v. 18, 19. See likewise what follows in ver. 20, 21, and Eph. i. 1-10.

Upon the whole, as before said, the true evangelical description of our blessed Saviour's person and character, is that, which we have in St. Peter's words, recorded Acts ii. 22, and 36, and ch. x. 38, and St. Paul's, Acts xvii. 31, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, Col. ii. 3-9, and many other places.

Nor is this a diminishing character. It is the greatest, and the most honourable to him, on whom it is bestowed, and the most satisfying to us, who are called upon to believe in him, to rely upon him, and follow him in the way of obedience prescribed to us.

Says God to the people of Israel of old," Behold, I send an angel before thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not. For he will not pardon your transgressions. For my name is in him," Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. Upon which place Patrick speaks to this purpose. “For my name is in him." He acts by my authority and 6 power, and sustains my person, who am present where he is. For the name of God is said to be there, where he is present after a singular and extraordinary manner, 1 Kings 'viii. 16, 1 Chron. vi. 5, 6. Maimonides expounds it, "My word is in him," that is, says he, God's will and pleasure was declared by the angel. In which he seems to follow 'the Chaldee, who translates it, "for his word is in my name," that is, what he speaks is by my authority.'

6

6

6

Afterwards, when the people had transgressed in making a golden calf, and God was greatly displeased; Moses offered an earnest prayer, that he would himself go with them, and conduct them, Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13. And he received this gracious answer, by which he was encouraged. Ver. 14, 15, " And he said: My presence shall go with thee and I will give thee rest. And he said: If thy presence go not with us, carry us not hence." t

The question upon this occasion was, Whether God would himself go up with the people, who had highly offended him; or whether he should 'send an angel before them, to conduct them. God said to Moses: "I will 'send an angel before thee." And added: "For I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiff-necked people; lest I consume thee in the way," 'Ex. xxxiii. 1—3. Upon the prayer and intercession of Moses, God is pleased to promise, that his presence should go with him. The promise must be un'derstood necessarily, in opposition to the foregoing threatening, that God would not go up in the midst of them, but that he would send an angel before them. The presence of God therefore in this place must be avros ò eos, -as the Seventy justly render it: and that in direct opposition to an angel in his name and stead.' Mr. Moses Lowman, in his Tracts, p. 38, 39. see also p. 37.

66

My presence" that is, I myself, as in the Greek version: αυτος προπορεύσομαι σοι. In the Hebrew it is, literally, " my face." Which is the same as myself. So 2 Sam. xvii. 11, "and that thou go to battle in thy own person." In the Hebrew it is: "that thy face go to the battle."

That the presence of God was with Jesus the Messiah, our Lord and Saviour, in the most signal and extraordinary manner, we are assured by every book and chapter of the New Testament, and particularly by St John's gospel, in the introduction, and throughout.

66

The dignity of Jesus, as Messiah, is very great, far superior to that of angels. We know it from our Lord himself, and from things said by him, whilst dwelling on this earth. Matt. xxiv. 36, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, but my Father only." Which is thus expressed in Mark xiii. 32, " But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." To which let ine add John xiv. 28, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father. For my Father is greater than I." Which I suppose to be said of our Lord,

as man.

66

Nor am I singular therein. The same is said by Augustine, whom I shall write out for your use. Non recte cogitas, quem locum in rebus habeat humana natura, quæ condita est ad imaginem Dei. Majores angeli dici possunt homine, quia majores sunt hominis corpore: majores sunt et animo, sed in formâ, quam peccati originalis merito corruptibile aggravat corpus. Naturâ vero humanâ qualem naturam Christus humanæ mentis assumpsit, quæ nullo peccato potuit depravari, Deus solus est major. Naturâ vero hominis, quæ mente rationali et intellectuali creaturas cæteras antecedit, Deus solus est major: cui utique, injuria facta non est, ubi scriptum est, "Major est Deus corde nostro," 1 Joh. iii. 20. Filius ergo Dei susceptum hominem levaturus ad Patrem, quando dicebat," Si diligeretis me, gauderetis utique, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est," Joh. xiv. 28. non carni suæ solum, sed etiam menti, quam gerebat, humanæ, Deum Patrem utique præferebat. Aug. Contr. Maximin. Arian, 1. 2, cap. xxv. Tom.

VIII.

Dr. Whitby's paraphrase of Mark xiii. 32, is thus: "Neither the Son," who has the Spirit without measure, but "the Father only."

What I have been arguing for, was the sentiment of the Nazarene christians. Nor do I think it can be made appear

that any Jews, who were believers, had any other idea of our Saviour: excepting those called Ebionites, or some of them, who were extremely mistaken in supposing that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary."

The notion of an inferior Deity, pre-existing, and then incarnate, seems to have been brought into the church by some of the learned converts from heathenism, who had not thoroughly abandoned the principles in which they had been educated. Perhaps, likewise, they hoped by this means to render the doctrine of Christ more palatable to heathen people, especially their philosophers. Moreover

u Athanasius says,

That the Jews at that time being in an error, and thinking that the expected Messiah would be a mere man, of the seed of David-for that reason the blessed apostles in great wisdom first instructed the Jews in the things concerning our Saviour's humanity.' De Sentent. Dionysii, n. 8. p. 248. C. D.

Chrysostom, at the beginning of his fourth homily upon St. John's gospel, says: The other evangelists having chiefly insisted upon our Saviour's humanity, there was danger, lest his eternal generation should have been neg'lected by some: and men might have been of the same opinion with Paul of Samosata, if John had not written.' In Joh. hom. 4. tom. VIII. p. 27. A. B. Bencd.

In his first homily upon the Acts, he expresseth himself again to this purpose: In the discourses of the apostles recorded in this book, little is said about Christ's divinity. But they discourse chiefly of his humanity, and 'passion, and resurrection, and ascension; because his resurrection and ascension to heaven were the points necessary to be proved and believed at 'that time.' In Act. Ap. hom. i. t. IX. p. 3. A.

Augustine in one of his sermons says, 'Peter and the other apostles have 'written of our Lord, but it is chiefly concerning his humanity.' Again, Peter says little of our Lord's divinity in his epistles,' but John enlarges upon that subject in his gospel: Quoniam Petrus scripsit de Domino, scripserunt et alii: sed scriptura eorum magis circa humanitatem Domini est occupata-Sed de divinitate Christi in literis Petri aliquid [al. non aliquid]: in Evangelio autem Joannis multum eminet. Serm. 253. cap. iv. t. V. And in his Confessions he informs us, that for a great while he was of opinion that Jesus was a most wise and excellent man, miraculously born of a virgin, and sent by God, with a high commission, to give us an example of stedfast virtue, amidst the temptations of this world, and to instruct us in the way how we might obtain everlasting salvation. Ego vero aliud putabam, tantumque sentiebam de Domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiæ viro, cui nullus posset æquari: præsertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine, ad exemplum contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscendâ immortalitate, divinâ pro nobis curâ tantam auctoritatem magisterii meruisse videbatur. Conf. 1. 7. c. xix. n. 25. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor-quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. Ibid. But upon reading the works of some Platonic philosophers, which were put into his hands, he altered his opinion. Et primo volens ostendere mihi-quod Verbum tuum caro factum est, et habitavit inter homines, procurâsti mihi, per quendam hominem immanissimo typho turgidum, quosdam Platonicorum libros ex Græcâ linguâ in Latinam versos: et ibi legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum, &c. Ibid. cap. ix. n. 13. vid. et cap. xx. n. 26.

the christians of the second century, and afterwards, were too averse to all Jews in general, and even to the believers from among that people. The apostle Paul had seen a temper of pride and insolence springing up in the Gentile christians, in his own time: or he would not have delivered that caution, which we find in Rom. xi. 17-24.

Thus far I have pursued my own thoughts, without consulting any other writer at all, or very slightly, except in those places where I have expressly said so. But I all along intended, before I finished, to observe a part of what is said by Dr. Clarke in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity; which I have now done. And I cannot forbear saying, that his interpretations of texts are generally false, arising, as from some other causes, so particularly, from an aversion to Sabellian or Socinian senses: some of which may be absurd, and unnatural. But I must prefer Grotius's interpretations upon the comparison, above Dr. Clarke's. So far as I am able to judge, Grotius explains texts better than the professed Socinians. The reason may be, that he had more learning, and particularly was better acquainted with the Jewish style. But I am apt to think, that their later writers have borrowed from him, and improved by him.

However, this is said very much in the way of conjecture. For I must acknowledge that I have not been greatly conversant with the writers of that denomination. I have never read Crellius de uno Deo Patre: though I believe it to be a very good book. There is also, in our own language, a collection of Unitarian Tracts in two or three

▾ I take this breach of communion, correspondence, and communication between the Jewish christians that fled from Jerusalem into the east, and the Gentile christians, (which breach continued till the former were totally destroyed, or dissipated,) to have been a great mismanagement, and the greatest misfortune that ever befel the christian church.-St. Paul laboured with all his might, aim, and study, to keep up union, communion, and friendship, between these two bodies of christians. And he did with great difficulty preserve it in some good measure, as long as he lived.-Epiphanius had some knowledge of those of the Jewish christians, which remained to his time, that is, 370, whom the Gentile christians then called Nazarenes. And he styles them heretics; for no other reason, that I can perceive, but that they, together with their christian faith, continued the use of circumcision, and of the Jewish law. Which is a thing, that St. Paul never blamed in a Jewish christian, though in the Gentile christians he did. Dr. William Wall, in the Preface to his Notes upon the O. T. p. xi. xii.

That is a melancholy observation. Let us endeavour to repair the damage here bewailed, by diligently studying, and resolutely adhering to, the doctrine of Christ's apostles, as contained in the books of the New Testament; wherein, I verily believe, are delivered all the truths of religion, and in sufficient perspicuity, if we will but attend.

quartos. But I am not acquainted with it. Nor can I remember, that I ever looked into it. I have formed my sentiments upon the scriptures, and by reading such Commentators, chiefly, as are in the best repute. I may add, that the reading of the ancient writers of the church has been of use to confirm me, and to assist me in clearing up difficulties.

I observe then, that many of the texts in Dr. Clarke's P. I. chap. ii. sect. 3, concerning the highest titles given to Christ, instead of proving his opinion, are inconsistent with it, and confirm that for which I argue. Yea, they prove it, aud agree with no other: such as "the Father is in me, and I in him he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me: if ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also: I in the Father, and you in me, and I in you: he that hateth me, hateth my Father also: all things that the Father hath, are mine," &c. &c.

6

Script. Doct. ch. ii. sect. 3. numb. 616. p. 114, 115, is a quotation from Justin Martyr. The Jews,' saith he, are justly reproved for imagining that the Father of all things 'spake to Moses, when indeed it was the Son of God, who is called the angel and the messenger of the Father.' Again, afterwards, from the same Justin. 'Yet it was not God the Creator of the universe, which then said to Moses, ' that he was “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, ' and the God of Jacob."'

This appears to me very strange, that the Jews should not know who was their God, and delivered the law by Moses. And I cannot help wondering, that any learned men of our times should pay any regard to such observations as these. Is it not better to say, that Justin was mistaken, than that the Jewish people were mistaken in such a thing as this? For Justin was a convert from heathenism, and had been a philosopher, and brought along with him many prejudices, which might hinder his rightly understanding the Old Testament.

66

That God, who spake to Moses, and brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, is the Creator of the universe, is manifest. Exod. xx. 1, 2, 3, " And God spake all these things, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' Ver. 10, 11, "But the seventh day is the sabbath of Jehovah thy God-For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Is. xl. 27, 28, "Why sayest thou, O Jacob, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?

99