limachus as sitting at the right hand of Jupiter, ON THE DOCTRINE of the persON OF CHRIST. and as rewarding singers and poets. In all these cases, participation in the government and associated rule are indicated, though not full equality.

now to shew that, according to the representa- | proof-texts is this, that when one particular pas

tion of the New Testament, he was not a mere man, but that he possessed at the same time such exalted perfections as cannot be ascribed to any mere man, or, indeed, to any created being; or, to speak in the language of the schools, that he possessed a divine nature. Caution is necessary in the selection of the texts by which this doctrine is proved.

(1) This doctrine cannot be proved,

sage is found not to prove the point for which it was adduced, the conclusion is readily made that the whole doctrine is incapable of scriptural support.

(2) This doctrine may be proved,

(a) By the texts in which Christ is described as far exalted over all the creatures of God, over men, angels, and everything in the universe besides God himself, and indeed as the creator and preserver of all things. Such texts are Col. i. 15, 16, and others already explained, s. 38. The proof in point is not derived so much from the term, ɛixwv Oɛov, as from what is there predicated of Christ. Πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, does not mean, the greatest or first of all creatures; for we find immediately after, that he himself created all things; and we must therefore conclude that he is not the first of all creatures, since he is himself the Creator. IIpwróToxos must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb. i. 6, and Rev. iii. 14, where we read άpxǹ (i. e., äpxwv) xτioews Oɛov; or, he who existed prior to all creatures, in which sense the Jews called God primogenitum mundi.

(a) By every text in which Christ is called rios où, for this is frequently a name by which his work and office, and not his nature, are denoted. There are passages, however, in which Υἱὸς Θεοῦ and μονογενής clearly indicate the higher nature of Christ. Vide s. 73, 6, b. Such texts only must be chosen as are determined by the context and predicates to have this reference —e. g., John, v. 10; and the appellation, uovoyɛvýs, John, i.; also the texts in which Christ calls God his Father, in a sense in which this name is never used by any created being; those, too, in which he ascribes attributes to himself, as Son, which never were or could be predicated of a mortal or created spirit; the texts, e. g., in which he says that he works in common with (b) By the texts in which attributes are ashis Father. It deserves, however, to be re-cribed to Christ which can be predicated of no marked, that many theologians ever since the earliest ages have considered the appellation Son of God, as denoting simply the divine nature of Christ. These remarks apply equally to the appellation Aoyos, in itself considered.

(b) By those expressions, when taken by themselves, which ascribe to Christ resemblance to God in some high degree-e. g., ɛixiv O‹où | dopátov, Col. i. 15, and ȧnavyasoua dóğns and χαρακτὴρ ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, Heb. i. 3. 'Araúyaoua dóns signifies the radiance of the divine splendour or majesty; xapaxtỳ vяOOTάoews avrov—a visible image (imago expressa) of the divine substance. The sense, then, of these representations is this, "The Son is he through whom God hath clearly revealed, or visibly made known himself to men." So Paul himself explains it, 2 Cor. iv. 4, "As God, at the creation, gave light to the obscure earth, so Christ by his religion gave light to men, and led them to a clear knowledge of God." Vide John, i. 14, coll. ver. 18. But other expressions in the passages just cited, clearly ascribing divine attributes to Christ, are proof of this doctrine, as may be seen below.

(c) Nor is this doctrine proved by those passages which treat of Christ's state of exaltation, and of the eminent privileges which were conferred upon him as a man, when he entered upon that condition-e. g., a large portion of the passages, Phil. ii., and Heb. i. 6, seq., which are often improperly adduced as proof-texts of his divine nature.

One great evil of an incautious selection of

mortal, and which are never ascribed to angels, or to the prophets, or other inspired teachers whom God has employed for the accomplishment of his purposes upon the earth. Such texts are found most frequently in John. Among them are those which contain the phrase so often occurring, "he descended from heaven," John, iii. 31; vi. 31, seq., ver. 62; viii. 23; xiii. 3; xvi. 28. This phrase denotes superhuman, heavenly, or, divine origin and nature; and is spoken of manna, John, vi. 31; and of wisdom, James, i. 17; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47. This language is never used with respect to any mere prophet or inspired teacher. Even John, whose baptism was ovpavov (of divine origin), distinguishes himself from Christ, who came from heaven, (John, iii. 31 ;) and speaking of Christ's return to heaven, he says, "he returned thither ÓяOV Ýν TÒ ÁрÓTEрov, John, vi. 62, and xvii. The text is so clear, that Socinus and others, who denied the superhuman nature of Christ, invented a rapture of Christ into the heavens, (raptum in cœlum ;) or considered the text as referring to the pre-existence of the human soul; although not a trace of such an opinion appears in the Bible.

Here it might indeed be objected, "that Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit, but not as God; he might still have been created." So the Arians. The objection, however, is not valid; because, in these passages and elsewhere, he is said to exist before any created things, (i. e., ab æterno,) John, i. 1, and xvii. Vide s. 37, in prin. Before the creation of the world

But they affirm that these texts are not sufficient to prove his equality with the Father. Even these texts, however, go far towards proving this point. But it is proved more directly,

(c) From the third class of texts, which shew that Christ is represented by the writers of the New Testament as partaking of the divine nature as fully as the Father, and being as truly God (isos natρí) as the Father; and from texts in which he is called God. All the necessary considerations respecting these texts are found s. 37, 38.

nothing existed besides God; so that whatever | to possess a higher nature, far exalted above that had existence then was God himself, belonging of men and angels. This the Arians concede. to his being and his attributes. This is the direct and incontrovertible conclusion of John in the passage cited. Indeed, Christ is distinctly affirmed to have enjoyed supreme divine glory in heaven. "Restore to me (by exaltation) the glory ἦν εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ oo"-i. e., in heaven, (referring to his divine nature,) John, xvii. 5. Such language is never used in respect to any prophet, angel, or any | created intelligence. Aoža, in the last case, cannot refer to the office of Christ, or to his dominion, for he had none "before the creation of the world." Hence he is called by way of eminence, riòs Otov, (John, v. 10;) μovoyevrs, (John, i. 14;) because, among all who are elsewhere called the sons or children of God, | OF THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE DEITY AND he is alone in his kind, and bears this name in an exalted sense, in which no man, no angel, no created being, can appropriate it, John, v. Vide s. 37.

Christ also frequently alludes in his discourses to his divine nature in another waye. g., by the word siui, John, vii. 29, 34, 36; "before Abraham was, I AM," John, viii. 58. This is the very language in which the immutable God speak of himself in the present time. So the Jews understood it; and regarded it as blasphemy for Christ to apply it to himself, and on this account began to stone him, ver. 59. For never had a prophet or any created being spoken thus of himself.

Christ also frequently ascribed the miracles which he wrought to himself. He professed that he worked, or acted, in common with God, John, v. 17; x. 31. This, again, was never said of any of the prophets. In the miracles of which they were the instruments, nothing, indeed, was done by them, but everything by God. Accordingly, the Jews affirmed that by this claim Christ made himself equal with God, isov, ɛ, John, v. 18; x. 31, seq. They perceived that he used the term filius Dei in a sense in which no mere man could use it with respect to himself; and that he made himself equal with God, by ascribing to himself what can belong to God only. And Christ does not disapprove, but rather authorizes their conclusion, John, v. and x.

There are many other expressions in the last discourses of Jesus to his disciples (John, xiii., seq.) which never are used in the Bible, and never can be used, in respect to any created being: as John, xiv. 6-9; also ver. 13, 14, where Christ ascribes to himself the hearing of prayer, &c.

These classes of texts prove clearly against Photinus and the Socinians, that the writers of the New Testament did not understand Christ to be a mere man, but that they supposed him

SECTION CI.

HUMANITY OF CHRIST, ACCORDING TO WHAT
THE BIBLE DIRECTLY TEACHES, AND THE CON-
SEQUENCES WHICH MAY BE DEDUCED FROM ITS
INSTRUCTIONS.

I. What the Bible directly teaches respecting the
Union of the two Natures in Christ.

(1) WHEN We compare, without preposses-
sion or prejudice, the various passages which
treat of Christ, we clearly perceive that two
parts, as it were, or two aspects, are distin-
guished in the same subject or person. This
subject, called Christ, is considered as God, and
as man; divine and human attributes are equally
ascribed to him in one and the same context;
as in his own prayer, John, xvii. 5. It was for
this reason that, even as early as the third cen-
tury, the appellation Osáv♪pwños, or Oéavdpos, was
given him. Vide s. 102. The clearest passages
in point are found in John; especially i. 3, coll.
ver. 18, which clearly teach, (a) that the same
Aóyos, who created all things, and existed from
eternity with the Father, as his Son and confi-
dant-the same Aóyos (b) became man, (σάpģ
¿yéveto,) and lived among men. Hence the
voάpxwors of the fathers. The passage of Paul,
Gal. iv. 4, agrees with the one last mentioned;
but, taken by itself, is not so clear. So the text,
John, xvi. 28, "He who came down from hea-
ven, the same returns again to heaven." The
same person who, as man, lived among men,
came down from heaven, and existed previously
in heaven; John, iii. 13; vi. 62; xvii. 5; also,
1 Tim. iii. 16; John, viii. 40, 57, 58; and chap.
xiv.

From these texts it follows, (a) that the Logos, who was from eternity with the Father, is the same person who afterwards appeared upon the earth under the name of Jesus Christ; (b) that this Logos became a real man, (sàpš èyévɛto,) or received a human nature, and not merely assumed an apparent human form. Now, except we deviate arbitrarily from the

words of the Bible, we can explain these facts | by it is inconsistent with the divine glory. But

man, his deity does not act upon his body only, (as Apollinaris supposed,) but upon the human body and soul both; and indeed upon the human body principally through the human soul. Here, then, the question regards the union and co-operation of one spirit with another.

But here we are destitute of clear conceptions and definite knowledge; as we know not even how the human soul acts upon the body, and is united with it. And here we see the reason at once, why this subject is so obscure to us in our present condition, and why we are so little able to explain the modus. When we hear of the presence of a spirit, if we avoid considering it as material, we shall obtain only this definite idea, that the spirit is present with us and acts upon us by thought. So we are present in spirit with an absent person when we think of him. Further than this, we know nothing. Vide s. 23, I. on the omnipresence of God.

all times, and under all circumstances, from its | tions of a spirit in a body. But in Christ, as a first origin. In a similar way must we conceive of the relation of the divine to the human in Christ. In the state of humiliation, the divine in Christ supported his humanity, wherever and whenever there was any necessity for it; especially whenever his Messianic offices required. The divine nature, however, did not impart to the human any attributes of which the latter, especially in its earthly state and condition, was incapable, or of which it did not stand in need. Nor did the divine nature in itself suffer any alteration by the fate of Jesus while he was upon earth, his sufferings, death, &c. But in the state of exaltation the sphere of the agency of Jesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged. There the influences and the effects of his divinity could appear more visibly. There, in heaven, he is far more susceptible of its co-operation and support, in the government of the world and of the church, than in his humble life upon the earth, John, xvii. 5, 22, 24. Christ, as a man, could not have been raised to such a degree of dignity and glory as to receive supreme dominion over the spiritual and material world, if his nature had not been so united with that of the Lord of the universe, that the boundless perfections of the latter became also the perfections of his nature. The Bible always regards the subject in this point of view; as John, i., xvii.; Phil. ii. 9, seq.; Heb. i.; Ephes. i. 20,

seq.

After these observations, we can form this general conclusion: that the deity of Christ, as deity, is indeed every where present-i. e., acts in everything; but that it is present with the humanity of Jesus in a peculiar manner, in which it is not present with any other man, or any other created being-that is, that his divinity acts in and through his humanity, so far as the latter is susceptible of this co-operation, in such a way that this deity and humanity united in Christ must be considered as one person. This, union is represented in a similar manner by Origen, Пspi 'Apzv, 1. 2. This union or connexion of the humanity of Jesus with God is not limited and temporary, as in other spirits with whom God is connected, John, v. 26. That here there is something peculiar, which does not take place with respect to others, is shewn by the very peculiar expressions which are used in the Bible with respect to this union, and which are never used with respect to the union of God with his creatures in general.

(b) Writers who proceed with caution upon this subject describe the manner of the connexion of the divine and human natures in Christ rather negatively than positively. Many, however, endeavour to explain the subject by supposing a præsentiam arctiorem, or a peculiarem præsentiæ gradum, and remark that a præsentia localis, or approximatio, cannot be understood. The subject has been frequently illustrated, ever since the fifth century, by a comparison of the union between soul and body, and from this comparison the ideas and phraseology relative to this subject have been derived. According to this comparison, the human nature of Christ was the instrument and organ of the divine nature, as the body is the organ of the human soul, with and through which it acts and operates upon things extrinsic to itself. Theologians call it, mysterium incarnationis, and body could not act without the co-operation of the soul. The soul has a deep concern in everything which affects the body, and the reverse. And yet each of the two parts remains, as to its essential nature, unaltered. Vide Ernesti, Progr. Dignitas et veritas incarnationis Opusc. Theol. p. 395, seq.

This comparison casts some light upon the subject, but is not entirely applicable, and must not be extended too far. In the union of soul and body, the question regards the state and ac

(c) These thoughts may afford us some conception of the union of the two natures; but they are very insufficient to render the subject entirely intelligible, or to explain the manner of this union in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the right view of this subject, p. 138, s. 10. The

the more judicious fathers are unwilling to give any further distinctions respecting the modus (Tò лs) than the holy scriptures warrant. But nothing more can be determined with certainty from the New Testament than what has just been remarked. From the limitation of all human conceptions we cannot believe that even the apostles or first Christians understood the subject better than we do. But they did not pretend to insist upon an explanation of things beyond the reach of their senses, and the sphere