evil ; — it is 
 clear that the temptation, instead of being a sinful thing, 
 was just one of those " fiery trials" of a Christian's faith, 
 which the Scriptiu:e pronounces to be " more precious than 
 gold that perisheth, though it be tried in the fire." 
 
 These results of common reason and observation fully 
 agree with the established usage of Scripture language ; 
 which speaks of temptation as sometimes involviag sin, 
 and as being at other times entkely free fi*om it. In proof 
 of this, it will be sufficient to compare one or two expres- 
 sions of other inspired writers with the assertion of St 
 James in chap. i. 13, that " God cannot be tempted with 
 
294 A SERMON 
 
 evil, neither terapteth he any man." Here, in the first 
 place, it is plainly not the Apostle's intention to affirm that 
 God cannot in any sense be tempted : for God himself in 
 Psalm xcv. thus expressly warns the people of Israel — 
 " Harden not yom- hearts, as in the provocation, and as in 
 the day of temptation in the wilderness : when your fathers 
 tempted me, proved me^ and saw my work." Neither can 
 it be his intention to affirm that God cannot be tempted 
 by the evil or sin that is in his creatures ; for it was precise- 
 ly the hardened unbelief and stiff-necked rebellion of the 
 Israelites that constituted the " temptation" in question, 
 and brought down upon themselves the wi*athful oath and 
 exterminating judgments by which their carcasses fell in 
 the wilderness. What remains, then, as the meaning of 
 this declaration ? Just that God cannot be tempted by any 
 thing sinful or unholy in Himself. JSTo unrighteous thought 
 or feeling can have a moment's place in his most pure and 
 sacred essence. AU such evil is infinitely abhorrent to his 
 nature; and, therefore, "temptation," as affecting God, — 
 as operatmg in the divine mind, — is a thing perfectly and 
 absolutely " without sin." 
 
 Then, further, the Apostle intimates, that " Neither 
 tempteth he any man." But this expression, any more 
 than the former, is not to be understood with absolute 
 strictness, as if God never subjected any of the human race 
 to temptation ; for the contrary is distinctly stated, where, 
 in Genesis xxii., we read that " God did tempt Abraham." 
 And how is the apparent contradiction between these two 
 assertions to be reconciled ? Simply by taking notice that 
 the limitation in the former clause of St James' statement 
 belongs equally to the latter ; and that, read at large, the 
 whole would run thus, — " God is not tempted with evil, 
 neither terapteth he any man with evil." — " But," adds 
 the Apostle instantly, " every man is tempted" — that is, 
 sinfully tempted — "when he is drawn away of his o^vn 
 lust and enticed." Sinful temptation, therefore, accord- 
 ing to this Scripture, a man may certainly feel ; but then 
 
ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 295 
 
 it is carefully marked that the sin is wholly from himself, 
 and remains chargeable npon himself alone. So then, when 
 God tempted Abraham, He could have mingled no sin with 
 the temptation. As coming from God, it was a temptation ; 
 but as coming from God, it must have been "without sin." 
 He infused no evil feelings ; He provoked no coiTupt incli- 
 nations ; yet He did, (unless the Scripture can be broken,) 
 He did really tempt Abraham. Nor is there any deep or 
 unintelligible mystery at all in this sinless temptation. 
 When requiring the patriarch to sacrifice his son, God tried 
 him by the holy afi'ection which a man like him must have 
 cherished for the child of his faith and of his prayers ; and 
 still more, perhaps, by that fervent and sublime concern 
 with which the father of the faithful must have viewed the 
 multitude of his spiritual offspring, when the hope seemed 
 upon the point of vanishing for ever with the expmng 
 breath of the hefr of promise. These were the pious, and 
 pure, and noble sentiments, in the strange and painful ef- 
 fort of repressing which, as soon as they came in opposi- 
 tion to a divine command, the whole temptation consisted. 
 The more successfully that these had been cultivated, and 
 the longer that they had been indulged, the more powerful 
 inducements would they naturally prove to misunderstand, 
 or evade, or disobey the injunction with which it seemed 
 impossible to reconcile them. Yet so far from being sins, 
 — so far from being even weaknesses, they were virtues of 
 the highest kind : and though they might, if not duly 
 guarded, have led to the most fatal consequences, yet as 
 if intentionally to exclude all idea of sinfulness from om* 
 views of this temptation — no rebellious murmm* — no shrink- 
 ing reluctance — not the slightest movement of any unholy 
 feeling is ever imputed in the Scriptures to the patriarch's 
 conduct under the trial ; but, on the contrary, it is every 
 where made the theme of unqualified applause, and cele- 
 brated as the very triumph of a pm-e and unfaltering obe- 
 dience. 
 II. This much may suffice to establish our first propo- 
 
296 A SEllMON 
 
 sition, namely, that, in the nature of things, and also in 
 accordance with the language of sacred writ, temptation 
 may be either sinful, or " without sin." As a trial of what 
 is in man, it is sometimes the one and sometimes the other. 
 As a test of the Divine character, it is always holy — " God 
 cannot be tempted of evil." The second assertion, name- 
 ly, that those temptations, which are the most sifting and 
 terrible, may, notwithstanding, be the farthest removed 
 from sin, mil admit of confirmation in fewer words. No- 
 thing, indeed, can be more true, than that our evil dispo- 
 sitions and passions, when fostered and provoked by in- 
 dulgence, occasion to those who are not utterly abandoned 
 many a paiufiil trial, and many a bitter conflict, which 
 might othei-wise be avoided. And yet, in a world where 
 sin has introduced confusion, and demands that God, in 
 his sovereign mercy and righteousness, should often visit 
 his own children with sharp correction, it frequently be- 
 comes needful, as in the case of Abraham, to restrain the 
 holiest atfections ; and, as in innumerable other cases, to 
 mortify desires the most natural and most necessary, with 
 as much rigom* as the most impure and profligate : — and, 
 wherever there is a call for this, the eff'ort of self-govern- 
 ment is, in fact, a great deal more difficult, and a gi'eat deal 
 more distressing, than when the check is to be laid only 
 upon the excess and the exorbitance of appetite. Here, 
 again, let the simplest examples teach us. Are the crav- 
 ings of the intemperate palate for wine as hard to be en- 
 dured, as the natural thirst of him who pants for the wa- 
 ters of the gushing fountain, and^cannot find them? Ask 
 the parched Ishmaelite in the desert ; — and yet the same 
 authority, in obedience to which the martyrs have so often 
 given their bodies to be burned, might require them to 
 perish of thirst, a fate which many probably endured, ra- 
 ther than deny their Lord, or worship an idol. Is the 
 pampered appetite of the epicure as importunate in its de- 
 mands, as the unavoidable and ravenous hunger of a fa- 
 mishing man ? Ask the wretched mothers, who, in the 
 
ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 297 
 
 siege of Samaria, bargained to slay in succession tlieii' own 
 children, that they might subsist a few days longer on 
 theii' flesh : — yet it is obvious that they should have deter- 
 mined to die of famine rather than commit those horrid 
 and unnatural mm'ders. AYas the lust of dominion in the 
 breast of Absalom, which excited him, before the time, to 
 aspire after his father's throne, a principle of gi'eater energy 
 than that ardour of royal and devout ambition which 
 prompted David, when he had subdued the enemies of 
 God's people, and firmly established their strength and 
 prosperity, to crown a work of such extraordinary renown, 
 by building a Temple— the only one in all tlie earth— where 
 the Lord Jehovah should set his name and his worship ? 
 Surely it requii-ed a greater effort of self-denial in this case 
 to renounce the holy, than it would have done to renounce 
 the guilty ambition. And yet, after his noble enterprise 
 had seemed to receive the sanction both of God and men, 
 it became the duty of David to resign it into the hands of 
 another. But why are these things adduced? To show 
 how the temptations of om- Lord, without being sinful in 
 the least degTce, might, notwithstanding, be what we know 
 they were, more sharp and temble than any other. What 
 though he had no ii-regular or exaggerated passions to re- 
 strain? He had holy, just, pure, heavenly affections, 
 strong in proportion to the greatness of his soul, and warm 
 in proportion to the brightness and dignity of their objects ; 
 which he was called upon, by the nature of his undertaking, 
 not only to control, but for a season to thwart so painfully, 
 and to turn aside so violently from their natm-al courses, 
 that he must have needed to exercise a persevering strength 
 of self-denial altogether matchless ; and must have had in 
 his heart experience far beyond what mere mortality could 
 have endured, of the profoundest soitow, the keenest an- 
 guish, and the harshest mortification. What feelings but 
 such as these could he have experienced in those hours of 
 temptation, when, with a spiilt feelingly alive to all the re- 
 finements of celestial purity and love itself, he had to bear 
 
 n2 
 
298 A SERMON 
 
 the loathsome suggestions, and encounter the detestable 
 impulses of diabolical wickedness and pollution ? — or still 
 more, when with a heart that was completely absorbed in 
 the love of God, and that found its highest delight in the 
 sense of his fellowship and favour, it behoved him, by his 
 own consent, not only to feel himself forsaken of God, 
 alone and desolate ; but also to endure in his spirit the 
 whole expression and effect of God's infinite wrath, when 
 roused to execute the utmost vengeance of sovereign jus- 
 tice upon the sins for which, though he did not commit 
 them, it was his lot to suffer. No trial, it is evident, could 
 be either more holy or more terrible than this. Nay, in 
 the very perfection of its holiness its terror was consum- 
 mated. 
 
 m. But now we come to the third inquiry, Whether 
 the temptation of Christ, being without sin, could give him 
 a thorough experience and feeling of human infirmity in 
 the hour of trial. To judge of this we must attend to the 
 manner in which that sense of weakness is produced in 
 ourselves, to which our Lord's sympathy has reference. 
 Some moral conflict is necessary for the production of it : 
 for whatever may be our real infimiity, it is only in some 
 struggle that we have the " feeling of infirmity." Then only 
 are we thoroughly conscious of weakness, when putting 
 forth our whole strength we feel it insufficient, or but little 
 more than sufficient to meet the exigency — and are, conse- 
 quently, open to the impressions of danger and the assaults 
 of fear. Such alarming sensations may alike be excited, 
 whether we fail or whether we are victorious in the con- 
 flict. He that has been overcome must, indeed, have felt 
 his weakness ; and yet experience will testify, that he may 
 have a much less clear and affecting sense of it, than the 
 man whom God's especial grace and providence have en- 
 abled to stand in the evil day ; and who afterwards from 
 a place of safety looks back with wonder and awe upon his 
 painful wrestlings, his perilous exposures, and his critical 
 escapes. And why then may not om* High Priest, though 
 
ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 299 
 
 unconquered, have acquired the like sensibility in his 
 temptation ? He had no sin, it is true ; but did he not feel 
 weakness ? Did he not see danger ? Was not his heart 
 afi'aid ? When tempted, had he not experience of a con- 
 flict which brought his strength and holiness to as unspar- 
 ing a trial as any that befalls his people can bring theirs V 
 What less can be intimated to us by such complaints and 
 supplications as these ? " I am poured out like water ; all 
 my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax ; it is 
 melted in the midst of my bowels : My strength is dried 
 up like a potsherd. Be not thou far fi'om me, O Lord ! 
 O my strength, make haste to help me ! Deliver my soul 
 from the sword ; my darling from the power of the dog. 
 Save me from the lion's mouth. Thou hast heard me from 
 the horns of the unicorns ! " 
 
 Our understanding and belief of this most important 
 truth receives some distm'bance from certain ill-defined 
 notions of the share which our Lord's Godhead must have 
 taken in superuatm'ally sustaining his human powers while 
 under temptation. " The Word was Gk)d," we say with 
 the evangelist ; " how then," we add, " could he ever be in 
 straits ? " The question would be quite in point, did it be- 
 long to the perfection of his fitness for the mediatorial 
 office, or did it even consist with that fitness, that his hu- 
 manity should be placed, as without doubt it could easily 
 have been, beyond all reach of sharp and distressing temp- 
 tation. But the case was far otherwise. " For in that he 
 was tempted," says the apostle, "he is able to succour them 
 that are tempted :" — words which distinctly teach that, m 
 consequence of encountering painful conflict, such as calls 
 for succour, he has acquired, for the relief of others in simi- 
 lar circumstances, a qualification and a meetness which he 
 could not otherwise have possessed ; but without which it 
 is obvious that he could not be, what he now is, a perfect 
 mediator. According to the Scriptures, then, it was the 
 work-of that Divinity which is mysteriously united with 
 manhood in his person, — not to raise his suffering natm-e 
 
300 A SERMON 
 
 to such a height of glorious power as would render all trial 
 slight and contemptible ; but to confer upon it such strength 
 as would be infallibly sufficient — I say infalUhhj sufficient 
 — but not more than sufficient, just to bear him through 
 the fearful strife that awaited him, without his being broken 
 or destroyed — so that he might thoroughly experience, in 
 all the faculties of his soul and body, the innumerable sensa- 
 tions of overpowering difficulty, and exhausting toil, and 
 fainting weakness, and tormenting anguish, though by the 
 Holy Ghost preserved from sin — and might touch the very 
 brink of danger, though not be swept away by it, and feel 
 all the horror of the precipice, but without falling over. 
 
 This view of the case implies no disparagement to the 
 greatness of our Lord's endowments considered as a man. 
 On the contrary, the belief that his conflict was extreme, 
 is held by none more consistently than by those who hold, 
 at the same time, upon the fidlest evidence, that even as a 
 man, he was in every excellence, moral and intellectual, 
 exalted unmeasurably, not only above all that are born of 
 women, but even above all that is revealed of angelic sanc- 
 tity or gi'andeur. The unrivalled greatness of his soul was 
 no reason why he should pass through his trial without 
 difficulty ; because the hostihty and the hardship with 
 which he had to contend was high and formidable in pro- 
 portion. It was little that he was to meet the rage of 
 confederated men, in all the plenitude of canial power : — 
 it was even little that he stood alone against the concen- 
 trated might of the kingdom of darkness, when it was sti- 
 mulated by cu'cumstances to the utmost violence of despe- 
 rate animosity, and came armed with the whole subtilty 
 and vehemence of its spiritual temptations. He had to 
 stand before the face of incensed Omnipotence — and to en- 
 counter the strokes of that flaming sword of Jehovah, 
 which was to fall in vengeance upon the sins of an apos- 
 tate world. And who then shall undertake to tell, what a 
 marvellous enlargement of forethought and knowledge in a 
 liuman soul — what an inextricable grasp of assured faith 
 
ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 301 
 
 upon the promises of God — what an u*on strength of holy 
 resolution — and what uuextinguishable ardours of divine 
 and saving love — must have been found in him, who could 
 not only before-hand resolve to meet such ten-ors, but 
 could actually sustain them, and not only sustain but con- 
 quer them, when they came at once, with united force and 
 fierceness, to wrestle with his spirit in the agonies of the 
 cross ! 
 
 Neither let it be imagmed, on the other side, that the 
 putting forth of such astonishing power by the Man Jesus, 
 was at all inconsistent with the " feeling of infiiinity." 
 That feeling does not depend alone upon the measure of a 
 champion's strength, whether small or great, nor alone 
 upon the extent, whether small or great, of the force that 
 is brought against him ; but it depends stUl more upon 
 the proportion — the adjustment — the almost equality, of 
 the conflicting powers. "When these differ only so much 
 as is just sufiicient to decide the combat, then he that con- 
 quers, and does hardly more than conquer, will find in 
 every nerve a thorough sense of his weakness. But this is 
 not all. Though it may seem paradoxical, it is a truth, 
 that he will have this feeling the more perfectly, the gi'eater 
 degrees and varieties of skill, and strength, and courage, 
 and patience, he may have found himself compelled to 
 exert in the struggle. If it be one in which multitudes, be- 
 sides the leaders, are concerned, this truth will be the more 
 evident. The more that we enlarge the field, and multi- 
 ply the destructive engines, and exasperate the fury, and 
 magnify the consequences of battle, the more we shall 
 deepen the sense of infirmity in him, who with his eyes open 
 to see the whole danger, does but just rescue his life and 
 his cause from the tumult, though it be by victory. In the 
 shock of contending armies, w^hen some monarch experi- 
 enced in war surveys at one view the nearly equal num- 
 bers and advantages of the opposing lines — beholds all the 
 strength and resources of his enemies for the work of de- 
 struction — comprehends the perilous skill and boldness of 
 
302 A SERMOJT 
 
 their hostile movements — and perceives the deep and i-uin- 
 ous impressions made by them upon his otvti host ; when 
 he foresees not only the immediate discomfiture, and rout, 
 and carnage, Avhich must ensue upon any failure in cour- 
 age or conduct on his own part, but also the revolutions 
 and miseries of nations that must be the consequence of 
 his defeat : how much more strong and enlarged, at such 
 a moment, must be his sense of insufficiency and inade- 
 quacy, than can be that of any ignorant soldier in his 
 army, — or shall I say, of the war-horse that carries him — 
 which feels no burden but the weight of his master, and 
 sees no danger but in the weapon that glitters at his 
 breast ! And what has occasioned this intenser feeling of 
 infirmity in the man and the sovereign ? Nothing but the 
 greater extent and variety of his powers, when tasked to 
 the uttermost, by an occasion of overwhelming interest and 
 danger. Even so — since we have no better means of ar- 
 riving at the conception of spiritual things than by liken- 
 ing them to earthly objects infinitely mean and contemp- 
 tible in comparison — even so we may understand how 
 Christ, in possessing the most glorious poAvers, can yet 
 have had a sense of weakness more deep and affecting by 
 far, than we, in the narrowness of our faculties, can either 
 experience or conceive ; a sense entirely suited to the un- 
 paralleled greatness and terror of his conflict. He saw the 
 conjuncture in all its awful magnitude ! He viewed the 
 result in all its tremendous importance ! He knew himself 
 advancing to a post where his created and mortal natiu-e, 
 struck with the fiery darts of hell from beneath, and pierced 
 from above by the arrows of the Almighty, must abide the 
 shock and pressure of a falling world ; and where the failure 
 but for one moment of his human endurance and resolution, 
 must effect not only the universal and eternal triumph of 
 wickedness and misery ; but what it is fearful to name, 
 even while we know it can never happen — the defeat of 
 his Father's counsel — the failm-e of his Father's truth — 
 and the desecration of his Father's Godhead ! What won- 
 
ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 303 
 
 der if we find it written that with a crisis like this before 
 liim, Jesus, in his " sore amazement," "sweated blood?" 
 or that when the actual extremity of his agony arrived, he 
 poured out supplications with strong crying and tears unto 
 him that was able to help him, and was heard indeed — 
 but heard in that he feared ? 
 
 IV. That Chi'ist then, in his fearful though sinless con- 
 flict, thus gained a thorough " feeling of infirmity," is cer- 
 tain : — that this feeling lays an ample foundation for a 
 true and perfect sympathy with his people in all theii' trials, 
 remains to be briefly manifested. The text obviously in- 
 tends to teach nothing more than that the sympathy of 
 Christ is secure to those who believe in him — who acknow- 
 ledge him as theii' High Priest — and who hold the same 
 attitude in which he was found on earth, striving against 
 sin. But this does not prejudice the truth taught in many 
 other passages of Scripture, that he regards with compas- 
 sion even the very chief of impenitent sinners. That he 
 could derive from the experience of suffering on account 
 of sin a vivid sense of the miseries which men bring down 
 upon themselves by their transgi'essions, is self-evident ; 
 and that he has no disposition to withhold fi'om any who 
 will accept of it, the benefit of this fellow-feeling, appears 
 from his lamentation over the perishing rebels of Jeru- 
 salem. In one point, however, it is quite true, that his 
 participation of such men's sentiments does entirely fail. 
 He can have no fellowship with their love of sin. Their 
 impure, unrighteous, ungodly thoughts and feelings are 
 utter strangers to his heart. There can be no concord of 
 Christ with Belial. But is this any disadvantage to those 
 unhappy persons in seeking salvation from him ? Quite 
 the contrary. K he could possibly have a fellow-feeling 
 with their sins, yet to what end would they wish for the 
 existence of such a feeling ? Is it that he might the more 
 indulge them in their wickedness ? That^ instead of pro- 
 moting theii' salvation, would be deepening then- destruction. 
 Is it that he might the better mortify and expel their sins? 
 
304 A SERMON 
 
 But how coiild such an object be promoted by his con- 
 cuiTing in their sins, and entering into the spu-it of them ? 
 Surely his invincible abhorrence of every the least iniquity, 
 and his infinite love of holiness and unspotted righteous- 
 ness, are the very best pledges that sinners can desire of, 
 his most earnest readiness to aid them in renouncing all 
 their transgressions. Thus even where his fellow-feeling 
 comes short, and in reference to his very enemies, it is 
 most for then- real interest that it should do so. But if 
 any such desire to be, in every point, and to the utmost 
 extent, in harmony with the Son of God — theii' course is 
 plain : — let them repent and believe the Gospel. 
 
 To all who are already in the faith, the comfort of the 
 te-xt is offered without reserve. Engaged in the very 
 same conflict by which Christ acquired his own sense of 
 infirmity, they may rest assured that he can thoroughly 
 appreciate theii's. With what kind or degree of afiliction 
 can they be tried of which he had not experience ? Toil, 
 pain, poverty, disappointment, reproach, and calumny, the 
 strife of tongues, the violence of hostile deeds, oppres- 
 sion, mockery, murder, were his portion more than any 
 man's. His tender feelings were wounded by the death of 
 friends — by the anguish of a mother with the sword in her 
 soul — by the treachery of false disciples — by the desertion, 
 in his time of utmost need, of those who were sincerely 
 devoted to him — by the eternal ruin of many whom " be- 
 holding he loved," and amongst them his own unbelie\ing 
 kindred. The mysterious powers of hell were let loose 
 upon him. The hand of God touched him. These things, 
 and more, came upon him to the uttermost. " He was 
 tempted in all points even as we are." Then what could 
 we wish for besides ? He is with us to relieve every one 
 of our afflictions with the united skill of God and of a fel- 
 low-man who has experienced the same ; so long as we 
 do not willingly yield ourselves to the influences of sin, 
 but are found like good soldiers enduring hardness for his 
 sake. 
 
ox HEBREWS IV. 15. 305 
 
 Say not that he could not, like you, have felt the bur- 
 den of conscious guilt, having committed no personal sin. 
 For, on the one hand, the sins of the world were laid to 
 his charge^ covering him, before God and angels and men, 
 and in his own eyes also, with the garment of shame ; and, 
 on the other hand, he hath taken all the guilt of his people 
 wholly and for ever away, so that " there is now no con- 
 demnation for them that are in Christ Jesus," who, in 
 striving against temptation, are " walking not after the 
 flesh, but after the Spu'it." Then why should the sense of 
 guilt be more disheartening to those from whom guilt has 
 been removed, for the purposes of forgiveness, than to 
 him upon whom guilt was laid, for the purposes of retribu- 
 tion? 
 
 Say not that, by having committed innumerable sins, 
 yom' temptations from within and fi'om without have 
 greatly gathered strength, while your powers and means 
 of resistance have been proportionably diminished — a 
 source of discouragement which could not have affected 
 Christ, as being fi-ee from the commission of sin. But 
 wherein lies the real force of this objection ? Is it not in 
 the gi'eat hardship and difficulty of the conflict to which 
 the disadvantages in question expose you? But is your 
 struggle, at the worst, more severe or more desperate than 
 was the Lord's ? If not, believe not that yom- feeling of in- 
 firmity can be more perfect than his, or that there can be 
 any pangs of fear or faintness in your heart which his ex- 
 perience did not more than parallel. 
 
 O ! but in him was Godhead — and he had the promise 
 of the Father that he should not fail nor be discouraged 
 until his mighty task were completed. And is not God- 
 head also your refuge and your strength, a very present 
 help in the time of trouble ? Does not the Holy Spirit 
 dwell also in you ? and has not the Father said to you also, 
 " Fear not, for I am with thee : Be not dismayed, for I 
 am thy God ; I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee, 
 yea, I will uphold thee Tvith theright hand of myrighteous- 
 
306 A SERMON ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 
 
 ness?" Nay, that very Saviour, whose almighty suffi- 
 ciency our cowardly distrusts pervert, by such reasonings, 
 into a source of misgiving, instead of a theme of triumph ; 
 — can his destinies be separated for a moment from those 
 of his people ? Is not he himself our head, and we the 
 members of his body ? Are we not of his flesh and of his 
 bones ? Is it not the power of his resurrection that keeps 
 us from death ? Is not our life hid with Christ in God ? 
 And is not the promise absolute, that when he who is our 
 life shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory ? 
 Let us then be strong and of a good courage. Let us fight 
 a good fight. Let us lay hold on eternal life. Insufficient 
 of ourselves for these things, let us look the more to that 
 sufficiency which is promised us of God ; and seeing we 
 have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the 
 feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like 
 as we are, yet without sin, let us therefore come boldly to 
 the throne of gi*ace, that we may obtain mercy, and find 
 grace to help in time of need. Amen. 
 
THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE MCARMTION 
 
 PAKT II. 
 
 JUDGMENT OF THE PEIMITIVE CHUKCH CONCERN- 
 ING THE HUMAN NATURE OF OUR LORD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 Having considered the doctrine of Scripture upon the In- 
 carnation, I now proceed to inquii-e into the sentiments of 
 those who, from the beginning, took the Scriptures for the 
 rule of their faith. The value of the argument derived 
 from this soui'ce will be very differently estimated by dif- 
 ferent men. But I think it must be admitted that it is a 
 strong argument in favour of our view of Scripture, if we 
 can show that the immediate disciples of the Apostles 
 took the same view. And they who are inclined to at- 
 tach to the opinion of the primitive church the smallest 
 argumentative weight, must admit, that the determina- 
 tion of what that opinion really was is an important 
 
308 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 point in ecclesiastical history ; which it is the more neces- 
 sary to elucidate, that the fatal doctrinal error of the sin- 
 fulness of om* Lord's humanity has derived no small sup- 
 port from a total misconception upon this subject. 
 
 We naturally direct om- attention, in the first instance, 
 to the opinions entertamed upon this point by the Jews, 
 during the lifetime of our Lord. They certainly expected 
 the Messiah to be a man, the " woman's seed." But they 
 did not expect him to be a suifering man, though nothing 
 concerning him be more clearly predicted by the prophets 
 than the certainty of his sufferuigs. Their reluctance to 
 believe this, together with the impossibility of evading the 
 many and plain declarations of the prophets, gave rise to 
 the h}^30thesis of two Messiahs, one of the tribe of Ephraim 
 who should suffer, and another of the tribe of Judah who 
 should reign. That he was to be truly a man, born in 
 Bethlehem, they did not doubt. That he was to be a suf- 
 fering man, they could not bring themselves to believe. 
 The Apostles had their full share in all the national pre- 
 judices of their countrymen ; and when our Lord foretold 
 his own death, " Peter took him and began to rebuke him, 
 saying. Far be it from thee. Lord, this shall not be unto 
 thee." And when, on another occasion, signifying what 
 death he should die, he said, " And I, if I be lifted up 
 from the earth, will draw all men unto me," "The people 
 answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ 
 abideth for ever ; and how sayest thou. The Son of Man 
 must be lifted up ? Who is this Son of Man ?" This Son 
 of Man who was to suffer, was not that Son of Man whom 
 they expected. The reader hardly needs to be told that 
 I make these statements without attaching much weight 
 to them. The notions of the Jews, with some truth com- 
 bined such a mass of eiTor, as to render them of little 
 value ; but the statement is necessary in tracing the pro- 
 gress and nature of tlie opinions upon this very important 
 subject. 
 
 It is of much greater importance to ascertain the senti- 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 309 
 
 ments of Simon of Samaria upon this subject. The exact 
 natm-e of his opinions and pretensions it is not very easy 
 to detennine, as the accounts given of them in the primi- 
 tive wi'iters are often vague, and sometimes contradictor}^ 
 In the Acts of the Apostles we are told that he gave him- 
 self out for " some gi-eat one," and that by the people he 
 was said to be " the mighty power of God." That he 
 gave himself out as one of the powers — lv!jctf/,ug — of God, 
 is certain. That he assumed to be " the mighty power of 
 God," — VI lvyoi,uig v] fisyuT^yj, — is not quite so clear. This 
 point would be determined, if we could deteraiine the 
 place which he assigned to Christ among his ^ous. He 
 was the first who introduced the name of Christ into the 
 Gnostic system ; and if he considered Christ to be the 
 same as Isovg, the first emanation from Bythos and Sige^ 
 then he must be imderstood to have aiTogated to himself 
 all that the people ascribed to him. I am disposed, how- 
 ever, to think that his pretensions, at least at first, were 
 of a more moderate description. For the sacred writer 
 stating his pretensions, only says that he gave himself out 
 to be '■'•some gi'eat one," that is, I suppose some one of 
 the many powers of God which he acknowledged ; and I 
 should rather think, that at that early period, when he 
 seemed disposed to embrace Christianity, and to become 
 a disciple of the Apostles, being actually baptized, he had 
 not yet either settled his own system, or determined his 
 own place in it. At a later period, when his boldness in- 
 creased with the multitude of his dupes, he probably car- 
 ried his pretensions to a higher pitch ; and this may ac- 
 count for some portion of what appears contradictory in 
 the accounts that we have of him. Besides, Ii-enaeus 
 notes it as a peculiarity of Basilides, that he made Christ 
 the same as Not/g-, whence it may probably be infen-ed 
 that in Simon's system Christ occupied a lower place; 
 and, consequently, that he did not give himself out as 
 "the mighty power of God," when he taught that the 
 same ^on Chiist, who had dwelt in Jesus, and had re- 
 
olO GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 turned to the pleroma at his crucifixion, had again de- 
 scended from the pleroma, and dwelt in him. 
 
 But in whatever way this may be determined, it is cer- 
 tain, that, in consequence of teaching that the ^on Christ 
 dwelt in him, he arrogated to himself all that he under- 
 stood the Apostles to ascribe to our Lord, or that he 
 thought ought to be ascribed to him. As oiu- Lord had 
 wrought mu'acles, so Simon pretended to do the same, de- 
 ceiving the people by his "lying wonders." Our Lord 
 was born of a Vu'gin Mother ; and Simon gave out also 
 that his mother Rachel conceived him when a virgin. 
 This has justly been considered as a decisive proof that 
 the miraculous conception formed a part of the preaching 
 of the Apostles ; since no other reason can be assigned 
 why Simon should arrogate such a privilege to himself. 
 In opposition, therefore, to the absurd argument so often 
 urged, that the Ebionites rejected those parts of the Gos- 
 pels which teach the mu'aculous conception ; and, there- 
 fore, those parts cannot be genuine, nor the doctrine true, 
 — though many of the Ebionites themselves believed it, — 
 we may fairly place the clearly implied testimony of Simon 
 to the fact, that the miraculous conception was taught by 
 the Apostles. As to his body, Simon could not say of it, 
 as he said of that of our Lord, in direct opposition to the 
 Apostles, that it was a mere phantom ; yet he made as 
 near an approach to this as possible, when he taught that 
 his own body was impassible and immortal. Nay, we 
 are informed that it was just upon this gi'ound that he be- 
 came head of the sect. He was originally one of the dis- 
 <nples of Dositheus ; and it is stated in the Clementine 
 Homilies, that his master being angry with him, struck 
 Iiim repeatedly with a rod ; and being confounded on ob- 
 serving that the rod passed through the body of Simon as 
 through air, he immediately resigned to him his place. 
 Simon then assumed the title of 6 kalug (stans) — the 
 Slander — because he said his flesh was so compacted by 
 his divinity as to be fitted to endure for ever. 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 311 
 
 From Simon, his view of om* Lord's flesh naturally 
 passed to the Gnostics, as he is commonly referred to by 
 the primitive writers as the father of the Gnostic system. 
 They did not mean by this to say that it originated with 
 him ; but he acquked the eminence of being looked upon 
 as its father, both because he made some material altera- 
 tions upon it, especially by introducing Christ into it, as 
 one of his -3Eon3 ; and because he appears to have been 
 the first who travelled into different countries, for the pur- 
 pose of propagating it. This he did some time before the 
 Apostles went abroad to preach the Gospel. Theodoret 
 tells us that when the Samaritans received the Gospel, and 
 Simon found that he could no longer bewitch them by his 
 sorceries, he travelled abroad to spread his errors where 
 men were not yet fortified by the Gospel against them. 
 Thus Gnosticism, in many instances, preceded the Gospel, 
 and as it carried the name of Christ along with it, it 
 proved one of the most powerful obstacles to the reception 
 of the Gospel at first, and one of the most fatal means of 
 coiTupting it afterwards. 
 
 The origin of Gnosticism is involved in an obscurity 
 which it now seems hardly possible to penetrate. That it 
 sprung from the Platonic philosophy, that it sprung from 
 the Oriental philosophy, that it sprung from the Jewish 
 Cabbala, are opinions each of which has been maintained 
 with great learning and ability. Into this perplexing 
 question I am not called to enter.' I may merely remark 
 in passing, that it is very certain that it bon'owed very 
 freely from aU these sources ; and being of a veiy pliant 
 nature, easily accommodated itself to the prejudices of 
 those by whom it was adopted ; so that in one man it 
 would more nearly approximate one of these systems, and 
 in another another of them. From Platonism it took the 
 doctrine that matter is uncreated, and the source of all 
 e-sil, from the Oriental philosophy it took the doctrine of 
 
 1 See note K. Appendix. 
 
312 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 two principles, and fi'om the Cabbala it borrowed its S3^s- 
 tem of emanations ; and it appears highly probable that 
 one or another of these doctrines would hold a more or less 
 prominent place in the system, according to the early 
 education and prejudices of the individual adopting the 
 system. 
 
 That doctrine of the Gnostics with which we are here 
 particularly concerned, is their opinion that matter is un- 
 created, and is the source of all evil. This doctrine, I have 
 just remarked, they derived fi'om Platonism, and, indeed, 
 it was not peculiar to Plato, but was held by other Greek 
 philosophers. Believing this, the Gnostics utterly abhor- 
 red the doctrine of the resuiTcction, because they con- 
 sidered salvation just to consist in a total separation from 
 matter ; and they altogether denied the Incarnation, for 
 that would have been to unite Christ with that which is 
 essentially evil. They maintained that the body of Christ 
 was a mere phantom, because, had he taken real flesh, it 
 must, according to then- principles, have of necessity been 
 sinful flesh, as there was none else to take: and they 
 could not conceive that he who was sent to save men from 
 sin could have about him any thing sinful. On this point 
 the Catholics fully agreed with them, that he could have 
 nothing sinful about him. This was the common ground 
 on which they met, — the point from which they diverged. 
 He could not have real flesh, argued the Gnostics ; for if 
 he had, it must have been sinful. The Catholics saw at 
 once that this denial of the reality of his manhood was 
 fatal to the Gospel, and utterly destroyed the work of re- 
 demption. They therefore argued that he had real flesh, 
 but that flesh is not necessarily evil. Upon this point, 
 therefore, the sentiments of the opposing parties were 
 brought to a simple, distinct, and intelligible issue. And 
 the simplest, shortest, and most satisfactory method of 
 bringing out these sentiments, will be to take one of the 
 texts of Scripture which formed the ground of contention 
 between them, and see how they treated it. We may for 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 313 
 
 this purpose take 1 Cor. xv. 50, "Now this I say, breth- 
 ren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
 God ; neither doth coiTuption inherit incon-uption." The 
 Gnostics lU'gecl this text in support of their own pe- 
 culiar tenet, as to the essential sinfulness of flesh, and in 
 support of their doctrine, that the body of Christ was 
 a mere phantom. Now, if the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
 was a doctrine of the primitive Church, then the Ca- 
 tholic writers would of course agree with the Gnostics 
 in their interpretation of the text. We may expect to find 
 them not only admitting the consequence which the Gnostics 
 urged upon them from the text, that if Christ took flesh 
 at aU it must have been sinful flesh, but glorying in 
 maintaining that he did, — giving the Gnostics no occa- 
 sion to prove it, — ^leaving them no room to cast it upon 
 them as a reproach, and that founded upon a doubtful 
 inference ; but openly and strenuously declaring that, 
 in very deed, Christ did take sinful flesh, and asserting 
 the sinfulness of his flesh to be just the fundamental 
 truth of Christianity. And they would then perhaps have 
 proceeded to explain the paradox, how Christ took sinful 
 flesh and yet was sinless. This explanation the Gnostic 
 would not have received, but would probably have main- 
 tamed that to take sinful flesh and yet be sinless, is not 
 merely a paradox, but a contradiction in terms. More- 
 over, had the Catholic maintained, or for one moment ad- 
 mitted, the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, he would have 
 furnished the Gnostics with the means of arguing in the 
 following resistless manner : — ' You admit that the most 
 sacred portion of matter in existence, — that portion which 
 was, by a peculiar work of the Holy Ghost, formed into 
 the body of God, was fallen, sinful, rebellious, wicked flesh. 
 But if this was the character of that portion of matter, 
 then upon what possible grounds can you doubt or deny 
 that all matter is evil ? For surely if matter can possibly 
 exist separate from that evil which we maintain to be in- 
 herent in it, it must have so existed in the person of God. 
 
 
 
r>14 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 liiit YOU admit that in his person it was all evil ; how then 
 can it be doubted that it is all evil wherever it exists ?' 
 To this reasoning, I cannot conceive what reply the Ca- 
 tholic could possibly make. Maintaining the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's flesh, he had fairly bound himself down to ad- 
 mit the doctrine which the Gnostics had borrowed from 
 Greek philosophy, namely, that all matter is inherently 
 evil.i Thus the Catholic, in admitting the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's flesh, gave himself up, bound hand and foot, into 
 the power of the Gnostic ; and that all matter is evil he 
 became compelled to admit as a portion of his creed. And 
 so clearly and inevitably does the one of these doctrines 
 lead to the other, that I find one of the most celebrated 
 defenders of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh in the pre- 
 sent day openly asserting that matter, «// matter, is fallen! 
 This makes it perfectly manifest, if it were not so already, 
 how inevitably the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 flesh infers that of the evil of matter. That it became evil 
 hy falling is only adding to the in-ationality of Gnosticism. 
 I have had occasion, in the former part of this work, to 
 show how completely the various anointings of Christ, 
 arising out of the doctrine of the sinfulness of his flesh, 
 establishes one of the fundamental tenets' of Gnosticism. 
 That from the same doctrine has sprung, even in the pre- 
 sent day, the conclusion that all matter is fallen, is a fact 
 which shows how very clearly and inevitably that doctrine 
 establishes another fundamental tenet of that system. 
 The Catholic, after admitting the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 flesh, not only could have no ground upon which he could 
 deny the evil of matter ; but he could have no reason what- 
 ever for wishing to deny it. And adopting the two funda- 
 mental tenets of Gnosticism, he had fah'ly abandoned the 
 Gospel. 
 
 But do we actually find the Catholic writers, when dis- 
 cussing this text with the Gnostics, conceding, nay, main- 
 
 i See note L. Appendix. 
 
GEXERAI. VIEWS. 315 
 
 taining that Christ actually took sinful flesh ? Or do we 
 find the Gnostics urging the triumphant and resistless ar- 
 gument with which such a concession would have furnish- 
 ed them ? I can only say, that if such a concession on the 
 part of a Catholic, or such a plain conclusion from it on 
 the part of the Gnostic, ever existed, a search carried over 
 no nari'ow field, and conducted with no inattentive eye, 
 has presented to me not the slightest traces of them. On 
 the contrary, I have met with the most abundant and 
 overwhelming evidence, that a very difi'erent view of the 
 text was taken by the Catholics, — a view from which the 
 Gnostic, whatever advantage he might take of it, could 
 draw no conclusion in favour of his own dogma as to the 
 inherent evU of matter. The first wi'iter, as far as I re- 
 collect, who undertakes to controvert the Gnostic interpre- 
 tation of the text, is Irenseus. His interpretation of the 
 text is, that the sentence of exclusion from the kingdom of 
 God is pronounced not literally against flesh and blood, 
 but figuratively against the fruits of the flesh, which the 
 same apostle elsewhere enumerates. And the very argu- 
 ment by which he attempts to prove that flesh and blood 
 cannot here be understood literally is, that the same apostle 
 everywhere uses these words when speaking of Christ, 
 which, in his opinion, he could not have done, had there 
 been any thing in flesh and blood unfit for the kingdom of 
 God. I give a small portion of his argument, from which 
 the reader will clearly see the principle upon which it is 
 founded, and the design and tendency of the whole. ' But 
 that the apostle spoke not against the substance of flesh 
 and blood, that it should not inherit the kingdom of God, 
 appears from this, that the same apostle everywhere uses 
 the words flesh and blood with regard to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; partly, indeed, that he may establish his manhood, 
 (for he called himself the Son of Man,) and partly also 
 that he might certify the salvation of our flesh. For if 
 flesh had not been to be saved, the Word of God would not 
 
316 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 have been made flesh.'' Here the very fact that the ex- 
 pressions ^es/i and blood are applied to Christ is urged as 
 a proof that they can not be sinful, — can have nothing in 
 them unfit for the kingdom of God. Did Irenaus, then, in 
 urging tliis argument, dream of admitting that even in 
 Christ himself they were smftil and wicked? Nothing can 
 possibly be more evident than that he would have shunned, 
 indeed, does shmi, the impiety of such a supposition, as 
 carefully as he shuns Gnosticism Itself. We may wonder, 
 indeed, tliat so judicious and discriminatmg a wiitcr should 
 liave adopted a view of the text so palpably eiToneous. 
 But he was urged by the Gnostic interpretation of it, to 
 get away from that interpretation as far as possible. We 
 often deride the comments of the Fathers, without taking 
 into consideration the situation in which they were placed, 
 and the circumstances that led to these comments. There 
 are many comments afloat in the present age, as erroneous 
 and as ridiculous as any that will be found in the Fathers ; 
 and which not only pass without censure, but meet with 
 high applause. 
 
 Erroneous as is the view of this text, into which a dread 
 of Gnosticism led Irena^us, the same cause induced many 
 others to adopt the same view. He is followed in his in- 
 terpretation by Tertullian, by Hilary of Rome, by Epi- 
 phanius, by Augustine, and others. Methodius attempts 
 to escape from the difficulty of the text by a somewhat 
 different interpretation, which he gives in his Treatise on 
 the Resurrection. Not having his work by me, I cannot 
 give his interpretation in his own words, but it is in sub- 
 stance as follows : — The kingdom of God is a phrase equi- 
 valent to eternal life. But eternal life is, in its own na- 
 
 1 Quoniam autem non adversus ipsam substantiam camis et sanguinis 
 dixit Apostolus, non possidere earn Regnum Dei, ubique idem Apostolus in 
 Domino Jesu Christo usus est camis et sanguinis nomine ; aliquid quidem, 
 uti hominem ejusstatuerct ; (etenim ipse semetipsum ftliiun dicebat hominis,) 
 aliquid autem, uti salutem carnis nostrai confirmaret. Si enim non haberet 
 caro salvari, nequaquam Verbiun Dei care factum esset.— Lib. v. cap. 14. 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 317 
 
 tui*e, a thing superior to flesh and blood. Now, it is not 
 proper to say that what is inferior possesses that which is 
 superior ; therefore, it is not proper to say that flesh and 
 blood possesses eternal life ; but it would be perfectly pro- 
 per to say that eternal life possesses flesh and blood. This 
 interpretation, I am afi-aid, does not possess sufficient in- 
 genuity to hide, or to atone for its gi'ievous inaccuracy. 
 It proceeds upon the supposition, which was then the esta- 
 blished interpretation, that the risen and glorified bodies 
 of the saints are still literally flesh and blood ; and on the 
 latter clause of the verse, — " neither doth coiTuption in- 
 herit incorruption," he simply retm-ns to that interpreta- 
 tion, observing that that is not coiTuption which is cor- 
 rupted, but that which corrupts 5 and, therefore, the sen- 
 tence of exclusion from the kingdom of God refers not to 
 the flesh, but to the coiTuptions of the flesh. 
 
 When this view of the text was fii'st promulgated, no 
 such thing as Pelagianism was kno^n or feared, else when 
 the Fathers felt themselves called upon to repel the conclu- 
 sion, as to the sinfulness of flesh and the evil of matter, 
 wjhich the Gnostics drew from this text, they would have 
 at the same time been effectually deteiTcd from adopting a 
 view of it, of a character so decidedly Pelagian. But 
 when we find the Fathers laboming in the very fire to 
 evade the argument founded on this text by the Gnostics, 
 and labouring to evade it by an interpretation with which 
 we may be surprised that they could for one moment be 
 satisfied, — an interpretation which we may be assured 
 they never would have dreamed of, had they not been 
 driven into it by their dread of Gnosticism. I would ask, 
 is it in the power of any human being to believe, in the 
 face of such facts, that in reality the Fathers admitted the 
 very interpretation which the Gnostics gave to the text '? 
 Nay, that they actually maintained that the flesh of Christ 
 was fallen sinful flesh? "When we find the Fathers actu- 
 ally opposing a most determined, and I regi-et to add, a 
 most injudiciously conducted opposition to the Gnostics, 
 
318 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 (attempting to prove that " flesh and blood" in the text 
 under notice are to be understood figuratively,) is it in our 
 power to believe that after all they were perfectly agreed 
 with the Gnostics, upon that very point on which such op- 
 position was ofiered ? This is to believe, and that in defi- 
 ance of the most undeniable facts, and the most overwhelm- 
 ing evidence, that the Fathers had abandoned one of the 
 principal grounds which separated them from the Gnostics ; 
 and, moreover, that they abandoned that ground upon the 
 point which above all others made it a matter of import- 
 ance to maintain it ; and, to complete the climax, that 
 while they abandoned this ground upon this most import- 
 ant point, they still continued to maintain it upon points of 
 inferior moment ; for I suppose nobody asserts that they 
 actually went over to the Gnostics, and embraced all their 
 notions with regard to flesh and matter. Yet all this we 
 must believe, if we believe that the Fathers held the doc- 
 trine that our Lord's humanity was fallen sinful humanity. 
 We must believe that to be true which our own eyes show 
 us to be the reverse of the truth ; and must hold the 
 Fathers to have maintained a doctrine which we find them 
 opposing with a zeal which leads them directly into an op- 
 posite error. 
 
 Nor is this all. I have already had occasion to remark 
 how very unfavourably the character of the Apostle John 
 contrasts with that of the modern teachers of the sinfulness 
 of our Lord's flesh. The Fathers must come in for their full 
 share in the censure. They saw the heresy which denies 
 that Christ has come " in the flesh," meeting them at every 
 point, perverting their disciples, desolating their churches, 
 and poisoning the streams of life. Yet, when the advo- 
 cates of that heresy come forward to say that they deny 
 that Christ really took flesh, because, if he did so, it must 
 have been sinful flesh, how do the Fathers meet them ? Do 
 they openly and boldly avow that this is indeed a funda- 
 mental point in their theology ? Do they proclaim it with 
 all that zeal which led them to face the stake and the wild 
 
GENEIIAL VIEWS. 319 
 
 beasts, that the Gnostics were on this point perfectly right, 
 — that unless Christ took sinful flesh, he must be held not 
 to have taken flesh at all ? Xo, they treated this argument 
 of the Gnostics as a most unfounded calumny ; and go so 
 far away from it as to maintain that we enter into heaven 
 with all the literal reality of flesh and blood. But would the 
 modern teachers of the sinfulness of om* Lord's flesh have 
 done this ? No, indeed. They profess to find the heresy 
 which denies that Christ has come " in the flesh," deeply in- 
 fecting the Chm'ch at present. It cannot, however, be ever 
 pretended that that heresy infects the Chm-ch at present as 
 deeply as it did in primitive times. Unguarded language 
 may have been used when there was no suspicion that it 
 would be strained by a wu'e-drawing criticism into mean- 
 ings that it never meant. Even such language I have not 
 met with, but that is no proof that such language may not 
 have been used. But assm-edly we have not noAv been going 
 from city to city, and from church to church, openly 
 avowing, and earnestly inculcating the doctrine that our 
 Lord's body was not flesh and blood, but a mere phantom ; 
 and perverting the faith of many. Yet while the heresy, 
 if it exist at all, which I more than doubt, exists in a form 
 the danger of which is not for a moment to be compared 
 with that in which it manifested itself in primitive times ; 
 it is met in a manner in which the Fathers never di'eamed 
 of meeting it. There is now no room left to impute it as 
 a reproach, or to urge it as an argument, that if Christ 
 took flesh at all, it must have been sinful flesh ; and there 
 is no attempting to escape the imputation, and to evade 
 the argument by an interpretation of a text which will not 
 stand a moment's examination. Not only are the tmth of 
 the imputation and the validity of the argument, which 
 was so zealously repelled by the Fathers, fully admitted, 
 but they are maintained with a zeal which no Gnostic 
 ever surpassed ; and interpretations of Scripture have been 
 advanced in their support wilder by far than any that the 
 Fathers ever produced to oppose them. How little, then. 
 
320 GENERAL ^^E^vs. 
 
 (lid the Fathers know of the real nature of Christianity ! 
 or how small was their zeal in its support ! You must ad- 
 mit, said the Gnostics, that if Christ took real flesh, it must 
 have been sinful flesh ; and the Fathers fly to the most 
 palpably inaccui-ate interpretations of Scripture, in order 
 to get quit of what they considered a most injurious impu- 
 tation. That imputation is now adopted as the grand fun- 
 damental trath of Christianity, The sinfulness of Christ's 
 flesh is as openly avowed, and as zealously maintained, as 
 it was openly denied, and zealously opposed by the Fathers. 
 And as if this were a small thing, we • are called upon to 
 believe that the Fathers really maintained a dogma which 
 we find them opposing in every page. If the doctrine of 
 the sinfulness of Christ's flesh be true, the Fathers must 
 stand convicted either of gilevous ignorance, or of still 
 more grievous unfaithfulness. Compare any volume of 
 any of the Fathers with any volume of any of the defend- 
 ci-s of the sinfulness of the Lord's humanity ; and consider, 
 too, how much more urgently the former were called upon 
 to insist upon that doctrine if it be true, than the latter 
 can possibly be ; and the Fathers will be found desei'ving 
 of a reprobation for their ignorance and unfaithfulness, 
 which must render theii- opinions upon any subject totally 
 unworthy of the slightest regard. The glory of antiquity, 
 if our Lord's flesh were really sinful, will be found to be 
 utterly dimmed, when compared with the suipassing know- 
 ledge, and irrepressible zeal and faithfulness of those who 
 at present maintain that doctrine. "NA-lien we find that on 
 being charged with maintaining, by implication, the doc- 
 trine that Christ took sinful flesh, they were so far from 
 avowing this to be true, — so far from making this doctrine 
 the great burden of their preaching, and glorying in it, 
 that, either through a most unaccountable ignorance, or a 
 most inexcusable, — and in men who willingly suffered mar- 
 tyrdom, — an equally unaccountable timidity, they shrunk 
 away from the doctrine as from a grievous impiety, and 
 fled from it to interpretations of Scripture which neither 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 321 
 
 they who admit, nor they who deny, that doctrine can ap- 
 prove, we must allow that the men, " of whom the world 
 Avas not worthy," were not in reality worthy of the world's 
 slightest regard. I can only desire the reader, who has 
 the opportunity, to compare the wiitings of the Fathers 
 Avho so strongly, — and often in so injudicious a manner, I 
 admit, — denied the sinfulness of om* Lord's flesh, T\ith 
 those of the modern writers who maintain that doctrine ; 
 and then determine for themselves whether the eulogy of 
 the Apostle Paul was unmerited or not. 
 
 The whole history of the Gnostic controversy will afford 
 to those who have an opportunity of entering into it, evi- 
 dence that the sinfulness of om* Lord's flesh was a doctrine 
 held in utter abhorrence by the Fathers, just as clear and 
 decisive as that afforded by that view of the discussion up- 
 on 1 Cor. XV. 50, which I have given. But I cannot en- 
 ter farther into it here. 
 
 The Apollinarian heresy will also afford us a clear view 
 of their sentiments upon this point. This heresy took its 
 rise fi'om Apollinarius the younger, bishop of Laodicea, and 
 one of the most accomplished men of antiquity, about the 
 year 370. His followers were very soon subdivided into 
 various parties ; but I have no occasion to enter into par- 
 ticulars. The distinguishing tenet of this heresy was, that 
 our Lord took only a human body, but not a reasonable 
 soul. The ground upon which they argued was this, that 
 a human body and a reasonable soul constitute a human 
 person ; if, therefore, Christ assumed both a body and a 
 reasonable soul, he assumed not human nature merely, but 
 a hiunan person. There would thus be lq Christ two per- 
 sons; and, moreover, an additional person would be intro- 
 duced into the Trinity, which would thus become a Qua- 
 teraity. Theii* common sajdng was. We worship not a 
 God-bearing Man, but a flesh-bearing God ; and they 
 charged the Catholics with ' man- worship, because they 
 held that Christ, as he was perfect God, was also perfect 
 Man. Li order to avoid dividing Christ, which they 
 
 o2 
 
322 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 charged the Catholics with doing, they maintained that he 
 made the body which he assumed consubstantial with his 
 Divinity. 
 
 The Catholics had in this case two things to do ; they had 
 a very fatal heresy to oppose, and they had a very serious 
 charge to repel. How they opposed the heresy, and proved 
 that Christ took a reasonable soul, as well as a true body, 
 has already been seen in the first part. I have here only 
 to notice the manner in which they met the charge of di- 
 viding Christ, and introducing an additional person into the 
 Trinity. This charge was founded upon their denial that 
 the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with his Divinity. 
 Xow, this is a charge which, had the Catholics held the 
 doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, would have com- 
 pelled them not merely to state that doctrine, but to bring 
 it forward in the most distinct and prominent manner, and 
 to urge it as earnestly as it is urged by those who hold that 
 doctrine now ; for it is not possible to conceive a more 
 simple, direct, and decisive reply to the charge, that they 
 made the flesh of Christ an additional person in the 
 Trinity, than simply to say, that so far were they from mak- 
 ing the flesh of Christ an additional person in the Trinity, 
 or an object of worship at all, that they held his flesh to be 
 fallen, sinful, wicked flesh, guilty, and alienated from 
 God. This reply would at once have efl"cctually silenced 
 the most obstinate Apollinarian. He would have been 
 compelled to admit that he did not understand them to 
 have such a view of the flesh of Christ as this, else he as- 
 suredly would never have accused them of making it an 
 additional person in the Trinity, an additional object of 
 worship ; how clearly soever he must still hold them guilty 
 of dividing the indivisible Christ of God. Yet if ever 
 this simple and decisive reply was given by the Catholics, 
 I can only say, that I have never met with it, nor ever 
 been able to detect the slightest trace of it. That the 
 Apollinarians did not believe the Catholics to hold the 
 doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, any more than 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 323 
 
 they themselves did, is perfectly clear, because thev- 
 brought against them a charge totally iiTecoucUeable witli 
 that Hotion. And that the Catholics in reality held no 
 such doctrine, is equally clear fi'om the fact, that they did 
 not, in their disputes with the Apollinarians, bring for- 
 ward a doctrine which would have enabled them to give, 
 in a single sentence, the most overwhelming refutation of 
 the grievous charge brought against them by these here- 
 tics. Or, if it be alleged that they actually did bring for- 
 ward the doctrine in question, in a dispute which so im- 
 periously reqmred it to be brought forward in the most 
 prominent manner, let the passage be produced that it 
 may be examined. And if no such argument as that fur- 
 nished by the doctrine of the sinfulness of Chi'ist's flesli 
 was used by the Catholics against the accusations of the 
 Apollinarians, the omission must be held to be fatal to the 
 assertion, that that doctrine had a place in the faith of 
 the primitive Church. Even the Apollinarians brought 
 no such charge against it. 
 
 This view of the manner in which the Catholics did not 
 meet the charge of the Apollinarians, will derive con- 
 siderable light from a view of the manner in which they 
 really did meet it. They not only rebutted, but success- 
 fully retorted the charge by reasoning in this conclusive 
 manner : — ' You say that the flesh of Christ was consub- 
 stantial with his Divinity. But consubstantiality implie.< 
 an identity of substance, together with a distinct person- 
 ality. Thus the Son is consubstantial with the Father ; 
 that is, he is of the same substance with the Father. But 
 then, if he were one person, as he is one nature with the 
 Father, — if he had not a distinct personality, then there 
 is no ground upon which he could be said to be consul i- 
 stantial with the Father. Without this distinct person- 
 ality he would be not consubstantial, but identical with 
 the Father. You, therefore, in making the flesh of Christ 
 consubstantial with the Word, make that flesh indeed tc 
 
324 GENERAL VIEWS. , 
 
 be Divine, but you make it a distinct person from the Word ; 
 for that flesh cannot possibly both be the Word, and be 
 also consubstantial with the Word.' The Apollinarians 
 were thus effectually proved to be guilty of that very en^or 
 Avhich they attributed to the Catholics. In declaring the 
 flesh to be consubstantial with the Word, they clearly 
 taught that it was a distinct person from the Word, — for 
 a person cannot be consubstantial with himself, — and thus 
 introduced an additional person into the Trinity. 
 
 The first wi'iter who reasons against the Apollinarians 
 in this manner is Athanasius, in his admirable letter to 
 Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, upon the subject. I prefer, 
 however, exhibiting the argument as it is given by Am- 
 brose, who has stated it in language so perfectly similar 
 to that of Athanasius, as to make it clear that he borrowed 
 it from that author ; while he gives it in a somewhat im- 
 proved form. In reference to the accusations of the 
 Apollinarians, he says : — ' Nor do I fear lest I should seem 
 to introduce a Quaternity : for we truly worship only a 
 Trinity who assert this, — namely^ that Christ had a soul as 
 well as a body^ and had not flesh consubstantial with the Di- 
 vinity. — For I do not divide Christ when I distinguish be- 
 tween the substance of his flesh and of his Divinity ; but 
 I preach one Christ, with the Father, and the Spii'it of 
 God ; and I will demonstrate that they rather introduce a 
 Quaternity who maintain that the flesh of Christ is of the 
 same substance with his Divinity. For what is consub- 
 stantial is not one person, but one thing, — non unus, sed 
 unum; for certainly the Nicene Fathers, confessing the 
 Son to be consubstantial with the Father, believed not 
 that there was one Person but one Divinity in the Father 
 and the Son. When, therefore, they — tJie Apollinarians 
 namely — say, that the flesh was of the same substance as 
 the Son of God, they themselves, by the absm-dity of their 
 assertion, do Avhat they object to us, — they divide Christ. 
 They therefore introduce a fourth uncreated person whom 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 325 
 
 we may adore ; while there is nothing uncreated saving 
 the Godhead of the Trinity.' ' 
 
 Thus the Apollinarian controversy affords us evidence 
 of the most decisive kind, that the sinfulness of Christ's 
 flesh was a doctrine totally rejected by the primitive 
 Church. We have the distinct testimony of the Apolli- 
 narians to this, for they charge the Catholics with making 
 the humanity of our Lord a distinct person of the God- 
 head. And the Catholics themselves, even though urged 
 by such a charge, never attempt to meet it by declaring 
 then- belief that the humanity of om* Lord, so far fi'om 
 being a distinct person of the Godhead, was fallen sinful 
 hmnanity, but employ a very different mode of reasoning 
 in order to escape the charge. 
 
 That the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity formed no 
 part of the faith of the primitive Church, is clear from this 
 
 1 Nee timeo ne tetrada videar inducere, nos enim vere solam, qui hoc ad- 
 serimus, colimus Trinitatem. Non enim Christum di\-ido, cum camis ejus 
 divinitatisque distinguo substantiam : sed unum Christum cum Patre et 
 Spiritu Dei prsedico, et UIos magis qui camem Christi unius cum di-vinitate 
 ejus dicunt esse suhstantise, tetrada inducere demonstrabo. Non enim quod 
 ejusdem substantias est, unus, sed unum est ; nam utique Filium ejusdem 
 cum Patre substantias confitentes, in tractatu concUii Nicceni, non unam per- 
 sonam, sed unam divinitatem in Patre et FUio crediderunt. Ergo cum di- 
 cunt ejusdem camem, cujus et FUius Dei erat, fnisse substantia ; ipsi quod 
 nobis objiciunt Ineptiis vanse adsertionis incurrunt, ut di\-idant Clu-istum. 
 Itaque quartum increatum, quod adoremus, inducunt ; cum sola increata sit 
 di^initas Trinitatis.— Z)e Incamatimk Bominicce Sacramento, cap. 7. I must 
 request the attention of the reader to the original. The concluding sen- 
 tence of the argument, as given by Athanasius in his letter to Epictetus, 
 whence it seems plain that Ambrose borrowed it, is as foUows:— n'g- y«^ 
 viog cjv KotT ecvlov; ofAoovaiog la Hocl^t, ovk saliv ccvlog liaTlr,^, 
 ccKKcx, viog Tr^og TLccU^oc 'Kiyfiui of^oovatog. ovlag lo oy^oovcfiov 
 acof^xlov Aoyov ovk saliv xvlog 6 Aoyog, xX'h 'fii^ou Tr^oglou 
 Aoyou. 'E^g^oy Bs oulog, saloct kocI' ocvlovg vj ccvla T^ixg 
 IflPocg. For the Son being, according to them, consubstantial with tiie 
 Father, is not himself the Father, but is called the Son consubstantial with the 
 Father : even so the consubstantial body of the Word is not itself the Word, 
 but another with the Word, But being another, the Trinity will, according 
 to them, be a Quatemity. 
 
326 GENEILIL VIEWS. 
 
 also, that that doctrine is just an extension of the heresy 
 of Nestorius, which was solemnly condemned in a general 
 Comicil, and has been reprobated by every Catliolic writer. 
 To say that Christ was fallen and sinful is so direct blas- 
 phemy, that I suppose no man will venture to use such 
 language. But to appl}^ to the humanity of Christ lan- 
 guage which it would be held not only improper, but even 
 blasphemous, to apply to Christ himself, is to divide Christ, 
 more clearly and more violently than Nestorius ever did. 
 To use language with regard to any department of Christ's 
 person, which cannot be properly used with regard to the 
 whole undivided person, is very distinctly to make two 
 persons in Christ. I think it has already been satisfac- 
 torily shown, that even supposing the existence of such a 
 thing as a fallen nature possible, yet it can exist only as 
 the nature of a fallen person. If, then, there was in Christ 
 a fallen nature^ there was in him a fallen person. No pro- 
 position, I conceive, can be clearer than this, that if the 
 humanity of our Lord was fallen and sinful, then either 
 our Lord himself was a fallen and sinful person, or the hu- 
 manity was a person distinct from himself. If the doctrine 
 of the sinfulness of om- Lord's humanity be admitted, then 
 must it also be admitted that in him there were not two 
 natures united indissolubly in one person ; but two persons 
 in a state of unceasing opposition to one another. The 
 one person, infected with all the evil propensities of fallen 
 man, was peri)etually lusting after all forbidden things ; 
 while the constant employment of the other person was 
 just to repress and control the$e evil propensities, and to 
 compel the person, in wliom they resided, to yield an unwill- 
 ing obedience to God ; such an obedience as Satan yields. 
 Now, this is Nestorianism, carried to an extent to which 
 Nestorius never dreamed of carrying it, and from which he 
 would indeed have shrunk with horror. He protested to 
 the last that he believed that there were hi Christ two 
 natures and one person. But this could avail him nothing 
 in the face of language and arguments which plainly im - 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 327 
 
 plied that the humanity had a distinct personality ; lan- 
 guage and arguments, however, which are orthodoxy 
 itself when compared with those to which we are now 
 accustomed. If the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 humanity be true, then it is clear that the only just ground 
 upon which Nestorius could have been condemned, was 
 for not carrying his principles far enough. A division of 
 the person of Christ was clearly enough implied in what 
 he taught, though he denied, as loudly as the teachers of 
 the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity can deny, that he 
 held any such opinion. And he could make the denial 
 upon much better grounds than they can ; for he held that 
 the humanity was, by its union with the divinity, invest- 
 ed with equal power and dignity with the Word, and was 
 equally the object of veneration and worship. Indeed, the 
 Nestorianism of Xestorius is an absolute trifle when com- 
 pared with the Nestorianism of the present day. And if 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh was held by the 
 Fathers assembled at Ephesus, it was natural enough that 
 they should condemn Nestorius ; but then they could con- 
 demn him only for not being sufficiently jSTestorian, — for being 
 mcomparably less of a aSTestorian than themselves. Unless, 
 then, we be prepared to maintain a position so utterly ridi- 
 culous as this, that Nestorius was condemned for not being 
 sufficiently Nestorian, — for not being deeply enough im- 
 bued with the heresy to which he gave his name, — we 
 cannot maintain that the sinfulness of Christ's flesh was 
 a doctrine of the primitive Church. 
 
 This matter may be placed in a different point of view. 
 The same person cannot be both fallen and unfallen. Now, 
 God has a Son begotten of his substance from all eternity, 
 and who can never be said to be fallen. This same per- 
 son did, for the purpose of manifesting the Divine perfec- 
 tions through the medium of our salvation, condescend to 
 be begotten in time, of the substance of the Virgin Mary. 
 But if the Son of God, begotten in time, was a fallen sinful 
 Son, then it is plain that there are two Sons, two Lords, 
 
328 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 two only begottens ; for the fallen Son, and the unfallou 
 Son, cannot be one and the same Son, but must of plain 
 necessity be two Sons. This was one of the consequences 
 deduced from the language of Nestorius, though he denied 
 that such a deduction could be fairly made. Few, I appre- 
 hend, will be disposed to deny, that it is at least fah'ly 
 deducible from that theology which divides the person of 
 Christ more openly and more violently by far than ever 
 did Nestorius. The new theology admits, what is indeed 
 too palpable to be either denied or doubted, that sin can 
 be no otherwise than in a person. It teaches also that 
 every possible variety of human wickedness was inherent 
 in the humanity of our Lord. The consequence is clear as 
 light, that that humanity was a person ; and that person 
 being the Son of God as well as the Son of Man, there are 
 two Sons and two Christs. If the primitive Church held 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of om' Lord's humanity, I would 
 ask again, upon what possible ground could Nestorius be 
 condemned, unless it was for not being sufficiently Nes- 
 torian ? 
 
 I would next advert to the ManichaDan doctrine, as 
 affording another decisive proof that the sinfulness of om- 
 Lord's humanity was no doctrine of the primitive Church. 
 Augustine unquestionably knew well Avhat was the doctrine 
 of the Church, of which he was one of the brightest orna- 
 ments, and one of the ablest defenders. Now, Augustine, 
 as we have ab-eady seen, declares the doctrine of the sin- 
 fulness of Christ's flesh to be an " outrageous blasphemy" 
 and a " detestable heresy." But he goes still farther, and 
 repeatedly and strongly maintains, in opposing Mani- 
 chaeism, that no such thing as an evil nature ever did exist, 
 or by any possibility ever can exist. Now, the question is 
 not at present whether Augustine was right or wrong, but, 
 in denying that our Lord took a sinful nature, nay, in deny- 
 ing the possibility of the existence of such a nature, was 
 he aware that he was ploughing up the very foundation of 
 Christianity ? Did he conceive that, in denying that Christ 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 329 
 
 took such a nature, he was in reality denying that Christ 
 was man at all ? He himself certainly believed no such 
 thing. Nor did any of his contemporaries, or, as far as 
 I know, any of those who have gathered delight and im- 
 provement from his wi'itings in succeeding ages, bring any 
 such charge against him. He denied that om- Lord took 
 fallen flesh, though he took it of a fallen mother ; he de- 
 nied that he took a fallen sinful natm-e, for he denied that 
 any such nature ever existed. And yet he neither him- 
 self suspected, nor did any other ever suspect him, of hav- 
 ing, in so doing, opposed the doctrine of the Chmxh, nay, 
 of having thro\^^l down the very comer-stone of aU sound 
 theology. 
 
 It may be remarked, too, that if Augustine was actually 
 opposing the received doctrine of the Chmxh, when de- 
 claring that the flesh of Christ was not sinful, and that 
 there is no such thing as an evil nature, then the great 
 principle upon which he assails Manichseism completely 
 fails, and the fimdamental tenet upon which that system 
 is built, is clearly proved to form an essential part of 
 primitive Christianity. Augustine reprobates, in temis of 
 the most unmeasured severity, the doctrine that the flesh 
 of Christ was sinful, not dificriug from om's in any thing. 
 Was it the gi-and foundation of all sound theology of which 
 he thus speaks ; and speaks without having ever been re- 
 proved for it ? Augustine maintains that there is no evil 
 natm-e, and, consequently, could not believe that Christ 
 took such a natm-e. Was he utterly wrong ? and must 
 Manichaeism be still admitted as an essential part of or- 
 thodox Christianity ? It may surely be hoped that in the 
 present age there are few indeed capable of admitting this. 
 Yet if the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's himianity 
 was the doctrine of the primitive Church, all this must in- 
 evitably be admitted. 
 
 I liave, laying by me, an octavo volume in defence of 
 Montanism, the great object of which is to prove that all 
 the primitive Christians were Montanists, and the modest 
 
330 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 title of which is — " The general Delusion of Christians, 
 touching the Ways of God's revealing Himself to and by 
 the Prophets, evinced from Scripture and primitive Anti- 
 quity." Dr Priestley has written six volumes to prove that 
 they were all Unitarians, in the Socinian sense of that word. 
 We are now required to believe that they were all Nesto- 
 rians, and, moreover, all Manichaeans. Absurdity is surely 
 exhausted ; and I may venture to hope that my work will 
 possess somewhat of the charm of novelty, when I attempt 
 to show that the members of the primitive Church were 
 neither Montauists, nor Socinians, nor Nestorians, nor 
 Manichaeans, but Christians. That with the guilt of the 
 two last-mentioned heresies they were not chargeable ; 
 and, therefore, that they did not, and could not, admit the 
 doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity, (which 
 teaches them both as plainly as they were ever taught,) is 
 proved, I conceive, as decisively as it is possible for any 
 historical fact to be proved, by the view of a few of the 
 principal heresies with which they had to contend, which 
 has just been given. Proofs drawn fi-om this source might 
 be multiplied to an indefinite extent ; but what I have 
 drawTi from this source of evidence is surely amply suffi- 
 cient. Before proceeding to quote more particular testi- 
 monies to the fact, that the ancients did not believe in the 
 sinfulness of the humanity of our Lord, I may properly 
 close these general views, and introduce more pai'ticular 
 authorities by the testimony of a modern writer, which 
 will, I suppose, by all parties be held to be completely de- 
 cisive. 
 
 The writer to whom I refer is Doctor Priestley. In pro- 
 secuting his great design of proving that all the primitive 
 Christians were Socinians, every one at all acquainted with 
 the matter will see how highly important it would have 
 been for him to prove, that they held our Lord's humanity 
 to be, not fallen indeed, which he believed no man to be, 
 but in all respects similar to our humanity. He maintains 
 that Justin Martyr was the first of the Fathers who taught 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 331 
 
 the Divinity of Christ. It would have been a strong sup- 
 port, — and they only who have traced the line of argument 
 which he adopts, can see how very strong a support to his 
 system it would have been, had he been able to show that 
 all the Fathers, both before Justin and after him, down to 
 the Council of Mce, believed our Lord's humanity to be 
 exactly such as ours. In fact, it was in a great measm-e 
 fatal to his whole system of reasoning to admit, that even 
 with regard to his human nature, the Fathers, both before 
 and after Justin, considered Christ as being ov -^pi'hQs ccuB- 
 ^avog, no common man. Of this Priestley was perfectly sen- 
 sible. He was bound to prove, if he could, that as to his 
 humanity at least, the Fathers held Christ to be merely a 
 common man, exactly such as we are. But he felt that any 
 attempt to prove this was utterly hopeless. Of such a man, 
 with all his errors, I regret to say that he was by no means 
 overburdened with scruples. ISTo man was better able to 
 rear a plausible theory out of the most slender materials ; 
 no man could with more admirable tact mask the strong 
 points of an opponent's argument, and the weak points of 
 his own ; in short, where he knew his gi'ound, — and in this 
 case he had studied it well, — a more skilful tactician never 
 took the field of controversy. But with all this, essential as 
 it was to him to prove, that the Fathers held Christ, as to 
 his humanity, to have been in no respect different from 
 other men, yet he did not venture to attempt the proof. 
 Even the scanty materials out of which he could have 
 framed a plausible proof were not to be had. Such an 
 assertion would have been, he well knew, to expose him- 
 self to the most overwhelming defeat. He saw well hoAv 
 fatal this was to his system ; but he managed the matter 
 with his usual skill. Without taking the slightest notice 
 of the fatal effect which the doctrine held by the Fathers, 
 with regard to the humanity of our Lord, has upon his 
 system, he tacitly attempts to neutralize their testimony 
 upon the subject, by charging them with maintaining the 
 error exactly and diametrically opposed to that of the sin- 
 
032 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 fulness of our Lord's humanity. He charges them with 
 holding an opinion upon the subject, that in effect differed 
 little from that of the Gnostics, who openly denied the 
 reality of his manhood. He charges them with the very 
 same error with which they, who teach the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's humanity, so loudly charge the Church at the 
 present day. Here is a portion of what he Amtes on the 
 subject : — 
 
 ' Lastly, Some of the Gnostics thought that Christ had 
 no real body, and, consequently, had not the sensations or 
 feelings of one ; but the orthodox principle of the union of 
 the divine nature to the human produced almost the same 
 effect. For some of the Catholics supposed that, in conse- 
 quence of this union, the body of Christ was exempt from 
 all disagi'eeable sensations ; and, indeed, tJiis was a natural 
 consequence of their principles. For if there was a real 
 union between the two natm*es, the sensations of the one 
 must have been communicated to the other ; and as it was 
 agi-eed that the divine nature could not feel pain, the 
 human nature, in order to enjoy the benefit of the union, 
 ought to be exempt from pain also, which we shall find 
 was actually held by Hilary. 
 
 ' 1\\ general, however, it was maintained that the human 
 nature of Christ was as effectually deserted by the divine 
 nature in the day of suffering, as the Gnostics had ever 
 supposed it to be ; and it is very remarkable how nearly 
 the language of the orthodox on this subject approached to 
 that of the Gnostics.'' 
 
 Again, a little after, he says, — ' It being, therefore, a 
 settled point, that the divine natm-e of Christ could not 
 feel pain ; it is no wonder that some of the orthodox should 
 have argued with those Gnostics who held that his body, 
 or what had the appearance of a body, had not the wants 
 and weaknesses of other bodies, and was likewise insen- 
 sible of pain.' And a few pages after, — 'That the body 
 
 » History of Early Oi)inions, Vol. II. p. 247. 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 333 
 
 of Christ was naturally incorruptible was an opinion very 
 prevalent among the orthodox after the Council of Nice.' 
 P. 256. 
 
 So, then, if Priestley cannot get an argument in favour 
 of his system, by showing, that, with regard to our Lord's 
 humanity, the primitive Christians held that he did not 
 differ from us in any thing — an opinion which he would 
 have thought a sound one ; he is determined, at least, to 
 neutralize the fatal effect of their testimony against him, 
 by giving what I must call a very unfair and exaggerated 
 view of the opinion which they really did hold upon the 
 subject. The statements which I have quoted from him 
 are intermingled with testimonies from a few of the Fathers. 
 But in selecting these testimonies, he has been careful just 
 to lay hold of a few of the most objectionable expressions 
 that he could find ; and these also sometimes taken from 
 writers who never had, and never deserved to have, the 
 slightest weight or authority in the Church ; and some- 
 times from writers whose notorious unsoundness upon the 
 question has always been the subject of remark and regret. 
 He refers, for example, to Hilary, as openly maintaining 
 what he considers as a necessary consequence of orthodox 
 principles, that the body of our Lord was exempt from 
 pain. Now, he knew perfectly well, that on this point 
 Hilary was directly opposed to^i'the orthodox. But then 
 he knew also that the accuracy of his reference to that 
 writer could not be called in question ; and, therefore, is 
 pleased to insinuate the perfect soundness of HOary, and 
 to represent his absurd and heretical views as being neces- 
 sarily involved in the principles of the orthodox. The ex- 
 treme unfau'ness of this is but ill-atoned-for by the insidi- 
 ous admission which immediately follows, that in general 
 it was believed that the human nature was effectually de- 
 serted by the divine in the hour of suffering. Whether 
 the reference to Hilary, or the apparent concession which 
 follows it, be most unworthy of a man who has truth for 
 his object, I shall not attempt to determine. 
 
334 GENERAL VIEWS. 
 
 One thing, however, is clear, and it is important. To 
 have been able to prove that the primitive Church held 
 the doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, would have 
 been to him of more value than all the other facts which 
 he has brought forward. But he felt it easier to under- 
 take the task — the hopeless, indeed, yet still easier task — 
 of proving that the Fathers held exactly the opposite ex- 
 treme, and maintained, with regard to our Lord's hu- 
 manity, a view that in eifect diflFered little from that of 
 the Gnostics, who altogether denied the reality of his flesh. 
 Such a testimony, and especially given under such circum- 
 stances, is altogether resistless. Firmum est genus proha- 
 tionis^ quod etiam ab adversaria sumitur^ ut Veritas etiam ah 
 ipsis inimicis veritatis prohetur. 
 
 As a general proposition, it is susceptible of abundant 
 and satisfactory proof, that the primitive Church was per- 
 fectly sound on the subject of our Lord's humanity, neither 
 improperly refining it away with the Gnostics, nor yet, on 
 the contrary, imputing sinfulness to it. But it cannot be 
 denied that the Fathers, especially the earlier of them, 
 -vmting in the simplicity of their hearts, and paying little 
 attention to exactness of expression, do occasionally make 
 use of language which, if rigorously understood, would 
 lead to dangerous error. Their constant tendency, how- 
 ever, when they use language that deviates from the line 
 of strict orthodoxy, is toward the en'or of improperly ex- 
 alting the humanity of our Lord. So much is this the 
 case, that they have aff'orded to Priestley a plausible 
 ground for charging them with Gnosticism. To prove 
 this charge is impossible ; yet he felt that lie could give to 
 it a colour, of which the far more important position to 
 him, that they held our Lord's flesh to be fallen and sin- 
 ful, is not susceptible. His foUoAvers will doubtless re- 
 joice, if it can be proved that he was on this point so to- 
 tally mistaken, that the primitive Christians actually held 
 the opposite extreme to that with which he charges them ; 
 and that his attempt to neutralize their testimony by 
 
GENERAL VIEWS. 335 
 
 charging them with Gnosticism, is not only desperate, 
 but is wholly unnecessary. It could hardly have been 
 expected that we should, in the present day, be called 
 upon to repel a charge against the Fathers which even 
 Priestley could not venture to bring, though, could he have 
 proved it, it would have done more for Socinianism than 
 aU that he has written ; but he prefen^ed the easier task 
 of undertaking to prove their agreement with the Gnos- 
 tics, who altogether denied our Lord's flesh. The con- 
 solation is, that what he did not dare to attempt, his fol- 
 lowers can hardly be supposed able to accomplish. In 
 the meantime, his devotion to Socinianism gives incalcul- 
 able weight to his testimony as to the faith of the primi- 
 tive Church upon this important subject. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 In proceeding to produce more particular testimonies from 
 antiquity, it will be proper to commence with the deci- 
 sions of general Councils. In the Council of Ephesus, held 
 in the year 431, the doctrine of Nestorius was condemned, 
 though, as I have already had occasion to observe, he 
 never divided the person of Christ so clearly or so vio- 
 lently as they do who teach that his flesh was fallen and 
 sinful. In that Council the celebrated twelve chapters of 
 C}Til of Alexandria were adopted as a correct exposition 
 of the Catholic faith, with regard to the doctrine of the In- 
 carnation. It would be tedious to copy the whole of these, 
 but I shall present the reader with two of them. The 
 fourth chapter is this : — ' If any one distribute to two 
 persons or hypostases, the expressions which occur in the 
 evangelical and apostolical wiitings, and which are spoken 
 either by the saints concerning Christ, or by Christ con- 
 cerning himself; and apply some as suitable to the man, 
 considered apart from the AVord of God the Father ; and 
 others, as suitable to God, solely to the Word of God 
 the Father, let him be anathema." Here a general Coun- 
 
 ^ E/ rig Tr^oawTTOig dvaiv, y}'yovu VTroarxaeat, rots re su rotg 
 tvotyytXhiKOig, koc^ oe.'Tcotno'htKOi; avyyiia,[/.f^ciai ^letuifAH (pa- 
 vocg, Yi ixi Xqiara Tjroc^cc rav otyiav 7^eyo[/,iyocg, v) 'ttuq uvrov 
 TiPi 'ixvrov' KXi rug fiiu ug otud^w^u ttxqoc rov ix, (diov TrxrQog 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 337 
 
 cil of the Christian Church solemnly condemns the appli- 
 cation of language to the humanity of our Lord, as con- 
 templated apart from his Divinity. And who that has 
 attended to what the Bible says upon the subject can 
 doubt for a moment the justice of the condemnation ; for 
 where do the sacred writers ever apply to one of the two 
 natures united in Christ, language which they would not 
 apply to the whole undivided and indivisible person of 
 Christ ? If it can be shown that there is any one term 
 that may truly be applied to either of the natm-es united 
 in Christ, that cannot with perfect propriety and truth be 
 applied to Christ, then Nestorius was right, and the sacred 
 writers were' most 'unnecessarily, nay, most improperly 
 scrupulous, for they have misled the orthodox fi-om the 
 beginning. But they who teach that the humanity of 
 Christ was fallen and sinful humanity, do most directly 
 oppose this rale, and incm- this anathema; for they do 
 apply, to the one nature of Christ, language which they 
 would hold it blasphemous to apply to Christ. And they 
 do not put us to the trouble of proving, what indeed can 
 with little trouble be proved, but openly profess and 
 avow, that in their speculations upon that humanity 
 which is described as fallen, sinful, guilty, and alienated 
 from God, and inclined to all forbidden things, they speak 
 of it as contemplated apart from the Divine Nature, apart 
 from which, if it ever existed, then the Council of Ephesus, 
 and the whole Christian Chm'ch in all ages, must plead 
 guilty to the charge, not merely of unaccountable igno- 
 rance, but of fatal error. The Council denounces its ana- 
 thema upon those who contemplate the humanity apart 
 from the Divinity. They who teach the sinfulness of 
 Christ's humanity openly profess to contemplate the hu- 
 manity apart from the Divinity, and maintain that they 
 
 Tvoyov ihiKC>)g uoovfcsucj Tr^oaccTrrsi, reeg ^e ag ^iO'Tr^i'Xiig fiovu 
 rco iK 0£oy 'TTot.r^og 7\.oya, civa,6si/,oe. sara. — CyriFs Works, VoL vL 
 p. 167. 
 
 P 
 
338 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 have the authority of the Primitive Church, and, indeed, 
 of the Catholic Church in all ages, for their speculations. 
 Here, then, the only question is, whether shall we believe 
 the unsupported assertion of a few modern writers, or the 
 solemn declaration of the Council of Ephesus with regard 
 to the faith of the Primitive Church ? And this is a ques- 
 tion which I suppose no reader would thank me for wast- 
 ing a moment in determining. 
 
 The following is the eleventh of the twelve chapters: — ' If 
 any one confesseth not that the flesh of our Lord was 
 quickening, and the very flesh of the very Word of God 
 the Father ; but maketh it as it were the flesh of some 
 other besides him, conjoined with him in dignity ; or as 
 flesh having the divinity dwelling in it, and not rather that 
 it was quickening, because made the very flesh of the 
 Word, who is able to quicken all things, let him be ana- 
 thema.' ' That the Council was perfectly orthodox in its 
 sentiments, there is no room to doubt ; but that this lan- 
 guage is very objectionable, inasmuch as it is extremely 
 liable to abuse, cannot be denied. Had such language 
 been used by any of the defenders of the Catholic faith in 
 the present day, no terms of reprobation would have been 
 found sufficiently strong to characterize it. Nor do I say 
 this upon conjectm-e ; for every term of reprobation has 
 been exhausted, by those who maintain the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's humanity, upon language from which no such 
 meaning could be extorted, as that which may be so na- 
 turally and easily deduced from the language of the Coun- 
 cil of Ephesus. No fault, however, was found with the 
 
 - E/ rig ovx 6f/.o\Qy£i tyiu rov Kv^tov au^Koc ^aovoiov uueti, 
 Kcti ihtoLv etvTOV rov £k Qsov TSocr^og T^oyov, aAA' ug srsQov ri- 
 i/Of nta-i etvrov avuYi^uf^euov^ fcsu ctvru Kctrcc rriv ot| ecu, riyovv 
 ug f^ovYii/ ^iiuv ivoiKYtatu saXi^xorog, koci ovx,t ^W f4,u7\.'hQi/ ^ao- 
 Toiov, ug i(pinfiiv, on ysyovev iZicc rov Xoyov rov roc 'Kocvrot, 
 ^aoTTOiiiv iax,vourog, uuocdsfcx eara. — Cijrirs Works, Vol. vi. p. 190. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 339 
 
 Strongest of the language in ancient times. Cyril, who 
 penned it, was looked upon as the veiy standard of ortho- 
 doxy, though his wi'itings contain much language still 
 more objectionable than this. The Oriental bishops who 
 opposed the twelve chapters^ showed very plainly by the 
 objections which they made to them, that theii' opposi- 
 tion arose fi'om personal pique against Cyill, and fi'om no 
 doubt whatever as to the soundness of his doctrine ; the 
 orthodoxy of which very soon after the sitting of the 
 Council they very fully admitted, though they objected, 
 and I think very justly, to some of the terms in which it 
 was expressed. But that they were far fi'om objecting to 
 that language, on account of its distinct condemnation of 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of oui' Lord's flesh, appears 
 very clearly both from theu' own remarks upon it, and 
 from those of Theodoret their gi-eat defender. I shall 
 quote a few lines from the latter, which will clearly show 
 this. He first charges Cyi'il with embracing in this chap- 
 ter the Apollinarian heresy, because he mentions only the 
 flesh of Christ, without noticing his soul ; a heresy of which 
 Cyi'il not only was not guilty, for by flesh he meant the 
 whole humanity, but of which Theodoret could hardly 
 help knowing that he was not guilty. After thus attach- 
 ing to the chapter a heresy to which it gives no counte- 
 nance, he concludes his remarks thus : — ' But we declare 
 the animated and rational flesh of the Lord to be quicken- 
 ing, through the quickening Godhead united to it. But 
 he himself reluctantly confesses the difference of the two 
 natures, when he mentions flesh, and God the Word, and 
 calls it his own flesh. God the Word then was not 
 changed into the nature of flesh, but has his own proper 
 flesh, namely the assumed nature, which he made quicken- 
 ing by the union.' ' Now, nothing but the heat of one of 
 
 ' Of^ohoyu Be »vrog mkuu rau Ivo cpvascou ro ^{oc<po^ou, occ^kcc 
 
340 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 the fiercest controversies that ever agitated the Church, 
 would have prevented so able, and so very candid a -wTiter 
 as Theodoret from seeing, what he afterwards very readily 
 owned, that his own doctrine was precisely that of Cyril, 
 and expressed indeed in almost the very terms of Cyril. 
 The most objectionable at least of these terms, the ' qnick- 
 ening flesh,' he uses without scruple ; only he takes care 
 to show that by flesh he means not merely the body of 
 Christ, but his complete manhood. But then C}Til and 
 the Council meant this just as certainly as he did, only 
 they did not put in the words ' animated and rational,* 
 in order to show that it was not merely of the body of 
 Christ that they were speaking, when they talked of his 
 flesh ; as they could not anticipate that any person would 
 so far misunderstand them, as to suspect them of a lean- 
 ing to the heresy of Apollinarius. Now, let the reader, 
 who is interested in this question, (and I take for granted 
 that every Christian feels deeply interested in it,) compare 
 the language, I do not say of the Catholic Council of 
 Ephesus, but the language of Theodoret while writing 
 expressly against that Council,— of Theodoret, who suf- 
 fered much in his person while living, and much in his 
 reputation when dead, as a Nestorian, with the language 
 against which such a vehement outcry of heresy has been 
 raised at the present day ; and let him determine whether 
 the latter ever could give a thousandth part of the ground 
 for the outcry which is given by the former against the 
 opposite heresy of Eutyches. Nay, let him compare the 
 language of Theodoret, the accused and persecuted Nes- 
 torian, — let me do him the justice of saying, most unjustly 
 accused of that heresy, and most iniquitously persecuted 
 for it, — with the habitual language of those who charge all 
 y^sycov, Kcii ^eou 'hoyov, x,oit thiav xvtov -^^oaxyo^svau rriu crecQ- 
 KX. OvKOVu ovx 0eOj T^oyog ng aa,^Kog ST^WTrin (pvaiv, aA?i 
 totocu ixii au^KX, rnv eci/x?^Yi(pdiiaccu (pvatv, koci ^6»oxo/ov 
 ocvTYiu m suaaei 'Trt'KoiriKiv. — TfieodoreCs Works, VoL iv. p. 721 ; and 
 C'i/rifs Works, Vol. vL p. 337. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 341 
 
 with Nestorianism who deny that the flesh of Christ was 
 fallen, sinful, wicked flesh ; and then let him try to im- 
 agine, if he can, what sentence the Comicil which con- 
 demned Theodoret would have pronounced upon those 
 who are guilty of such language. If they be right, then 
 nothing can be more clear than the fact, that all the pre- 
 tended denials of the flesh of Christ in the present day 
 are perfectly orthodox, when compared with the gross 
 and glaring heresy of the Comicil of Ephesus; and even 
 with the heresy of Theodoret, repeatedly condemned for 
 the very opposite heresy of ISTestorianism. In fact, while 
 I have seen no language used by any defender of the Ca- 
 tholic faith in the present day, from which any thing ap- 
 proaching to a denial of the flesh of Christ could by any 
 fair interpretation be inferred ; the language of both the 
 Council of Ephesus and of Theodoret is such, that though 
 I doubt not the soundness of theii* sentiments, yet I should 
 be sorry to defend the mode in which these sentiments 
 are expressed. For I think that a very rigid intei'preter 
 of the language quoted above, might easUy find both 
 guilty of incautiously and unintentionally making by far 
 too near an approach to that heresy, with which the 
 Church is at present so groundlessly charged. 
 
 I proceed next to the CouncU of Chalcedon in 451. If 
 ever the doctrine that the flesh of Chiist was fallen sin- 
 ful flesh was held by the Church, then the open and un- 
 equivocal expression of that doctrine was imperiously 
 called for here. Neither the Gnostic nor the Apollinarian 
 heresy more urgently demanded the expression of that 
 doctrine, than did the heresy of Eutyches which was con- 
 demned in this Council. Eutyches maintained that after 
 the Incarnation there was still only one nature in Christ, 
 formed by some unintelligible mingling of the human and 
 divine natm-es. He thus made Christ a person neither 
 human nor divine, but something more than man, and less 
 than God. While, therefore, he exalted the hmnanity of 
 our Lord too high, as if it had been absorbed by the Divi- 
 
342 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 nity, and was no longer true humanity, we might expect 
 to hear from every quarter of the Council the plain, distinct, 
 and urgent declarations, not merely that the human and 
 divine nature remained perfectly distinct and unmixed in 
 Christ, but that he was not only really man, but a fallen 
 sinful man. Had some of the six hundred and thirty 
 bishops assembled used language which might seem to de- 
 rogate fi-om the dignity of our Lord's humanity, — to imply, 
 nay openly to declare, that it was fallen sinful humanity, 
 there not only would have been no reason to be surprised 
 at it ; but had they believed that doctrine, then were they, 
 with all their zeal, guilty of a grievous dereliction of duty 
 in not expressly embodying that doctrine in their canons. 
 There is certainly no such necessity now as there was then, 
 for inculcating the doctrine that Christ, as to his humanity, 
 differed nothing whatever fi'om us in guiltiness and aliena- 
 tion from God. Yet so far was the Council from inculcat- 
 ing and reiterating that doctrine, thdt they condemn it in 
 terms as clear and express as can be chosen. 
 
 In this Council the letter of the Council of Ephesus to 
 Nestorius was read, and received with acclamations. The 
 Council also adopted, as a coiTcct exposition of the faith 
 of the Church upon the subject, a letter addressed by Leo 
 bishop of Rome, to Flavian bishop of Constantinople, the 
 following extract from which will show what were their 
 sentiments with regard to the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. 
 After stating that the properties of the two natures remain 
 entire in the one person of Christ, who was totus in suis, 
 totus in nostris, the letter thus proceeds : — ' But those 
 things we call ours which the Creator formed in us from 
 the beginning, and which Christ assumed that ho might 
 restore. For as for those things which the deceiver brought 
 in, and man, being deceived, admitted — there was no ves- 
 tige of them in the Saviour. Nor because he undertook 
 the communion of human infirmities, was he therefore a 
 partaker of our delinquencies. He assumed the form of a 
 servant without the defilement of sin, increasing what was 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 343 
 
 human, not diminishing what was divine.' ' I quote not 
 this as the language of Leo, who in many parts of his 
 writings, especially in ;his Sermons upon the Nativity, de- 
 nies the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, but as the language of 
 the Council of Chalcedon, which adopted it as the expres- 
 sion of then- own decision upon the subject. Now the 
 reader I think will agree with me, that if a CouncU were 
 assembled at present, in order to condemn the doctrine of 
 those who declare that the flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, 
 •wicked flesh ; that taking flesh of a fallen sinful woman, 
 he partook of his mother's impmity ; that his will was in 
 bondage to the devil, the world, and the flesh ; they could 
 not condemn such impieties in more pointed or appropriate 
 terms than those used by the Council of Chalcedon. Had 
 the Council believed any such doctrine, had they believed 
 that in our Lord was that law of the members which war- 
 reth against the law of the mind, — that lusting of the flesh 
 against the Spirit, — that inclination to all forbidden things, 
 — and all the evil propensities of the fallen man, which we 
 derive from the fall of Adam, could they by any possibility 
 have declared, that ' as for those things which the deceiver 
 brought in, and man, being deceived, admitted, there was 
 no vestige of them in the Saviom* ?' 
 
 We have then the clear unequivocal testimony of two 
 general Councils against the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's flesh. There is another Council to which I 
 would gladlyrefer, but I can find no copy of its anathemas. 
 I mean the ffth general Council, which was held at Con- 
 stantinople. The reader who has the opportunity of con- 
 sulting these anathemas will find it decreed in one of them, 
 (the thirteenth I believe, but am not sure,) that Christ is to 
 be worshipped according to both his natm*es, with one and 
 
 1 Nostra autem dicimus, qu£e in nobis ab initio Creator condidit, et qute 
 reparanda suscepit. Nam ilia quse deceptor intulit, et homo deceptns admisit, 
 nnllmn habuere in Salvatore vestigium. Nee quia communionem human- 
 arum subiit infirmitatum, ideo nostrorum Mt particeps delictorum. Assump- 
 sit formam servi, sine sorde peccati, himiana augens, divinanon minuens.— 
 Epistles of Leo. Epistle xxiv., in some editions x. 
 
344 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 the same adoration. It was to this Council that the em- 
 peror Justinian presented his celebrated confession of faith. 
 In that confession he has embodied a number of anathemas 
 against various heresies. One of these anathemas is di- 
 rected against Tlieodore of Mopsuesta, and among a 
 variety of opinions attributed to him, I find the following 
 condemned, — ' That Christ suffered trouble from the pas- 
 sions of the mind, and fi'om the desu-es of the flesh ;' — 
 ' that by baptism he received the grace of the Holy 
 Ghost ;' — and ' that after the resmTCction he was made 
 altogether immutable in his thoughts, and impeccable.' 
 Now, every one of these tenets is intimately connected 
 with the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity, 
 and may be found openly avowed in the pages of some of 
 the defenders of that docti-ine. That neither that doc- 
 trine nor these tenets formed any portion of the Christian 
 faith, nor were to be named but with an anathema, the 
 emperor Justinian and the Council of Constantinople are 
 very competent witnesses. 
 
 I now pass on to the testimonies of individual writers. 
 I shall make my selections from them much less copious 
 than I originally intended, because, after the multiplied 
 and overwhelming proofs of the utter abhorrence in which 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh was held by 
 the primitive Christians, and of the entire abrogation of 
 all that they held sacred, which the adoption of that tenet 
 would have produced, which are furnished by that slight 
 and rapid view of some of the principal heresies with 
 which they had to contend, which I have given ; and by 
 the decisive testimony of several general Councils which I 
 liave produced ; I feel that to cany out the exhibition of 
 individual testimonies to the extent which I at fii'st de- 
 signed is totally unnecessary. To all who are free to form 
 an impartial conclusion from the evidence laid before them 
 on the subject, the evidence that the primitive Church did 
 jiot, and could not, believe in the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 flesh, is already more than sufticient. I shall, however, 
 exhibit, within as short a compass as I can, the views en- 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 315 
 
 tertaiued by the ^Titers of the first /owr centmies, shnply 
 premising these two things, — first, that I in no instance 
 give a quotation which I have not myself copied fi'om the 
 place fi'om which it professes to be taken ; and, second, 
 that I give no quotation fi'om an author without meaning 
 it to be understood, that, to the best of my judgment, that 
 quotation is a fair representation of the general sentiments 
 of the author quoted upon the subject. To this remark 
 there are two exceptions, Hippolytus and Eustathius, my 
 quotations from whom are taken fi'om the fragments of 
 theii' works preserved by Theodoret. I have no doubt 
 whatever that their sentiments were in perfect unison with 
 those of the whole Chm*ch, with regard to our Lord's hu- 
 manity ; but my acquaintance with theii* wiitings is too 
 slight to enable me to vouch for this on my own personal 
 knowledge. The reader who has the opportunity is 
 earnestly requested in eveiy instance to turn to the quota- 
 tions in the original, when, if I mistake not, he will find 
 them still stronger than in the detached form in which I 
 have necessarily given them. 
 I begin with 
 
 BARNABAS, 
 
 the eldest of the Apostolical Fathers, a name familar to 
 the readers of the New Testament. Referring, in chapter 
 vi. to the text, " Behold, I lay in Zion a sure foundation 
 stone," he says, ' Does our hope rest upon a stone then V 
 Far from it; but because the Lord placed his flesh in 
 power : for he saith, I have placed myself as a solid rock." 
 
 U.& ug arspeotu Ter^xu. — ^The reference here is to Isalali 1. 7, where the 
 Septuagint has sd/iKoc ro TTQoaoi'TrQu f^ov ug arSQSXU -Trsr^oiu^ where 
 Barnabas has understood z-QOtra'^OU f^ov as just equivalent to ^g ; and 
 that, as appears from the preceding member of the sentence, is just equiva- 
 lent to ax^Koc. 
 
 p2 
 
oiG PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 There is some ambiguity here, as edmu may be understood 
 in two different senses ; but the sentence cannot be under- 
 stood in any sense consistent with a belief that our Lord 
 died by the common property of flesh to die, because it 
 was accursed in the loins of our first parents. What fol- 
 lows is very fanciful, — as indeed is the whole epistle, — 
 but it is to the same purpose. He finds the Incarnation 
 of our Lord to be expressed by the entrance of Israel in- 
 to the land flowing with milk and honey. His argument 
 is, that man is just earth endued with sensation, and that 
 our Saviour entering into this earth, entered into a good 
 land, a land flowing with milk and honey. His language, 
 after quoting one of the texts which refer to the land flow- 
 ing with milk and honey, is — ' Learn what knowledge 
 saith : Hope in Jesus who is to be manifested to you in 
 the flesh. For man is earth endued with sensation ; for 
 of the substance of the earth was Adam formed. What 
 then saith it ? Into a land flowing with milk and honey. 
 Blessed be our Lord who giveth to us wisdom, and the 
 understanding of his hidden things.'^ A little after, hav- 
 ing quoted Gen. i. 26, he adds, — ' Then the Lord see- 
 ing man his fair workmanship, he saith, ' Increase and 
 multiply and replenish the earth.' These things he 
 saith to the Son.' lavloc v^oglov viou. In chapter viii., 
 speaking of the ashes of the burnt heifer, he says, — ' But 
 why was the wool placed upon wood? Because the king- 
 dom of Jesus was upon wood,' namely, iipon the cross.^ 
 
 From these passages, — and ho who looks into the origi- 
 nal will see, tliat by detaching them from their context, I 
 
 ' T/ Aeyg/ vi yuioatg, ticcchrs' s'hTrtaUTe S'tti rou su aoc^Ki 
 y.i'h'hourct Cpocji^ovadat vf^iu l/icrov. AudQCJ^rog y/i snri 1:01,0- 
 ■Xfivast' otTTO T^o<7-<y3oy yct^ tyi; y/ig '/i 'TrT^ccatg rov A^ot,u> eyeuero. 
 Ti ovv "hiyiL ; r-fiV y/\v mu ocyocdriv, tyju Qsovacci/ ya.'Kct Kott 
 
 - 'Ot/ Qi TO s^icu iTi TO |)jAoi/ ; OTi T, (io(,<ii7\iio(, Tov Iviaov 
 fXl TO ^vT^co. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 347 
 
 have unavoidably weakened them, — it is perfectly clear 
 that the sinfulness of oui- Lord's flesh, and his consequent 
 liability to death, equally with, and upon the same grounds 
 as other men, is a doctrine which Barnabas had probably 
 never heard of, and certainly did not believe. I may re- 
 mark, too, that however fanciful may be considered his 
 understanding earth to mean the flesh of our Lord, we 
 shall see in the sequel that one of the ablest writers of 
 antiquity, Ambrose of IVIilan, introduces the same idea, 
 and, if possible, in a still more fanciful manner. I may 
 remark farther, that in chapter vi. we find the first traces 
 of a sentiment that afterwards became a favourite one 
 among the Fathers, namely, that as Adam was formed of 
 virgin earth, which had not yet been violated by the hand 
 of cultivation, even so the second Adam was formed 
 of a vu-gin mother. This sentiment we often meet with 
 in the writings of the Fathers. I do not recollect if this 
 fact has been adverted to by those who have laboured to 
 establish the genuineness of the epistle. It may however 
 very weU be m-ged for this purpose ; and it may be still 
 more strongly m'ged as a proof that they who used it be- 
 lieved that our Lord differed in his humanity from us as 
 widely, and on the same grounds, as unfallen Adam dif- 
 fered from his fallen posterity. 
 
 There is a passage in Hermas, whose name is also re- 
 corded in the New Testament, which clearly enough dis- 
 covers his opinion upon the subject ; but after having ex- 
 tracted it I have mislaid it, nor is it worth while to waste 
 much time in seeking for it. Should it fall in my way, I 
 shall give it in a note. In the meantime, I pass on to 
 
 CLE^IENT OF EOME, 
 
 whose name also is honoured by being recorded in one of 
 Paul's Epistles.^ He wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 
 1 Grotius disputes this, and thinks the Clement mentioned by Paul, Philip. 
 
;U8 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 for the purpose of healing tlie unhappy divisions, which, it 
 appears, still continued to agitate the Church there, not- 
 withstanding all that the Apostle Paul had written. In 
 merely enforcing the necessity of peace, — which he does 
 just in such a manner as we would expect from a man 
 honourably mentioned by the Apostle, — he has little op- 
 portunity of giving any opinion upon the subject of the 
 present inquiry. But besides some passages in which his 
 belief in the pre-existence of Christ is clearly, though in- 
 cidentally shown, there is one passage from which we may 
 very well understand what he thought of our Lord's hu- 
 manity. It occurs in chap, ii., and is as follows : — 'Ye 
 were all of a lowly mind ; not puffed up ; sutyect rather 
 than subjecting others ; rather giving than receiving ; con- 
 tented with the provision of God, and carefully keeping 
 his words ; having your hearts enlarged, and his sufferings 
 were before your eyes.'* Here Clement distinctly men- 
 tions the sufferings of God. But it was taught by all 
 antiquity, and indeed must be admitted by every man, 
 that the divinity in Christ could not suffer. It was the 
 manhood alone that suffered, and yet what suffered is, by 
 Clement, called God. He has also the clearest Scripture 
 authority for this mode of expression ; for there we are 
 told that the blood shed on the cross was the blood of 
 God ; that he who was crucified was '' the Lord of glory ;" 
 and he who was killed was " the Prince of life." Could 
 C'loment possibly conceive that when he spoke, in perfect 
 accordance with Scripture precedent, of the sufferings of 
 (Jod, that God was also, not merely a real man, else he 
 
 iv. 8, was a different person from Clement of Rome. I think he is wronj;: 
 Imt the thing is not worth disputing about. 
 
 ' Ylotung re irei'7riiuo(PQouetTe, fi/ihsu ot'hx^oi/svofcsuoi, vtto- 
 TOLtjoof^iuoi [/.ciKhov vj VTrorctaaouTe;, f^oc'A'hou CiOovreg vj T^ccfjt.- 
 ''^sxi/oures, roig i(poOtoig rov Qeov oc^KOVf/^iuoi, kcci nv^oatyfivrtg 
 rovg Xoyovg ocvtqv t'Tri/ae'Kcjg^ iaTi()ut(j[^tyoi Yin TOig a'x'Koi.y^- 
 yoig, Kcii TO, •xuGvifAOLTX ocvrov rrj t^o ^(pSoi.'hf^uv vf/,c>)v. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 349 
 
 could not have suffered at all, but a man suffering in fallen, 
 sinful, wicked flesh ? It is so painful, so very revolting to 
 the mind, even to place two such ideas in juxta-position, 
 that we may well conclude that he had no conception of 
 the sinfulness of om- Lord's humanity when he spoke of the 
 sufferings of God. 
 
 As a farther illustration of the meaning of the passage, 
 I may remark that Doctor Priestley is perfectly shocked 
 ■with it, and, therefore, has recourse to his usual expedient 
 on such occasions, calling its genuineness in question. It is 
 very foolish to deny the genuineness of any passage in an 
 ancient author just because we do not like it. And this 
 is Priestley's only reason, excepting what just amounts to 
 the same thing, that Junius thought that it should be not 
 Tcot^nfAocloe, Kvlov but f^.oc^Yific&'ioc xvlau, that is, instead of 
 sense, it should be nonsense. There is not the slightest 
 ground for supposing that Clement did not write the pass- 
 age as it stands. But even if there were, even if it were 
 certain that he never wrote these words, what is gained 
 by the admission ? It cannot, at least, be denied that 
 somebody wrote them, and thought that he was improving 
 the Epistle by wiiting them ; the Epistle containing them 
 has always been held in the highest estimation ; and they 
 are incapable of bemg reconciled either to that system 
 which denies the Divinity of Christ, or to that which 
 maintains the sinfulness of his humanity. 
 
 I may here introduce some extracts from the Apostolical 
 Constitutions, which are usually joined with the Epistle of 
 Clement. There is not the shadow of a reason for ascrib- 
 ing the work to him ; but as the time when, and the author 
 by whom, it was written cannot be ascertained, I may as 
 well introduce it here as elsewhere. In one place where 
 the wi'iter represents the apostles as giving a regular de- 
 tail of the circumstances attending the death of our Lord, 
 he makes them say, — ' All which things when the male- 
 factors who were crucified with him saw, the one of them 
 
350 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 indeed blasphemed, as if Christ through weakness had been 
 unable to help himself. But the other rebuked his igno- 
 rance, and turning to the Lord, as one enlightened by him, 
 and knowing who he was that suffered, he prayed that he 
 would remember him in his kingdom after these things : 
 and the Lord immediately granting him forgiveness for the 
 past, carried him into Paradise to the enjoyment of mys- 
 tic blessings.'^ Here that it was through no want of 
 lX)wer that Christ did not step down fi'om the cross, and, 
 consequently, that his death, at the moment when it took 
 place, was perfectly voluntary, is taught in the plainest 
 terms. 
 
 In another place, they say, — ' He was baptized and 
 fasted ; not that he had need of any washing away of filth, 
 or of fasting, or of purification, who was by nature pure 
 and holy ; but that he might testify the truth of John, and 
 furnish an example to us.' ^ They knew not that by bap- 
 tism he was anointed as our Prophet. 
 
 The Clementine Homilies, and the Kecognitions, are 
 still more palpable forgeries, and are full of heresies. Yet, 
 upon this subject, if they were worth quoting, they would 
 be found as far from admitting the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 humanity as possible. 
 
 Kov^yoi' 6 fcev ocvtuu i^'hcca<py\(^ii, cocrAvn S/ ocahusioci/ fcn hv- 
 ■jccf^ciuov eoiVTio si^ccfcvusiu' 6 0£ rovru {^tv ocyuoiccu i'TZirifAct, 
 rrfiog Oi rou Kv^iou GT^cx,((liig, ug ocv (parightg vtt ccvrov, kui 
 yvovg oartg 6 '7rix,(Jxo)v, ri'i,iov f^vrif^/iu oivrov yiuia&oci tv rn ficc- 
 (ji'Kiiot. itg ra, (Aixcx, rocv-ct' 6 Ss iv&vg ei[/,vviai»v (tvreo rau v^o- 
 yiyovorruv •)(,ci^ta»f/,tvog, ag TTocQothstaou siaYiyotysv, cctcoKcav- 
 aouToc rcou (/.votikuv ocyctQcov. — Book v. chap. xiv. 
 
 2 E?a7rr/(r^»j Of xot/ iu/iarevaev' ovx, otvrog ec^aoovrraaicoi v) 
 vnanxg x^siocu ixau, tj Kot^oc^aecog 6 m (pvan Koc6cc^og Kcti 
 uyiog' ocXA' iuc6 x,cct Icoccvvri uT^ridiictu -Tr^OfTfcoc.QrvQm'ri, ^oti 
 7)i!ziif v'TToypxf/^tAOV 'roc^XTx,riroci. — Book vii. chap. xxii. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 351 
 
 Leaving them, therefore, I proceed to 
 
 IGNATIUS, Bishop of Antioch. 
 
 There is a tradition that he was the child whom our Savi- 
 om- took and set in the midst of his apostles, when he incul- 
 cated the lesson of humility upon them. WTiatever credit 
 may be due to this tradition, we have at least no reason 
 to question the truth of his own declaration, when he says, 
 that he saw our Lord after his resmTection from the dead. 
 The passage to which I refer occurs in the Epistle to the 
 Smymeans, chap. iii. I do not quote it, for it would lead 
 me into a longer comment than I can here afford space for ; 
 but one thing it proves most distinctly, that he conceived 
 the body, which our Lord showed to his disciples after his 
 resurrection, and desired them to handle that they might 
 be convinced of its reality, was the veiy same unchanged 
 body which had hung upon the cross and lay in the tomb. 
 If he held the flesh of our Lord to be sinful during his life, 
 it is certain that he held it to be equally so after his resur- 
 rection. I think he was right in this respect ; but I avoid 
 the discussion now, curious and important though it be, 
 for the same reason that I avoided it in the first part of 
 my work, that full justice cannot be done to it without a 
 larger discussion than can be given to it in such a treatise. 
 In the first chapter of his first Epistle, which is to the 
 Ephesians, he speaks of 'the blood of God,' saying, 'being 
 followers of God, gi-eatly animating yourselves by the 
 blood of God.'i Here what is peculiarly an affection of 
 the man is ascribed to God. But then he has the most 
 direct Scripture authority for this mode of speaking. For 
 it is a rule which can never be too carefully inculcated 
 upon this subject, that whatever may be said of the flesh 
 of Christ, may with perfect propriety be said of Christ. 
 
352 TARTICUL.'Ul TESTIMONIES. 
 
 The early writers go farther, and apply to God whatever 
 terms are applicable to the flesh of Christ. It was the 
 flesh only that could bleed, yet that blood was the blood 
 of God. It was the flesh alone that could die, yet the 
 " Prince of life" died. It was the flesh alone that could be 
 affixed to the cross, yet the " Lord of glory" was crucified. 
 On the same ground, if it bo Christian language to say 
 that the flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, wicked flesh, 
 guilty and alienated from God, inclined to all forbidden 
 things, and in bondage to the devil, the world, and the 
 flesh ; then may all these things be with equal propriety 
 said of Christ and of God. I have not hitherto insisted on 
 carrying out this rule to its full extent, because I had no 
 occasion so to do, and knew that the primitive writers 
 would carry it out for me to that extent. Now, when we 
 find Clement speaking of the sufferings of God, and Igna- 
 tius of the blood of God, and recollect how cleai-ly such 
 language is authorised by Scripture precedent ; and when 
 even they, who maintain the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, 
 fully admit that what was born, and suffered, and died, 
 was very God ; we must surely feel ourselves compelled to 
 admit, that what was fallen, sinful, wicked, and impure, 
 was also very God ; or to reject the application of such 
 terms to Christ, or to a pait of Christ, as the most direct 
 and revolting blasphemy that any heresy has yet produced. 
 
 A rule constantly observed by the inspired writers, and 
 from them followed by every Catholic writer ; and a rule 
 of the utmost importance in all theological speculations, is 
 this, — If there be any one term, however innocent it may 
 be, which may be properly applied to the humanity of 
 Christ, but cannot be applied to Christ, or even to God, 
 then that humanity was a person distinct from Christ and 
 from God. 
 
 The nineteenth chapter of the same Epistle commences 
 thus, — ' The prince of this world knew not of the virginity 
 of Mary, nor of her child-bearing, nor of the death of the 
 
PAHTICUIAB TESTIMONIES. 353 
 
 Lord ; three mysteries to be preached, which were accom- 
 plished by the power of God.'^ It is necessary that I 
 should give some accomit of a translation that deviates so 
 widely from the letter. As to fiu<^ryiQi» Koxvyyjg, I have 
 been guided simply by conjecture ; for, if it do not mean 
 mysteries that are to be openly preached, I cannot discover 
 any meaning that it has at all. In translating mvxioc 6iovy 
 the power of God, I have gone upon better grounds. Co- 
 telerius refers to the treatise ascribed to Dionysius the 
 Areopagite, on the Divine ^N'ames, chapter ii. There the 
 ^(Tiypi/st of God is stated to be just the same as his cctp^ty- 
 iia, or his uKCjnaioe,, his silence or his immoveableness ; and 
 the application of these terms is simply intended to convey 
 an idea of the perfect power of God. He goes not forth to 
 any work, but, in the performance of the mightiest works, 
 he speaks not, he moves not ; he simply wills, and they are 
 done, su h<Jvxioi' ^^ov.^ Or, as there seems to be an intended 
 
 ^ Kex,i sT^oids TQv oi^x^i/rot rov xtavog rovrov vj 'Tru^hvicc 
 Islet^iocg, Koci oroKirog ccvrrig, 6(/.oio)g kcci q ^otuxrog rov Kyg/oi/, 
 r^KX. f^varri^ia, K^ocvyrig, xrivoe, iv ^avy^icc Qsov siz^ccx^n- 
 Literally, three mysteries of a cry, which were accompUshed in the silence of 
 God. Tria mysteria daimris, quae in silentio Dei patrata sunt, is the transla- 
 tion of Cotelerius. 
 
 2 The verb viav^coi^^ occurs in Irenseus, lib. iiL cap. 21, in a sense, I con- 
 ceive, similar to that which Dionysius states to belong to the noun. " For 
 as he was man that he might be tempted, so he was the Word that he might 
 be glorified, 7javx»^ourog f^iu rov 'Koyov, the Word being silent in his 
 being tempted, crucified, and dying." Fevardentius says, that this teaches 
 that the Divinity did not suffer. This, no doubt, it does very clearly teach ; 
 but I am inclined to think it teaches more, namely, that, in his sufferings and 
 death, the manhood was sustained by the Word, in whose person it subsisted, 
 till he had endured all that the Law required, and was by the same power car- 
 ried into the dominions of death,— that as the mightiest works are performed 
 iv VjaV)(,i(X> 0£oy, even so the mighty works wrought on the cross, when 
 Satan was cast down and death destroyed, were wrought gy ^o-f^/flC rov 
 'Koyov. When death met with one whom he could not conquer and lead a 
 captive into his dominions, — one whom not only he could not carrj' captive into 
 his dominions, but one who could enter into these dominions at his pleasure, 
 —when he met one whom he could not slay, but who yet could die when 
 he pleased, then did he learn that he had a master, that he held the keys of 
 
354 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 antithesis in the words x,^u,vyng and iiffv^tee, the meaning 
 may be, that these three mysteries are now to be openly 
 preached, though God kept them secret from the prince of 
 this world ; a sense which agrees well with the beginning 
 of the sentence. 
 
 But whatever sense may be attached to the latter part 
 of the sentence, it is principally for the fact stated in the 
 beginning of it, and in which there is no ambiguity, that 
 I quote it, — namely, the ignorance of Satan with regard 
 to the birth and character of Christ, and the effect of his 
 death. This sentiment is taken up, I might almost say, 
 by all the Fathers, and by some of them dwelt upon at 
 much length, in explaining the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
 They tell us that it was necessary that Christ should be 
 bom of a virgin; for had he been born of a married 
 woman, there might have been some ground to suspect that 
 he was descended from Adam by ordinary generation, and, 
 consequently, must have been a fallen man. It was neces- 
 sary, however, that that vu-gin should be espoused, that the 
 Jews might not stone her, according to their law ; and 
 that she and her child might have a legal protector ; but, 
 above all, that Satan might not know any thing of his 
 birth. Their idea was, that had Satan known that Jesus 
 Christ was the Incarnate Word, he never would have 
 ventured to attack him at all : he would never have as- 
 saulted him, and, therefore, never could have been defeat- 
 ed ; he never would have plotted his death, and, therefore, 
 death never could have been destroyed. One of the grand 
 purposes, therefore, and with some of the Fathers ap- 
 parently the one grand purpose of Christ being incarnate 
 of an espoused virgin was, that the prince of this world 
 
 his own kingdom only by a delegated power. And be who accomplished this 
 mighty work was the " woman's seed," truly the Son of Man, but he accom- 
 pllahed it i]aV)coi'^ovTog rov "hoyov. Others may entertain a different 
 view of the force of this word in IrensEus, and, therefore, though I have 
 thought it worth while to note it in passing, I build nothing upon it 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 355 
 
 might not know him, and thus might not be deterred from 
 assailing him, and being overcome. This conceahnent 
 from Satan of the person of Christ, by his being born of 
 an espoused vii'gin, is here stated by Ignatius ; and the 
 opinion is adopted by almost all the Fathers, and Ignatius 
 refeiTed to as its first promulgator by several of them. 
 To make particular quotations on this subject would be 
 endless, for no man can have entered even slightly into 
 the Fathers without meeting the notion, that the flesh of 
 Christ was just a bait to entice Satan to attack him. Thus 
 Gregory Nyssen, treating the subject at some length, says, 
 that Satan, ' gaping after the bait of the flesh, was trans- 
 fixed by the hook of the Divinity, and thus the di-agon 
 was drawn out with a hook, as Job says.'* And Basil, 
 assigning the reasons why Christ was bom of a married 
 virgin, gives this as a reason assigned nvi ruu ■accKcx.iav 
 by some one of the ancients, and refening, as nobody 
 doubts, to this veiy passage of Ignatius, that her virginity 
 might be concealed fi'om the prince of this world ; and he 
 adds, that Satan was a gi-eat observer of vii'gins, as he 
 knew that a virgin was to have a son who was to destroy 
 his kingdom ; but-Mary being manied, he ceased to watch 
 her, fearing no harm fi'om the ofispring of any married 
 woman. 2 One passage in which Bernard, the last of the 
 Fathers, introduces this idea, is not only so very pertinent 
 to the object which I have in view, but altogether so fine, 
 that I am tempted to give it entu-e. ' Therefore, whom 
 he sought in the flesh, he loved in the spirit, and redeemed 
 by his power. It is truly delightful ,to see the Maker of 
 man become a man. But while he prudently selected the 
 nature apart fi*om its pollution, he also powerfully repelled 
 death from the nature. In the assumption of flesh he 
 condescended to me ; in avoiding its pollution, he attended 
 to himself; in the undertaking of death he satisfied the 
 
 1 In his Catechetical Oration, chap. xxiv. 
 
 * Sermon XXV. g/f xfiv ocyiocu rov ^qkttov yivvrtitv. 
 
356 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Father ; a delightful friend, a prudent counsellor, a power- 
 ful helper. To him I can securely commit myself, who 
 wishes to save me, who knows how to save me, who is 
 able to save me. ^^Tiom he sought, him he called by his 
 grace ; and "vnll he cast out any that comes to him ? Nay, 
 I fear neither any force nor fraud, as if it could pluck me 
 out of the hand of him who conquered Death, the conqueror 
 of all ; and by a holier art, deluded the serpent, the seducer 
 of all ; more wise than the latter, more powerful than the 
 former ; He assumed, indeed, the reality of flesh, but the 
 likeness of sin ; affording by the first a sweet consolation 
 to the weak, and by the last concealing the deceptive 
 snare from the devil. '^ Ruffinus, also, in his exposition of 
 the Creed, enters largely into the same view, showing how, 
 through the bait of the flesh, Satan was caught by the hook 
 of the Divinity, and the dragon was drawn out with a 
 hook. But it would be endless to refer to all the Fathers 
 who adopt this idea. And when we find the Fathers, 
 from Ignatius, one of the first of them, down to Bernard, 
 the last of them, teaching that one great reason why Christ 
 put on the likeness of sinful flesh w^as, that Satan might 
 be encouraged to make that attack upon him, as if he had 
 been a fallen man, which was necessary to his own defeat, 
 and which they conceive he never would have made, had 
 he known that Jesus Christ was no fallen man, but the 
 
 1 Itaque quos in came quoesivit, dilexit in Spiritu, redemit in virtute. Ple- 
 num prorsus omni suavitatis dulcediue, videre liominem hominisConditorem. 
 At dum naturam prudenter selegit a culpa, etiam potenter mortem propulit a 
 natura. In carais assumptione condescendit milii ; in culpse vitatione consulit 
 sibi ; in mortis susceptione satisfecit Patri ; amicus dulcis, consiliarius pru- 
 dens, adjutor fortis. Iluic securus me credo, qui salvare me velit, noverit, pos- 
 sit. Quem qu32sivit hunc ct vocavit per gi'atiam suam, numquid vcnientem 
 ejiciet foras ? Sed nee vim nee fraudem metuo profecto ullam, quod me videli- 
 cet de manu ejus possit eruere, qui et vincentem omnia vicit mortem, et se- 
 ductorem universitatis sen)entem arte utique sanctiore delusit, isto pruden- 
 tior, ilia potentior. Carnis quidem assumit veritatem, sed peccati similitudi- 
 nem, dulcem prorsus in iUa exhibens consolationem infirmo, et in hac pru- 
 denter abscondcns laqueum deceptionis diabolo.— ^wpra Cantica. Sermo 20. 
 
PAETICULAE TESTIMONIES. 357 
 
 Incarnate Word ; can we believe that they, at the same 
 time, held the doctrine that he was really a fallen sinful 
 man, whom Satan might assail with a reasonable prospect 
 of prevailing over him ; since, being liable to temptation, 
 he mnst have been liable to sin, without which liability 
 temptation is declared to be no temptation ? I could just as 
 easily believe that no such writers as the Fathers ever 
 existed. 
 
 The epistles of Ignatius abound in passages against the 
 Docetae, who denied the reality of our Lord's body ; and 
 in every one of which he not only might have been ex- 
 pected to maintain the sinfulness of his flesh, as earnestly 
 and emphatically as that doctrine is inculcated now, 
 when there is so much less reason for insisting upon it ; 
 but, had he believed the doctrine, must of necessity have 
 done so. There is no possibility of acquitting him of the 
 charge of great ignorance of the doctrines which he had 
 learned from the lips of the Apostles themselves, nay, even 
 from the lips of Christ himself, or of grievous unfaithful- 
 ness in neglecting to inculcate so important a doctrine as 
 the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh is represented to be, 
 when writing in circumstances that so imperiously requir- 
 ed it to be brought forward in the most distinct and pro- 
 minent manner. Still less can he be excused for teaching 
 the very contraiy, and being the first to promulgate an 
 error upon the Incarnation, which misled all that followed 
 him, down even to the last of the Fathers, nay, down to 
 the present day. I had marked a number of other por- 
 tions for extraction, but I find that I cannot produce them 
 without allowing to him a veiy disproportionate space. I 
 shall, therefore, merely notice a mistake that occm-s in the 
 vetus interpretatio of his intei-polated Epistle to the TraUians, 
 chap. x. The passage is — Crudfixus est vere, voluntarie 
 complacens^ nonphantastice. This is the translation of zgttv- 
 ^u^n cckYi^ag, Qv loKwsi, ov (pccvlcccjicc. It is clear that the 
 ancient translator, instead of ov loxyiasi, he died not in ap- 
 pearance only, had read svIokyktu, he died of his own good 
 
358 PAKTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 pleasure. Now, admitting him to have been mistaken, as 
 he probably was, yet he must have detected his mistake at 
 once, if the reading which he adopted conveyed a sense, 
 not merely new to the Church, but grossly heretical. But 
 the mistake passed without detection, because, if Ignatius 
 teaches not that doctrine in this place, — which, indeed, is 
 none of his writing, — he teaches it clearly enough else- 
 where. Of 
 
 POLYCAEP, 
 
 the disciple of the Apostle John, and the last of the 
 apostolical Fathers, we have left only one short Epistle to 
 the Philippians. It is worthy of its venerable author, but 
 I observe nothing in it particularly bearing upon the sub- 
 ject. I pass on, therefore, to his contemporary, 
 
 JUSTIN IMAKTYR, 
 
 who flourished about the middle of the second centur}-, 
 and suffered martyi'dom in the year 166. I need not make 
 many extracts fi'om him in order to show what were his 
 opinions as to the person of Christ, as he has the honour 
 of being reproached by the Socinians as the fii'st of the 
 Fathers who taught the divinity of our Lord. In his Se- 
 cond Apology, page 76, he understands the text, " The 
 government shall be upon his shoulders," as referring to 
 the cross which our Saviour earned upon his shoulders. 
 Barnabas had done the same before him, as others of the 
 Fathers did after him ; for they imagined not that he was 
 overcome on the cross, but that there he reigned. 
 
 In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew he quotes the text, 
 " And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, 
 and a Branch shaU gi'ow out of his roots ; and the Spirit 
 of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and 
 understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit 
 of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord ; and shall make 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 859 
 
 him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord."^ 
 Trypho admits that this text refers to the Messiah, and 
 immediately proceeds to draw from it an objection against 
 the Divinity of Christ, in this manner : — ' You say that he 
 pre-existed as God ; and you say that, according to the 
 counsel of God, he was incarnated, and bora as man of a 
 virgin. How can Ids pre-existence be proved, who is filled 
 with the powers of the Holy Spirit which the Word enu- 
 merates by Isaiah, as one who stands in need of them ?' 
 Now, let any one who believes that our Lord took fallen 
 sinful flesh, just consider with himself for one moment how 
 he would answer this objection. He will find that his 
 answer is perfectly ready. He would reply at once that 
 Christ really did stand in need of these powers of the 
 Holy Spirit ; that having in his Incarnation taken fallen 
 sinful flesh, he had in him all the evil propensities of fallen 
 man, and being continually inclined to all forbidden things, 
 he required the constant control of the Holy Spirit, with- 
 out which he would have broken forth into actual crime. 
 Had Justin held this doctiine he could have given no other 
 answer. He must have admitted at once that Christ did 
 need those powers. Yet, instead of making this admission, 
 he gives an answer which will meet with the approbation 
 of neither those who admit, nor of those who deny that 
 tenet. His reply is, — ' You have put this question with 
 great acuteness and skill ; for there really does seem to 
 be some ground of doubt here. But that you may under- 
 stand this, attend to what I say. The Word does not say 
 that the powers of the Spirit, which are mentioned, came 
 upon him as if he stood in need of them ; but that they 
 were to rest upon, that is, to have their teimination in 
 him, so that there should be no more prophets among 
 your people, according to the ancient manner ; and this 
 you may see with your own eyes, for after him no prophet 
 
 1 Isaiah xL 1. 
 
30)0 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 hath arisen among you.'^ Now, with such an answer to 
 such an objection before our eyes, is it in any man's power 
 to believe that Justin held the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
 our Lord's humanity ? held that Christ needed regenera- 
 tion, and all the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as much 
 a& we do ? It is perfectly clear that Justin's views upon 
 the subject were very vague and unsatisfactory ; but it is 
 no less clear that they were directly opposed to the tenet 
 of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh. 
 
 He is quite scandalized at the idea that Christ was 
 made a curse for us ; and labours to show that as God 
 was blameless, though he ordered Moses to make a brazen 
 serpent, the veiy last thing that it might have been expect- 
 ed that a God who had forbidden all images would have 
 ordered, ' even so though a curse be denounced in the law 
 against men that are crucified, that cui*se does not lie 
 agamst the Chi'ist of God.'^ Did this writer, who, in de- 
 
 1 Koii Qsou uvrou TTfyovTrct^y^ovra, T^sysi?, x,ui 
 
 Kuroc TYiu (iov'hYiv Toy 0£ov act^KO'7roiYi6ivrot. ccvrou Xsyg/f B/at 
 
 vui 'Tr^ov'TTX^x^^f oarig B/ot rav Zvuxf^csau rov 7ruiVf/,ctTog rov 
 dcytov Xi KxrxQi^fisi 6 "hoyog ^toi' Iltrotiov, 'TrT^YiQovrxi, ug eu- 
 oe/ig rovrau v'ttcc^^uv ; >ca,yu ocmx.fituoc.f^iu, vovui)(,iaa,Tcx, fcsp 
 xoct avuYirarxroc Yi^ari^axg' xXriSug yxQ wttoqyj/h.x ^oksi nuctt' 
 aXX' ivx ihng kxi rou tts^i rovruv "hoyov, xkovs uv "kiyct, 
 rxvrxg rxg Kxri^Qi&fiYi/iiiuug rov Truev/xxrog ^vvxf4,£ig, ov^, ug 
 ivOiovg xvTOV Tovrav ourog, (pmii' o hoyog STre'hYiT^vdsuxi i-a 
 xvrou, x'kT^ ag ett' iKituov xvxTrxvaiu [/^i'h'hovaoiv '7rotita6xi, 
 Tovritjriv, iTT XVTOV 'TTifyxg 'TTOiiia^xi rov (Af\y,iTi £v ra yevet 
 vf/,au KXTX TO 'Ttx'hxiov £0og TT^oCpviTXg yivmiadxr otts^ kxi 
 <y^e{ t^eiu toTi' (jt.iT iKHvov yx^ ovhug o'Kug 'zrQo(priTYig 7r«e^' v/mv 
 yeyevYjTXi. — Page 314. Edition of Tans, 1636. 
 
 '^ auro B>j KXi iv TO vo((,a kxtxq^x Kitrxt kxtx 
 
 TCiV <JTXVQOV(Jt.lVOiV XV ^ (^Oilt UV , OVK STi Bg X,Xl fCXTX TOV Xp/a- 
 
 Tov TOV Qiov KXTX^x KiiTXt. — Page 322. 
 
PARTICULAH TESTIMONIES. 361 
 
 fiance of the direct assertion of the apostle, denied that 
 Christ was made a curse for us, yet believe that he actually 
 took fallen sinful flesh which had been accursed in the 
 loins of our first parents ? 
 The next author who demands our attention is 
 
 IREN^US, 
 
 who was ordained bishop of Lyons some time before the 
 year 180, and suffered mart}Tdom in the second or thu'd 
 year of the third century. He has left us one of the most 
 valuable works of antiquity, wiitten against all the heresies 
 of the time ; the gi-eater part of which, however, exists only 
 in a Latin translation, which, I should conjectm^e from the 
 style, was made by some person who was a native of 
 Greece, as L-enseus himself was. He was a disciple of 
 Polycai-p, who was ordained bishop of Smyrna by the 
 Apostle John. We have already seen him arguing against 
 the Gnostics, that there can be nothing in flesh and blood 
 unfit for the kingdom of heaven ; and arguing thus, upon 
 this very ground that the Apostle Paul applies the terms 
 flesh and blood to Christ himself. This is a proof, as satis- 
 factory as can be desired, that he utterly denied the doc- 
 trine that even the flesh of Christ himself was faUen sinfiil 
 flesh. As far, therefore, as the proof of this point is con- 
 cerned, any thing farther might be unnecessary. But he 
 entertains a view upon the subject so singular, though not 
 quite peculiar to himself, that I should be doing injustice 
 to the subject were I to pass it unnoticed. His view is, 
 that Adam was made the image of God indeed, but not the 
 perfect image of him. He was rather the reflected image, the 
 image of that humanity of our Lord, which was the only per- 
 fect human image of God that ever existed. His constant 
 doctrine is, that man never was truly the image of God till 
 the Licarnation. God could have made man perfectly so at 
 first ; but man, being yet in his infancy, was not fit for this 
 
 Q 
 
o(J2 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 distinction. But in Christ man became perfectly the image 
 of God. In proof of this, I would refer particularly to Lib. 
 iv. Cap. 75 and 76. I quote the following from Lib. v. 
 Cap. 16 ; because, though it does not enter so particularly 
 into the subject, it is sufficiently distinct, and is much 
 shorter : — ' In past times it was said, indeed, that man was 
 made in the image of God ; but that was not shown. For 
 as yet the Word was invisible, after whose image man 
 had been made. On this account, also, he easily lost the 
 likeness. But when the Word of God was made flesh, he 
 established both : for he both showed the true image, he 
 himself becoming what his image was ; and restored the 
 likeness confirming it, making man like the invisible Father 
 by the visible Word. And the Lord not only manifested 
 both the Father and himself by the things aforesaid, but 
 also, by his passion itself, he dissolved the disobedience 
 in a tree, by obedience unto death upon a tree.'' Here 
 the inferiority even of unfallen Adam to the manhood of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ is distinctly stated. It was not un- 
 til the Incarnation of the Word that a perfect human image 
 of God was seen ; and it was not till then that that image 
 was placed beyond the possibility of falling. The reason 
 of this inferiority he treats of in the chapters to which I 
 liave referred, and employs the text, " I have fed you with 
 milk, and not with strong meat," to show that Adam, even 
 in his unfallen state, was not capable of being the true and 
 perfect image of God, — an image which was never seen till 
 the Word was made flesh. 
 
 Instead, however, of making an extract from either of 
 these chapters, I prefer quoting a passage from Theophilus, 
 who was ordained bishop of Antioch in the year 170, a 
 
 > In pneteritis enim temporibus, diccbatur quidem secundum imaginem 
 Dei factum esse hominera, nou autem ostcndebatur. Adhuc enim inviSibile 
 erat Verbum, cujus secundum imaginem liomo factus fiierat. Propter hoc 
 autem et similitudinem facile amisit. Quando autem caro Verbum Dei 
 factum est, utraque conflnnavit : et imaginem ostendit veram, ipse hoc fiens, 
 <luod erat imago ejus ; et similitudinem finnans restituit, consimilcm faciens 
 liominem invisibili Tatri per visibilc Verbum. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 363 
 
 writer who was the first that made use of the word 
 ' Trinity.' Theophilus and Irenaius wrote nearly at the 
 same time, but lived at such a distance from each other, 
 that it is not probable that the one could borrow fi*om 
 the other; yet he who reads the chapters in Irenseus, 
 to which I have referred, will probably be inclined to 
 think, that in proving the inferiority of unfallen Adam to 
 the humanity of Christ, he had before him the following 
 passage from Theophilus : — ' The tree of knowledge was 
 good, and its fruit was good. For the tree bore not, as 
 some imagine, any thing noxious or deadly ; but disobe- 
 dience was the cause of death. For there was nothing in 
 the fruit save knowledge alone. But knowledge is good, if 
 one knows how to use it properly. But Adam was at that 
 time an infant, and was, therefore, unable to receive know- 
 ledge in a worthy manner. For even now, when a child 
 is bom, he is not immediately able to eat bread, but is first 
 nourished with milk, and at a more advanced age proceeds 
 to more solid food : and so also it was with Adam.' ^ Now, 
 Irenaeus, in writing the chapters refeiTed to, either had 
 seen this language, or the sentiment was so common in the 
 Church at the time, that two difi'erent persons, the one 
 writing at Antioch in the East, and the other writing at 
 Lyons in the West, express the same opinion, and nearly in 
 the same words. Priestley was right. It would be easier 
 by far to prove that these waiters were Gnostics, and denied 
 the flesh of Chiist altogether, than to prove that they 
 held his flesh to be fallen and sinful. There is no wiiter 
 whom I would more strongly recommend to the theological 
 student upon the subject of the Incarnation than Irenaeus. 
 
 ^ Tyi Bg ovff/j vjfhiKtcc 6 Ahoi^ic in u/iTrtog yju, B/o ovttco vj^v- 
 i/UTO TYiu yyuaiu koct ot^iocu y^a^ny. Koii yoc^ vvu, iitctv yi- 
 vr\&y\ 'TTxihioy, ovk r^-n ^vi/ocrot-i ccqtou sadisiu, otAAst 'tt^cotou yu- 
 
 iTCi rviv ffTSQSotu r^o(p'/\v i^-)(,ircti. ' Ovrug »v sysyot/st kxi ro) 
 Ahxf^. — To Autolycus, Book ii. 
 
004 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Ill the statement of his views as to the superiority of onr 
 Lord's manhood to that of unfallen Adam, he no doubt does 
 occasionally go somewhat farther than is perfectly warrant- 
 able ; as when he speaks of the mixture of the humanity 
 and divinity in Christ; a mode of speaking that he re- 
 peatedly employs, even though waiting against the Gnos- 
 tics. But then it must be remembered that this is a mode 
 of speaking perfectly familiar with the Fathers until the 
 rise of the Eutychian heresy showed its danger. And iu 
 the same way he uses language which might, if rigidly in- 
 terpreted, be urged in favour of the opposite heresy of Nes- 
 torius. Thus, in book iii. chap. 18, we have the follow- 
 ing language : — ' Filius Dei hominis fiUus factus^ ut per 
 eum adoptionem percipiamus^ portante homine^ et capientc^ 
 et complectente Filium Dei.'' Now, though this language 
 be capable of a sound sense, yet it is only capable of that 
 sense, while it naturally conveys an idea directly Nesto- 
 rian ; and in truth I doubt not that could he at that time 
 have had any idea of the Ncstorian heresy, he would either 
 have avoided the expression altogether, or would have 
 written it thus : — portante Filio Dei, et capiente, et complec- 
 tente hominem. Yet I may remark, that in the interpolated 
 epistles of Ignatius, epistle to the Trallians, chap, x., we 
 meet a similar phraseology : — A'hnSiag loiuvu sysvu/jas 'Mu^iec 
 auf^x, hov ivoiKov ixov, ' Mary truly bore a body having 
 God dwelling in it.' Every one sees that this language is 
 most objectionable, and at a later period would not have 
 been tolerated : but at the same time every intelligent 
 reader sees clearly that the Avriter had no intention to teach 
 the doctrine which might be fairly inferred from it. We 
 must allow great latitude to those who wrote before heresies 
 rishig in the Church had called for the interference of gene- 
 ral Councils ; and the candid reader will at once admit 
 that while they use language that might be urged in favour 
 of Nestorianism, and far more frequently language that 
 might be urged in favour of Eutychianism, they had not the 
 most distant intention of teaching cither the one or the 
 
PARTICULAE, TESTIMONIES. 365 
 
 Other of these heresies. The best proof of this is, that 
 these two opposite modes of expression may commonly be 
 fomid in the same writer. In general, the language of 
 Iren^eus is as coiTect as his views are judicious. How far 
 he was right in maintaining that our Lord, as to his huma- 
 nity, was superior to unfallen Adam, I shall not stop to in- 
 quire. It is clear as day that he did not believe that our 
 Lord's humanity was fallen, sinful, and impure. 
 The next author who demands our attention is 
 
 CLEMENT, 
 
 a presbyter and catechist in the Church of Alexandria. 
 When he was born is not known ; but he died in the 
 year 220. His views as to om* Saviour's humanity were 
 by no means of a sound description. I must, however, 
 produce a specimen of them, in order to show how very 
 far he was fi'om thinking that humanity to be sinful. In 
 one place he writes thus, — ' Om- p^edagogue, O ye child- 
 ren, is like to God the Father whose Son he is, impec- 
 cable, uTcprehensible, and in his soul impassible. He is 
 unpolluted God in the figure of man, performing his 
 Father's will ; God the Word, who is in the Father, and 
 at the right hand of the Father, and together with the 
 figure, — of a man namely^ — God. He is to us the spot- 
 less image ; and with all our power must we labour to 
 make our souls like to him. But he was perfectly free 
 from aU human passions. For this reason he alone is 
 Judge, for he alone is impeccable. '^ 
 
 T^{ ccvrovTco Qeoi, ou'TrsQ eariv vtog xyoifioc^ryiTog, ccys'7r7KS7rroiy 
 Koii XTrxdyig rn '^vxri- &iog sv xy&QcoTrov axn^ocri ocx^cti/rog^ 
 'TToiTQiKco ^ihYi^ccTi ^iXKOuog, 'hoyog Qsog, 6 iu ra YLur^i, 6 sk 
 'hi^iuu Tov UxTQog, aw koci ra (r^cyif^ocrt Qeog. Ovrog '/)f/.iu 
 siKCJU v} ccKYfKi^coTog' rovTO) 'TTcAvri ahusi Trsi^mrsov s^of^Oiovv 
 
 TYjV -^VX^iV. AXh 6 y.iV, CC'TTQ'KVXOg iig TG KOiUTiAsg OiU^^WTTi. 
 
366 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. • 
 
 In the same book, chap. vii. he speaks of the " holy- 
 God Jesus," ay/0? Qeog lv}aovg. But the following pass- 
 age will effectually put an end to all doubts as to what he 
 thought of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh ; and it is to 
 be regretted that so impious a doctrine being urged upon 
 the world, on this among other grounds, that all the 
 Fathers teach it, renders necessary the production of 
 passages, which it would be better by far to leave in the 
 original where but few eyes could see them. After ob- 
 serving that the true Gnostic, that is, the Christian, (for 
 while the Gnostics boasted loudly of their knowledge, and 
 took their very name, from the word yvcoaig, Clement 
 maintains that the Christian alone was the real Gnos- 
 tic,) had no other affections than those which are neces- 
 sary for the preservation of life, such as hunger, thirst, 
 and the like, he adds, — ' But as to the body of our Sa- 
 viour, it would be ridiculous to suppose that, as a body, 
 it required those things which are necessary for the pre- 
 sei'vation of life. He ate, not on account of his body, 
 which was sustained by his holy power, but lest those 
 who were conversant with him should imagine, as some 
 afterwards did, that he was a man only in appearance. 
 But he was totally exempted from all passion, and could 
 experience no emotion whether of pleasure or of pain.'^ 
 This is one of the very passages produced by Priestley for 
 the pui-pose of proving that even as to the humanity of 
 
 uuv vctSuv. Alec rovru yxQ Koct /novo; K^trri;, on wjct/xu^- 
 TYjTOg fcouog. — Pcedarjogue, Book i. chap. ii. See note M, Appendix. 
 
 ' AXA' S'TTi fAiv rov ^arri^og to aafz-u, ecTrettTStu ug acofioc 
 rug AvetyKOtictg VTS^eaietg eig Ziccfioi/Yju, ysTiCjg »» inn' s(pet'y£u 
 yxQ ov B/ot TO acjfix, 'hvvctf/,ii avve^c^/neuou dcyict' ocTJ^ ag fcrj 
 Tovg ffvvovretg cc'hT^ag Trsfit otyrov (p^ovsiu VTrsKjeX^oC uaTTi^ 
 uf/.i'hii varsQvu ^OKYiaet Tiueg ocvrou TrsipetueQaT^ui inrO\a.^ov. 
 ecvTo; Bf XTroc^acTrtOug ccTruSng nu, sig 6u ov'^su 'TnxQSialvsrxi ki- 
 u/i/xu 'Tra.dririKoy, ovrs y}^oi/yi, ovre 'hvTffi. — ^^^ro/wtto, Book vi. chap, 
 ix. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 367 
 
 our Lord, the Fathers held an opinion not materially dif- 
 fering from that of the Gnostics. Utterly indefensible as 
 is the position of Priestley, it must be admitted that snch 
 language as this is equally indefensible, and enabled him 
 to give but too plausible a colom* to his assertion. No 
 man in the present age would, I suppose, make use of 
 such language as this ; yet the Church in the present age 
 is charged with denying the flesh of Christ ; while at the 
 same time it is asserted that all the Fathers not only 
 maintained the reality of that flesh, but believed it to be 
 fallen sinful flesh ! 
 
 ISIARCUS MINUTIUS FELIX, 
 
 a Roman lawyer, wi'ote a very elegant defence of Chri.^- 
 tianity, about the beginning of the third century. He 
 has had no occasion to enter upon the question of our 
 Lord's humanity ; but the following passing remark shows 
 clearly enough his opinion upon the subject. It occm'S a 
 few pages from the end : — ' Nam quod religioni nostr<B ho- 
 minem noxium^ et crucem ejus adscribitis^ longe de vicinia 
 verifatis erratis^ qui puiatis Deum credi^ aut meruisse 
 noxium, aut potuisse terrenum : nee ille miserabilis, cujus in 
 Jwmine mortali spes omnis innititur ; totum enim ejus auxi- 
 lium cum extincto homine finitur .^ 
 
 TERTULLIAX 
 
 was a presbyter in the Church of Carthage. He tm-ned 
 Montanist in 207, and died about 220. Having afready 
 given one testimony from him, as distinct as language can 
 express, against the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, I shall 
 content myself here with giving another short extract, in 
 which he expressly guards against that tenet. He has 
 written a treatise expressly on the flesh of Christ, which 
 is truly excellent. The sixteenth chapter of that treatise 
 he devotes to the defence of the Church against the re- 
 
368 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 proach of believing the flesh of Chiist to be sinful, as the 
 Gnostics charged the Catholics with doing. The title 
 given to the chapter by Laccrda is — Responsio pro Catho- 
 licism quod caro vera Christi peccatrix non fuerit ; that is, 
 ' An answer for the Catholics, that the true flesh of Christ 
 was not sinful.' The whole chapter is as direct to the 
 purpose as possible. I shall produce merely the end of it. 
 After observing that it Avould have been no great matter 
 if Christ had removed the blot of sin in better flesh, and 
 of another, that is not of a sinful nature, he proceeds as 
 follows : — ' Then, you will say, if he put on our flesh, the 
 flesh of Christ was sinful. Do not strain the simple 
 meaning ; in putting on our flesh, he made it his own ; 
 maldng it his own, he made it not sinful. Finally, let 
 those who think that Christ had not our flesh, because he 
 came not by ordinary generation, remember that Adam 
 himself did not receive this flesh by ordinary generation. 
 As earth was changed into this flesh without ordinary 
 generation, even so the Word of God was able, without 
 ordinary generation, to pass into the matter of the same 
 flesh.' 1 Of 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS 
 
 little is known. He was a bishop, but whether of Ostia 
 in Italy, or of some city in Arabia, is uncertain ; — most 
 probably the latter. He suff'ered martyrdom in the year 
 230. As I have no other acquaintance with the writings 
 of this author than what is derived from a very slight in- 
 spection, while looking for passages bearing upon the pre- 
 
 • Ergo, inquis, si nostram induit, peccatrix fuit caro Christi. Noli eon- 
 strinRcre explicabilem sciisum ; nostram enim induens, suam fecit ; suam 
 faciens, non peccatricem earn fecit. Ceterum, (quod ad omnes dictum sit, 
 qui ideo non putant camera nostram in Cliristo fuisse, quia non fuit ex viri 
 semine) recordentur Adam ipsum in lianc carnem, non ex semino viri fac- 
 tum. Sicut terra convcrsa est in hanc carnem sine viri scmine, ita et Dei 
 Verbum potuit sine coagulo in ejusdem carnis transire materiam.— i>e Came 
 Christi, cap. xvl. Edition of Priorius after Rigaltius. 
 
PARTICUI^lPc TESTIMONIES. 369 
 
 sent question, I have thought it best to lay aside the pass- 
 ages which I had extracted from him, and to substitute 
 others taken from those fragments of his works which are 
 preserved by Theodoret. The following is from his Ser- 
 mon on the text — "The Lord is my shepherd." — 'And 
 the Saviom- himself was an ark of wood that would not 
 rot ; for by it his undecaying and incoiTuptible tabernacle 
 was signified, which produced no coiTuption of sin. For 
 he who sins, confesses, and says, ' My wounds stink and 
 are corrupt, because of my foolishness ; ' but the Lord was 
 impeccable, of wood that would not rot, according to his 
 manhood, that is, of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, over- 
 laid within and without as with the most pure gold of 
 God the Word. '1 The following is from his Sermon on 
 the two robbers : — ' And the body being dead after a 
 human manner, has yet a great power of life in it ; for 
 things which flow not from dead bodies flowed from it, 
 blood and water, that we might know how far the power 
 dwelling in the body prevails to life ; so that it might ap- 
 pear to be unlike other dead bodies, and able to pour out 
 the causes of life to us.' ^ This passage of Hippolytus has 
 
 ^ Koci KiQcjTo; Zs sx, ^v7^cou ccari-Trra'j ciVTog rju 6 "Eutti^' to 
 yoCQ ccan'Tirro'j cAvrou oe.Zicc^i)oQou oKvivog tccvtti x.cx.Tft'yyihirTO, 
 TO f/,Y^ifii(X.u <k,f/,ci^r-/i!^oi,rog aT^Trsdovcc (pvactv. ' O yoc^ a^«^- 
 T-fiaccg-t y-cci i'c,oy.(ihoyov^ivog (Pmi, 'Tr^oaco^mccy koci iaa.-Tvnactv 
 01 (AtiKai'Kig (Aov octto Tr^oaa'Trov rrig ocCp^oavu-zig f/^ov. ' Qihe Kt/- 
 ^iog ctux/Lcoc^Yirog riv, sk rau eca-^7rrau ^vT^ai/ ro Kccr a,u6qu-7rcv, 
 Tovrearrj ex, rvig 'TrxQdsuov kcci rov xyiov Trvsvjicccrog, iaa&si/Kai 
 s^a^su rov \oyov rov Qsov otou xcc^cc^aroirci) x^vao) Tn^^iKixa.- 
 7\V(/,[/,ivog. — Eranutes of Theodoret, Dialogue i. p. S6. 
 
 2 Kflt/ uix^ov n ou ro auy^oc xarcx, rou ocuS^WTrivou r^O'TTOu, 
 y.iycc'Knv iyfii ^oy/\g iu ccvra ^vvoifciu' a. yu^ ov TV^o^nrcti rcov 
 viK^au aay^cArcov, rctvra, «! oivrov 'TTQOs^c^dri, Mi/iix n x,a,i vhuo' 
 iv ii(mif](^iu 7}7iixou 7] xccrcccryy/iuojaoiffcc ^vvoc/mg £u ra auy^ccri 
 'JT^og ^UYi'j "^vuureci, ag (/.riTi oivro roig a/Khoig o^oiov (^ociuia- 
 
 q2 
 
370 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 been made use of to substantiate a chai'ge of unsoundness 
 against the Fathers. I have too slight an acquaintance 
 with the general sentiments of Hippolytus to be able to 
 undertake his defence ; but I have no doubt whatever 
 that he was perfectly sound. It is quite clear, however, 
 from this language, that if he eiTed at all with regard to 
 our Lord's humanity, his error lay in a direction exactly 
 opposite to that of those who maintain the sinfulness of 
 that humanity. If he deviated from orthodoxy at all, it 
 is clear that the deviation was in the direction, not of So- 
 cinianism, but of Gnosticism ; — a remark that may be 
 made with regai'd to all the primitive writers. We now 
 come to 
 
 ORIGEN, 
 
 who, like his master Clement, was a catechist and pres- 
 byter in the Church of Alexandria. He was born about 
 the year 185, and died in 252. His opinions on several 
 points were peculiar to himself. With regard to the 
 Word and the Holy Ghost these opinions were not, in my 
 opinion, quite so bad as they have been sometimes repre- 
 sented. They were, however, too bad to admit of any 
 satisfactory defence. But with regard to the humanity of 
 our Lord, it may naturally be expected that his views 
 would partake somewhat of the character of those of his 
 master Clement, who, as we have seen, furnished Priest- 
 ley with one of his strongest authorities for accusing the 
 primitive Church of Gnosticism. The following passage 
 will show, that with regard to the humanity of om* Lord, 
 he copied Clement but too closely. RefeiTing to Celsus, 
 one of wliose objections as to the body of our Lord he was 
 remarking upon, he says : — ' ' But,' he saith, ' neither 
 does the body of God eat such food as you do ;' just as if he 
 
 6at 'jiKQOu, Vif^i'j 0£ Toc ^oiYig ocniec ':rQ0^ii</ ovuccoSoti. — EranlsU$ 
 c/ Theodaret, Dialogue iii. p. IOC. 
 
PAETICULAR TESTIMONIES. 371 
 
 could prove from the gospel that he did eat, or that he ate 
 such food as we do. But be it so that he did eat the 
 passover with his disciples, and that he did not merely 
 say, " with desire have I desu-ed to eat this passover with 
 you," but that he actually did eat ; let him say also that 
 he drank at Jacob's well ; what has that to do with what 
 we have said of his body ? It cleai'ly appears that after 
 his resmTection he ate fish, for we believe that he took a 
 body, being bom of woman. 'i This passage is perfectly 
 sufficient to show how deeply Origen was imbued with 
 the spirit of his master upon this subject ; and how far he 
 was from thinking the flesh of Christ to be fallen sinful 
 flesh. Many extracts from the same justly-celebrated 
 treatise, of a similar character, it would be easy to pro- 
 duce. One more I must give. Referring to the often-re- 
 peated objection of Celsus, that Christians thought it a 
 pious thing to believe that Christ, consisting of a mortal 
 body, was God, he says : — 'But let these accusers know, 
 that this Jesus, whom from the beginning we believe to be 
 God, and the Son of God, is the very Word, and the very 
 tmth, and the very wisdom ; and as to his mortal body, 
 and the human soul that was in it, we say that not only 
 by the fellowship, but also by the union and mixture of 
 the Word, it received all that is gi-eat ; and by a partici- 
 pation of his Divinity became God.'^ 
 
 ' Kiyii OS *' on ofds TOiuvTU, amiTUi ouy^x Qsov" on; iy^wj 
 ocvTO'j TTccootfjYidcci ccTTO Tuv iva,yyiKiKO)'j yocc^y.ct'vuv dlXUV^i- 
 'joy, Koti 'TToioc (7irovf/,svov. A?iA' e<7ru, Aeyerco xvrcou iiiZ^OdKi'Jcti 
 f/^iTcCTOiv fAcc6-^ro)yT0 Tcuriy^a,' ov y^ouo'j siTTOuroi.ro. " 'E'tts^v^uicc 
 s-TTsdv/^riacATOvroro-zoiffxci (Pocynv fisd' vy.cou" x'K'Asc-KUt/Ss^^co- 
 KOTix,. Aeyerco 5' xvrou KXt ^r>pYiaxyrcc ttccqcc r/i Trriy^ rov 
 
 loCKUa TTi'TrUKi'JCtl, Tl TQVTO TTPOg TOC TTS^l TOU GCOf/^CCTOg OCVTOU 
 
 v^ i]fiO}u T^iyouvjot, ; acc(pag ^s (pactusraii ty^dvo; y^ircx, rinv ocvct- 
 fjTCtaiu (iiZ^UKug. — Against Celsus, Book i. near the end, p. 54 of Spen- 
 cer's edition. He alludes to what he had stated in a previous part of the 
 same book, see particularly pp. 26 and 29. 
 
 ^ 'O^ica; 0& laraijccy (^ioirudoiv') oi iyKcx.'hovyrig, 6~{ 6u /mv 
 
372 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 These passages are perfectly sufficient to show that 
 Priestley might have quoted Origen also, in order to give a 
 colour to the charge of Gnosticism which he brings against 
 the Fathers. I have at present no opportunity of con- 
 sulting his work -rgg/ ot^x^u^ but there is a collection of 
 passages bearing on the Incarnation, selected from that 
 work, and translated by Ruffinus, from which I may take 
 a few sentences. Speaking of the human soul of Christ, 
 he says : — ' It was anointed with the oil of gladness then, 
 when by an immaculate federation, it was united to the 
 Word of God ; and by this it alone, of all human souls, 
 was incapable of sin, because it was well and fully capable 
 of receiving the Son of God ; and, therefore, it is one with 
 him, and receives his names, and is called Jesus Christ, 
 by whom all things were made.' And he adds, that he 
 conceives that it is of this soul that the Apostle says, 
 '' Your life is hid with Christ in God." Again, he re- 
 marks, that as a mass of iron, placed in a furnace, is said 
 to be made fire, and appears so to the eye, and if any one 
 try to touch or handle it, he will feel the force not of iron, 
 but of fire ; ' in the same manner also that soul which, as 
 iron in fire, is always placed in the Word, in the wisdom, 
 in God ; all that it does, all that it feels, all that it thinks, 
 is God. And, therefore, it cannot be said to be conver- 
 tible or mutable, but, unceasingly ignited by its union with 
 the Word of God, will possess immutability.' This, 
 as far as I know, is the first appearance of the simile 
 drawn from the union of ii'on and fii'e, which was after- 
 wards often used by the Fathers, and which is better 
 
 vo(Ail^of/,iy Ka,i •7mrit(j{/.i6a, u^x^jdsu nvoci Qsou kxi viou Qiov, 
 cvrog 6 uvro'ho'/Qg iari^ kcci vi avroao^Pioc, koli v] ocvtocT^yi^sioc' 
 TO de ^i/rjTOU ecvrov aafcet, kxi tyiu ocvd^ot'Tnuriu sv ccvra •\//t; ;^>)i/, 
 rri 'TT^og skuvq qv fiouou KOtvauioc, ix.'h'kcc Kott kvaan kcci uvu- 
 jc^uati, roc fceytarx (poc^£i/ '7r^0(m'h-/i(Pivex,t, koci mg eKUi/ov ^st- 
 cTYiTog KiKOiuoiUfiKOTot. iig Qsou f^iruQi^YiKivcci. — Against Cclsu^, 
 book iii. p. 135. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 373 
 
 known in modem times as the illustration which. Luther 
 used in support of his doctrine of consubstantiation. These 
 extracts abundantly prove, that whatever eiTors Origen 
 held, the sinfulness of our Saviour's humanity was none of 
 them. I regret to add, that extracts might be made from 
 his writings in support of some of the most iiTational 
 errors of the present day. Happily, that they were coun- 
 tenanced by Origen is not a circumstance that will tend 
 much to promote thera. From Origen we pass to 
 
 CYPRIAN, ' 
 
 who M^as bishop of Carthage, and suffered martyrdom in 
 the year 258. Speaking of the Jews calling upon Pilate 
 to put our Lord to death, he says, — ' That they would do 
 this, both he himself had foretold, and the testimony of all 
 the preceding prophets was, that he behoved to suffer, not 
 that he might merely feel death, but that he might con- 
 quer it ; and when he had suffered, might retm-n to life 
 anew, that he might show the power of the Divine Majesty. 
 And the event justified the prediction ; for both when he 
 was crucified, anticipating the duty of the executioner, he 
 of his own accord dismissed his spirit ; and again, on the 
 third day, he of his own accord rose from the dead. He 
 appeared to his disciples as he had been before, and gave 
 himself to be recognized by them, seeing him,^and being 
 joined with them, and conspicuous by the firmness of his 
 corporeal substance, he remained with them forty days, 
 that they might be instructed in his vital precepts, and 
 learn what they should teach. Then he was taken up to 
 heaven in a cloud, that he might, victorious, cany to the 
 Father the man whom he loved, whom he put on, and 
 whom he protected from death ; about to come from 
 heaven for the punishment of the devil, and the censure 
 of the human race, with all the vigour of an avenger, and 
 all the power of a judge.' i Here it is distinctly asserted 
 
 1 Hoc facturos et ipse prsedixerat, et prophetamm omnium testimonium 
 sic ante prseceperat, oportere ilium pati, nos ut sentiret tantum mortem, sed 
 
;}74 rARTicuL.\R testimonies. 
 
 that our Lord's death was perfectly voluntary at the mo- 
 ment when it took place ; an assertion in direct and irre- 
 concileable opposition to the tenet that he had taken fall- 
 en sinful flesh, and, consequently, died by the common 
 property of flesh to die, because it was accursed in the 
 loins of our first parents. His language, toward the end 
 of the extract, assumes, it will be observed, a Nestorian 
 character, but Nestorius had not then been heard of, and 
 Cyprian is perfectly sound. 
 
 In his Testimonies of Scripture against the Jews, he 
 quotes Psalms xiii. and xvi., and the text, " No man tak- 
 eth my life from me," in proof of the proposition. Quod 
 a moi'te non vinceretur^ nee apud inferos mansurus esset^ — 
 that is, ' That he should not be conquered by death, nor 
 should remain in the grave.' P. 267. 
 
 GREGORY, 
 
 bishop of jSTeo-Cesarea, commonly called Thaumaturgus, 
 died in 265. There are twelve anathemas which are 
 commonly attributed to this Father. Their genuineness 
 has been called in question ; but the only reason that I 
 have seen assigned against them appears to me to be a 
 veiy insufficient one. It is objected to them, that they so 
 plainly condemn the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, 
 that they must have been -vvTitten after their times. But 
 the fact is, that these heresies, especially the former, had, 
 in one shape or another, harassed the Church from the be- 
 
 nt vinceret : et cum passus esset, ad superos denuo regi-cdi, ut vim divinae 
 majestatis ostcnderet. Fidem itaque rerum cm'sus implevit : nam et cruci- 
 fixus, prajvento camificis officio, spiritum sponte dimisit, et die tertio nirsus 
 a mortuis sponte suiTCxit. Apparuit discipulis suis ut antea fuerat, agnos- 
 cendum se videntibus prajbuit, siraul junctus et substaiitiiB corporalis lirmi- 
 tate conspicuus ad dies quadraginta rcmoratus est, ut de eo ad prjecepta 
 vitalia instrui possent, et discerent quaj docerent. Tunc in coelum circum- 
 fusa nube sublatus est, ut hominem qucm dilexit, quem induit, quern a morte 
 protexlt ad Patrem victor imponcret ; jam ventuinis e ca'lo ad pcenam dia- 
 boli, et ad censuram generis lunnani, ultoris vigore, et judicis potestate. — De 
 Jdolorum VaniUik, p. 297. Edition of lligaltlus. Paris, 1GG6. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMO>'IES. 375 
 
 ginning ; and it has been distinctly shown by several 
 learned men, especially by Waterland on the Athanasian 
 Creed, that Nestorianism had been condemned by Catho- 
 lic writers at least half a century before Nestorius was 
 heard of. The proof may with great ease be earned up 
 to a much earlier date. Nearly two hundred years before 
 Nestorius, Paul of Samosata maintained the very same 
 heresy in a much gi'osser fonn. He argued, that as the 
 "form of a servant," which God is said to have assumed, 
 — means a sei-vant ; and as the first of these had a dis- 
 tinct personal existence, so had the last. And what is 
 this but a grosser form of Nestorianism ? Now Gre- 
 gory of jSTeo-Cesarea was one of the principal persons 
 in the Council of Antioch, in which the tenets of Paul 
 were condemned. I should think, therefore, that it was 
 perfectly natm'al, that he should compose some anathemas 
 condemnatory of Nestorian doctrines. And in looking 
 into the anathemas, it is quite evident that they are level- 
 led against something much grosser than ever Nestorius 
 held. For example, the third anathema is against those 
 who say that Christ assumed a distinct man, as for ex- 
 ample, one of the prophets, and not that he himself be- 
 came man ; and the sixth is against those who say that on 
 the cross one suffered, and another remained impassible. 
 Xow, these things Nestorius did not maintain, while Paul 
 did. Clearly, therefore, as these anathemas condemn the 
 Nestorian doctrine, I am very strongly inclined to think 
 that it was against a much worse Nestorian than Nes- 
 torius ever was that they are levelled. Their clear con- 
 demnation of the ApoUinarian heresy, I should consider 
 a stronger objection against them ; but that also might 
 be met in the same manner. I cannot admit that the 
 objection against then* genuineness has the slightest 
 weight. 
 
 The seventh of these anathemas is this — ' If any one say 
 that Christ was saved, and confesseth not that he was the 
 Saviour of the world, and the light of the world, as it is 
 
376 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 written, let him be anathema.' ' There is a strong resem- 
 blance between this and the teiith of the twelve anathemas 
 of the Council of Ephesus, which condemns those who say 
 that Christ offered a sacrifice for himself also, and not for 
 us only, since he could need no sacrifice who knew no sin. 
 If our Lord redeemed his own creature-substance, as we 
 are now taught, then Gregory and the Council of Ephesus 
 were wrong ; and Paul and Nestorius were right ; though, 
 to do the latter justice, he did not go so far, hoAvever na- 
 turally the tenet may result from his principles. 
 
 The ninth anathema is, — ' If any one say that Christ 
 was changeable or mutable, and confess not that he was 
 unchangeable in his spirit, and incorruptible in his flesh, 
 let him be anathema.' ^ 
 
 There is also a creed ascribed to Gregory, to which the 
 same objection has been taken. To that objection I make 
 the same reply, but with considerably less confidence in 
 the genuineness of the creed than in that of the anathe- 
 mas. After condemning those who make diflferent adora- 
 tions due to Christ, one divine and one human, and ex- 
 plaining the doctrine of the Incarnation at much length, 
 the creed says : — Non duce personcB neque du.e natuii^, 
 nee enim et quatuor adorari dicimus^ Deum, et Filium Dei, et 
 hominem^ et Spiritum Sanctum. That this creed was wiit- 
 ten long before the Eutychian heresy is quite clear, and 
 seems to be directed against that of Apollinarius, though 
 it may as well be supposed to refer to that of Paul of Sa- 
 raosata. But whoever was its author, it is certain that 
 
 ' El Tig \iyii aa^o^Buou rov X^iarou, xoii fcvi of^.o'^oyn 
 ccvrou 'S.coTYiQX rov Koa,uov, kcci (pus tou Koar/xov x,xdag yiy^X'Tr- 
 rcci, ccuotdifAct iara, 
 
 2 E/ Tig "Kiyti r^STrrou ^ ctT^T^oiurou rou 'K^tarou, kxi f^vt 
 ofioTiOyst ccvroif ctr^iTrrou tu 'Truivy.ocri, cc(p6xQrou — some read 
 (p&otPTOU, a mere mistake of the copyist, as it is in palpable opposition to 
 the sense, as appears from the interpretation which follows it — rri aoc^Ki 
 ai/x&s.uoc iaru. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 377 
 
 the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh formed no part of his 
 faith. A sounder view is given a little lower doTvn, — 
 ' There was one Son before the Incarnation, and after the 
 Incarnation the same was man and God, both as one: 
 there is not one person of God the Word, and another of 
 the man Jesus ; but the same who was previously the Son 
 was united to the flesh of Mary, constituting himself a 
 perfect and holy and sinless man, and administering the 
 work of the Incarnation, for the salutaiy renovation of 
 humanity, and of the whole world. '^ 
 
 IVIETHODIUS 
 
 was bishop of Tyre, and suff'ered martyrdom in the year 
 302, or 303. His sentiments have been akeady sufii- 
 ciently seen, in the manner in which he attempts to escape 
 the pressure of the text urged by the Gnostics against the 
 resmTCction, — " flesh and blood shall not mherit the king- 
 dom of heaven." He is the first author whom I have 
 met with who exalts the Virgin Mary with those extra- 
 vagant praises which ultimately led to the adoption of the 
 notion, that even she was born without original sin. In 
 his discourse upon Simeon and Anna, he speaks of her in 
 a way in which we are not now permitted to talk of Christ 
 himself, without being charged with heresy; declaring 
 that her bosom was a throne far surpassing all humanity, 
 and that time would fail him, and all generations, worthi- 
 ly to praise her. And as to the humanity of our Lord 
 
 1 Unus filius ante incarnationem, et post incarnationem idem homo et 
 Deus utrumque tanquam unum ; et non alia quidem persona Deus Verbum, 
 alia vero homo Jesus ; sed idem qui prius erat filius, unitus est cami ex 
 Maria, constituens seipsum perfectum, et sanctum, et sine peccato hominem, 
 et administrans opus incarnationis ad renovationem salutariam humanitatis, 
 et totius mundi. 
 
 I know not if the original of this creed has ever been published. I quote 
 from a translation of it by Turrianus which is inserted in the works of 
 Gregory. 
 
378 PARTICUIJVR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 being inferior to that of imfallen Adam, he in some places 
 seems to intimate tliat that humanity was the identical 
 soul and body of Adam united to the Word. I feel it, 
 therefore, totally useless to produce any of the extracts 
 which I had made from him. 
 
 ARNOBIUS 
 
 was a professor of rhetoric in Sicca, a city of Numidia, in 
 the beginning of the fourth century. He has written a 
 treatise, in seven books, against the heathens. As he 
 wrote when he was only a catechumen, his work is of 
 much greater value as an exposure of the follies of Pagan- 
 ism, than as an illustration or defence of Christian doc- 
 trine. He falls into various errors ; but they are obvi- 
 ously the errors, not of a man attempting to improve the 
 gospel, but of a man imperfectly instructed in it. Indeed, 
 it may be remarked of most of the primitive defenders of 
 Christianity, that they find so rich and inviting a field in 
 the absm-dities of Paganism, that we are grievously dis- 
 appointed, in reading them, to find that they hardly notice 
 the doctrines of the Gospel at all. This remark is naturally 
 suggested by the work of Arnobius, who was much better 
 acquainted with the errors of the religion that he had for- 
 saken, than with the truths of that which he had embraced. 
 In Book I. page 12, he has a great many questions, 
 each commencing with the words, Ille mortalis^ aut unus e 
 nobis fuit? — ' Was he mortal, or one of us,' who did so and 
 so ? All this, however, may be supposed merely as fit- 
 ted to prove the Divinity of our Lord. But in page 18, 
 he takes up the objection that he was slain as a man. 
 He replies that it was not he, but the man whom he put 
 on and carried about Avith him ; and enters at much length 
 into the matter, in language more objectionable than any 
 that Nestorius some time afterwards made use of, but 
 clearly enough showing, that of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 379 
 
 flesh he had no idea. I copy in the margin the conclu- 
 sion of the passage.^ I need not translate it. It is plain 
 that Ai-nobius had not the most distant idea that Christ 
 died by the common property of flesh to die. By an in- 
 verted application of his power, that is, by using it to hurt 
 men instead of healing them, he could have smitten his 
 enemies with blindness, and withered up all their strength. 
 In talking of the pueriles meptice^ Amobius goes much 
 farther, and a great deal too far. But though his language 
 here is very objectionable, and though throughout the 
 whole passage it more widely deviates from the truth than 
 that of Nestorius ever did ; still it seems plain that his 
 errors were merely the en-ors of ignorance, — as indeed 
 Cassiodorus says that those of Nestorius himself were ; only 
 he obstinately defended them, and that might be easily 
 overlooked in a catechumen, which called for the most 
 distinct notice, and the most severe censure in the bishop 
 of Constantinople, then the imperial city. And it is quite 
 clear, that among his errors that of the sinfulness of 
 Christ's flesh could not be numbered. 
 
 LACTANTIUS 
 
 studied rhetoric under Amobius, and wrote his Institu- 
 tions about the year 320. I have ah'eady had occasion to 
 
 1 Vides enim si nollet inferri sibi a quoquam maniis, summa illi ftiisse con- 
 tentione nitendum, ut hostes ab se suos vel potestate inversa prohiberet ? 
 Qui C3ecis restituerat lumina, is efficere si deberet, non poterat csecos ? Qtii 
 debUibus integritatem, is debiles reddere difiScultati habuit, aut labori ? Qui 
 claudos praBcipiebat incedere, is motos alligare membrorum nervorum duri- 
 tia nesciebat ? Qui extrahebat a tumuUs mortuos, bine arduum fuerat letum 
 cui vellet indicere ? Sed quia fieri ratio ea, quse fuerant destinata, poscebat ; 
 et hie ia ipso mundo, nee mode, quam gestum est alio, inestimabUis ilia atque 
 incredibiUs lenitas injurias in se hominum, puerilibus pro ineptiis ducens, 
 manus in se poiTigi ab immanibus passa est durissimisque latronibus, nee 
 imputandum putavit, quod illorum dissignasset audacia, dummodo suis os- 
 tenderet, quid ab sese expectare deberent. — The edition fi-om which I copy 
 is that appended by Rigaltius to his edition of Cyprian, 
 
380 PARTICULAR TESXmONIES. 
 
 show, that upon any point of Christian doctrine his opinion 
 is not worth quoting. He was, I believe, the first to 
 argue upon a ground which has since been often employed 
 to disprove the Divinity of our Lord, and is strongly re- 
 lied upon in proof of the sinfulness of his humanity. The 
 principle upon which he reasons, if it be a sound one, is 
 perfectly sufficient to accomplish both those purposes. 
 But it is certain that he contemplated no such results, nor 
 saw the danger of the gi-ound on which he argued. That 
 he did not believe that our Lord took fallen sinfid flesh, is 
 apparent from the following crude statement : — ' For God 
 the Father, the origin and principle of things, since he has 
 no parents, is most truly said by Trismegistus to be cczsaruQ 
 x,x{ ocf^yiTu^^ without Father and without Mother, as he is 
 procreated of none. Therefore, also, it behoved the Son 
 to be twice born, that he might be without father and 
 without mother. In his first spiritual nativity, he was with- 
 out mother, because, without the intervention of a mother, 
 he was generated of God the Father alone. In his second 
 fleshly nativity he was without father ; since, without the 
 intervention of a father, he was generated in the virgin's 
 womb, that bearing a middle substance between God and 
 man^ he might lead this our frail and feeble nature, as it 
 were, by the hand to immortality. He was made the Son 
 of God through the Spirit, and the Son of Man through 
 the flesh, that is, both God and Man. The power of God 
 appeared in him from the works which he wrought ; the 
 frailty of man from the passion which he endured ; which, 
 why he undertook, I shall show in a little. In the mean- 
 time, we learn from the prophets that he was both God and 
 man mixed of both.'' Should any one choose to charge 
 
 ' In prima enimnativitatespirituale oc/^yitu^ fuit; quia sine oflficio matris 
 a solo Deo Patre generatus est. In sceunda vcro carnali cczsocrcop fuit ; quo- 
 niam sine patris officio, virginali utcro procreatus est; ut mediam inter 
 Deura et hominem substantiam gercns, nostrara hanc fragilem imbecillem- 
 que naturam quasi manu ad immortalitatem posset educere. Factus est et 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 381 
 
 Lactantius with the heresy which was afterwards known 
 by the name of Eutychianism, such language would aflford 
 a ground for the charge. But the truth is, that he had no 
 design to teach that or any other heresy ; he improperly 
 expressed what he imperfectly understood, that is all. 
 
 JULIUS FIEMICUS MATEENUS 
 
 wrote under the government of the Emperor Constantius 
 and Constans, and, consequently, near the middle of the 
 fourth centmy. Who he was, what he was, or of what 
 country, is unknown. He has addressed to the Emperor 
 just named a very small but a very excellent treatise, De 
 reVigionumprofanarum errore. Though, like the two last- 
 quoted authors, he assails the absurdities of Paganism, yet 
 he shows himself much better acquainted with the doc- 
 trines of the gospel than either of them. His object, in- 
 deed, does not lead him to enter into any particular expo- 
 sition of these doctrines ; but his incidental notices of them 
 show an acquaintance with them which neither Arnobius 
 nor Lactantius had attained. In one place he thus speaks, 
 
 ' But this holy stone, that is, Christ, either sustains the 
 
 foundations of faith, or, placed upon the comer, conjoins 
 the two walls, that is, collects into one the people of the 
 Old and of the New Testament ; or certainly he associates 
 with man a diversity of body and mind by an inviolable 
 immortality ; or promulgates the law ; or bears testimony 
 against sinners,' &c.^ He says also, — 'We drink the 
 immortal blood of Christ ; the blood of Christ is joined to 
 our blood. This is the salutary remedy for thy crimes, 
 
 Dei filius per spiritum, et hominis per camera, id est, et Deus et homo.— Nee 
 Deus nee Jwmo, would liave been a truer definition of his media substantia.— 
 Dei virtus in eo ex operibus quas fecit appamit ; fi-agilitas hominis, ex pas- 
 sione quam pertulit, quam cur susceperit, paulo post docebo. Interim et Deum 
 fuisse et hominem, ex utroque genere permistum, prophetis vaticinantibus 
 ^\^\m\xs.—Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. 13. Edition of Spark, Oxford, 1684. 
 I Lapis autem hie sanctus, id est, Christus, aut fidei fimdamenta sustentat, 
 
382 PAKTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 which repels the deadly poison from the people of God." 
 Again, — ' All the elements were troubled during the com- 
 bat of Christ, then, namely, when first he armed his 
 human body against the tyranny of death. For three 
 days that conflict endured, till death, all the powers of its 
 malice being conquered, was broken.' 2 
 
 It was common among the Fathers to apply to the cruci- 
 fixion of our Lord the text, " the government shall be on 
 his shoulders," some applying it to his cross being laid on 
 his shoulders while he bore it to the place of crucifixion, 
 and most applying it to the circumstance of its being ap- 
 plied to his shoulders while it bore him ; so much were 
 they in the habit of considering the cross as the scene of 
 our Lord's triumph over death, and not as the scene of 
 death's conquest of him. They expound, consequently, 
 the figure of the cross as significative of his dominion. 
 They differ, no doubt, in the details, which in all will, in 
 the present age, be considered as fanciful. Some tell us 
 that the bottom of the cross being sunk in the earth, de- 
 noted the dominion of him on whose shoulders it was 
 over the infernal powers ; its top erected toward heaven 
 signified his dominion over the heavenly powers ; and the 
 ends of the transverse beam, pointing in opposite directions, 
 showed the extension of his dominion over all things. This 
 is not exactly the interpretation of our present author, nor is 
 it worth while to give it. It is enough to say, that it is 
 exactly the same in principle. I refer to it for the sake of 
 
 aut in angulo positus, duorum parichira membra requata moderatione con- 
 jungit, id est, Veterls ct Novi Testamcnti in unura colligit, gcntes; autcerte 
 corporis ct animi diversitatem, inviolata liomini immortalitate consociat ; 
 aut legem promulgat, &c.— P. 35, Edition of Wowcr, Oxford, 1662. 
 
 1 Christi immortalcra sangiilnem bibiraus ; nostro sanguini Cliristi sanguis 
 adjunctus est. Hoc est salutarc remcdium scelerum tuorura, quod a Dei 
 plebe mortiferum virus excludit.— P. 37. 
 
 ' Omnia elementa Christo pugnante turbata sunt, tunc scilicet cum pri- 
 mum contra mortis tyrannidcm humanum corpus armavit. Per triduum ista 
 conflictatione pugnatura est, quamdiu mors, superatis maliciaj suae viribus, 
 frangeretur.— P. 41. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 383 
 
 the reflections with which he follows up his explanation. 
 It is one of his peculiarities, — and a very excellent pecu- 
 liarity it is, — that the mention of a heathen absm'dity 
 commonly reminds him of some opposite excellence in 
 Christianity. The mention of some of the horned gods of 
 the heathens reminds him of the Jiorns of the cross, that is, 
 the ends of the transverse beam, and, according to him, the 
 upper end also of the upright beam ; after having shown 
 the meaning of which, he says : — ' Behold the venerable 
 horns of the cross ! behold the immortal excellence of holy 
 power, and the divine structure of a glorious work ! Thou, 
 Christ, by extended hands, — extended on the cross, name- 
 ly, — sustainest the world and the earth ; thou sustainest 
 the government of heaven : our salvation adheres to thy 
 immortal shoulders ; thou. Lord, carriest the sign of eter- 
 nal life ; thou, by thy adorable inspiration, hast told us 
 this through the prophets, for Isaiah saith, ' Unto us a 
 Son is bom, and the government shall be upon his shoul- 
 ders, and his name shall be the messenger of great coun- 
 sel.' These are the horns of the cross by which all things 
 are supported and contained. Upon these horns the life 
 of men securely rests.'^ Such sentiments, somewhat fan- 
 ciful though they be, I confess I feel to be pleasant, after 
 the eloquent ignorance of Lactantius. 
 
 EUSTATHIUS, Bishop of Antioch, 
 
 died about the year 335. He has written a treatise on 
 the Pythoness, which I have not read. Some fragments 
 of his other theological works are preserved by Theodoret, 
 from whom I take the following quotations. On the text, 
 " The Lord created me in the beginning of his way," he 
 says, — ' For the temple is properly the pure and immaculate 
 human tabernacle of the Word, in which God dwelt,' and 
 
 I p. 38. As I quote the passage for no argumentatiye purpose, I may be 
 spared copying the original. 
 
384 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 in proof of this he quotes the text, " Destroy this temple, 
 and in three days I will rear it up.'" The following is 
 from his book on the soul : — ' Their ungodly calumny may 
 be easily repelled ; especially if he did not, for the salva- 
 tion of men, willingly give up his own body to death. For, 
 tirst, they attribute much weakness to him, as if he had 
 not been able to repress the attack of his enemies. '^ 
 Again, — ' If, then, from what has already been stated, the 
 Divinity of Christ is shown to have been impassible, they 
 in vain refer to the decision of the Apostles. For if Paul 
 says, " the Lord of Glory was crucified," plainly referring 
 to the Man, it will not be proper on that account to attri- 
 bute the suffering to the Divinity. Why then do they 
 join these things, saying, that Christ was crucified tlirough 
 weakness ?'^ 
 
 EUSEBIUS, 
 
 of Cesarea, died in the year 338. Remarking that our 
 Lord by his Incarnation neither changed his essence, nor 
 lost what belonged to his own nature, nor fell away from 
 his divinity, he says : — ' Nor did he converse with those 
 
 ^ Nctoj yatg Kv^iog 6 KocdoiQog KXt u^c^xvrog, i} Kccrct rov 
 uu$pu)'7rou sari tts^i rov "hoyav (SKy\ift\, sudee, 'x^oCpctvag cKriuaaxg 
 Ci)X,ri<T£V 6 Qsog. — Ei'anisteso/nieodoret,'Dia.lognci.'p.tiS. 
 
 2 A/' ohiyciv Be iariv sT^sy^ut rmv ecailri avKO(pciur{ocu uv- 
 rau' fJict'hiarcc f^iv yci^, et f^v\ ring rav uv^QUTray hix,iv 2<yT>i- 
 ^tocg eig tyiv rov ^ccvocrov a(po(,yYiv ro ihiou SKOvaiag e^e^tZov 
 aoificc. YL(i^aTOv f^iv ttoAA/j!/ ex,VTO) TreQiocTrrovaiu othvvu/xixv, 
 on /^Yi oiog r eysvSTO r/]u ruv 'T^o'hif^ciav o^fzrii/ e7riax>^iu. — 
 Jyroiiisles, p. 15C. 
 
 ^ E/ yag Iluvy^og sUpQXas rou Kv^tou rvig 'ho^Yig iaretv^ua- 
 6ui, (Tec(pug iig rov ocv^QUTrov oc(poQCJu, ov ttuqix. rovro hevjaet 
 TTxdog ra ^sia 'Tr^oa-ocTrniu. T; ovv rxvroc avuccTrrovat TrXg- 
 Kovng £| uahueixg iarxv^coadxi Myoursg rov X^tarov. — 
 EranisteSy p. 157. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 385 
 
 only wno were there where his human vessel was present, 
 forbidden to be in other parts of the universe. For then, 
 when he had his conversation with men, he nevertheless 
 filled all things, and at the same time was with the Father, 
 and in the Father, and also managed all things in heaven 
 and in earth, by no means shut out, as we are, from being 
 present everj^vhere; nor prevented from exercising his 
 Divine powers in the usual manner, but communicating 
 the things that belong to himself to the man, not, however, 
 receiving from the mortal man the things belonging to 
 him ; furnishing that which was mortal with Divine power, 
 but not, on the other hand, participating in that which was 
 mortal. '1 In Book III. chap. iv. he enters largely into 
 the question, and shows that om* Lord's death was per- 
 fectly voluntary, and that when he had arisen fi'om the 
 dead, he showed himself ' in the flesh, in the body, the 
 very same that he had been before, to his disciples ;'^ but 
 I prefer the two following sentences from another Book, 
 as they are short: — 'Therefore, nobody having power 
 over his life, he of his own accord laid it down for men, as 
 he himself teacheth, saying, No man taketh my life from 
 me,' &C.3 Again, — ' Also, when I hung upon my mother's 
 breasts, receiving the food of infants, I was thought to be 
 like other human children, imperfect, and without the use 
 of reason, not being such, though I had a body like that of 
 men ; for neither in power, nor in essence, (or substance,) 
 
 1 a,Kkoc Toi,i^vj «! ccvrov f^^srxhi^ovg ra oa/dqa-Tro), 
 
 roc. B' £K rov ^uriTov ^yi OLvxChccf^^ccvait' kmi rng f^iu £v ©gov 
 Ovuxfcsag ra^uYira ^io^jjywv, r-ng ^sk rov ^unrov fcnrovatx; ovx, 
 otyriTTOcyOf^ivog. — Evangelical Demonstration., Book iv. chap. xiii. Edi- 
 tion of Vlgerus, Paris, 1628. 
 
 2 Kflc; ^^iKuvaiyt 'ttsl'Ki'j avrog kocvrou ss/acc^KOv, euaay^oy, 
 tcvrou ZKiivou, oiou koci to TT^/y >jj/, roig oiKHOig f/.ccdr,roig. 
 
 ^ A/0 jicrihsuog iyfivrog s^ovfftxu rr,g scvrov '<pv}^rig SKau otv- 
 rog i/'TTS^ ccu&QOJ'Trai/ uvrrrj nhiKiu, uaTrs^ ovu "hi^ccoKH "Kiyuu, 
 ovhit oci^si rriif ■^p'V^i^y fcov, k. r, ?<.. — Book x. p. 496. 
 
 R 
 
■jS() PAKTICULAK TESTIMONIES. 
 
 -was I like others, but altogether free as thy Lamb, O thou 
 who art my God,' &c.^ The whole of Book X. abounds 
 in remarks of this kind. 
 
 Whilst speaking of Eusebius, I may remark also that 
 IMarcellus of Ancyra, against whom he \vi*ote a treatise, 
 though very heretical with regard to the person of our 
 Lord, yet repeatedly and distinctly admits that his flesh 
 was immortal. Now his peculiarity was, that the Word 
 of God never had a personal existence until the Incarna- 
 tion, and that after the mystery of God was finished, he 
 should again lay aside his distinct personality, and exist 
 only in the Father as before. This opinion would naturally 
 have led him to adopt the Socinian views, that our Lord 
 was merely a mortal man. And it is a strong proof of the 
 nature of the sentiments then universally entertained, that 
 even he, obviously against his principles, and with undis- 
 guised reluctance, admits that the flesh of Christ was im- 
 mortal. By immortal, he, of course, meant that he did 
 not need to die unless he pleased, as he was very far in- 
 deed from denying that he actually did die. 
 
 ATHANASIUS, Bishop of Alexandkia, 
 
 died in 373. The zeal with which he laboured, and the 
 fortitude with which he suffered, and the uncompromising 
 fidelity to the truth which he uniformly manifested, have 
 secured for him a well-deserved and undying fame. I 
 can make room only for one or two extracts from him, but 
 there is no writer to whom the reader may be more safely 
 referred for sound views upon the constitution of our Lord's 
 
 ^ AXAot Ka,i on octto [/,uaro)v f4>YiTQ0g fiov r/iu UYiTTiuln r^o- 
 (Ty,v uvoi'Ax/icQxvoju, suof<.i^ofC£u 6[^oiag roi; rau uu&qut^uv /3^£- 
 (^ioiv UTsTi/ig ill/Oil KUi ctT^oyog' f/yfi 0)v ya,^ roiovrog, n Koci au- 
 
 f/,OC [AOl 6/HOlO'J UU^f^WTTOig Yl'J, KCUl TYIU ZvVXfilU, OV^S TTflV OVOIXV, 
 
 TQig 'TTo'k'hotg uv sf^(psQ-/ig, ctusrog Se x.x: oc^oTiVTOg, x,. r. ?v. — 
 Book X. p. 600. 
 
P.AJITICULAR TESTIMONIES. 387 
 
 person. His zealous opposition to the Aiians naturally 
 gave him a leaning toward the opposite extreme to theirs, 
 that of exalting the humanity too high ; yet I recollect at 
 present no expression of his upon this subject which can 
 be deemed directly erroneous, though certainly he has 
 much language stronger by far than that which, in the 
 present age, has been held to imply a very palpable denial 
 of the humanity of our Lord altogether. Of this the fol- 
 lowing sentence will aiford abundant proof : — ' But as we, 
 having received the Spirit, do not lose om- own nature, 
 even so our Lord, after he was for our sakes made man, 
 and took a body, nevertheless remained God : for he was 
 not diminished by being clothed with a body, but rather 
 deified the body, and rendered it immortal.'^ Tliis lan- 
 guage may probably be deemed too strong at present, even 
 by those who Avould shim with the utmost care the tenet 
 of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh ; but in the age of 
 Athanasius it was common. It is certainly very liable to 
 abuse, and has probably been the more carefully avoided 
 in modern times, that at the Reformation, some Lutheran 
 divines went so far as to maintain, that all the attributes 
 of the Divinity were communicated to the humanity of 
 Christ, than which a more fatal error cannot well be con- 
 ceived. Athanasius had no such meaning ; but it is clear 
 that, using such language, he was far, indeed, from enter- 
 taining the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, for 
 they who, in the present age, have been accused of going 
 so far away from that doctrine, as to deny the flesh of 
 Christ altogether, have used no language so strong as this. 
 He states his sentiments also veiy strongly in his third 
 
 ^ AAAst aa'Tzi^ h^^i? '^^ -Tryivy.ot 'Kof.yZcLvouzn;, ovx, a.'jro'h'hv- 
 fAVj rr^v ihisx,u kocvrcov ovaixv' ovrcog 6 KvQiog yevo/^syag o 
 9]/i<,ocg ctud^aTTog, kcci ao)y>cc (po^iaug, ovQiv '/irrou rrj Geo;' cv 
 yx^ viT^KccTTOvro tyi 7r£«/coA)7 rov GOjy^xrog, xaT^x kui /x.xTi'Kov 
 i^iOTToiuro TOVTO, KOCi cc6ex,<jXT0V a.^iTikii, — EpMeon the Decrees 
 of the Council of Nice, chap. xiv. 
 
IISS PAUTICULAK TESTIMONIES. 
 
 discourse against the Arians, chap, xxxii. and xxxiii. Bnt 
 instead of mnltiplyinj? extracts, I i)refer taking one from 
 liis treatise on the Incarnation, of Avliich I liave had oc- 
 casion to avail myself on a former occasion. In chap, xxi, 
 of that treatise he argues against those who thought that 
 if Christ must die he ought at least to have laid aside his 
 l)ody in an honourable manner, and says, that if Christ 
 had died in bed like other men, he might have been sup- 
 posed, like other men, to have died through infirmity of 
 nature, and to have had nothing more than other men. 
 lie goes on in the same manner in the succeeding chap- 
 ters, till he comes to the xxivth, which I give entire. 
 
 ' It is necessary to anticipate an objection that may be 
 j-aised by others, for some may be ready to say, ' If it was 
 necessary that Christ should die in the sight of all, that 
 the declaration of his resuiTcction might be believed, he 
 ought surely to have chosen an honourable death, or, at 
 least, to have avoided the ignominy of the cross.' But if 
 lie had done so, it would have given room for the suspi- 
 cion that he could not prevail over any kind of death, but 
 only over that which he had chosen ; and hence there 
 would have been no less a pretence for denying the resur- 
 rection. Hence death came to his body, not from himself, 
 but from treachery, that whatever death they might inflict 
 upon the Saviour, he might destroy that death. And as a 
 noble challenger, alike prudent and manly, chooses not op- 
 ponents for himself, lest he should be suspected of coward- 
 ice, but leaves that to the spectators, especially if they 
 be enemies, that, having conquered whomsoever theij may 
 choose to oppose to him, he may be judged the conqueror 
 of all ; even so the life of all, our Lord and Saviour Christ, 
 chose not for himself the death of the body, lest he might 
 seem to fear any other death ; but even the death of the 
 cioss, chosen by others, and especially by enemies, which 
 they, as bitter and ignominious, conceived was to be avoid- 
 ed, he refused not to undergo ; that even this being dis- 
 solved, he might be believed to be the Life, and the power 
 
P.\P.TICUL.\R TESTIMONIES. 389 
 
 of death might be enth-ely destroyed. There happened, 
 therefore, something wonderful and unexpected, that while 
 they thought to inflict an ignominious death, that just be- 
 came a trophy over death itself. Hence he neither suffer- 
 ed like John, by decapitation, nor like Isaiah was sawed 
 asunder, that even in death his body might be preserved 
 entire, and no pretence might be afforded to those who 
 might wish to divide the Church.' ^ 
 
 In chap. xliv. of the same treatise, he argues that as 
 coiTuption was inherent in the body, so it was necessary 
 that in the body of Chi-ist life should be inherent. ' If 
 death inhered in the body, and was stronger than it, it 
 was, therefore, necessary that life should be inherent in 
 the body, and that the body, endued with life instead of 
 death, might reject corruption.' Indeed, such sentiments 
 abound in him to such a degree, that some attempts have 
 been made to call in question his belief in the human soul 
 of Christ. I need not say that this is a point upon which 
 there can be no question whatever ; but had he written 
 nothing save his treatise on the Incarnation, it is a charge 
 from which it would not be easy to defend him. 
 
 HILARY, Bishop of Poictiers, 
 
 died in the year 367. In maintaining the purity of the 
 Catholic faith against the Arians, he was the second man 
 in that generation ; and he was the second, only because 
 the first was Athanasius. Like that mighty master whom 
 it was his delight to imitate, and whom it was his greatest 
 crime, in that backsliding age, zealously to defend, he 
 suffered banishment for the truth's sake ; like him he en- 
 dured suffering with the most unshrinking fidelity and 
 fortitude ; and, like him, was at last happily restored to 
 
 1 As the v/eight of the testimony here depends not upon a single phrase, 
 about -which there might be a difference as to the proper mode of translation, 
 but upon the general strain of the reasoning, the labour of copying the ori- 
 ginal seems unnecessary. 
 
390 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 his Church, and died in peace. Of such a man it is 
 impossible to think or to speak without respect. I much 
 regret, therefore, the necessity of introducing his name 
 into this discussion at all ; for with regard to our Lord's 
 liumanity his opinions were of the most fatal description. 
 He maintained that our Lord was never capable of feeling 
 hunger, or thirst, or weariness, or pain, or sorrow, or fear ; 
 that he felt them all in appearance only, not in reality. 
 Xor is it merely in a passing sentence, which might be 
 hastily put down and easily overlooked, that he expresses 
 such a view. The great object of his tenth book on the 
 Trinity is just to state and defend this view ; and so 
 warmly does he enter into it, that he calls in question the 
 genuineness of that part of the Gospel of Luke which re- 
 lates our Saviour's bloody sweat, and the coming of an 
 angel to comfort him ; stating that it is wanting in many 
 copies both Greek and Latin. But on the supposition that 
 it may be genuine, he shows how it may be explained in 
 conformity with his views of our Lord's humanity. He 
 is one of those who have richly furnished Priestley with 
 materials for giving a plausible colour to the charge whicli 
 he brings against the Fathers, of maintaining a \iew of 
 our Lord's humanity which does not materially differ from 
 that of the Gnostics. As it is to me the reverse of a 
 pleasure to draw into notice the errors of such a man, I 
 shall merely justify the remarks which I have felt it neces- 
 sary to make, by throwing into the margin a passage from 
 his tenth book on the Trinity, without translation.' 
 
 1 Homo itaque Jesus Christus unigenitus Deus per carnem et Verbum, ut 
 hominis Alius, ita et Dei Alius, hominem verura secundum similitudinem 
 nostri hominis non deAciens a se Deo, sumpsit : in quera quam^is aut ictus 
 incideret, aut vulnus descendcrct, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio 
 elevaret, afferrent quidem lia-c iinpetum passionis, non tamen dolorem 
 passionis inferrcnt, ut telum aliquod aut aquara perforans, aut ignem com- 
 pungens, aut aera vulnerans. Omnes quidem has passiones natui'ae suaj 
 infert, ut pcrforet, ut compungat, ut \Tilneret ; sed uatui-am suam in hssc 
 passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel 
 pungi ignem, vel aera vulnerari, qiiamvis naturae teli sit vulnerare, et 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 391 
 
 MACARIUS OF Egypt. 
 
 There were several of this name who lived nearly at the 
 same time, towards the end of the fourth century. To 
 which of them we are indebted for the fifty homilies that 
 bear this name has not been ascertained ; nor is it a mat- 
 ter of much consequence, as they are of little value. Of 
 an Egyi:)tiau monk, in the end of the fourth century, who 
 certainly was not endued with much power of close think- 
 ing, or mth much extent of knowledge, it can hardly be 
 necessary to say, that he is as far as possible from holding 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of om* Saviour's flesh. He is 
 full of allegory and mysticism, and seems to have been a 
 good man with few clear ideas upon any subject. Speak- 
 ing of the brazen serpent Avhich Moses made, he calls it 
 a ' new work,' and then goes on thus, — ' So the Lord 
 made a new work out of Mary, which he put on, for he 
 brought not his body from heaven ; he framed the heavenly 
 spirit that entered into Adam, and this he mingled with 
 his divinity, and put on human flesh, and formed it in the 
 womb. As then before the time of Moses, God had not 
 commanded a brazen serpent to be made in the world ; 
 even so until the time of our Lord, a new and impeccable 
 
 compungere et forare. Passus quidem Domiuus Jesus Christus, dum csedi- 
 tur, dum suspenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur, sed in corpus Domini 
 irruens passio, nee non fuit passio, nee tamen natiu'am passionis exercuit ; 
 cum et poenali ministerio iUa desasvit, et virtus coi-poris sine sensu poen;v, 
 vim pcense in se desjBvientis escepit. Habuerit sane illud Domini coroiis 
 doloris nosti-i naturam, si corpus nostrum id naturas habet, ut calcet undas, 
 et super fluctus eat, et non degi'avetur ingressu, neque aqu« insistentis 
 vestigiis cedant, penetret etiam solida, nee clauste domus obstaculis arceatiir. 
 At vero si Dominici corporis sola ista natm-a sit, ut sua virtute, sua anima 
 feratur in hmnidis, et insistat in liquidis, et exstructa transcurrat, quid 
 per naturam humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu Sancto carojudicatury 
 Caro iUa, id est, panis ille de ccelis est. Et homo ille de Deo est, habens ad 
 patiendum quidem coi-pus, et passus est, sed natm'am non habens ad dolen- 
 dum. Naturas enim proprise ac sujb corpus illud est, quod in coelestem 
 gloriam transfonnatur in Jlonte ; quod attactu sue fogat febres, quod de 
 sputo suo occulos foi-mat.— P. 244. Edition of Paris, 1672. 
 
392 PARTICULAIl TESTIM0NIE8. 
 
 body appeared not in the world.'' From such an author, 
 this, I suppose, will be held sufficient. 
 
 OPTATUS, Bishop of IVIilevi in Africa, 
 
 died about the year 372. He has ^\Titten a treatise against 
 Parmenianus, a Donatist of some celebrity, against whom 
 Augustine has also written. I^ear the beginning of his 
 treatise, after stating the order in which he means to pro- 
 ceed, he says : — ' But before I proceed to these matters, I 
 shall first shortly show how improperly you have treated 
 the flesh of Christ. For you have said that that sinful 
 flesh, sunk in the flood of Jordan, was cleansed fi'om all 
 impurity. You might properly say this, if the flesh of 
 Christ, being baptized, were sufficient for all, so that no 
 one should be baptized for himself. If this were so, then 
 the whole human race, every thing of corporeal birth, 
 would have been there. There would be no difference be- 
 tween the believer and any heathen, for they all have flesh. 
 And whilst there is nobody who has not flesh, if, as you 
 say, the flesh of Christ was sunk in the flood of Jordan, 
 all flesh would partake of this benefit. But the flesh of 
 Christ in Christ is one thing, and the flesh of any indivi- 
 dual in himself is another thing. What mean you by say- 
 ing that the flesh of Christ was sinful ? I wish you would 
 say the flesh of man in the flesh of Christ. Nor even 
 then would your notion have any probability. For every 
 believer is baptized in the name of Christ, and not in the 
 
 KXl TOVTO iOibvaCtTO, OC'ATC OVK TflVSyKS TO aCiy.(X. si QV^OtVOV TO 
 'TTViVfAA TO OV^OCUIOU £U Td) Ahctf/, iKjO^&OV il^yCtaotTO, X.UI TOV- 
 
 y,oe.i i(^o^(paotu £v ty] /HYiTQot. ' flaTrsQ ovu o(ptg ■)(,(X,7^x,ovg icog roj 
 ^Icjvascjg ovk sksT^sv^yi vttq rov Kv^iov eu Koaf^a yevia&ccr 6v- 
 ra S>j au[/.a, kuivov -/.oci oLvccy^ccnrnrov, kag rov Ki/g/ot/ qvk 
 f<p»uri ii> TO) KOaf^a. — Homily xi. p. 69. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 393 
 
 flesh of Christ, which was specially his own. I add, that his 
 flesh, conceived of the Holy Spmt, could not with others 
 be baptized for the remission of sins, as it admitted no siu. 
 You have added, ' and sunk in the flood of Jordan,' using 
 that word inconsiderately enough ; as it belongs to Pharaoh 
 and his people, who, by the weight of thek sins, sunk like 
 lead not to rise again. But the flesh of Christ, while it 
 descended into Jordan, and ascended out of it, you ought 
 not to have said was sunk ; — whose flesh is found to be 
 holier than Jordan itself, so that it rather purified the 
 water by its descent than was itself pmified.'^ 
 
 Here at last we find the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
 Christ's flesh ; and we find it just where it might have 
 been expected to be found, not in a Churchman, but in a 
 Donatist, who is justly rebuked by the Catholic Bishop for 
 thus speaking of the flesh of Christ. Something similar, 
 however, to the notion of Parmenianus, and, indeed, more 
 grossly expressed, may be found at a still earlier period. 
 There is inserted among the Epistles of C}^rian a small 
 treatise, written by an anonymous author, but of or near 
 
 I Sed priusquam de rebus singulis aliquid dicain ; quod carnem Christi 
 male tractaYeris, breviter ostendam. Dixisti enim carnem iUam peccatricem, 
 .Jordanis demersam diluvio, ab universis sordibus esse mundatam. Merito 
 hoc diceres, si caro Christi pro omnibus baptizata sufficeret, ut nemo pro se 
 baptizaretur. Si ita esset, ibi esset totum genus hominum ; illic omne quod 
 corporalitu natum est : nihil esset inter fideles et unum quemque gentilem ; 
 quia ia omnibus caro est. Et dum nemo non est qui non habeat carnem, 
 picut — si ut — dixisti, caro Christi diluvio Jordanis demersa est, omnis caro 
 hoc beneficium consequeretur. Aliud est enim caro Chilsti in Christo, aliud 
 uniuscujusque ta se. Quid tibi visum est, camera Christi dicere peccati-i- 
 cem ? Utinam diceres, caro hominum in came Christi. Xec sic probabiliter 
 dixeris. Quia unusquisque credens, in nomine Christi baptizatur ; non iu 
 came Christi, quae specialiter illius erat. Addo, quod ejus caro de Spiritu 
 Sancto concepta, inter alios non potuit in remissam peccatorum tingi, quae 
 nullum videbatur admisisse peccatum. Addidisti, ' et Jordanis diluvio de- 
 mersam ;' satis inconsiderate hoc usus es verbo. Quod verbum soli Pharaoni 
 et ejus populo debebatur, qui pondere delictoram, tanquam plumbum, ita 
 mersus sit, ut ibi remanserit. Christi autem caro, dum in Jordane descendit 
 et ascendit, demersa a te did non debuit. Cujus caro, ipso Jordane sanctior 
 invenitur, ut magis aquam ipsa descensu suo mundaverit, quam ipsa mundata 
 6it.— Lib. I. p. 8. Paris, 1G76. 
 
 r2 
 
oi)4 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 the age of Cyprian, and opposing tliat Father's tenet, that 
 they who had been baptized by heretics ought to be re- 
 baptized. In that treatise mention is made of a book en- 
 titled PauU Prcedicatio^ — it should be Petri Pradkatio. — 
 and it is said, — In quo libro contra omnes Scripturas^ et de 
 peccato proprino confitentem invenies Christum^ qui solus 
 omnino deliquit^ et ad accipiendum loannis baptisma pene 
 invitum a matre sua Maria esse compulsum. Here Christ 
 is made ' the only sinner,' with a vengeance. Parmenia- 
 nus, I suppose, did not go this length ; for such blasphemy 
 must soon have sunk under its own vileness. But he 
 maintained the flesh of Christ to be sinful, and baptism to 
 be in him, as in us, the sign of pmification or regeneration. 
 But if baptism was in Christ the sign of regeneration, then 
 he must first have been pardoned ; for there can be no re- 
 generation without pardon being previously gi'anted. If, 
 then, Christ needed regeneration, there can be no doubt 
 that he needed pardon too. Moreover, the baptism of John 
 was the baptism of repentance. If, then, the baptism of 
 Christ was in him the sign of regeneration, it was as clearly 
 the sign of repentance ; and he who repents, who is par- 
 doned and regenerated, is unquestionably a sinner. And 
 this Parmenianus must be presumed to have held, though 
 he went not to the extent of impiety quoted above. 
 
 One thing particularly deserves attention, that Optatus 
 charges Parmenianus with holding the doctrine of univer- 
 sal pardon, because he calls the flesh of Christ sinful. 
 These are, in fact, only diff'crent pullulations of the same 
 radical error. If the one be true the other must be so. 
 This Optatus saw clearly. ]^ow, it is not a little singular, 
 that these two different branches of the same error should 
 spring up about the same time, but as far as my informa- 
 tion goes, in different places, and from different heads. 
 Neither party, I suppose, saw at first that the one tenet 
 involves the other. The two parties, however, I under- 
 .stand, are now nearly amalgamated ; and if there be any 
 Avho embraces the one of these tenets without embracing 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. ^95 
 
 the other also, he may be assured that he is yet very im- 
 perfectly instructed in the grounds of his own error. And 
 if the testimony of Optatns be of any weight, he may be 
 equally assured that both the one tenet and the other was 
 held in reprobation by the primitive Church. 
 
 HILAKY, THE Deacon of Rome, 
 
 belongs to this period, though the time of his death be un- 
 certain. He has left a commentary on the Epistles of 
 Paul. The whole of his comment on Rom. viii. o, is very 
 direct to the purpose, but I can make room for only a 
 small portion of it. ' For this reason, he says — like., be- 
 cause though of the same substance of flesh, it had not the 
 same uati\ity ; because the body of the Lord was not sub- 
 ject to sin. For the flesh of the Lord was purified by the 
 Holy Spirit, that he might be born in a body such as was 
 that of Adam before sin.'^ His exposition of the expres- 
 sion, " he condemned sin in the flesh," which immediately 
 follows, is singular. His idea is, that when Satan assailed 
 the flesh of our Lord, he committed a sin against that 
 flesh, and for that sin was condemned. He refers to the 
 text, " triumphing over them in it," which he reads, " tri- 
 umphing over them in /«>«," id est., in Christo. that is, in 
 Christ. So little did he know of the intei'pretation vvhich 
 the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh forces \\\\(n\ this 
 passage. 
 
 CYRIL, Bishop of Jerusalem, 
 
 died about the year. 386. In his fourteenth catechetical 
 
 1 Propterea ergo similem dixit, quia de eadem substantia carnis, non eani- 
 dem liabuit nativitatem; quia peccato subjectum non fuit corpus Domini. 
 Expiata est enim a Spiritu Sancto caro Domini, ut in tali coi-pore nasceretur, 
 quale fuit Adaa ante peccatum ; sola tamen sententia data in Adam. — The 
 concluding clause I have not translated, because, if it has any sense, I cannot 
 find out what it is. For sola, the Roman edition, an utterly falsified one, lias 
 salva, which woiUd make sense ; and in not a few MSS, the clause is wanting 
 lUtogether, as I suppose it should be. 
 
r>9G PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 discourse, chap, vi., he says that Christ came to baptism 
 that he might sanctify baptism. So far I should suppose 
 lie is right ; for if baptism sanctified our Lord, who sancti- 
 fied baptism ? In the same place he refers to Satan being 
 deceived by the bait of Christ's flesh hiding his divinity, 
 of which I have already had occasion to speak. In the 
 same discourse, chap, xiv., he says : — ' His birth was pure 
 and unpolluted ; for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there 
 all pollution is taken away. Most pm*e, however, was the 
 fleshly birth of the only begotten of a virgin, however here- 
 tics may gainsay it.'^ He had previously spoken, in 
 chap, xi., of the ' holy flesh, the veil of the Divinity,' but 
 the passage cannot be translated. In discourse 13, chap, 
 iii., he says: — 'He gave not up his life by compulsion, 
 neither by violence was it taken away ; for hear what he 
 himself saith, I have power to lay down my life,' &c.- 
 In another place he says: — 'And do you wish to know, 
 that not by violence he laid down his life ? Neither unwill- 
 ingly gave up the ghost ? He addresseth the Father, say- 
 ing. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.'^ 
 
 BASIL, Bishop of Cesarea, 
 
 commonly called Basil the Great, died in tlie year 379. 
 In answer to the question, ' In what manner is the Divi- 
 nity in flesh ?' he says, — ' As fire is in iron, not by tran- 
 sition, but by impartation. For the fire runs not to the 
 iron, but remaining in its place, it imparts to the iron of 
 
 ^ A^^xurog Kcti otQQVTroi^Qs ^ yevumtg. 6 ttov yx^ ttvh 'ttviv- 
 fix xytoUf SKet Tn^ivi^Yirxi ncxg fAohvaf/^og. A^^vTrog ij evax^- 
 Kog yevuYjaig rov f^ovoyivovg iKxrig tx^^buov, kxu xun'Kiyoiaiv 
 01 xiperiKXi. — Edition of Mills, Oxfonl, 1703. 
 
 - QvK xuxyx,xtag x(pYiK£ r-/]u ^u/iu, ov'^s ^toaCpxyug xui- 
 
 3 Kxi ^e'Ksig yvuvxi ort ov (iioa<pxyug XTrshro rnu ^ar\u ; 
 (svhe XKOvaia; TXpe^aKS to %uiv[4,x. — Discourse 13, chap. xvL 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 397 
 
 its own native power. Neither is it diminished by the im- 
 partation, even when it has wholly imparted itself. In 
 the same way truly, God the Word was not moved ont 
 of himself, and yet dwelt among us, nor sustained any 
 change. 1 And the Word was made flesh, neither was 
 heaven deserted of him who sustains it, and earth received 
 the heavenly in its bosom. Think not of any descent ot 
 the Divinity, for he passeth not fi'om place to place as 
 bodies do ; neither fancy the Divinity to be changed into 
 flesh, for that which is immortal is immutable. How, then, 
 you will say, was not God the Word filled with corporeal 
 infirmity ? We reply, just as fire receives not the proper- 
 ties of iron. Iron is black and cold ; but at the same time 
 being ignited, it puts on the form of fire, not darkening 
 the fire, but itself becoming shining ; and not cooling the 
 flame, but itself becoming heated. Even so truly, the 
 human flesh of the Lord was made a partaker of the Divi- 
 nity, but imparted not to the Divinity of its native infir- 
 mity. Or you do not admit that the Divinity operates 
 like fire in this mortal flesh ; but you fancy some passion 
 about the impassible from human infirmity ; and you doubt 
 how the coiTuptible nature, by fellowship with God, could 
 be preserved immortal ; and that while you see that the fire 
 — for I still cling to the simile — is not consumed by the rust 
 of the iron. Learn then the mysteiy . For this cause was 
 God in flesh, that he might slay death, hiding itself in it. 
 For as an antidote dwelling in the body overcometh what 
 is poisonous ; and as the darkness in a house is dispelled 
 by the bringing in of light ; even so death ruling over 
 human natm-e was consumed by the presence of the Divi- 
 nity. And as in water frost prevails over moisture, while 
 night and darkness endm-e ; but when the sun grows warm 
 is melted by his beams ; so death reigned until the com- 
 ing of Christ ; but after that the gi-ace of God which bring- 
 
 1 Basil had no idea of the new doctrine, that the Word brought with him a 
 Godhead person, hut no Godhead properties. 
 
'VJ8 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 cth salvation appeared, and tlie Sun of righteousness arose, 
 death was swallowed up of victory, not bearing the com- 
 ing of the true life.'^ 
 
 ^ Tiuoc r^OTTOu eu au^Ki '/) ^sorr/g ; as to ttvp su athyipco' ov 
 fAYiruQotrtKug, oi'K'Ku f^sru'^ortacog. Ov ya^ iKT^iy^n ro 'ttv^ 
 TT^og Tov ai^yj^ou, f^ivou 6s x.ocrocx,^Qocv f/.iToi,Oiho)aiu ccvru rr^g 
 oiKSiocg ^vuoiju,sag, oVfg ovTS s7\otrrovroii rri /mrothoaei, Kcct 
 oT^oy TT'hyi^ot suvtov to f^tTiyc'^v. Koctcc tovto Oyi kxi 6 (diog 
 "hoyog OVTS SKivr,6-/i s^ sxvtov, -acci S(jy,r\vaasv sv hf^iv, ovts t^o- 
 TTYiv VTrsf^sivs. Kuf 6 'Aoyog axQ^ sysusTO' ovts 6 ov^ocuog SQri- 
 f/.og YiV TOV avvs^covTog, y,ai i] yri sv TOig ihiotg KO\7roig tov 
 ovQocviOV VTC^ZY.STO. M)^ x,ot,Tet.7rT(>i(Jtu Tvig ^soTYiTo; suuOYiayig, 
 ov ysi^ f/,iTCi'^oiivsi sx, Tornrov stg to'tvov ug to, auf^eiTa,, y^y]hi 
 (pxvTcca^yig riKT^oiaaQcci t^v Bsotyitoc f/^STcc^T^Yihiauu sig ax^Kct' 
 
 OCT^S'TTTOV yCC^ TO CcdoCVCCTOU. Ylug OVV, (Pmt, Tyig aOifX-OCTlKYig 
 
 oKrhi/siocg 6 Qsog 7\.oyog ovk svsTrTii^a&Yi ; (poi/Lcsu, ug ovhs to ttv^ 
 TO)u TOV ai^Yj^ov ihtufiex^TCiu yiTO.'hoiy^aivsi' (As'ha.g 6 ai^ioQog 
 Koci 'ipvx,Qog, ethjC oyoig '7rv^oe.>cTadsig tyiu tov Trv^og fA,o^(pnu 
 vTroovsTcii, ocvTog 7\.ocf^'7ir^vuof^svog ovy^i [^s7\.a,iuau to ttv^, kxi 
 uvTog S}c(p'KvyovfiSuog ovx, ei7:o-^V)(,uv tyiv (p'hoycc. ovTug ^n Kcti 
 71 ocu&^UTriuYtTOv Kv^iov aot^^, tx,vTYi f^sTsay,^ Trig ^iOTYiTog, ov Tin 
 ^iOT-/jTt /LiSTshaxs TTfig oiKSiccg a,v&susiccg. H ov^s tu ^vrtTU tovtco 
 TOVTO) TTV^t iao)g 'hihag sus^ystu Tinu ^sottiToc, a.'h'Ka, -TruSog ttsq/ 
 
 TOV WTTCC^YI iK T'/ig Oivd^WTTlVfig cf.a^ivsictg (pCtVTX^in, KCCl eCTTO^Hg 
 
 'TToyg Vj sv(p^ccQTog (pvaig tyj TTQog &eou KOivcdvicc shvvccTo to cckyi- 
 PocTov Oiocaaaoccr&oii, x,xt tocvtcc ooojv to "ttv^ {sti yoc^ syjofAdi 
 Trig SiKOVOg) to) la tov aiOrj^ov yri ^ocTTctvaixivov ; Mads "by) to 
 
 y.V(7TY)Ql0V, ZiCC TOVTO &£0g SV (jXQKi, Iv SVCtTrOKTSlVYj TOV Sft,(pCO- 
 
 y.svovTcc ^xvocToy. 'rif yxQ (po(.pycx,KO>y Toe, cc'Xs^riTyiQioe. kxtoc- 
 
 y.PXTSl TUV (pOoC^TlKUy OlKStO)6sVTlX. TO) UOif/^CCTl' X.CX.I 0)g TO svv- 
 
 '7rxPx,ov TO oiKO) ax.OTOg r-/j i7rii(jciyo)yri tov (po)Tog "hvsTiti, ov- 
 TO)g 6 su'^vvocaTSvav tyi a.v&P0)7riv'/i ^uuocTog tyi 'Trct^ovaioe, Trig 
 BsoTYiTog x(pxuia6yi. Kot; ag iv vhocTi ircnyog oaov (/.svx^ovov 
 vv^ scfTt Kcci aKioc KXTocK^XTSi TO)v vy^uu, v)7\.tov Zs BotTi'TrOVTOg 
 
 VTrOTVlKSTXl TYiXKTtUt, OVTO)g s'^UffiMVffS (/>SV 6 ^OCVCtTOg fiSX^l 
 
 TTct^ovaiug XoiffToV STstOyi os s(poe,v-n V) x^'-^'S '^ov Qiov ij ^a^ 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 399 
 
 lu a subsequent part of the same liomily, he says, when 
 speaking of Joseph and Maiy, — ' Joseph was minded to 
 put her away, not because he felt any detestation of her, 
 but because he reverenced her as one filled with the Holy 
 Ghost. And thence it is manifest that the constitution of 
 the Lord was not after the common nature of flesh. For 
 what was earned in the womb was immediately perfected, 
 and not formed by degrees, as the words plainly declare. 
 For it is not said, that which is conceived^ but that which 
 is born. The flesh, therefore, compacted of holiness, was 
 worthy to be united to the Divinity of the only begotten.' ^ 
 
 In his treatise against Ennomius, book iv., he decides 
 that our Lord could not off'er up the prayer, " If it be pos- 
 sible, let this cup pass fi'om me," on his own account ; for 
 that would have been to accuse himself of fear and weak- 
 ness, and to doubt whether there were not something im- 
 possible to God. Moreover, he who gave life to the dead 
 had no need to ask life of any one. Besides, if he did 
 not willingly die, how could it be said that he became 
 obedient unto death ? For these reasons, he decides that 
 this prayer was oifered up for the sake of the Jews, that 
 they might be kept from committing the great sin against 
 him, which they were meditating ; and is similar to his 
 prayer on the cross, — " Father, forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do." Did Basil then believe that our 
 Lord took fallen sinful flesh, and died by the common pro- 
 perty of the flesh to die ? 
 
 TTiPiog, icui e&usrsiT^su 6 vfhiog tvj; OiKscioavv^g, KocrSTrodyi 6 ^oc- 
 yccrog etg vncog rrig cth-fi&iuog ^ang tyj S'Tro/jfiiocu ovx. iviyx-au. — 
 Homily xxv. Edition of Paris, 1638. 
 
 ^ Kot< sursv^ev ^yjAoi/ on ov Kxrct rriv koivyiU (^ikjiu rrig aap- 
 y.og 7} (TvaroctTig syeusro toj Kvpiu. 'E.v^vg yccp rihuoy y)i/ tyi 
 accpict TO }cvo(popovy^svciu, ov rccig kutoc /hikqou discTrT^oifysai i^oo- 
 (pa^su, ug 'oYi'Koi rot, p-fii^cira., ov yocp stP'/jTcci ro KV/i^eu, ix,?.'Acc 
 TO ysvuYi^S!/. €^ xyioavurtg ovu 9} aocp^ (jv^nraynfjot,, ui^ix riv 
 TY) ^£ori rov y.ovoyivovg kvu^Yi'jxi. 
 
400 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 GREGORY, Bishop of Nazianzum, 
 
 died in the year 389. Speaking of the absurd and wicked 
 names that were applied to Christ, he proceeds to say, in 
 language hardly consistent with a due reverence for Scrip- 
 ture, — ' But what is more absm-d than all these, he is 
 called sin itself, and a curse itself; not that he is so: for 
 how can he be sin who sets us free from sin ? or how can 
 he be a curse w^ho redeems us from the curse of the law ?'' 
 A little lower he says : — ' Perhaps he takes sleep, that he 
 may bless sleep ; perhaps he labom's, that he may sanctify 
 labour ; perhaps he weeps, that he may render weeping 
 praise- worthy.'- Again, a few lines below, he says : — 
 ' What he was he humbled, what he was not he assumed ; 
 not becoming two, but sustaining of two to become one. 
 For he was God as to both, both as to that which as- 
 sumes, and as to that which is assumed ; two natures con- 
 curring in one, not two sons. Let not this mixture be 
 denied.'^ 
 
 ^ AAAflf x.(x,i 6 rovreou TTcturav xroTrarspov, K»t xvro Xfixprtx 
 xdt ccvro Kxrxpoi, ovx, iari f/,i'j, oiKOViihs. Hug yccp 6c^a,p- 
 Ttot, 6 Kcci '/)fixg T^g a-fiupriocg i'Aiv^spo)!/ ; Trug Be Kurctpa., 
 s^xyopx^cou vjfiug sk ring Kocrocpocg rov uof4,ov. — Sermon xxxi. 
 Edition of Paris, 1609. 
 
 * Tx^oc Koti virvo'j 'hiyj^Tcti, ivoc kxi vitvov ivT^oymri' rxx°^ 
 y.cti KQTirioi, hoc kcci tok kcttov ayiocoYi. rcty^^ot. Kex,i ^XKpvet ivoe, 
 
 TO ^ctKpvou iTTOtiyirOV OCTTipyXayiTOCl. 
 
 ■' 'O r]v iKiuo)(ji, ycui 6 /xri viv Trpoai'haJZiv. ov Syo ysvof^euog, 
 etXA' h ex, rcou ovo ysusa^xt xvxa)(,o(^iuog. Seog yxp a,[A(f)o- 
 repx. TO T£ Tpoay^xtou kxi to Trpoa'hyiip^ei/. Si/o (pvang ng kv 
 avuopx/icovffxi, ov)(, vioi ovo. f^ri xxTx-^s'^ea^o) 9) avyxpxatg. 
 In Sermon xlii. he repeats the same thing, that God makes one of tsvo op- 
 posite things, flesh and spirit, of which the one deifies, the other is deified. 
 Oh unheard of mixture ! Oh wonderful temperament I the self-existent is 
 bom, the uncreated is created, fl rvig KXivrig xxtVYtg y^t^iug, a rr,; 
 ■TToipx^o^ov Koxaiug, 6 uv yivirxi, xxi 6 xxTi<,rog xri^irxt. 
 
PARTICULAK TESTIMONIES. 401 
 
 After passages so distinct, it is unnecessary to multiply 
 quotations, especially as I have already had occasion to 
 show what his opinion was. I shall, therefore, merely 
 translate the following lines fi'om Sermon xxxviii., which 
 remind me of a remark that I might with advantage have 
 made at an earlier period, but which cannot be out of place 
 even here ; he says, — ' Sometimes he is said to have been 
 given up, but it is also wiitten that he gave himself ; and he 
 is said to have been raised up, and taken up to heaven, but 
 he is also said to have raised himself, and to have ascend- 
 ed up into heaven. The one mode of expression shows 
 his complacency, the other his power. The expressions 
 which serve to lessen him, thou layest hold of ; but those 
 that exalt him, thou passest over. That he suffered, thou 
 reckonest ; that it was voluntary, thou forgettest to add.' 
 The remark to which I have just referred is, that the re- 
 surrection of our Lord is occasionally ascribed to each of 
 the persons of the Holy Trinity. This shows the unity of 
 the Godhead in all these persons. What one does by the 
 power of the Godhead is done by all. But there is a further 
 reason for this diversity of expression, which is not acci- 
 dental, a supposition inconsistent with the plenary inspira- 
 tion of ' all Scripture.' 
 
 We want to know whether the work of Christ was per- 
 fectly satisfactory, and whether we may rely upon it with- 
 out a fear. We learn this most clearly and decisively 
 from the fact, that God " raised him up from the dead, 
 and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in 
 God." We learn from this, also, not to consider the Son 
 as our friend, but the Father as our foe ; a tenet which 
 we are falsely reported by some to hold. 
 
 We want to know, also, that the death of Christ was 
 perfectly voluntary ; for if it were not so, it could be no 
 atonement. We want also to know whether he be per- 
 fectly able to secm'e us in the possession of that spiritual 
 life which he bestows upon us. That he raised up himself 
 proves this in the most decided manner. For surely his 
 
402 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 death was perfectly voluntary, — it was by no power of 
 death that he died, who could raise himself from the dead. 
 Surely him whom death, and he that had the power of 
 death, could not keep in the state of the dead, when he was 
 in that state, was one whom, when living, they could not 
 slay. But his body and his soul existed only in the per- 
 son of the Word. Out of that person it were most im- 
 pious to suppose that they ever existed for one moment. 
 If, then, he could not prevent deatli from effecting that 
 separation between that soul and body which constituted 
 the death of Christ, how is it possible to believe that he 
 can prevent death from reigning over us ? We surely can- 
 not be " in Christ" more intimately, we cannot be united 
 to him more closely, than his own humanity. If it was 
 his own divine will to pour out that soul unto death, and 
 to give that body to the tomb, while both subsisted indis- 
 solubly still in him, then can we repose ourselves upon 
 him with the most delightful confidence, that none can 
 ever pluck us out of his hands. Then also shall om* flesh 
 rest in hope, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re- 
 demption of the body. Then shall we, without a fear, con- 
 sign these earthly tabernacles to the tomb, assured that 
 even our bodies are still united to Christ, and shall rest in 
 the grave till we shall hear the voice that says, " Awake, 
 O thou that dwellest in the dust, arise, shine, for thy light 
 is come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee." 
 That Christ raised up himself, and thus showed that death 
 had never any power either to take or to keep his life, is 
 to us the firm assurance of all these happy hopes. He 
 that could raise up himself from the dead could assuredly 
 never die, but because he pleased, and how he pleased, 
 and when he pleased. 
 
 AVe want to know that there is a power that can quicken 
 us who are dead in trespasses and in sins, and that can 
 repress those conniptions, with regard to which we often 
 feel as if they were so interwoven with every,thought, and 
 every emotion, as to render the idea of ever escaping from 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 403 
 
 their contaminating influence utterly liopeless. How 
 often, looking into our own hearts, do we feel disposed to 
 ask in the spirit of despondency, " Can these dry bones 
 live ?" Thanks be to God they can, for the Holy Spirit 
 of God raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead ; 
 and the working of that mighty power which he wi-ought 
 in Christ when he raised him fi'om the dead, assures us of 
 the exceeding greatness of his power toward those who 
 believe. The Spirit raised up the Lord, and, therefore, 
 there is none dead whom he cannot quicken, and none 
 bomid with a chain of coiTuption which he cannot break, 
 and none stained with a depth of pollution which he can- 
 not convert into purity. " K Christ be in you, the body 
 is dead because of sin ; but the Spmt is life because of 
 righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up 
 Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
 from the dead shall also quicken yom* mortal bodies, by 
 his Spirit that dwelleth in you.''^ 
 
 GREGORY, Bishop of N^yssa in Cappadocla., 
 
 died in the year 395. In his seventh Sermon on Ecclesi- 
 astes, he says,—' It belongs to the Lord alone to have 
 none of the things of the adversary, being made a partaker 
 of our affections without sin ; for he saith, " The prince of 
 this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." '^ The whole 
 of his Catechetical Oration may be referred to, but I can- 
 not afford room for the extracts which it furnishes. I 
 may merely remark, that in chapter x. he asks, ' Who is 
 there that saith that the infinite Divinity is circumscribed 
 by the flesh as by some vessel? Even our own intelligent 
 nature is not circumscribed by the flesh.' In chapter xii. 
 he proves the Divinity of our Lord from his mu'acles, and 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 10. 
 
 2 A/0 TO fivihiu sax'^KSvxi rav rov ccwTrtKetfcsvov Kri^fcmrau 
 y.ovov rov Kvqiov sart, rov f^iroiaxoyrog vi^.iv ruu ccvro)v 
 'TTd^Yi/x.ocrau %a^ig oi,[/,cx,(ni(X,i;. — Vol. I. p. 444. Paris, 1615. 
 
404 PARTICULAK TESTIMONIES. 
 
 from this that he was more powerful than death and coi - 
 ruption, which belongs to God alone. The whole of chap- 
 ter xiii. is to prove the superiority of oiu' Lord to us, fi-om 
 this, that we begin tx. ttx^ovs, and end iu ttu^h, while he 
 did not. In chapter xxiv. he says, ' The Divinity united to 
 human nature becomes this, and is that.' In chapter xxxii., 
 as also in other parts of his writings, he gives the usual 
 exposition of the figure of the cross, applying to it the 
 texts, Ephes. iii. 18, and Psalm cxxxix. 8. He speaks 
 frequently of the mixing of the two natures in Christ, a 
 mode of expression the danger of which was not then seen, 
 but which no man could use who imagined the humanity 
 of Christ to be sinful. I prefer, however, taking the fol- 
 lowing passage from his first Sermon on the Resurrection ; 
 and as it is long, I shall give the original only where it 
 seems to be necessary. In answer to the inquiry, how 
 Christ could be at the same time in the grave, with the 
 Fathers in Hades, and with the thief in Paradise, he first 
 refers to his power of being everywhere, 'as God, and then 
 proceeds thus : — 
 
 ' But I have learned another reason of this, which, with 
 your leave, I shall shortly explain. When the Holy Spirit 
 came upon the Virgin, and the power of the Highest over- 
 shadowed her, it was that a new man might be constituted 
 in her, who is for this reason called new^ that he was cre- 
 ated — £k1i(tB/i — by God. Not according to human custom, 
 that he might be the house of God not made with hands. 
 For the Most High dwells not in houses made with hands, 
 that is, in the works of man. Then wisdom building a 
 house, and by the overshadowing of power as by the im- 
 pression of a seal formed within,^ the Divine power, was 
 tempered with both the parts of which human nature con- 
 sists, that is, with both soul and body, having mingled it- 
 
 ^ Tore ocvTOtg rou oIkou ring ao(Piecg oiKO^o/xovang, kcci to tji; 
 Ovuctfceag ocTToaKioia/xxTt oiovn rvTra a(p^a,yihog iuho^iUKccTcc 
 fAO^(Pu^iurog, k. t. A. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 405 
 
 self in a suitable manner with each.^ As, therefore, each 
 part was dead through disobedience, (for the death of the 
 soul is to be separated from the true life, and the death of 
 the body is corruption and dissolution,) it was necessary 
 that the mixture of life with both these should expel death. 
 The Divinity, therefore, being mingled in a suitable man- 
 ner with each of the parts of the man, the manifest indi- 
 cations of the supereminent nature appeared in both. 
 For the body showed the Divinity in it, curing diseases 
 with a touch. The soul manifested the Divine power by- 
 its powerful will. For as the sense of touch is peculiar 
 to the body, so is a choosing will to the soul.^ The 
 leper approaches with a body already dissolved and con- 
 sumed ; and how is he healed by the Lord ? The soul 
 wills : the body touches : by each the disease is expelled ; 
 for immediately^ as it is written^ the leprosy left him.^ Again, 
 when so many thousands sat with him in the wilderness, 
 to send them away fasting he wills not. With his hands 
 he breaks the bread. You see how the Divinity united 
 to each part declares itself by both, while the body acts 
 and the soul wills. But why shoidd I go over each of 
 the mii'acles performed in the same way, spending words 
 on what is manifest ? Therefore, let us return to the subject 
 on account of which I mention these things. The ques- 
 tion is — How was the Lord at the same time in Hades 
 and in Paradise ? Of this question one solution is, that no 
 place is impervious to God, in whom all things consist. 
 Another solution is that to which our discourse now tends, 
 namely, that God, having changed the whole man into the 
 divine nature by his mixtm-e with him, at the time of 
 his death departed not from either part of the man whom 
 he had assumed, for the gifts of God are without repent- 
 
 ' 'l^Kun^a x,urccXKYi>.ag suvty}!/ Kxrxy.i^x<TX. 
 
 '2 Trig '>pv)(,r,g '/] KocrxTr^oxt^saiu Kiwiatg. 
 
 3 There is nothing in the Greek answering to the words in italics. Some- 
 thing has evidently dropped out of the sentence, which is supplied as above, 
 by Zinus. 
 
4UG PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 ance.^ The Divinity did, of its own will, disjoin the soul 
 from the body, but showed itself to be remaining in both. 
 For by the body, into which he admitted not that corrup- 
 tion which comes by death, he destroyed him that had the 
 power of death. By the soul, he opened a passage for the 
 thief into Paradise. Both were accomplished at once, the 
 Divinity affecting the good through both, — through the in- 
 coiTuption of the body the destruction of death ; and 
 through the soul brought to its own home, opened a way 
 for man to Paradise. Since then the composition of man 
 is twofold, but the natm-e of the Divinity is simple and 
 one, in the time of the separation of the soul and body, 
 that which is indivisible was not separated ; but rather by 
 the unity of the Divine nature, being equally in both parts 
 of the man,2 they which were separated were again united. 
 And thus, as death follows from the separation of what 
 had been joined ; so, from the junction of what had been 
 separated comes the resurrection. '^ 
 
 That some slight error is here mingled with important 
 truth, I may admit ; but both the error and the truth are 
 directly opposed to that tenet which teaches that the flesh 
 of our Lord was fallen sinful flesh up to the moment of 
 his resurrection ; flesh dying by the common property of 
 flesh to die. 
 
 AJNIPHILOCIUS, Bishop of Iconium, 
 
 died about the year 395. In his Seraion on the Mother 
 of God, he denies the name of Christian to any one who 
 
 ^ 'On o'Kov rou ocu^^cottou tov Qsov, B/at rrig Tr^og socvrov 
 etuxKQccasag, etg rriu ^siocv (pvaiu fisrxax,svxaxvrog, iv ru 
 KUiPa TYig Kurot. to ttu^so; oiKovoyuxg ov ^ocrs^ov (/.ioovg to 
 
 2 Tyjf yu^ kuoTYiTi Trig ^stccg cpvascog, Trig koctx to taou tp 
 ci^u(poTSQOig ovdYig. 
 3 Vol. II. p. 823. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 407 
 
 denies that Mary was made like Eve in her nnfallen state ; 
 and says that as fire pm-ges out the rust of iron, so the 
 Holy Spii'it perfectly purged out all evil fi'om Mary. From 
 him one sentence may suffice. ' He is traly impious, and 
 alienated from the truth, who does not say that the Saviour 
 and Maker of all, according to both natures of which he 
 consists, has all power and efficacy, and is fi'ee from all 
 necessity.'! I observe, too, that at page 81, he applies 
 the text, " Free among the dead," to Christ, as Cyril of 
 Jerusalem also does ; misapplying the text, indeed, yet 
 using it to express an undeniable truth ; for Christ most 
 certainly was " fi'ee among the dead," going to death, and 
 returning from it when he pleased. 
 
 A]VIBROSE, Bishop of Milan, 
 
 died in the year 396. The manner in which he proves 
 that the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped is as follows : — 
 ' But the apostles and angels adore not only his Divinity, 
 but also his footstool, as it is written, " Worship ye his 
 footstool, for it is holy." Or, if they deny that in Christ 
 even the mysteries of the Incarnation are to be adored, in 
 which we obseiwe certain traces of the Divinity, and cer- 
 tain ways of the heavenly Word, let them read that even 
 the apostles adored him rising in the glory of the flesh.' 
 But then nothing is to be worshipped but God alone, how 
 then are we commanded to worship his footstool? He, 
 therefore, proceeds to inquire what this footstool, which 
 we are commanded to worship, is ; and he finds that it is 
 the earth : for it is written, " Heaven is my throne, and 
 earth is my footstool." But then neither are we to worship 
 the earth, which is only the creatm-e of God. Having 
 
 ^ Ao-£o>7$- ourag £(xri, kcai r-/jg d'hyj^stu; u'h'horQiog, 6 fcr, 
 'Kzyuv Tov '^oU'fi^ci TO)v oKav KOii 7ror/iTY}u, koct a,f/,(pa rau £| 
 oiv iart Kuroc Cpvaiu, xvre^ovaiou, kok sve^yri, Kcci "Troiarig ex.uex.y- 
 KYig i.'Kiv^i^oy. — Dogmatic Epistle to Pancharius, p. 155. Paris, 1644. 
 
408 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 got SO far, be thus goes on : — ' But let us see if the prophet 
 do not say that that earth is to be adored which the Lord 
 Jesus took in his assumption of flesh. Therefore, by the 
 footstool, earth is meant, and by earth, the flesh of Christ, 
 which we still adore in the mysteries, and which the 
 apostles adored in the Lord Jesus, as we have said above. 
 For neither is Christ divided, but one ; nor when he is 
 adored as the Son of God, is he who was born of the Vir- 
 gin denied. Since, then, the sacrament of the Incarnation 
 is to be adored, but the Incaraation is the w^ork of the 
 Spirit, as it is written, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow 
 thee ; and that which shall be born of thee holy, shall be 
 called the Son of God ;" without doubt, the Holy Spirit is 
 to be adored, when he is adored who, according to the 
 flesh, was born of the Holy Spirit.'^ 
 
 The same doctrine he elsewhere teaches thus : — ' But it 
 is to be feared, you say, lest, if we should attribute to 
 Christ two principal senses, or a double wisdom, we should 
 divide Christ. Do we di\'ide Christ when we adore both 
 his Divinity and his flesh ? When we venerate in him the 
 
 ' Adorant autem non solum di^initatcm ejus, sed etiam scabellum pedum 
 cju8, sicut scriptvun est; et adorate scabellum pedum ejus; quoniam sanctum 
 est. Aut si negant quia in Christo etiam incaniationis adoranda mysteria 
 sint, in quibus velut vestigia quaedam divinitatis expressa, et vias quasdam 
 verbi ccclestis advertimus ; legant quia et apostoli adorabant eum in caniis 
 gloria resurgentem. 
 
 Videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandum propheta, quam Domi- 
 nus Jesus in carais adsumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum teira intelli- 
 Kitur : per terram autem caro Cliristi, quam liodieque in mysteriis adoramus, 
 et quam apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra discimus, adoranint ; neque enim 
 (livisus est Cln-istus, sed unus; neque cum adoratur tamquam Dei Filius, 
 natus ex Virgine denegatur. Cum igitur incarnatlonis adorandum sit sacra- 
 inentum, incamatio autem opus Spiritus, sicut scriptiun est, Spiritus Sancius 
 tvperveniet in te, et t'/r/ws AUis,^imi ohumbrahit tibi : et quod nascetiir ex te sanc- 
 tum, vocabitnr Films Dei : baud dubie etiam Sanctus Sjuritus adorandus est ; 
 quando adoratur ille, qui secundum carnem natus ex Spiritu Sancto est — Be 
 ,Spiritu Sancto, Lib. iii. Cap. 11, Sect. 76 et 79. Benedictine Edition, Paris, 
 1G90 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 409 
 
 image of God and the cross, do we divide him T^ &c. He 
 is treating of our Lord's growth in wisdom. He says that 
 he grew in it only as a man ; an interpretation of the text 
 which is contrary to that of most of the Fathers, and which 
 afterwards came to be deemed little less than heretical. 
 And, indeed, he himself, in his treatise De Fide, Lib. v. 
 Cap. 18, plainly intimates his dislike of it, and says that 
 Christ so loved his apostles that he chose to appear igno- 
 rant of some things rather than tell them what he judged 
 it was not proper for them to know. Hence, his Bene- 
 dictine editors suppose that he only nses that interpreta- 
 tion here for the convenience of refuting heretics, and not 
 because he himself approved of it. 
 
 In another place, quoting the text Eom. viii. 3, he ob- 
 serves, — ' He does not say, in the likeness of flesh, because 
 Christ took the reality, not the likeness of flesh ; neither 
 does he say, in the likeness of sin, because he did no sin, 
 but was made sin for us ; but he came in the likeness of 
 flesh of sin, that is, he took the likeness of sinful flesh ; 
 and, therefore, the likeness, because it is written, " He is 
 a man, and who shall know him? "2 He was a man in 
 the flesh, according to man who might be known ; in power 
 above a man, who could not be known ; so that he has 
 our flesh, but has not the blemishes of this flesh. '3 In 
 
 1 Sed verendum est, inquis, ne si duos principales sensus aut geminam 
 sapientiam Christo tribuimus, Christum dividimus. Numquid cum et divini- 
 tatem ejus adoramus et camem, Christum dividimus ? Numquid cum in eo 
 imaginem Dei, crucemque veneramur, dividimus eum ?—De Incamationis 
 Dominicce Sacramento, Cap. vii. Sect. 75. This I consider as being, upon the 
 whole, the very best treatise on the Incarnation that I have seen. 
 
 2 Kcci ocu^pcoTTog iali, Kdi lig yuaafioci ocvlov ; Jeremiah xvii. 
 9, Septuagint translation. 
 
 3 Non in similitudinem camis ait, quia Christus veritatem suscepit carnis 
 humanse, non similitudinem ; neque in similitudinem peccati ait, quia pec- 
 catum non fecit, sed peccatum pro nobis factus est : sed venit in similitudi- 
 nem camis peccati; hoc est, suscepit simiUtudinem camis peccatricis ; ideo 
 similitudinem, quia scriptum est : Et fwmo est, et quis agnoscet eum ? Homo 
 erat in came secundum hominem, qui agnosceretur : yiitute supra hominem 
 
410 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 the following section he goes on to show that he differed 
 from us in not being conceived in iniquity, and bom in 
 sin, as we are, and concludes by saying, ' The flesh of 
 Paul was a body of death, as he himself says, " Who shall 
 deliver me from the body of this death ? " But the flesh 
 of Christ condemned sin, which, in being bom, he did not 
 feel ; and which, in dying, he cmcified ; that in our flesh 
 there might be a justification through grace there, where 
 formerly there had been impurity through sin.' I 
 
 EPIPHANIUS, Bishop of Salamis, 
 
 died in the second or third year of the fifth century. The 
 following decisive testimony I give in the original, without 
 venturing to translate it. Kvro ro auf^oc uT^Yi^tuag, uvJYitf 
 TcipKoc, ccvlnu Iyju ■<pvx,yif, otvlec Ice vccvjcc, ovk ocXKo It 'xupa, 7o 
 ou aufAcc, otAX' «i/7o 7o ou tvlvuetf^uaocg, ng (^.totu suoli^lci, iig 
 fAtetu ^solvilet, lo orotgKiKOv »(p^oi,plou,lo oa/xccliKOv Tusof^ccliKov, 
 lo ^ecx,vfAspsg "hSTrlof^spss, lo ^uvflo ct^ccvoeTlou, ^m eapxKog oT^ag 
 oicc,(p^opotv, [AYi Kccru?^s{<p^sians rr\g -i^vxpn? ^^ 01,'hn, /lcyi /icspia- 
 ^suloglov opyotuov 'Trpog uf^ocfiiocu, f^in xpciv^ivlog lov uovlpo'^r,, 
 K. T. A.2 In this manner he goes on at considerable length, 
 teaching the deification of the humanity in terms stronger 
 than will readily be met with elsewhere. 
 
 In Heresy Ixxvii. p. 1010, in answer to an objection of 
 the heretics, of which he justly reprobates the folly, and 
 
 qui non agnosceretur ; ita et hie camem habet nostram, sed camis hujus 
 vitia non habet— De Pomitentia, Lib. i. Cap. 3, Sec. 12. 
 
 ^ Pauli caro corpus mortis erat, sicut ipse ait ; Quis me liherahit de corpore 
 mortis hvjus ? Christi autem caro damnavit peccatum, quod nascendo non 
 sensit, quod moriendo crucifixit ; ut in came nostra esset justificatio per 
 gratiam, ubi erat ante colluvio per culpam. — ^Augustine, Contra Julianum, 
 Lib. ii. Cap. 4, renders the expression more definite thus, nascendo non sensit 
 in se, moriendo crucifixit in nobis. The Pelagian heresy taught Augustine to 
 add these explanatorj' words to the expression of Ambrose, in order to mark 
 more distinctly the difference between our flesh and that of Christ. 
 
 - Against Heresies, Book I. p. 49. Paris, 1622. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 411 
 
 which, without being urged by a stronger necessity than 
 I feel at present, I should think it improper to notice, he 
 very distinctly declares his view of the nature of our 
 Lord's body ; and that in a manner which, as well as the 
 passage just quoted, might well have afforded farther ma- 
 terials to Priestley for giving a colour to his charge of 
 Gnosticism against the Fathers. Nay, he seems to think 
 that even the bodies of the apostles were raised above the 
 condition of humanity, for he says, — ' It is confessed by 
 all that the holy apostles were men, corruptible as to 
 their body, as we are, but incon^uptible by the glory of 
 God dwelling in them, so that the shadow of Peter, and 
 handkerchiefs from the body of Paul, cured diseases.' ^ 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, Bishop of Constantinople, 
 
 died in exile in the year 407. I have no occasion here to 
 make any lengthened quotations fi'om the voluminous 
 writings of this celebrated Father. Many of the fond and 
 superstitious notions which then began to coiTupt the 
 purity and simplicity of Christian doctrine are to be found 
 in his pages. He talks of the cross in a style in which 
 we are not now permitted to speak of the flesh of him who 
 hung upon it. Nay, he assures us that our Lord took it 
 with him to heaven, and will bring it with him again at 
 his second coming, and that the obscuration of the sun, 
 moon, and stars, at that day, is to arise from their light 
 being completely overpowered and outshone by the su- 
 perior brightness of the cross.^ It is true that he else- 
 where makes a statement apparently inconsistent with 
 
 * Iluai yocp OJfcoT^oyyfion, oil 6i A'Troaro'Koi ekyioi av^peoTrol 
 naxv, (p^ocploi Ice aa/iixlx ug hf^ng, uCpBccplot Is ^/at 7>?v svoi- 
 KYiaxu ocvloig 0£oy ^o|s«v.— See Note N- 
 
 2 Sermon on the Penitent Thie:^ Sermon xxxii., Vol. V., Edition of Fronto 
 Ducaeus, Paris, 1636. 
 
412 TARTICULAll TESTIMONIES. 
 
 this exaltation of the cross ; for he tells us tliat both men 
 and women who could obtain a piece of the cross cased it 
 in gold, and wore it round their necks as a charm ; a 
 practice which he seems more inclined to boast of than to 
 blame. ^ After this the reader will not be suq^rised to 
 hear him proclaiming the praises of Maiy in the loftiest 
 strains, and maintaining her perfect sinlessness. He says, 
 ' The angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin, that he might 
 change into honour the reproach of the female sex ; 
 Gabriel was sent that he might prepare a bridal chamber 
 worthy of a pure bridegi'oom ; Gabriel was sent that he 
 might espouse the creature to the Creator; Gabriel was sent 
 to the living palace of the Kiug of angels ; Gabriel was 
 sent to a vh'gin, espoused indeed to Joseph, but reserved 
 for the Son of God ; the incorporeal servant was sent to a 
 pure virgin ; he who was free from sin, was sent to her 
 who was incapable of corruption,' &c.2 He who enter- 
 tained such an idea of Mary, of course could not suppose 
 that she communicated fallen sinful wicked flesh to the 
 Son whom she conceived by the Holy Ghost. Accord- 
 ingly, in the Sermon on the Nativity, he thus describes 
 the flesh of Chi-ist, — ' But this we say, that Christ took 
 flesh of the virgin's womb, pm-e, and holy, and spotless, 
 and inaccessible to all sin ; and restored his own work- 
 manship.' 3 By the restoration of his own workmanship 
 here, I understand the restoration in himself of that sin- 
 Jess unfallen humanity which he had created in Adam, 
 and Satan had coiTupted. This is more clearly expressed 
 in another place, where, treating of the varied forms of 
 
 1 On the Divinity of Christ, Chapter ix. 
 
 ^ AxgorraAn ocfictplixg s7\.ev^£pos 'Trpog Inv (p^opxg etvi- 
 'TrtbiKlou.— Sermon on the Annunciation, "Vol. VI., p. 356. 
 
 '^ lS.Ketuo Se (pocfAiv, oli Ku^ccpciu actpKcc, kui ocyiotv, x,oci 
 oe.fACi[je.ou, Kcti u/aetplict ccTrccan yiyivny^ii/nv ec^cflou sk 'KU.p- 
 ^et/tKYjg fATnipotg uus'Aoc^eu 6 'Kpi^og, kocu % oikhou ^lup^aaccio 
 TrKocrf^oi.— Vol VI., Sermon xx.xi. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 413 
 
 corruption which had resulted from the fall, he says, — 
 ' ^Vhen, therefore, this image, as we have ah-eady said, 
 was variously coiTupted and dissolved, the Saviour came 
 and again raised up his own image ; and what the devil 
 destroyed, that the Creator bore, being made man ; not 
 injuring his dignity, but showing his love to men.' ' On 
 the following page, after remarking that the Lord armed 
 himself with an earthly and weak body, he quotes the 
 text, "The weakness of God is stronger than men," and 
 then proceeds thus, — ' The Lord put on strength, that is, 
 the dispensation shining through the flesh ; for what is 
 more powerful, or what is stronger than that precious and 
 holy flesh ? For by the body he defeated the incorporeal 
 and malignant demons ; and by the cross he triumphed 
 over the adverse powers. '2 
 
 He often and earnestly contends that the death of our 
 Lord was perfectly voluntary. This he does especially in 
 Sermon vii. vol. v. upon the words, "Father, if it be pos- 
 sible, let this cup pass from me." He assigns two reasons 
 for the prayer. The one is, that as he permitted his body 
 to hunger and thirst, so he prayed also in order to prove 
 that he was truly a man. This it will be admitted is a 
 very good reason, provided it be allowed that our Lord's 
 fear was real. Whether Chrysostom allowed this, seems 
 
 * Et£/ ovu Vi SiKCou ocvln ^loOpopag, u; £^S>7^fv stxofis:, 
 
 ((pBctplo KOCt ^(OCTiST^vlo, YlT^^SU 6 IcS'l'/ip KOCl InU ihtOtU HKOVU 
 
 ircchiv »'js?-/i(Ts ; y-'Oa 9ju Kcx.lio'Troe.mv 6 ^tu^oTio;, Ixvlmv iCpoo- 
 saeu 6 Ar,f<,iovpyog ccu^pcjTrog, 6 yeyofisvo; (Pi'hui/Bpu'rog ; ov 
 %v d'^icct^ vQpi^ay, ctKhcc Iyju (pi'Kocv^poiTrtocy opi^uv. — Vol. 
 VI. Sermon ii. 
 
 2 EvsSyffstIo Yivpiog ^vuoc/^i:/, lovT t<rt oioi Irig aciOKOc ccvcc- 
 T^ccfi-^xaxu ODCQUOf^iccv. Ti yap SKUvrjg Ing l(i:ciccg koci xytet; 
 aocpKog Ovuoclajspo!/ ; ri Sg la^c^poTspou ; oicc yccp acoficcrog rove 
 etaufcxrovg x.oci '^ouripovg ^ocifAOi/eAg KoCi'/iyoyiuKio, kcci oice, 
 ^recvpov loc; cc'JliKSi/^suug ^vyoc/^cstg e^pioC'/^Asvas. 
 
414 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 
 
 doubtful. His other reason is, that our Saviour might, 
 by his own example, teach his disciples never rashly to 
 encounter dangers that they could avoid. In the same 
 Sermon, he uses the expression that our Lord prayed ac- 
 cording to the humanity, and not according to the Di- 
 vinity. I mention this, as he is the earliest author in 
 whom I recollect to have met with that distinction, a dis- 
 tinction which was certainly calculated to prepare the way 
 for that Nestorianism, which, at a somewhat later period, 
 was introduced into the Church of Constantinople. 
 
 I have done. It could hardly answer any good purpose 
 to trace the notions of the writers of more recent ages. 
 There were giants among them ; but with the funda- 
 mental truths of the Gospel, the generality of them mingled 
 a mass of superstition which it is painful to contemplate, 
 preparing the way for all the usui-pations of Rome, and all 
 the gloom of the dark ages. That I have made no mistakes 
 in traversing a field so extensive, and in many instances 
 so obscure and pei'plexed, is perhaps more than can be 
 reasonably expected, especially considering the disadvan- 
 tages of various kinds under which I have laboured.^ I 
 can only say that I have taken all possible pains to avoid 
 mistakes, and I trust that at least none will be found of 
 such magnitude as materially to affect the force of the 
 reasonings employed, or the weight of the testimonies ad- 
 duced. And if these reasonings, and these testimonies, be 
 found to be substantially con-ect, they may be expected 
 to exculpate me, and those who think with me upon this 
 subject, from the charge of a criminal carelessness as to 
 what the Scriptures teach upon it, and an equally criminal 
 disregard to their authority. They will show that I am not 
 altogether destitute cither of primitive precedent or of Scrip- 
 
 • When I mention these disadvantages, I ought not to omit mentioning 
 the kindness of two dignitaries of the Church, as well as that of another 
 clergyman, which, though it could not remove, did very much lessen them, 
 and greatly facilitated my progress. 
 
PARTICULAR TESTIMOXIES. 415 
 
 ture authority, -when, looking to my Redeemer, not merely 
 in the hour of his triumph, as ascending up on high, he led 
 captivity captive ; but looking to him in the lowest scene 
 of his deep humiliation, and in the darkest hour of his 
 most painful agony, I am disposed, without one feeling 
 of hesitation, and without one misgiving thought, to 
 bow the knee before him, and to say, " My Lord and 
 my God." 
 
 THE END. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A. Page 11. 
 
 The declaratiou, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou 
 shalt surely die," has, from the begiuuiug, given rise to a 
 considerable variety of opinion. Ii-enaaus, Lib. V. Cap. 
 xxiii., gives five different explanations of it, which had 
 been advanced even at so early an age. The first is, that 
 our first parents died on the day that they sinned, because 
 the very act of disobedience was death. The second is, 
 that on that day they became debtors to death. The 
 third is, that the whole period of creation is but a day ; 
 and if, therefore, they died before the end of the world, 
 they died on the day on which they transgressed. The 
 fourth is, that they died on the same day of the week on 
 which they had sinned, and might therefore be justly said 
 to have died on the day on which they sinned. The 
 fifth is, that as " one day is with the Lord as a thousand 
 years, and a thousand years as one day," therefore, if they 
 died within a thousand years, they died on the day on 
 which they sinned. Perhaps I may be excused if I offer 
 my own view of a text which, at so early a period, gave 
 rise to such a variety of interpretations, and upon which 
 I know not if modern expositors have produced any thing 
 more satisfactory. My opinion coincides more nearly with 
 the first of these interpretations than with any of the rest. 
 
 s2 
 
418 APPENDIX. 
 
 I conceive that in the very act of sinning, Adam died, and 
 died to the full extent of that death which was threat- 
 ened. He lost that image of God, that perfect conformity 
 to God, and confidence in him, which constituted his life. 
 He might still have continued to exist, as appears from 
 the necessity of debamng him from the tree of life, " lest 
 he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of 
 life, and eat, and live for ever." I conceive then that 
 when it was said, "In the day thou eatest, thou shalt 
 surely die," spiritual death alone was intended. In this 
 sense I think it would be understood by the angels who 
 saw man created, and heard the sentence pronounced. 
 Of that temporal death which results from the separation 
 of the constituent parts of man, they can hardly be sup- 
 posed to have had any idea. As little could they see 
 what purpose could be answered by such a separation, if 
 it was to be, as they must have understood the death 
 threatened to be, eternal ; for at that moment they could 
 form no idea of redemption. Man might then have ex- 
 isted, even after the sentence of death which had been 
 pronounced as the consequence of disobedience had actu- 
 ally been inflicted ; but then he would have existed only 
 as an immortal sinner, that is, a devil. I feel fully dis- 
 posed, therefore, to adopt the opinion of Gregory Nijssen, 
 that temporal death was introduced after the fall as a be- 
 nefit, that evil might not be eternal. ^ That death and 
 natural evil are really evils and of a penal nature, I most 
 readily grant : but I must consider them also as benefits, 
 when I consider them as the means through which we 
 escape a worse evil, — an immortal existence in guilt and 
 in misery. Death was necessary to the introduction of 
 redemption. 
 
 This vicAv I am the more disposed to adopt, that it 
 effectually evacuates the Ai-minian interpretation of the 
 sentence pronounced upon Adam after the fall. He is 
 
 ' Catechetic;il Oration, Cap. iii 
 
APPENDIX. 419 
 
 doomed to return to the dust, and to the endurance of 
 natui'al evil : whence it has been argued that temporal 
 death and natm-al evil are the only consequences of the 
 fall ; for these alone are mentioned in the sentence pro- 
 nounced upon Adam after he feU. But that more than 
 this has been inflicted, and that all the seed of Adam are 
 spiritually dead, " dead in trespasses and sins," I think 
 undeniable. Yet this death is not pronounced upon Adam 
 after he fell ; for this reason, that it had been already actu- 
 ally inflicted. Temporal death and natural evil were de- 
 nounced, and denounced apparently as something perfectly 
 unexpected by Adam ; and denounced, as it afterward? 
 appeared, as the commencement of a dispensation of 
 mercy. That Adam had actually died before he was 
 doomed to return to the dust, and that this latter death 
 was really a mitigation of the former, is plain I think 
 from the fact, that he had seen his own nakedness, and 
 fled from the face of the Lord. This was surely death. 
 And with Adam died the whole of his ofi'spring in the 
 very act of his disobedience. So far, then, is it from being 
 true that temporal death and natural evil are the only 
 consequences of the fall, that the fact is, these were in- 
 troduced as the first step toward the introduction of a dis- 
 pensation which was to make the fall the means of that 
 glorious manifestation of the divine perfections which 
 Christianity affords. 
 
 These views are not essential to, nor even intimately 
 connected with, the train of argument pursued in the text ; 
 and I throw them out rather as suggestions to be examin- 
 ed, than as opinions to be adopted. Should they be found 
 to involve any serious en'or, I shall relinquish them with- 
 out reluctance. 
 
 Note B. Page 29. 
 From what is said in the text, it will be seen that I can- 
 
420 APPENDIX. 
 
 not believe that the Milleunium is to be introduced by 
 miracles. Oiir Saviour worked miracles, and referred to 
 them as proofs of his divine mission. The same attesta- 
 tion was given to the Apostles, the " Holy Ghost bearing 
 them witness with signs and wonders, and mighty works." 
 While they were necessary for the purpose of establishing 
 Christianity, they were continued in the Church, but were 
 gradually withdrawn as they became gradually less neces- 
 saiy for this purpose. That they were always to con- 
 tinue in the Church has been asserted. I cannot think so. 
 I can find no promise to that effect ; and I can discover 
 no beneficial purpose which such a promise could answer. 
 It appears to me that the Jew has just as good reason to 
 expect that mu-acles may be wrought in confirmation of 
 Judaism, as we have to expect that they shall be wrought 
 in confirmation of Christianity. The Church of Rome has 
 indeed always laid claim to them ; and the early history of 
 most new sects records abundance of them. I view them 
 in both cases with a degree of suspicion amounting to un- 
 qualified incredulity, for the following reasons ; reasons 
 which I shall merely state, without entering into either 
 illustration or defence of them. 
 
 Mu"acles cannot now be required for the establishment 
 of Christianity. It would imply a defect not only in the 
 evidences of Christianity, but a defect in Christianity it- 
 self, to suppose that they can now be required as evidence 
 of its divine origin. If, therefore, they be now employed 
 at all, they must be employed for the introduction of a 
 new dispensation. But that no new dispensation will 
 ever be established, may be ai'gued on many grounds upon 
 which I cannot here enter. I may mention only the fol- 
 lowing. The Christian dispensation is one of unimprove- 
 able perfection. We cannot have clearer instmctions 
 given to us than are given to us in the Gospel, which 
 makes the path of life so plain, that the wa^^aring man, 
 though a fool, shall not err therein. We cannot have ad- 
 dressed to us more urgent motives, than eternal misery 
 
APPENDIX. 421 
 
 on the one hand, and eternal happiness on the other, — 
 that wrath of God which is revealed against all nniight- 
 eousness of men, and that life and immortality which are 
 brought clearly to light through Chi'ist in the Gospel. We 
 cannot have these instructions more impressively taught, 
 or these motives more powerfully enforced, than they are 
 by the cross of Christ. Xo dispensation can communi- 
 cate to the Christian greater power than that which is 
 given to him by the indwelling of the Holy Spuit, which 
 leaves no limit whatever to his power, but enables him to 
 say, "I live ; nevertheless not I, but Christ liveth in me," 
 and " I can do all things through Christ who strengthen- 
 eth me." No dispensation can give us more perfect se- 
 curity that every promise of God will be fulfilled, and that 
 the believer shall in nowise lose his reward, but shall be 
 infallibly "kept through faith unto salvation," than is 
 given to us by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for 
 this, I think, is the strongest of all possible arguments, " If 
 God spared not his own Son, but freely gave him up to 
 death for us all, how much more will he not with him also 
 give us all things ?" I cannot admit, therefore, that the 
 Christian dispensation is susceptible of improvement ; nor, 
 consequently, can I admit that it is ever to be superseded 
 by any other dispensation. Mu-acles, therefore, I conceive 
 to be no longer called for. 
 
 Besides, if the INIillennium is to be introduced by, or to 
 bring with it, any means of gi'ace which we do not now 
 enjoy, the conclusion seems inevitable that the reason why 
 Christianity has not triumphed over the whole world long 
 ago, is to be found in its own intrinsic weakness and im- 
 perfection. The jVIillennium in this case must be not the 
 triumph of the Gospel, but an open proclamation of its insuffi- 
 ciency — a disannulling of it " for the weakness and unprofit- 
 ableness thereof." To the infidel, therefore, who wishes 
 to overtiUTi Christianity, I apprehend no better weapon can 
 be given ; and to the careless sinner who despises it, no 
 better news can be brought, than the doctrine which teaches 
 
^22 APPENDIX. 
 
 that the Millennium is to provide us with means of grace 
 which the Gospel does not furnish us mth. The jVIillennium 
 I understand to be the triumph of Christianity, and to be 
 introduced for the purpose of proving its sufficiency — of 
 proving that the reason why it meets with such partial 
 success now is, that men do not acknowledge then- depen- 
 dence upon God for all that is good, and will not seek the 
 Spirit of the Lord : but that when he puts forth his power, 
 the very means that have been so long and so generally 
 opposed shall prove abundantly efficacious. But let the 
 Millennium bring with it some more poweiful means of 
 grace, if such there can be, than the Gospel furnishes, and 
 then the conclusion must be, that the superior holiness of 
 that state must be attributed, not to a more abundant out- 
 pouring of the Holy Sph'it, but to the superior efficacy of 
 the means employed. If this be true, then the insuffi- 
 ciency of the Gospel is proved. And if it be true, as some 
 t^ach us, that durmg the Millennium men are to be saved 
 by their own righteousness, then the Gospel is proved to 
 be not only insufficient, but false. When with these views 
 I combine the fact, that a pretension to the working of 
 mh'acles so plausible, and bearing such a semblance of 
 reality, as to " deceive, if it were possible, the very elect," 
 is one of the predicted precedents of om* Lord's advent, I 
 cannot help both hailing the pretensions to the working of 
 miracles at present advanced, as a sign that the coming of 
 the Lord di'aweth nigh, and regarding the pretensions 
 themselves as groundless. That the Lord will make bare 
 his holy arm in the eyes of all nations, — that prayer will 
 become more earnest and of a more believing character, 
 and that the answers to it will be more distinctly visible, 
 — that the interposition of Divine providence in the affau's 
 of men will be more fully recognised, and will, therefore, 
 be more clearly seen, and more visibly exercised, I cannot 
 doubt. But as little can I doubt that every one who has 
 taken an intelligent survey of the history of man, and has 
 seen how both the millennial glory and the following apos- 
 
APPENDIX. 4:23 
 
 tacy, are only completing the demonstration given by that 
 history, that in every state the creatm^e is dependent upon 
 God for all good, will see the necessity of guarding against 
 the admission of the reality of any miracle, however plau- 
 sible may be its appearance. For if the JNIillennium be a 
 new dispensation, then not only was John wrong in de- 
 claring this to be " the last time," but the new dispensa- 
 tion, instead of canying on and completing the demonstra- 
 tion of that gi'eat truth, for the establishment of which 
 man was made, and all the changes in his history arranged 
 — nullifies that proof as far as Christianity is concerned, 
 proving its insufficiency ; and must be introduced and fol- 
 lowed by an apostacy for the purpose of proving something 
 else than that which the whole past history of man has 
 been proving. What this may be it is useless to conjec- 
 ture. 
 
 These slight hints, into any particular explanation or 
 defence of which this is not the place to enter, may be suf- 
 ficient to induce the reader to be on his guard against 
 being misled by seeming miracles. 
 
 JSToTE C. Page 30. 
 
 The following note upon this text, by a clergyman of 
 the Episcopal Church, I think deserves to be transcribed 
 here. 
 
 ' The Incai-nation of our Lord is here declared to be ef- 
 fected by the power of the Most High. Seeing, therefore, 
 it is supernatural and the work of Omnipotence, nothing 
 connected with it, which is plainly revealed to us, may be 
 objected against, because it is out of the ordinary opera- 
 tions of nature, or what would be impossible with man. 
 The power of the Highest might be able to bring a clean 
 thing out of an unclean ; and this is in the text plainly set 
 forth. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
 iX)wer of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, 
 
424 APPENDIX. 
 
 also, that holy thing which shall be bom of thee shall be 
 called the Son of God." But there is something in the 
 words of our common version of this text, which may give 
 rise to an idea for which there is no wan-ant in the words 
 of the original. In the first place, there are no such words 
 at all in the best copies of the original as should be trans- 
 lated ' of thee ;' — and, in the next place, in respect of the 
 words ' which shall be born,' it is to be remarked, that 
 what is in our version given with the future tense is, in 
 the original, distinctly in the present ; and this is import- 
 ant, as it leads us to a conclusion, that a wrong meaning 
 has been given to the word translated born. The proper 
 signification of the original word in this place of Scripture, 
 we find, by a comparison with Matt. i. 20, in which the 
 same word in a past tense is used by the angel, where it 
 cannot by any possibility signify born., such a tenn being 
 wholly inapplicable to the infant not being yet come into 
 the world. " Fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife, 
 for that which is conceived in her (or, as we read in the 
 margin, begotten in her) is of the Holy Ghost." By a 
 compai'ison of these two passages in Luke and Matthew, 
 we are persuaded, that though the same word may be used 
 to signify born, yet that its true rendering in the passage 
 under consideration should be this, ' therefore, also, that 
 lioly begotten thing shall be called the Son of God ;' the 
 manifestation in flesh of the Power of the Most High, and 
 the Holiness of the Most High. And thus it will appear 
 that the human natm-e of Christ not being other than holy 
 in its conception, was in this respect akin to the nature of 
 unfallen Adam, of whom it was said, that though he was 
 formed by the Lord God out of the dust of the ground, yet 
 that he was made in God's image, and in his likeness.' 
 
 This view of the text I conceive to be perfectly just, and 
 <iuite decisive as to the sinlessness of our Lord's human 
 nature. 
 
APPENDIX. 425 
 
 XoTE D. Page 82. 
 
 I have met with some good persons who were not a 
 little perplexed by the declaration, that " the Holy Ghost 
 was not yet given, because Christ was not yet glorified," 
 as this seemed to them to imply either that no man could 
 be saved before that event took place, or that men might 
 be saved without the Spu-it ; neither of which suppositions 
 they could possibly admit. I must not, therefore, omit to re- 
 mark, that the Holy Ghost was given long before the com- 
 ing of Christ, both in his sanctifying and in his mii-aculous 
 powers. Yet it is not the less true that he was never at 
 any time given, excepting in consequence of the glorification 
 of Chi'ist. Had he never been glorified, — the Holy Ghost 
 could never have been given. But then, from the moment 
 that he undertook to become obedient unto death, his un- 
 dertaking of the work of our redemption, and his success in 
 that work, were so absolutely certain, that all the benefits 
 of his death were bestowed upon men long before his death 
 actually took place. He was the " Lamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world." 
 
 It may also be remarked, that, previous tt) the outpour- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, when the 
 " mmistration of the Spirit" properly began, whatever 
 gifts or graces men possessed, though they acknowledged 
 God as the author of them, yet they knew not that it was 
 the peculiar office of the Holy Ghost to confer these gifts 
 and graces ; and in this view also it may be said that " the 
 Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Christ was not 
 yet glorified." 
 
 JSToTE E. Page 86. 
 
 When the word fii'st acqim-ed this meaning I am un- 
 able to say ; but it occurs at least as early as the Chaldee 
 
426 APPENDIX. 
 
 paraphrase of 2 Samuel xxiv. 24, where Da\id, on pur- 
 chasing the threshing-floor of Araunah, says, " Nay, but I 
 will surely buy it of thee at a price." In the Chaldee it 
 is, I will buy it of thee D^)b1!3- Schleusner, in his Lexi- 
 con of the Old Testament Greek, under the word KctldX- 
 y^uyri^ conjectures that it has derived this meaning from 
 the root n!D*lj *<> ^^ ^^^^' High as the authority of that 
 Lexicogi-apher is deservedly held in such matters, I can- 
 not help thinking the conjecture a most unfortmiate one. 
 For, on the supposition that the word came to signify a 
 ' price' from its connection with the root n]b*7> I appre- 
 hend that no reason can by any possibility be assigned 
 why it should not have been written in the singular num- 
 ber, or at least in the feminine form T\f2)% or HIDI* 
 My own conjecture — and a conjecture may be admitted 
 where nothing better is to be had — is, that the word 
 D^/b^ came to signify a price, simply from its connection 
 with atonement. The first thing that could convey the 
 idea of ' price' to man was atonement : for the first thing 
 that he purchased was his forfeited life, and the price that 
 he gave for it was the blood of his sacrifice. Hence 
 blood might naturally come to signify a 'price,' when 
 blood was, in point of fact, the first price ever paid by 
 man. This idea would be confii-med greatly could it be 
 shown that this is really the meaning of the word in 
 Isaiah ix. 6. This, however, would not be very easily 
 done ; and if it could be done at all, would require more 
 room than I can devote to it in this note. 
 
 While I am in the region of conjectm-e, I may venture 
 to add another. I would infer then, from 2 Sam. xxiv. 
 24, that the word means such a price as is considered to 
 be a full and fair equivalent for the thing for which it is 
 paid. It would have suited the design and the feelings of 
 David to take the threshing-floor, so munificently ofi'ered 
 him by Araunah, for a merely nominal price, or for any 
 thing under its real value, as little as it would have done 
 
APPENDIX. 427 
 
 to receive it for nothing. Whether this view be confirm- 
 ed by the use of the word, as expressive of a price, in other 
 places, I have no means of ascertaining. 
 
 Note F. Page 92. 
 
 The expression of these sentiments reminds me that I 
 have probably been originally indebted for them to Basil 
 of Seleucia. In his thirty-second sermon, which is upon 
 the words, " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass 
 from me," his great object is to rescue this text from the 
 Arians and Eunomians, and to prove that the passion of 
 our Lord was perfectly voluntary. The principal reason 
 that he assigns for our Lord using these words is, that by 
 his own example he might teach his disciples never rashly 
 or unnecessarily to expose themselves to sufferings which 
 they could lawfully avoid ; justly observing, that when 
 God calls us to suffering, we can endure what we could not 
 endure if unnecessarily encountered, — a remark the jus- 
 tice of which was often proved by the failm-e of those who 
 had rashly exposed themselves to suffering. The whole 
 sermon is devoted to the proof that Christ willingly went 
 to suffer. In connection with the sentiments that I have 
 been expressing, the following passage deserves to be 
 quoted. 
 
 ' Do you not see, saith he, — the Arian or Eunomian, 
 namely — If it he possible^ a dread of suffering ? Do you 
 not see a deprecation of the cross ? Do you not see the 
 inferiority of the Son ? And they make some sophistical 
 reasonings, that they may reproach the Son. But if from 
 this place you accuse the Son, see how you condemn the 
 weakness of the Father also. For he says, Father^ if 
 it be possible^ let this cup pass from me. But where the 
 help is doubtful, the weakness is manifest. For he does 
 not say,'Father, let the cup pass, for thou art able ; but, if 
 it be possible^ let it pass. If you wiU cling to the letter, you 
 
428 APPENDIX. 
 
 must first condemn the Father. If you reproach the Son, 
 you reproach first the Sphit ; for of those whose honour is 
 undivided, the reproach is common, which is proved by 
 our Lord's o^vn words to the Father, " All mine are thine, 
 and thine are mine." But they bring against us what 
 follows, " Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." 
 Here again is a division of the wills, that there may be 
 not only a distinction of nature, but an opposition of sen- 
 timent, — " nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." 
 You see, saith he, how he entereth sufi'ering unwillingly. 
 But if his passion was involuntary, his resmTection was 
 undesigned. If the cross was without his design, then his 
 grace comes by violence ; salvation was not his intention, 
 and without design he saved us. What, then, meant Paul 
 when he gave thanks and said, "Christ came into the 
 world to save sinners, of whom I am chief?" What 
 meant the Saviom- himself, when he said, " I have power 
 to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again ?" ' 
 I need quote no more of the original, than the part that 
 refers more du-ectly to the sentiments expressed in the 
 passage to which this note is appended. ' O^u?, (pwiv, u; 
 AKU'j lo Toc^og sias^x^lui • AXA' silo ttccBo; ockovuiqu, ectov?,/}- 
 log 7} dvocs'CKjig, si 'ttocqcx, yyuf^t^riu 6 ?-oiv^og, sk Qiocg 7} )C*^^i, oit 
 Kxlcc yucjfCT^u V] aeoln^tx, ov Qov'ho/K.a/og iaaai. 
 
 Note G. Page 213. 
 
 It has been argued with great force and justice, by Dr 
 Bmton in his Bampton Lecture, that the belief in the 
 miraculous conception by a portion of the Ebionites, in 
 whose creed it was a mere useless redundancy, afibrds 
 one of the strongest possible proofs how essential an article 
 in the Christian creed that article formed ; how strong 
 were the proofs of it ; and how universally it was believed 
 in the Church. I have mislaid my reference to the pass- 
 age, and cannot at this moment tm-n to it to quote it, as I 
 
APPENDIX. 429 
 
 intended to do. But every one acquainted with the So- 
 cinian controversy will see at once both the bearing and 
 the value of the argument. That many Ebionites should 
 have denied the miraculous conception is perfectly natu- 
 ral. That any of them should have believed it can be 
 accounted for only by admitting that its proof was over- 
 whelming, and its belief universal. 
 
 Note H. Page 231. 
 
 To what extent the doctrine of the traduction of the 
 soul prevailed in primitive times, it perhaps would not be 
 easy to ascertain very exactly ; nor is it a matter of any 
 importance, as we have the express testimony of Augus- 
 tine that they who held that doctrine made an especial ex- 
 ception of the sold of Christ. His testimony on this sub- 
 ject is the more to be relied upon, because, of the various 
 opinions as to the origin of the soul, he, though he often 
 treats of the matter, declines to give a decisive preference 
 to one more than another. His sentiments may be seen 
 in the following passage. 
 
 ' For that Jesus was dead as to his soul, that is, as to 
 his human spirit, who will dare to affirm? Since the 
 death of the soul is nothing else than sin, fi'om which he 
 was perfectly free when he died for us in the flesh. For 
 if the souls of all men are derived from that one soul which 
 was breathed into the first man, by whom sin entered into 
 the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men ; 
 either the soul of Christ was not thence derived, since he 
 had no sin whatever, either original or personal, for which 
 death might be due to him, — for, for us was that death 
 which he did not owe, paid by him in whom the prince of 
 this world, the Lord of death, found nothing ;— nor is it 
 absurd to suppose that he who created a soul for the first 
 man, should create one also for himself : or, if even his 
 soul was thence derived, he purified it in the assumption, 
 
430 APPENDIX. 
 
 that coming to us, he might be born of a virgin, with- 
 out any sin whatever, either committed or derived. But 
 if souls be not propagated from that one soul, and the 
 flesh alone draws original sin from Adam, then the Son of 
 God created a soul for himself, just as he does for others ; 
 which, however, he mingled not with sinful flesh, but with 
 the likeness of sinful flesh. For he took of the Vu-gin the 
 true substance of flesh indeed, but not sinful flesh ; as it 
 was neither begotten nor conceived by carnal concupis- 
 cence ; mortal indeed and changing through the different 
 stages of growth, as being, without sin, most like to sin- 
 ful flesh.' 
 
 Nam quod fuerit anima mortificatus Jesus, hoc est, eo 
 spiritu qui hominis est, quis audeat dicere? cum mors 
 animse non sit nisi peccatum, a quo ille omnino immunis 
 fuit, cum pro nobis came mortificaretm*. Si enim omnium 
 hommum anima? qure ilia una sunt, quae insufflata est primo 
 homini, per quem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per 
 peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransiit ; aut 
 non est, inde anima Christi, quoniam nullum habuit om- 
 nino peccatum, vel originale vel proprium, propter quod 
 ei mors debita videretur; pro nobis earn quippe quam 
 non debebat exsolvit, in quo princeps mundi, mortisque 
 praspositus nihil invenit: neque enim absurdum est, ut 
 qui primo homini animam creavit, crearet et sibi : aut si 
 et ipsa inde est, eam suscipiendo mundavit, ut sine ullo 
 prorsus peccato, vel perpetrate vel traducto, ad nos 
 veuiens de virgine nasceretur. Si autem animae non ex 
 ilia una propagantur, et sola ex Adam caro trahit origi- 
 nale peccatum, ita sibi creavit animam Dei Filius, ut 
 casteris creat, quam non tamen cami peccati miscuit, sed 
 similitudine camis peccati. Sumsit enim ex Virgine ve- 
 ram quidem camis substantiam, non tamen peccati car- 
 nem, quia non ex camali concupiscentia, sive seminatam, 
 sive conceptam ; mortalcm sane, ac per setates mutabilem, 
 tamquam cami peccati sine peccato simillimam. — Epist. 
 clxiv. Sect. 19. 
 
APPENDIX. 431 
 
 Note I. Page 277. 
 
 Bayle thinks, or affects to think, that it was a happy 
 circumstance for Cliristiamty that Augustine ceased to be 
 a ManichaBan; as with his talents he would probably have 
 formed Manichasism into a system which would have 
 proved a dangerous rival to the Gospel. I readily admit 
 that it was a happy circumstance that Augustine ceased 
 to be a Manichsean ; but I cannot admit that Christianity 
 would have been endangered, had even the powerful 
 talents of one of its brightest ornaments been arrayed 
 against it. Happily it rests upon something more power- 
 ful by far than the talents of its ablest advocates. But 
 there has always existed a leaven of Manichaeism, which is 
 the more carefully to be guarded against now, when its 
 fundamental tenet is openly advocated. That it is advo- 
 cated by men who are not aware that they are doing so, 
 only makes the danger the greater. 
 
 I may here notice a remark of Dr Priestley, who, when 
 speaking of Augustine, says: — 'Who is well known to 
 have been a Manichasan.' This is a good instance of the 
 way in which all the effect of falsehood may be pro- 
 duced, without stating one word that is not literally true. 
 Augustine is indeed well known to have been a Mani- 
 chasan ; but the impression left on the mind of the reader, 
 and I fear I must add, intended to be left, is, that he never 
 was any thing else. The fact, that he became the most 
 active and successful opponent of that system, is kept out 
 of sight. 
 
 Note K. Page 311. 
 
 The best source of information to which I can refer the 
 reader on this subject is Burton's Bampton Lecture, where, 
 besides much important and interesting matter with re- 
 
432 APPENDIX. 
 
 gard to the heresies of the first centuiy, he will find 
 copious references to writers in whom more detailed par- 
 ticulars may be had. I can the more confidently recom- 
 mend this work, that, having had occasion to verify most 
 of his references to ancient writers, I have uniformly found 
 them made with such accuracy, and selected with such skill, 
 and the conclusions to which they point developed with 
 such judgment, as to make the book a real treasure to 
 those who have not access to the original sources of infor- 
 mation. I would strongly recommend it to all students of 
 Theology. Burton is a ^vilter to whom they may safely 
 commit themselves, without the fear of being misled. I 
 have rarely, indeed, read an author fi-om whose conclusions 
 I have so seldom seen reason to difier. 
 
 I rejoice to learn that the same author is delivering a 
 course of lectures upon the ecclesiastical history of the 
 first century. Few subjects can be more important, and, 
 perhaps, there is no man equally well qualified to do it 
 ample justice. I trust that he will, in due time, find it 
 convenient to give his lectm-es to the public. There is a 
 Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in Edinburgh ; but 
 of which I fear the students do not avail themselves so 
 extensively as they ought. It is to be hoped that they 
 who are called upon to admit young men to holy orders, 
 will become more and more alive to the importance of 
 ascertaining that they are well instructed upon this point. 
 And surely this can never be done by merely examining 
 them upon, or even making them write, the history of any 
 given centmy, the sixteenth for example. Deeply im- 
 portant as is the history of that period, yet a man may be 
 not only an able preacher of the doctrines of the Gospel, 
 but an accomplished expounder of Scripture, even though 
 he had never heard that such a period as the sixteenth 
 century had ever occiuTcd in the annals of time. Can as 
 much be said for him who is ignorant of, or only super- 
 ficially acquainted with, the history of the first century ? 
 As it is most desirable that every preacher of the Gospel 
 
APPENDIX. 433 
 
 should be able to expound the Scripture for himself, with- 
 out being compelled to depend upon commentators, from 
 whom in many cases he will find but little help, they who 
 neglect to avail themselves of the advantages to be de- 
 rived from the Lectm-es on Ecclesiastical History, are 
 guilty of a very serious dereliction of their duty. For 
 myself, I can say, that I was never more deeply interested 
 in, or derived more essential benefit from, any course of 
 lectures that I ever attended, than those of Dr Meiklejohn 
 on Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Note L. Page 314. 
 
 The opinions of the Gnostics, with regard to matter, may 
 at first sight appear to be of comparatively tiifiing im- 
 portance, or at least of a much less fatal nature than those 
 heresies which strike directly at the vitals of religion, such 
 as those that deny the Divinity of the Saviour, or main- 
 tain his peccability ; and, therefore, though the eternity 
 of matter be an opinion contradictory to Scripture, — and 
 even this has been denied, — yet it is a contradiction 
 that does not require to be so earnestly and decidedly met 
 as such heresies. But in reality the Gnostic notions as to 
 matter are not less decidedly fatal than these, or any 
 heresies can be. For, Jirst, if matter be not the creature 
 of God, then it is something independent upon him. He 
 may be able to modify it, but he cannot desti'oy what he 
 did not produce. And this, by no long or intricate process 
 of reasoning, leads directly to Atheism. Next, if matter 
 be inherently evil, then the doctrine of the resurrection is 
 to be abhorred, as it was by the Gnostics ; for the resur- 
 rection just reunites us to that which is essentially evil, 
 and in a complete emancipation from which our salvation 
 consists. Hence they strongly denied the resurrection ; 
 and the Fathers, horrified at this havoc of the hopes of the 
 Christian, not only maintained the truth of the resur- 
 
 T 
 
434 APPENDIX. 
 
 rection, but it must be admitted, in order to escape as far 
 as possible from the Gnostics, seemed in a great measure 
 to overlook the fact, that what is sown a natural body is 
 raised a spiritual body, and that our evil bodies shall be 
 changed, that they may be like the glorious body of our 
 Lord ; and so earnestly taught our entrance into heaven 
 in all the gross dimensions of flesh and blood, as fairly to 
 give the advantage in the argument to the Gnostics, as 
 has been repeatedly remarked. That matter is inherently 
 evil is a doctrine so destructive of the resurrection, that 
 the Fathers, in opposing it, did not in their zeal see that 
 they were often verging upon the very opposite extreme. 
 Again, if matter be evil, — whether it was so from eternity, 
 or became so by the fall, if such a thing were possible, 
 signifies nothing — then the Incarnation is denied. A pure 
 and holy God may work upon matter which is evil, and 
 he may work with such matter as an instrument ; and of 
 such matter he may form a human body, and endue it with 
 a human soul, and through that man he may possibly re- 
 veal his will, and in that man he may possibly operate by 
 a mighty influence to the worldng of many wondrous 
 works. But that he should take such matter into his own 
 personal constitution, so that it may be fairly called him- 
 self, or part of himself, — that he should be so united to a 
 body formed of such matter, that when the oflScer struck 
 this body on the cheek, he could say, "Why smitest 
 thou Me f — or when it was fastened to the cross, it could 
 be said the Lord of Glory was crucified ; — that such 
 matter should be, not the temple merely, not the taber- 
 nacle, the organ or instrument of God, but the very body 
 of God, is an idea so utterly repugnant to all that we 
 have been taught to think and to feel concerning God, 
 that I know of no Catholic, and of no Gnostic, that ever 
 entertained it. The latter, maintaiuing that all matter, 
 and, therefore, that flesh was essentially evil, denied the 
 Incarnation. Such of them as admitted the reality of our 
 Lord's body, also admitted readily enough that Christ 
 
APPENDIX. 435 
 
 dwelt in Jesus, and used him as his instrument, a man 
 whom, even before his anointing at his baptism, they 
 describe as more wise and holy than all other men ; but 
 that Jesus was Christ they most determinedly denied. 
 The Catholics, on the contrary, maintained that Jesus 
 was Christ, that the heavenly did not dwell in the earth- 
 ly, did not merely use him as his instrument, did not in- 
 spire him, but that " the Word was made flesh." Hence 
 they not only denied the evil of matter, in which they 
 were certainly right, and on this point might fau-ly have 
 defeated the Gnostics ; but in their zeal went so far as to 
 maintain that there is nothing in flesh and blood unfit for 
 the kingdom of heaven, thus giving the Gnostics a clear 
 advantage over them. Yet we are called upon to believe 
 that even in Christ flesh was a fallen sinful thing ! Finally^ 
 if the Incarnation be denied, I need hardly say that atone- 
 ment also is denied. And should the Catholic have con- 
 ceded to the Gnostic the grand principle on which he built 
 these ruinous consequences, and admitted that the flesh of 
 Christ was sinful, what had he left himself in the Gospel 
 that was worth defending ; or what gi'ound had he left 
 himself upon which it might be defended ? 
 
 Thus the Gnostic notions as to matter eff'ectually swept 
 away every doctiine of the Gospel. In support of these 
 notions they urged the sinfulness of flesh, — though they 
 were not bold enough to ascribe such flesh to Christ ; but 
 rather either denied that he took flesh at all, or maintain- 
 ed that he only dwelt in the flesh as in a temple, without 
 any personal union with it. Their notions may again be- 
 come fashionable ; for when men once leave the simplicity 
 of Scriptm-e, they can have no security that they shall not 
 fall into the same eiTors, which, under similar circum- 
 stances, have misled men before. Even a wilder efi"ort 
 may be made in support of such notions than the Gnostics 
 ventm'ed to make ; and sinfulness may be ascribed to the 
 " Holy One of God." And when we find the Gnostics 
 urgiug in support of their notions those texts of Scripture 
 
436 APPENDIX. 
 
 which describe our flesh as a fallen smful thing ; and when 
 we find the Catholics contesting their exposition and ap- 
 plication of these texts, we may be told that on this 
 ground there was no contest between them whatever, nay, 
 that the Catholics went farther than any Gnostic ever 
 ventured to go, and not only maintained flesh to be an 
 evil thing, but actually taught that even in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ flesh was fallen and sinful. We may be told, — 
 we are told this ; but is it in the power of any human being 
 to believe it ? 
 
 Note M. Page 366. 
 
 The note of Heroetus upon this passage is, uvctfiu^vi- 
 TOf. Id est, si dici posset Latine, Impeccabilis^ id est, qui 
 nee peccat, nee potest peccare. Kvi-Kihfi'Krov^ id est, qui 
 rum potest reprehendi. Est autem unum alteri consequens. 
 Nam si nihil potest reprehendi prseter peccatum, sequitm- 
 ut qui non possit reprehendi, non peccet. — Had the learned 
 commentator recollected the Answers to the Orthodox, 
 attributed to Justin, though some of them, at least, are 
 plainly of a later age, he might have found a definition of 
 the first of these words which would have put the purity 
 of his Latin to no hazard. Question 141 is, ' If Christ 
 alone kept the law of God perfectly, how is it said of 
 Zacharias and Elisabeth that they walked in the law 
 blameless, — oc^ifATrroi ;— and howdoesPaul say that touch- 
 ing the righteousness of the law he was blameless — oLi^ifAir- 
 TOf ? The reply is. Blameless — flt^g^Trroj/— is one thing, and 
 sinless — eLuotf^ct^Yprou — is another thing. He who is sinless 
 is altogether blameless ; but he who is blameless is not of 
 necessity sinless. For he who commits a sin against the 
 law, which can be forgiven through sacrifice and confession, 
 having obtained forgiveness, becomes pure and blameless, 
 according to the righteousness which is of the law. But 
 Christ being sinless, and never transgressmg the law, did 
 
APPENDIX. 437 
 
 nothing which stood in need of correction. He admitted 
 John the Baptist, and was baptized of him, that he might 
 fulfil all righteousness ; which Paul, before he believed in 
 Christ, had not received, else he would not have perse- 
 cuted the Church. For this reason, Christ alone is said to 
 be sinless — otvuf^oc^nrog. 
 
 This word may, I believe, be properly enough translated 
 ' impeccable,' wherever it is used by the Fathers. I have 
 sometimes translated it by that word, and sometimes ' sin- 
 less,' commonly taking the word that first suggested itself, 
 with little discrimination. Where it occurs in these ex- 
 tracts, the reader may commonly use the one or the other 
 word, without affecting the purpose for which the extract 
 is made. 
 
 Note N. Page 411. 
 
 Priestley, speaking of the Gnostics, says : — ' The prin- 
 ciples of this system, whatever we may think of it at pre- 
 sent, must have been exceedingly captivating at the time 
 of their publication, as many excellent men were much 
 t^en with them. This was the case with Epiphanius,' and 
 some others whom he names. With respect to Epipha- 
 nius, I recollect not that he expresses any admu-ation that 
 he had ever felt for Gnostic doctrines, though he expresses 
 his thankfulness for having escaped that system. When 
 he was a young man, two females were employed to convert 
 him ; for the desecration of female influence and eloquence 
 to give currency to doctrines which can hardly hope for 
 success by ordinary means, is no modern invention. There 
 are, doubtless, many legitimate ways in which such influ- 
 ence may be employed in the most praiseworthy manner ; 
 but ever since Eve preached heresy in Paradise, I confess 
 I more than doubt whether ever any female did good to 
 the world or credit to herself by entering upon the rugged 
 paths of controversy, or engaging in the public discussion 
 
438 APPENDIX. 
 
 of disputed points in theology. Now, if we assume, as Ave 
 have every reason to do, that the females employed to con- 
 vert Epiphanius were neither old nor ugly, nor yet infested 
 with a more rigid virtue than Gnosticism required, we 
 may easily see how the young man might have reason to 
 thank God for his escape, without supposing that he saw 
 anything very captivating in the principles of Gnosticism. 
 That system, I suspect, was commonly more indebted to 
 its practices than its principles. If I am asked what these 
 practices were, I can only reply, that he who has gone 
 through the repulsive details, as given by Epiphanius him- 
 self, is a more resolute reader than I can pretend to be. 
 
 But that the principles of Gnosticism should meet with 
 admirers even among those who had no wish to take ad- 
 vantage of the licentious application of which they were so 
 naturally susceptible, and which they so commonly re- 
 ceived, can be matter of no sm-prise ; for when a man re- 
 fuses to subject his understanding to the Word of God, 
 and to receive its dictates with all the docility of a little 
 child, there is no absurdity of which he may not become 
 an admirer. I have always considered the fame of Hume 
 as one of the most affecting and instructive proofs of the 
 utter imbecility, and the wild wanderings of the human 
 mind, when rejecting the guidance of God and of his Word. 
 He was raised to the throne of Philosophy, a situation 
 which I suppose he still occupies in the estimation of many, 
 for giving to the world what is neither more nor less than 
 a very paltry and mutilated edition of the Jewish Cabala. 
 That system taught that there is no such thing as matter, 
 all things being only an extension of the substance of God. 
 But then it taught that he could make these extensions 
 when he pleased, and how he pleased ; and never did make 
 them but under the direction of unerring wisdom, and for 
 the most benevolent purposes. Now, take from this sys- 
 tem all that can redeem it from unmiugled contempt ; re- 
 move from it the voluntary action of God, and connect 
 with it the doctrine of necessity, thus stamping it with that 
 
APPEin>ix. 439 
 
 character of Atheism which in its original form it does not 
 bear, — alterations in which Hume had not even the poor 
 merit of being original, — and you have the sum and sub- 
 stance of Hume's philosophy. It is only truth that is 
 truly boundless. The range of error is extremely limited. 
 And unless the mind be subjected without reserve to the 
 teaching of God, by his "Word and Spirit, there is nothing 
 to save us from very cordially adopting, and very firmly 
 believing, the wildest absurdities, and the grossest en-ors, 
 that we laugh at or reprobate in the dreams of earlier 
 speculators. We may give them new names, and clothe 
 them in new di-esses, and paint them in new colours ; but 
 their nature and substance remains the same. The philo- 
 sophy of Hume is to be found in the Jewish Cabbala ; 
 and the fundamental tenets of Gnosticism are revived in 
 the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was fallen sinful flesh. 
 
 EDINBURGH PEIXTING COMPANY, 12, SOUTH ST DAVID STREET. 
 
^