supposed to present difficulties in regard to the views that Trinitarians defend.

Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, is, as I apprehend, ever to be regarded as that complex person who may be described as human or divine,—in like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or immortal. As Mediator, then, it may be truly said, that by his obedience he merited and obtained a high reward,—i. e. this is predicated of that nature which was capable of obeying, and of being rewarded. So God is said to have “highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name. (Phil. ii. 9-11.) In a similar way, all power is given him in heaven and in earth; i. e. he is constituted "head over all things to his church.” (Matt. xxviii. 18.) Acting as such a head, enemies are put under his feet." (1 Cor. xv. 25— 27.) And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a mediator is completed, will be resigned at the final judgment. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)

"all

When

Of the same tenor are many passages. God is said to be the head of Christ, (1 Cor. xi, 3.) I understand it of that nature of which this can be predicated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image (xapaкTMηp) of his person, i. e. of him; or the only-begotten of the Father; the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, &c.; I understand all these as descriptions of his mediatorial nature and station. I know indeed that many of these texts have been appropriated by some Trinitarians to

prove the divine nature of Christ-in my apprehension, however, injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found, Matt. xvii. 5. John i. 14; x. 36; xiv. 10; iii. 35. Col. i. 13. Heb. i. 5. Rom. viii. 29, 32.

In Heb. v. 7-10, is a passage which has occasioned much speculation. "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; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchisedec."

If Christ had really a human nature, what is more perfectly consonant with reason and piety, than that he should act in the manner here described; or than that he should be exalted to glory as the reward of these actions, and be constituted the Saviour of his people?

It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in regard to John xiv. 28,-" My Father is greater (μεov) than I.” On examination, however, it appears not to be the object of Jesus to compare his own nature with that of the Father, but his condition. "If ye loved me," said he to his weeping disciples, "ye would rejoice that I said, I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I,"-i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume

that "glory which I had with the Father before the world was." You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father. So, in Hebrew, great is used for a state of prosperity, a happy state. (Gen. xxvi. 13.)

It is obvious here, that the whole text cannot be consistently explained, without the supposition of two natures,-the one which suffers and is depressed, in which, too, that other nature acts, that was in a state of glory with the Father before the world was,—i. e. from eternity. I cannot at all accede to the opinion of those interpreters, who suppose that the glory here spoken of is only that which the Father had decreed from eternity that Christ should have, in consequence of the promulgation of the gospel by him. The glory spoken of is not one that will result from what is to be done -it is a glory, i. e. a happiness or blessedness which Christ had with the Father (προς τον Πατερα) before the world was. On this passage the commentary of Kuinoel may be consulted, who has defended this exposition, as it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswerable.

After all, it can be only in consequence of the peculiar union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to the Father (so far as the Logos can be said to return) can be spoken of; and only in reference to his humiliation* that his return to glory can be expected. A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many difficulties

* Εαυτον εκενωσε, έαυτον εταπείνωσε, “ He made himself void, he humbled himself."

suggested; but they all spring from construing the language literally, and not merely as language which must, from the nature of the case, be that of approximation.

Mark xiii. 32, offers serious difficulties. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man-no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The day and hour are, according to some, the day of judgment; but, as I apprehend, (from comparing the context,) the day of vengeance to the Jews is meant. To solve the difficulty presented, some have objected to the reading ovde ó viòs (neither the Son); but to support this objection, there are no adequate authorities. Others, with Hilary (de Trinitate ix.), say that not to know is not to publish or declare. "Ea nescit, quæ aut in tempore non sunt confitenda, aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum." There is no doubt that the verb γινωσκω (to know sometimes has the sense of making known; but a derivative of the verb Low (video, to see) is used here, which does not bear such a sense; nor will the tenor of the verse admit it. To say, "That day and hour no man maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father," would be the same as saying that the Father does make it known. But where has he revealed it? After all, what more real difficulty presents itself in this case than in that where Jesus is said to have increased in wisdom? (Luke ii. 52.) If he did possess a nature really human, that nature was capable, of course, of

*

progressive improvement and knowledge. And there is no proper method, as it appears to me, of solving the difficulty, as the text stands, but by appropriating, as in other cases, the expression to that nature of which the assertion made can be predicated.

John xvii. 3: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” The true God here seems to me, plainly, not opposed to, or contrasted with, Christ; but, as everywhere else, in case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the verse preceding, Christ says, "Thou hast given me power over ALL flesh, that thou mightest bestow eternal life upon ALL whom thou hast given me," i. e. both Gentiles and Jews. He proceeds,

"This is eternal life, that they might know thee, the only true God (the only God and true God, the Greek is capable of being rendered, as to sense,) and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now what is there here different from that which we preach and inculcate every Sabbath? Do we not teach that there is one only living and true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners?

* Perhaps this expression requires to be a little guarded, by bearing in mind, that the author could not mean, that from a susceptibility of "progressive improvement and knowledge," he would infer that there ever was a time in which the human nature of Christ was imperfect. He evidently means that there was a progressive development of the perfect humanity of Christ, in wisdom, in action, and in suffering. From the nature of that part of his mediatorial work which was transacted on earth, such development must needs be progressive, until complete. This, I apprehend, is the doctrine stated in Heb. ii. 10.-EDITOR.