Before proceeding to examine the contents of Chaper V. entitled "Evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ is inferior " and subordinate to the Father,"-I must beg leave to transcribe a paragraph or two from my former volume.

"But, it may be alleged, there are other passages of Scrip"ture, which speak a very different language from those which "have been quoted:-passages, in which Jesus is spoken of as "inferior to the Father; as sent by the Father; as obeying and "serving the Father; as receiving a commission, and executing a "work given him to do.-All this we at once admit; with the very same readiness and cordiality, with which we admit his

66

66

having been a man.—I address myself at present to those who ❝acknowledge the Scriptures as the word of God; and who are "consequently satisfied that they cannot in reality contradict ❝themselves. To such I propose the following simple ques"tion:-Which of the two views-that which asserts the mere “humanity of Jesus Christ, or that which affirms the union of "his humanity with true and proper divinity—affords the easi"est and most complete reconciliation of these apparent con"trarieties, and the fairest solution of the difficulty thence aris“ing?—Take, in the first place, the system from which the

Deity of Christ is entirely excluded. I need not say how su"perlatively difficult the attempt must be, to bring the host of "texts already quoted, along with others of a similar descrip❝tion, to speak a language in accordance with this hypothesis. "Every one who is at all acquainted with the subject is aware, "that the attempt has employed, and exhausted, all the pos"sible arts and resources of criticism:—with what success, re"mains afterwards to be seen.-Take, on the other hand, the "view of the person and work of Christ presented in the fol"lowing words:- Who, being in the form of God, thought "it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no

"reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was "made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a "man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even "the death of the cross.'* Suppose, for the present, this trans"lation to be correct, and the ordinary interpretation of the

passage to be the just one;―we have, on this supposition, a "double view of the person and character of Christ, which ap❝pears instantly to furnish a natural and satisfactory solution of "the whole difficulty. If he be, indeed, both God and man, "we have no reason, surely, to be greatly astonished, if we find "language respecting him, of seemingly opposite complexions, "according as he is spoken of under the one, or under the "other view, of his person. When we adopt this principle of "interpretation, the apparent confusion becomes order and har

mony.-If, besides, he voluntarily undertook the office of Me"diator, and is represented, in the Scriptures, as performing "this work in the willingly assumed capacity of a servant; there " can be no doubt, that this view of his Mediatorial character " and work does, in fact, afford a very easy and consistent inter"pretation of almost all the passages in which he is spoken of "as inferior and subject; as serving and obeying Jehovah; and "as receiving his reward.-On this principle, supposing it just, "we cease to wonder at the seeming contrarieties. We per"ceive them to be merely apparent; nay, to be such as we had "every reason previously to expect.-If, then, this be a key " which fits all the wards of this seemingly intricate lock, turn❝ing amongst them with hardly a touch of interruption, catch❝ing its bolts, and laying open to us, in the easiest and com"pletest manner, the treasures of Divine truth: if this be a "principle which, in fact, does produce harmony and consistency in the word of God, while the rejection of it, on the

Phil. ii, 6-8.

"contrary, gives rise to difficulties without number; is not this, "of itself, a strong presumptive evidence that the principle is "correct, and well-founded?—I shall probably have occasion, "in a subsequent Discourse, to touch again on the reasonable❝ness of this principle;—a principle which might be reduced "into a general rule of interpretation:-that, of two contending “systems, that one ought to be preferred, which not only affords “ a natural explanation of those texts by which it seems to be itself "supported, but, at the same time, furnishes a satisfactory prin

ciple of harmony, between these, and those other passages, which "have the appearance of countenancing its opposite."-Discourse II. pages 45-47.

"My last observation is, that we ought to beware of form"ing our judgment from detached and insulated passages of "the word of God: that we should take the Scriptures in their ❝ harmony, comparing one part with another, and using them, "as much as possible, as self-expositors.-You will immediately "perceive the particular bearing of this remark, in reference to 66 our present subject.-In a former Discourse, I noticed the "seeming contrarieties in the Scripture testimony respecting "the person of Christ; and I endeavoured to point out also the "true principle of harmony amongst them. A single observation ❝ or two shall suffice at present, in addition to what was then "said. Christ,' says a Unitarian writer, always prayed "to this one God, as his God and Father. He always spoke " of himself as receiving his doctrine and his power from him; "and again and again disclaimed having any power of his own. "Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, verily, I 66 say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself;' John v. "19. "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of my"self; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works;' "John xiv. 10. Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I

"ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your "God;' John xx. 17. It cannot surely be God,' adds he, 'that "uses such language as this.' *Now, without making any par"ticular comment on the language which this writer uses, might "I not, on the other side, repeat again the various passages be"fore quoted, in proof of his Divinity, and then say, with at "least equal confidence, 'It cannot surely be a mere man, of whom "such things are said.'-Here, then, is the question brought "into short compass. It comes at once to an issue. Here are "two classes of passages, both contained in the same book, "both claiming to have their testimony received, as of the same "authority. Here are two bands of witnesses. They all seem "to speak in language plain and distinctly intelligible. But "they appear to contradict one another.What, then, shall "we make of them? Whether are we to receive the testimony "of the one, or that of the other?-Or must we reject that of "both? Or shall we apply scourges, and racks, and screws, "and all the instruments of torture, to force from the one, or "from the other, a declaration, that they did not at all intend to "express what their language seems, beyond all doubt, to con"vey? Or, lastly, is there no principle of reconciliation and "harmony between their apparently discordant testimonies? Is "there no ground on which both may consistently be believed; "since both appear to be supported by the very same measure ❝ of credible evidence?-Here is the question;-here, I appre❝hend, the one great point on which the whole controversy "turns. And in answer to the question, I still affirm, as be "fore, There is such a principle-there is such a ground-and "besides it there is no other. It is to be found, as formerly ❝ stated, in the double view which is given by the apostle Paul, "of the person and official character of Jesus, when he says

* Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. I. p. 10.

"respecting him, that, being in the form of God, he thought "it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no "reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and "was made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion 66 as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, "even the death of the cross."-Admit the double view of the

66

person of Christ which is here stated, and the difficulty va"nishes. The testimony of the different witnesses, elicited "without torture, and interpreted without perversion, becomes "one testimony.—In plain terms, there is, on this principle—(a 66 principle which, you may possibly think, I am disposed to 66 press too often upon your attention, but which really merits "repetition on account of the extensiveness of its application on this subject, the occasion for the use of it, as, from the na"ture of the case, might have been expected, perpetually re"curring)—there is, I say, on this principle, hardly a single text "that occasions any difficulty to an attentive and ingenuous "reader. On every consideration, then, of fairness and can"dour, is not this the view which ought to be preferred, by all "who are desirous rightly to obey the injunction in the text, "PROVE ALL THINGS."-Discourse VI. pages 184-186.

I should, perhaps, ask pardon of the reader, for quoting passages of such length, which he may have read before. But the general principle which they contain, is one of such peculiar importance on the present part of the argument, that I am desirous of securing his attention to it, which a mere reference might not do. I have laid, and still lay, much of the stress of the argument upon this principle. Yet, as I formerly noticed, it is a principle against which my opponent has not pointed a single piece of his critical ordnance. He has, in this chapter, brought forward lists of passages, in which Jesus Christ is represented as chosen, ap