worldly glory and greatness, this was not all, for he submitted to the most abject humiliation, being obedient unto death, even to the ignominious and excruciating death of the cross.

On this very interesting passage I have little more to observe, than that there is not one expression which implies that Jesus possessed a superior nature. The whole, I willingly allow, may admit of a convenient explanation upon the supposition that such was the case; but the point is, does this passage of itself prove it, or does it not admit of a just interpretation accordant with the general tenor of the N. T. To me it appears, that unless we interpret Jewish phraseology by our own modes of speaking and thinking, and especially by preformed opinions as to the person of Christ, this passage speaks no other language than what the Apostle elsewhere employs, that there is one Mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.* Lastly, since the Apostle obviously did not mean that Jesus really was a slave, douλos, or servant, when he said that he took the form of a servant, it is worth considering whether it is probable that he could mean that Jesus was really God, when he says that he was in the form of God. The latter expression seems to me scarcely consistent with the doctrine of the proper deity of Jesus.

39.] John xiv. 9, 10. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?' The whole context plainly proves that these expressions are to be understood metaphorically; and indeed, the first

clause proves either that Jesus was the Father himself, or nothing as to his nature. It appears obviously to mean the same with vs. 7. (Sce also 1 John iv. 7, and p. 22, note.) And if any really think that the latter clause necessarily, or at all, implies a superior nature in Jesus, let him carefully consider ch. xvii. 21, and especially 1 John iii. 24. iv. 12, 13, 14. 16. If Christians, instead of interpreting Scripture by Creeds and Articles, would make it its own interpreter, it would not be very long before the primitive faith would be universally revived; and it would be regarded (as the Apostle John regarded it,) as the only fundamental principle of Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God (says this venerable Apostle), God dwelleth in him and he in God;' Whosoever be lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;'

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? What Christian community can dare to challenge apostolical authority? and yet how few churches are there but would refuse admission within their pale, unless the candidate avowed more than this apostolical confession!

40.] John xxi. 17. Lord, thou knowest all things.' This is one of the few passages which are adduced to prove the OMNISCIENCE of Jesus: if it proves so much with respect to Jesus, why should it not respecting his disciples in the apostolical age? Ye (says the Apostle John, 1 Ep. ii. 20,) have an unetion from the holy one, and know all things.' It appears, however, from seve

ral passages in the Gospels, that Jesus occasionally manifested a supernatural acquaintance with the thoughts of others; it seems to have been requisite for the purposes of his mission; and who will say that God could not have communicated such knowledge when necessary, or even a permanent power of knowing the thoughts? It is obvious from Acts ii. 22. x. 38, &c that Peter, when he used the above declaration, could have meant nothing relative to the proper deity of his Lord; and it is also obvious, that when Jesus manifested supernatural knowledge, it did not produce in the minds of his disciples the inference which is now sometimes drawn from it: see John i. 45-51.-In Rev. ii. 23, our Lord is represented as saying and all the churches shall know that I am he who searcheth the reins and the hearts; and at first sight the expression seems decidedly to favour the common system; but on referring to the first verse of the book, ('the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE him, to show to his servants things which must come to pass,') we see at once that his knowledge was limited, and that he derived it, whatever was its extent and object, from God P.-These two passages are the strongest which occur in favour of the omniscience of Jesus; and if these are

p" Even the prophets occasionally knew the secret thoughts and transactions of men at a distance. Alijah.knew the thoughts of Jeroboam's wife, 1 Kings xiv. 5, 6. Elisha knew the conduct of Gehazi at a distance from him, and the secret counsels of the Assyrian king, 2 Kings v. 25, 26. vi. 12. Daniel knew the thoughts of the king of Babylon upon his bed, Dan. ix. 29. And Peter knew the secret transactions of Ananias, Acts v. 4." James's Short View of the Tenets of Tritheists, &c. App. p. 97.

totally inadequate to prove that he possessed knowledge which God could not have imparted to one who was a man in the common sense of the term, no other will be found to do more 9.

6

6

41.] Matt. ix. 6. That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth TO FORGIVE SINS; rather, authority souriav to forgive sins.' That he had such authority he proved: the point is, could God communicate it to a man? Without determining the precise import of ch. xvi. 19, I think it clear that the authority which our Lord gave to Peter was as extensive as any which we have any record of himself exercising. Two things also deserve to be noticed. 1. Our Lord speaks of himself as Son of Man when he says he has this authority; 2. He does not intimate that he then had authority to remit the future punishment of sin, but only to remove its present consequences on earth to forgive sins.' This last observation must be borne in mind in order to understand the phraseology in vs. 5; and it is somewhat remarkable, that when he speaks of the forgiveness of sins, in cases which refer to the guilt and future punish

q Hebr. iv. 12, 13, has by some been referred to Jesus, and of course regarded as a proof of his omniscience. It may be so referred; but the 14th verse, and indeed the connexion in general, is unfavourable to such a reference. At any rate it is in no way necessary. If Griesbach's punctuation of vs. 13, be adopted, (viz. a comma after the first evrov, so as to make it an antecedent of ",) the construction of the passage becomes very simple; And there is not a creature which is not manifest before Him with whom we have to do, but all things are naked and opened in His sight.'-To every argument for the omniscience of Jesus, the Unitarian may content himself with appealing to our Lord's own words in Mark xiii. 32, (see p. 108).

ment of sin (see Luke vii. 47), he merely declares the fact, Thy sins are forgiven thee.'

42.] Matt. xviii. 20. xxviii. 20. are adduced to prove the OMNIPRESENCE of Jesus; and, except Eph. i. 23, (which has nothing to do with the subject, see p. 196,) are all the passages on which this stupendous doctrine can be rested. If any one think this epithet too strong, let them recollect that this doctrine supposes, that he who is present at the same instant in every part of the unbounded universe, descended from a local residence, limited himself to the narrow confines of a narrow region on this carth, (which is itself a mere speck in comparison with the distance between it and the nearest fixed star,) and for thirty years dwelt in a human body. As we do not know the nature of the divine presence, it might be presumption to say that this is impossible; but before the belief in such a doctrine is made essential to salvation, let the doctrine itself be proved. If it were a fact, (which it must be if the Trinitarian system were true,) is it not astonishing that no notice is taken of it, except by Matthew and this merely by his recording two expressions of our Lord, which only prove, at most, that he had the power of being, in a supernatural manner, personally present with his Apostles after he left this earth? In the first of these passages, Matt. xviii. 20, our Lord says to his Apostles, (and the preceding verses show that the promise was limited to them,) wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' "He was in the midst of them, either by his personal presence, agreeably