in heaven."

We shall have occasion to consider the latter part of the verse another time. At present we have only to do with our Lord's statement that he "came down from heaven"; which, from being joined to the words ascended up to heaven," must evidently be taken literally. I don't know whether Mr. Barker adopts the supposition, that Jesus went up to heaven after his baptism and came down again: I should think he scarcely could, from his horror of "theological fictions" invented "to help people out of their difficulties." John vi, 33. "For the bread of God is he, which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

John viii. 14. "For I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come and whither I go." Whence then did he come?

John vi. 62. "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" On this passage Dr. Priestly, not being satisfied with any of the attempted explanations, says that, rather than believe Jesus to have claimed a pre-existence, he would suppose that St. John did not hear quite correctly what Jesus said, or that the secretary, who was writing the gospel under John's dictation, put something in of his own accord. What a remarkably useful book the Bible must be on this principle!

John viii. 42 "I proceeded forth and came from God." Did any prophet ever claim to have "proceeded forth" from God? Mr. Barker tries to get over all these passages by quoting a line from one of Wesley's Hymns, in which he speaks of his converts as "born from the skies But did John Wesley, or any one else in his senses, ever say that regenerate persons proceeded forth and came from God," that they came out from the Father," that they "came forth from the Father," that they "came down from heaven," and that when they go to heaven they "ascend up where they were before"?

66

66

John xiii, 3. "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God." Here the close connection between coming from God and going to God shows that, if one is taken literally, the other must be taken so too. Now no one will deny that Jesus actually "went to God"; therefore he must have actually, not figuratively, "come from God." Besides, the authority Jesus received from God is mentioned in the words immediately before, "knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands": but he knew something more than this"and that he was come from God."

John xvi. 28, 29. "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples say unto him, Lo, now speakest thou

plainly, and speakest no proverb." If Jesus in those words did not mean to say that he was with the Father before he came into the world, instead of his speaking with more than usual plainness, as the disciples seemed to think, he never said any thing more difficult or obscure in his life.

John xvii. 5. "And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." No comment can either add to, or take from, the force of this.

John xvii. 8. "And they have received them; and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." The Apostles are here said to believe two things; Ist, that Jesus "came out from" God; and 2ndly, that he was sent by God.

John xvii. 24. "For thou lovedest me before the foundation of the world."

What can induce any one to resist such positive declarations as these, I am at a loss to conceive: unless it be a determination to degrade the person of the Saviour to the lowest possible point. That "the natural man" should be staggered by some of the difficulties connected with Christ's Deity or the Atonement, is not at all to be wondered at: but as to his preexistence, there is not a shadow of an excuse to be made for disbelieving it. Indeed the great bulk of those who denied our Lord's Deity in the first seventeen centuries, always contended that he had a pre-existence as the Son of God, though not as God. But the tendency of error is to sink lower and lower; and few in the present day are satisfied with Arianism. Even those who begin with it like Dr. Priestly, generally end like him with the lowest kind of Unitarianism.

LECTURE XII.

THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

He that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, shall have everlasting life.John vi. 40.

THIS text alone, if there were not another such in the whole Bible, would be quite enough to shew, that the question at issue between Unitarians and orthodox Christians concerning the person of Christ is no mere speculative point; but one of nothing less than vital importance. Our Lord here declares it to be essential to everlasting life, not only that we should believe on him as far as we knew him, but that we should know him aright-that we should "see" him. As no one will contend, that Christ's mission was confined to those who saw him with their bodily eyes, I know not what meaning can possibly be attached to the 'seeing the Son,' except-spiritually discerning, perceiving, or understanding, his person and office. Now the Unitarian and Trinitarian cannot both do this. They may both believe on him, according to their own apprehension of his person and office; but they cannot both have a right apprehension of them; they cannot both spiritually "see the Son." Let us then in this lecture examine with all the attention, which its importance demands, what view scripture gives us of the person of Jesus Christ: and let us humbly seek the Spirit's teaching, to guide us right, as in a matter of life and death. Let us remember, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know, because they are spiritually discerned;" and that therefore the Spirit must take of the things of Christ, and shew them to us, or we shall remain for ever blind. John xvi. 15.

But before entering on the examination, we must endeavour to clear our minds of any difficulties, that human reason may have laid in the way, about the impossibility of a Godman. Into what opposite extremes may the same principle lead us!-when the principle is a false one. The Swedenborgian of modern days, or the Apollinarian of earlier times, says, I see clear and decisive evidence in scripture for the Godhead of Jesus; and therefore, as I do not see how the

Does it

same person can be both God and man, I conclude that he only bore the appearance of a man, and the texts which seem to assert his Manhood must be thus explained. The Unitarian on the other hand says, I see clear and decisive evidence in scripture for the Manhood of Jesus; and therefore, as I do not see how the same person can be both God and man, I feel compelled to give some other rational interpretation to those texts, which seem to assert his Godhead. The orthodox Christian replies, I admit both your premises, and deny both your conclusions. The Swedenborgian is perfectly right as to the positive declarations of scripture concerning the Godhead of Christ; and the Unitarian is equally right as to its no less positive declarations concerning the Manhood of Christ; but why explain either of them away? Why not admit the truth of them both; and acknowledge the natural conclusion, that Godhead and Manhood were united in the person of Jesus ? Oh, they exclaim, It is impossible: we are both agreed about that. But why is it impossible? How do you know it is? Does the Bible tell you, that Godhead and Manhood could not meet in one being? No; but our reason tells us so. indeed? Pray exercise it a little. Does your reason tell you, that God, who is in himself invisible, could not manifest or render himself visible to his creatures, in any shape or form whatever? No; of course God can do all things. Then supposing that God for reasons of his own did choose to manifest himself in some form or other, what shadow of a reason can you give, why such a form as the human body should be a less likely one for him to choose, than any other conceivable form whatever? Does it seem too small for him? Why one a million times as large would be just as small compared with the infinite Jehovah. Can your reason prove, that infinite wisdom could have chosen any other more appropriate size, to be neither above, nor below, the ken of any single intelligent creature? Can your reason prove, that the human form is not the most perfect form in the universe? or that Adam was not made "in the image" of that form, in which God had determined to manifest himself to his creatures;"the figure of him that was to come?" If you had always lived in a world of spirits, would your reason have told you it was impossible, that the same being could be both body and soul? If you had then seen a book, relating the history of a creature called man, which sometimes spoke of his body and sometimes spoke of his soul-would your reason have told you to explain away one half of these expressions, because it could not understand how a "reasonable soul and body" were one man?" Or descending lower to the common matters of daily life (from which Jesus so loved to draw his illustrations, because he knew they were the easiest to be understood

66

by the poor and unlearned)—would your reason have been able to conceive, if you had never seen it, how two such different natures as fire and iron could be united in one thing? Tell me, ye that are staggered by the mystery of incarnate Deity, What is a red-hot cannon bail? Fire, or iron? Come, exercise your reason; and answer. Does iron give light and heat? or does fire possess weight and hardness? Does not reason tell you, that here are two natures, with scarce a property alike, united in one thing; yet neither of them losing its identity, but preserving each its own character and properties. as distinct as ever? And if so, never utter such a libel against her again, as to say she tells you, that Godhead and Manhood cannot be united in one person; and never bring forward texts, which assert Christ's Deity, as arguments against his humanity; or texts which assert his humanity, as arguments against his Deity.

The best method perhaps of taking the scripture evidence on this subject will be to go at once to the New Testament; inasmuch as most of the Old Testament evidence is there referred to, and so will come before us with inspired authority for its application to Christ. Let us begin then by examining whether there are any intimations of the dignity of the person who was to come after him, to be found in the preaching of John the Baptist. There are very few of his sayings recorded, and the main burden of his preaching, we are told, was repentance; yet even from him we have very decided evidence on the point.

66

Matt. iii. 11. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than 1, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."- Now let us consider how ought Jews to have understood this saying? No one can doubt that they received the Old Testament scriptures as the inspired word of God. Those scriptures speak of this very matter, and ascribe the outpouring of the Spirit to Him who is both God and man. And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for. him as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.' Zech. xii. 10. Here we have the pierced One, the outpourer of the Spirit, the changer of the hearts of that nation who had crucified him, and have continued to hate and reject him for 1800 years. If we examine the context, we shall find that this pierced One is Jehovah, the Creator, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit. of man within him.' Verse 1.