sf:' '
E;,;p.i--;>-r!:-;:;
^ PRINCETON, N.J. ^
Presented by \X\T, ^CP\rr\\J\e^\ 0\cCr\<2^\A
BT 220 .D6 1831
Dods, Marcus, 183A-1909.
On the incarnation of the
eternal Word
ON THE INCARNATIOIS
OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
PRINTED BY L. B. SEELEY AND SONS, AVESTON GREEN,
THAMES DITTON, SURRY.
^^ ^^^^/c^is^ijii!
THE INCARNATION
OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
BY THE REV. MARCUS DODS.
BELFORD.
PUBLISHED BY R. B. SEELEY AND W. BURNSIDE ;
AND SOLD BY L. B. SEELEY AND SONS,
FLEET STREET, LONDON.
MDCCCXXXL
TO THE REV. JAMES MAC LAGAN,
MINISTER OF KINFATJNS,
THIS VOLUME
IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED,
BY HIS FRIEND.
PEiiTc::':. ,
RtC. NOV 18oU
THEOIiGGIGAIi
rvT%v»'
PREFACE.
That the " Word was made flesh," and that he was
not made sinful flesh, are propositions which lie at
the very foundations of Christianity. That the first
of these propositions is denied by any person in the
present age, I have little ground for supposing ; and
I have not therefore judged it necessary to enter at
any length into the proof of it, but have contented
myself with simply stating the grounds upon which
that proof may be founded. Until very lately, the
other proposition would not have required, in a
treatise like this, more than a passing notice. The
earnestness however with which the sinfulness of our
Lord's flesh is now maintained, renders it a matter
of paramount importance. While therefore I am
not aware that I have altogether omitted any material
question that is intimately connected with the Incar-
nation, yet I have treated each more or less largely,
according as I considered it as bearing more or less
directly on that tenet.
Vlll PREFACE.
Of the exculpatory explanation of the word ' sin-
ful,' that it is applied to the humanity of our Lord
only in bl passive sense, that is, I suppose, synonimous
with ' peccable,' I have not felt myself called upon
to take any notice. For, first, the word has no such
meaning. Next, if it had, yet some of .the principal
arguments in support of the sinfulness of Christ's
flesh are founded upon the active meaning of that
word. Thirdly. Many other words equally offensive,
and capable of no such explanation, are applied to
the flesh of Christ, so that if that word was altogether
abandoned, the tenet against which I contend remains
unaltered. Fourthly. I deny that the word is appli-
cable to Christ, or, if we must separate his humanity
from himself, to the humanity of Christ, in any
sense, active or passive. I deny that Christ, or the
humanity of Christ, was peccable. Finally, the
charge against the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's
flesh is, that this tenet is rank Nestorianism ; and
nothing can possibly shew a more thorough want
of acquaintance with the subject, than an attempt to
escape that charge by attaching to the word ' sinful '
a meaning less ofl^ensive than that which it is usually
understood to convey. The fact is, the very offen-
siveness of the word has been the means of making
not a few overlook the real ground of the charge.
Shocked, as they well might be, at hearing such
language applied to Christ, or to a part of Christ,
they have looked no farther, imagining that the
whole ofl'ence consists in the use of such opprobrious
PREFACE. IX
terms. That this is highly criminal, and revolting
to the feelings of the Christian, there is no doubt.
But the charge of heresy rests upon a ground totally
distinct from the ofFensiveness of the language. Take
away from the word ' sinful ' every oifensive idea,
let it be used even as the most laudatory word in
the language, — that does not in the slightest degree
affect the charge of heresy that lies against the tenet
that the flesh of Christ was sinful. The charge rests
not at all on the meaning of the term, but solely on
its application. The question is, can this term, be
its meaning what it may, be applied to the flesh of
Christ, while it cannot be applied to Christ himself
or to God ? While you say that the flesh of Christ
was sinful, do you say also that Christ himself was
sinful, or that God was sinful ? If not, — if you say
that you apply, to the flesh of Christ, terms which
you will not apply to Christ or to God, then either
this is the most direct and open and flagrant Nes-
torianism, or no such heresy ever existed. The
meaning of the term is a matter of not the slightest
earthly consequence, as far as the charge of Nes-
torianism is concerned ; and the attempt to escape
from the charge by palliating the off"ensiveness of the
term, manifests an ignorance which certainly could
not have been anticipated in any writer upon the
subject in the present age. Employ the word
' sinful ' if you will, as expressive of all that is good
and great, that effects not in the slightest degree the
charge of Nestorianism, as long as you say that.
X PREFACE.
whatever be its meaning, it may be applied to the
flesh of Christ, but not to Christ himself, or to God.
Nestorius attributed all that is good and great to the
flesh of Christ ; he was nevertheless a Nestorian still,
and was justly condemned for making two persons in
Christ, because he applied to the flesh of Christ
language which however respectful, (and he used none
that was not expressive of the highest respect,) he
would not apply to God.
For these reasons I could not take the slightest
notice of the attempt to evade the charge of Nes-
torianism, by palliating the oflfensiveness of the terms
applied to the flesh of Christ. I have noticed it here,
lest I should be suspected of overlooking it for a
difl'erent reason. The ancient writers, especially after
the time of Nestorius, were extremely guarded upon
this subject. They would apply no terra to the humanity
of Christ which they would have scrupled to apply
to Christ or to God. I may give an illustration of
the nicety with which expressions were then sifted,
out of Facundus Hermianensis, himself too labouring
under a violent, though I think, groundless suspicion
of Nestorianism, on account of his attachment to the
celebrated three chapters. In Book I. chapter iii. of
the work which he addressed to the Emperor Justinian,
he proves that a person of the Trinity suff'ered for us.
There were two ways of expressing this, — unus de
Trinitate passus est, — one of the Trinity suffered, and
ima de Trinitate persona passa est, — one person of
the Trinity sufl'ered. At present a man would not
PREFACE. XI
readily discover any difference between these two
modes of expression, nor would easily detect a nearer
approach to heresy in the one than in the other.
Yet the difference was very clearly understood in the
time of Justinian ; for while nobody felt any scruples
about the latter expression, some Catholics hesitated
to make use of the former, lest they should be sup-
posed to ascribe suffering, not to a Divine person, but
to the Divinity. Facundus on the contrary shews
that the first is the proper mode of expression, as the
latter does not stand sufficiently clear of Nestorianism.
A Nestorian would not say that one of the Trinity
suffered, but would say readily enough, that a person
of the Trinity suffered, meaning that the Man Jesus
Christ who suffered, bore the person of the Word,
much in the same way as Paul bore it, when he said,
" If I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for
your sakes I forgave it in the person of Christ."
What would have been thought, in those days, of the
orthodoxy of men who openly avow their application,
to the flesh of Christ, of terms which they will not
apply to Christ ? And what would have been thought
of their knowledge of Theology, when they attempted
to escape the charge of heresy by alleging that these
terms are not applied in the offensive sense that they
are commonly understood to convey.
In Part II. I had originally intended to give a
complete view of the Theology of the Primitive Church
on the doctrine of the Incarnation. But this I soon
found, however important, would require a work
Xll TREFACE.
much larger than I contemplated, or could easily
command time to execute. I found it necessar}'
therefore to direct my attention exclusively to the
one point of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. And
on this point too, I found that I must confine myself
to the writers of the first four centuries ; and even
within these limits I have heen compelled to omit hy
far the greater number of the passages that I had
marked for quotation. A difl^erent arrangement of
the testimonies from the primitive writers would have
exhibited their strength to much greater advantage.
Still the simple arrangement of them according to
the order of time, has other advantages besides being
the easiest. Few as they are, to what they might
easily have been, and inartificial as is the arrange-
ment, I trust they will be found perfectly sufficient
to convince every impartial reader that to say,
that the primitive church believed in the sinful-
ness of Christ, or in the sinfulness of Christ's flesh,
is an assertion the extravagance of which has never
been exceeded.
As a mite, however small, such as my ability
permits me to contribute to the treasury of Gospel
truth, I beg to commit my work to the candour of the
Church, and to the blessing of its glorious Head.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
The doctrine of the Incarnation, so far as it can
be understood by man, is sufficiently simple, and
miffht be stated in a few sentences. But while
errors are zealously propagated upon the subject,
which go very directly to the total subversion of
every doctrine of Christianity, a somewhat more
detailed view of it seems to be called for, than would
otherwise be necessary. I propose therefore to give
such a general outline of the work of human redemp-
tion, and of the offices which Christ executes in the
accomplishment of that work, as will enable us to
see more distinctly the nature of the Incarnation.
In doing this, I shall not fail to notice the bearing
of the observations which may be made, upon the
question of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity.
2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
I shall not however limit my remarks to such points
as may be necessary to prove that Christ was not fallen
nor sinful, nor capable of falling or sinning. This may
be proved in a few sentences, to any person capable
of forming an opinion upon the subject, and willing
to listen, either to the authority of Scripture, or to the
dictates of reason. But while the proof of our Saviour's
perfect sinlessness and impeccability will be with me
a primary object, yet I trust, that the general view
which I propose to take, will lead to observations
which may be interesting to those whose minds are
so fully satisfied upon that question, that they would
not take the trouble to read a single page upon the
subject.
This world was made by him who does nothing in
vain. It was therefore made for some specific pur-
pose, and that, a purpose worthy of the work, and
of the events of which it has been the scene. We
may also rest perfectly satisfied that it actually
accomplishes the purpose for which it was made ;
since it is certain that infinite wisdom could not err
in the plan, nor infinite power fail in its execution.
The question then is, what is the purpose for which
the earth was made and man upon it ? The reply
to this question is, that God made all things for
the purpose of manifesting his own perfections.
Reason cdn discover no other cause of creation ; and
the fact that God made all things for his own glory,
is recognized in every page of Scripture. But when
it is said that God made all things for his own glory»
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. d
some explanation is necessary. We do not mean by
this expression, that God made all things, or any
thing, for the purpose of rendering himself more
glorious than he was from all eternity, for that is
impossible, his glory being alike incapable of increase
or diminution ; but that he made all things for the
purpose of making his glorious perfections known.
And when it is said that God made all things for the
purpose of manifesting his perfections, it is meant
that the manifestation was to be made, not to him-
self, which is impossible, but to the creatures whom
he made. It is obvious then that the manifestation
was to be made both by the creatures, and to the
creatures. They were to be both the manifesters
of the Divine perfection, and the percipients of these
perfections when manifested. Now as the purpose
for which every creature is made, is that it may,
according to its nature, manifest the perfections of
God, and perceive them as manifested by itself, and
by all other creatures, it follows as a necessary con-
sequence, that to do this must be the glory and
the happiness of the creature, — its being's end and
aim : and it follows also, that the higher the degree
in which any creature is capable of doing this, the
higher is the degree of glory and of happiness which
it is capable of attaining and enjoying.
That every thing, according to its nature and capa-
city, does both manifest the perfections of God, and
rejoice in them, is a fact open to every one's obser-
vation, and is often referred to in Scripture. The
B 2
4 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
inanimate parts of God's works are often spoken of,
not only as manifesting his perfections, but as re-
joicing in the manifestation. " The heavens declare
the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth forth
the M^orks of his hands. Day unto day uttereth
speech, and night unto night teacheth knowledge."
The Sun rejoiceth to run his race : the heavens and
the earth are called upon to hear the word of the
Lord : the sea roars and the fulness thereof : the
forests clap their hands : the mountains break forth
into singing, and the little hills rejoice. These no
doubt are figurative expressions, but they are expres-
sions which shew the truth of the principle, that all
things, according to their nature, manifest the per-
fections of God, and rejoice in them, when so
manifested. The same remark still more obviously
applies to such creatures as have life and feeling.
The lower animals, which have received their instincts
from God, and enjoy his bounties, though they know
not, nor can know, any thing of him from whom their
enjoyments come, afford a still more striking mani-
festation of his perfections, as is amply and beauti-
fully illustrated in some of the latter chapters of the
book of Job. But beyond all creatures, man is fitted,
not merely to be the percipient of the Divine perfec-
tions, but also to manifest these perfections. And
this he does not merely by that bodily structure,
which is " fearfully and wonderfully made," nor by
those mental faculties which raise him so high above
the lower animals, which enable him to recall the
PRELIMINARY OF .^RVATIONS. 5
past, to anticipate the future, and to approximate
the remote ; but more particularly and emphatically
by the fall, the redemption, and the whole history
of the human race. The first lesson that our Chiu'ch
teaches her children is, that " The chief end of man
is to glorify God, and enjoy him for ever ; " and it
is upon this broad basis that all sound Theology must
be built.
But to the general rule that all existing things
manifest the perfections of God, one important and
extensive exception seems to be found in the existence
of moral evil, which not only does not itself manifest
the perfections of God, but which unfits the creature
in whom it dwells from manifesting them. This
exception, however, will be found on examination,
to be only apparent, not real. The question as to
the origin of moral evil I am not called upon to
discuss. It lies, I apprehend, beyond the reach of
man ; and the result of the attempts which have
hitherto been made to decide that question, has
certainly not been such as to encourage any further
speculations on the subject. Of the greater part
of these attempts, it would be well if it could be said
simply, that they are failures. No question has ever
led to more fatal consequences, or been productive
of more disastrous results. Without therefore at-
tempting to solve the difficulties attending this
question, I may merely remark, that they are diffi-
culties which press with equal weight upon every
system ; for the actual existence of moral evil can
6 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
be denied by none. He who proves that good pre-
ponderates over evil, if his proof be sound, does
something, perhaps, to remove the unfavourable im-
pression with regard to the character of God, which
the existence of evil has sometimes produced ; but
he has done nothing to account for the origin of evil.
He who proves that through the medium of evil, a
degree of perfection and happiness is attained, which
could not by any other means be reached, may be
admitted to have completely reconciled its existence
with the perfections of God ; but still he has not
accounted for its origin. Probably however, he has
gone as far as it is possible for man to go. Our
business is not so much to inquire into the origin of
things that lie beyond our reach, as to take them as
we find them actually existing, and derive from them
the lessons which their existence is fitted to teach.
The Egyptian may know nothing of 'the sources of
the Nile, or of the causes of its overflow ; but when
he sees it carrying desolation over his fields, experi-
ence has taught him, that the temporary evil,
of the cause of which he knows nothing, will prove
a lasting benefit ; and that he shall not only reap
a harvest when the flood has passed away, but a
harvest of the richness of which the flood has been
the cause. Even so we may not be permitted to
open the sealed book, and to answer the question,
whence cometh evil ? But while it standeth before
us in all the undeniable reality of its actual existence,
we may be able, with the light of Revelation for our
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 7
guide, to trace it to some of its beneficial results,
and to see how, instead of unfitting the creature for
the manifestation of the Divine perfections, it fur-
nishes the means of a manifestation which never
otherwise could have been given.
This will more clearly and strikingly appear, if we
consider the work of redemption, for the sake of
which the world was made, not with a reference to
man alone, but with a reference to the whole rational
family of God. Nor can we conceive that the world
was made, and the work of redemption appointed
solely for the sake of man. Man is the sole object
of redemption ; but he was made so for the sake
of others ; and the existence and the agency of other
beings, both good and evil, and the deep and intense
interest with which they look upon the work of human
redemption, is not incidentally and obscurely hinted
in the Bible, but forms an essential and prominent
part of that system which the Bible reveals. The
election of Israel out of all the tribes of earth, to be
the chosen people of God, will afford us a correct
illustration of the choice of the human race, from
among all the races that constitute his moral govern-
ment, as the objects in whose redemption he might
manifest his glorious perfections to all. The Israel-
ites were not chosen to be the peculiar people of God,
on account of any superiority which they possessed
over the rest of mankind ; for they were chosen in
Abraham before they actually existed : so neither
were mankind chosen to be the objects of God's
>#
8 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
redeeming love on account of any merit of their
own, for this idea is inconsistent with the fact that
they needed redemption, but were chosen in Christ
before they were created. The Israehtes were not
chosen that they alone might enjoy the blessing of
God, but that through them, that blessing might
come upon all nations : neither was man chosen to
redemption that its benefits might redound to him
alone, but " to the intent that now, unto the prin-
cipalities and powers in heavenly places, might be
known, by the Church, the manifold wisdom of
God." The Israelites were chosen, that unto them
God might commit his revelations for the use of all
nations : so mankind were chosen, that in them God
might manifest his perfections for the instruction of
all his rational creatures. Though many of the chosen
Israel perished in their sins, yet the great purposes
for which that people was chosen were effectually
accomplished : so, though multitudes of the human
race perish, yet the great purposes for which they
were chosen, as the objects of the Vv^ork of redemption,
are not the less eflFectually accomplished. As the
Israelites, though far behind most other nations in
arts and sciences, yet taught to the world something
infinitely more valuable than aught that art or science
were ever capable of discovering : so, the human race,
though far inferior to many other races, yet manifest
to all a knowledge of the character and perfections
of God, which otherwise they could never have
known. And finally, as the Israelites are still destined
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. V
to stand at the very head of the human race, and
to be the most glorious of nations : even so, the
human race, though now so low, are destined to take
their place at the head of all the families of God.
Human nature is, at this moment, the most glorious
of created natures, taken, in its assumption by the
Son, into a nearness of union with the Godhead,
which none other enjoys ; and where our head is,
there all his true members shall in due time be. As
the man Christ Jesus passed through all suffering into
glory, even so, his people, exposed to dangers which
others never knew, and made triumphant through
his Spirit dwelling in them, rise to honours with
which others can never be crowned ; and, living
monuments of all those divine perfections which were
displayed in their redemption, living records of the
glory of God, they will awaken among the hosts
of heaven a song which, throughout eternity, will
be ever new. In fine, if all things were made for
the purpose of manifesting, to the creatures, the per-
fections of the Creator, then, above all things with
which we are acquainted, must the work of redemp-
tion, the most glorious of all the works which we
know, be designed and fitted for this great end.
In order to see how the human race, in their fall
and redemption, acquire for themselves, and com-
municate to others, this knowledge of the perfections
of the Creator, it will be necessary to go back to a
period when as yet there was no sin in the dominions
of God, — when there were none but unfallen beings
10 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
in existence. Such beings, it is clear, could have but
a very limited and defective view of the nature and
character of God. From his works they would be
able to infer that he was possessed of great wisdom,
and of great power ; and, from the happiness which
they enjoyed, they would be persuaded of his great
goodness. But that his wisdom was omniscience, —
that his power was omnipotence, — that his goodness
could extend, not merely to the unfallen and sinless
creature, but also to the " unthankful and the evil,"
they could not by any possibility know. Of his
mercy it is obvious they could not possibly have any
idea whatever ; and of all his other perfections they
could have very little, if any knowledge, at all. They
could not tell if he were immutable, when nothing
had ever occurred to put his mutability to the test.
For the same reason, they could not tell if he were
inflexibly just, unchangeably true, infinitely and un-
alterably holy. They might be able to prove by
abstract reasonings, the probability that he possessed
these perfections ; but these proofs would be similar
in their nature, to the proof of the immortality
of the soul by Plato or Seneca, — a fine speculation,
but producing no such conviction as to become a
living active principle, to be held fast, and acted
upon, and carried out to all its practical results, at
the expense of all that is dear in life, or at the expense
of life itself.
The perfections of God, in order to be fully known,
must be seen, carried out into actual operation ; and
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 11
operating too under such circumstances as to prove
them to be absolutely infinite. But this exhibition
could not be made while none but unfallen beings
existed. A large family, living under the eye of a
father whom not one of them has ever offended, may
have a considerable knowledge of his character ; yet
it is clear that that knowledge must be imperfect and
defective. They may know that he is true, and just,
and good ; but they cannot tell to what extent his
truth, his justice, his goodness may reach, because
nothing has ever occurred which could afford an
occasion of trying, of limiting, or restraining, the
exercise of these qualities. But let some individual
of the family offend him, and then, in his treatment
of that individual, all the rest of the family, as well
as the offender himself, will obtain a new view, and
consequently a more extended knowledge, of his
character. While the prodigal son dwelt beneath his
father's roof, he knew well the goodness of his father's
heart. But he was far from knowing the whole
extent of that goodness. When pining in want and
misery he resolved to return to his paternal home, all
the extent to which he ventured to hope that his
Father's goodness could go, was to receive and treat
him not as a son, but as a hired servant, and that
too only upon the most earnest entreaty, and the
most lowly confession of his errors. But when his
return was welcomed with joy and gladness, when he
felt his father's embrace, saw himself arrayed in the
richest robes, and feasted in the most sumptuous
1^ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
manner, then did he know that his father possessed a
goodness, the existence of which he did not dare
previously to beUeve. Even so, the Great Father of
All, whose prerogative it is to bring good out of evil,
hath, out of the ruins of the human race, drawn an
exhibition of his own character, from which angels
not less than men, acquire new views and more ex-
tended knowledge of it. And as the human race
consists of endless myriads of prodigals, some of
whom never return, and as every individual differs
in some respects, in his conduct and treatment from
every other, so the angels who delight to trace the
ways of God, derive from every individual a some-
what different view, and a somewhat increased know-
ledge of his character. And as that knowledge
constitutes the very end and aim of their being,
though possibly no actual danger might result
to them from our fall, yet their glory and their
happiness have received, and will receive, an incal-
culable augmentation, from the work of our re-
demption.
With the commencement of moral evil then,
whatever was its origin, commenced a new and
glorious development of the divine perfections. —
"When part of the angels sinned, and for their sin
were doomed to punishment, being driven out from
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power, God was seen in a new relation, and an
additional view of his character would be given.
Something would be known of him, that was not
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 13
known before. But then this knowledge, like most
other pieces of knowledge in intelligent minds, would
give rise to some doubts, and to questions of no easy
solution. Some illustration of God's displeasure
against sin, and of his power to punish it, would be
given ; and thej^ would feel that even though pos*
sessed of angelic excellence, they must obey or suffer.
But then they would now know sin, of which, before
its actual existence among them, they probably had
not even an idea. And that idea would necessarily be
attended with a painful feeling, — the feeling of in-
security. The offenders it is true, were driven out ;
but they now knew, what probably they knew not
before, that they were liable to sin and to punishment ;
and we may easily conceive how deeply such a know-
ledge would affect their happiness. Their perfect and
unsuspicious confidence in, and reliance upon each
other, would be much abated, and the delight of their
mutual communications greatly lessened. The same
causes that had already produced sin among them,
might produce the same effect again, and by suc-
cessive defections, the throne of God might be left
without a worshipper. The perplexing question,
Whence cometh evil ? would naturally suggest itself ;
and it would also naturally occur to them to inquire,
how it happened that sin could possibly enter into the
dominions of God at all ? If he were perfectly holy,
then must he hate sin ; and if he were omniscient
and omnipotent, why did he not foresee and prevent
that, which, as holy, he must hate, — that, which, as
14 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
rebellion against his own authority, he must hate,
whether holy or not ? And these are questions, to
the solution of which, there is no reason to suppose
that they had the means of making any approach to
a satisfactory reply. Hence painful fears and doubts
would be the result of the first appearance of sin in
heaven.
When they saw man made, a part of their fears
would be removed. They would see that though all
angels should rebel, there could be no room to fear
lest " heaven should want inhabitants, or God want
praise." But the next step in the providence of God,
the fall of man, would bring back all their fears w^ith
increased pressure. Was God really so little able to
resist the rebels, that he could not uphold his own
fair workmanship from being led away captive by
them ? What then was the use of this creating
power, if he could not preserve what he created, but
made it only that it might aiford a triumph to his
enemies ? When they saw Satan become the god
of this world, would not the power and other perfec-
tions of God stand greatly in doubt ? The sons of
God shouted for joy when man was made ; and that
shout was expressive, not simply of adoration at
seeing a new exhibition of their Maker's power, but
also of the delight which they felt, at having, by this
exhibition of his power, so many of their fears
removed, which the entrance of sin had awakened.
And proportioned to the delight which they felt and
expressed at man's creation, would necessarily be the
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 15
consternation with which they beheld his fall. And
when they heard it declared that man, though fallen,
taken captive by Satan, and now leagued with him
in rebellion against God, yet was not to be lost, what
would be the result of such a declaration ? Probably
new doubts, and new fears. Creation they had seen,
and knew what that was. Sin also they had seen,
and knew what the consequence of that was. But
redemption was something as yet unheard of, and they
would naturally ask, what new thing is this ? or how
can it possibly be ? When angels fell, they were
driven away in their wickedness, and no hope of
restoration was held out to them. Yet they still
possessed so much power as to carry away man into
rebellion ; and now he is not to die, even after the
sentence denounced, — " In the day thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die." ^ Was God to prove himself
regardless of his truth, by recalling the sentence so
solemnly pronounced ? Was he to abandon his own
holy law to violation, and his authority to contempt,
by extending mercy to the transgressors ? Was the
majesty of the divine government to be insulted with
impunity ? and was the holiness of God to stoop to
hold communion with that which was polluted ? In
short, was God to prove that Immutability formed
no part of his character ? If he was destitute of any
one of these perfections, or if he possessed any of
them only in a limited degree, and if angels were
about to see that limit reached, then their happiness
* See Appendix A.
16 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
was gone. His immutability stood most in doubt,
and most of all was it necessary that they should be
well assured of this. For what other security had
they for the continuance of their happiness, than
this, that he who had made them, and had bestowed
that happiness upon them, was a being who could
not change ? Let this once be made doubtful, and
then, in addition to the feeling of insecurity arising
from a sense of their own liability to sin, they would
experience the still more painful feeling of insecurity,
derived from the mutability of the divine character.
When they saw the newly created being, involved
almost immediately in spiritual death, and given up
to moral bondage, it is obvious that whether this
arose from the want of power, or from the want of
will in the Creator, to sustain him, they could con-
template the event with no other feelings than those
of terror and dismay.
Had man, under these circumstances, been driven
away in his wickedness, this would have done nothing
to alleviate their dismay ; as such a consequence of
the fall would have seemed to render useless the
creating power of God : for to what purpose served
the power of creating, if separated from a power
of sustaining, — if he could not save those whom he
created from becomins: the servants of another lord ?
But then how could man possibly be pardoned and
saved, without inducing all the painful consequences
just referred to ? God had most positively declared
that on the day on which he transgressed, he should
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. l7
die. Could that sentence be suspended, or even its
execution delayed, without creating some question as
to how far his truth might be relied upon ? If the
law of God was violated, and the authority of God
trampled upon, not merely with impunity, but with
favour to the transgressor, was not this in effect to
abrogate the law ? Even under the Christian dis-
pensation, which so awfully demonstrates the sanctity
of the law, how difficult is it to prevent men from
" turning the grace of God into lasciviousness," and
from sinning " because grace abounds!" But had
God forgiven men, without any demonstration of the
holiness, and of the unalterable nature of the law,
this would have been to set open a flood-gate for
the introduction of all iniquity. That God could
by a mere act of power, or as it ought rather to be
called in this case, of force, have rescued the sinner
from the grasp of Satan, and have created him anew,
and have reinstated him in higher happiness than
that from which he fell, may be perfectly true. But
what then became of his moral attributes ? Such an
act of power, if it had been an act of mercy to the
guilty, would at the same time have been an act
of great cruelty to the innocent. For, who among
his unfallen creatures, could have in this case avoided
the conclusion, that he who could act so was an
unholy, an unjust, a mutable, nay a capricious being ?
He would have appeared to be capricious in this, that
if the law was to be virtually abrogated by the
acquittal of one class of fallen creatures, it would be
c
18 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
impossible to discover any reason why the same
dishonoured law should be applied, in all its unabated
rigour to another class.
We are often told that it is an easy thing for God
to forgive sin, — that there is nothing to prevent him
from withdrawing his right to punish the guilty, and
that such an act of grace would highly illustrate his
goodness, and awaken songs of praise among both
angels and men. Nothing, however, can well be
more evident than the truth of the very reverse of
this. Among men such an act of grace would have
been, and could have been productive of nothing else,
than the most unrestrained licentiousness ; and among
angels of nothing but consternation and dismay ; and
an act of mercy so exercised would have effectually
defeated every purpose of mercy. Every sinner thus
rescued by an act of omnipotent power, not from
the grasp of Satan, but from the righteous sentence
of God's most holy law, would have been a new
monument of a mutable God, and of a despised
law ; and instead of being hailed on his entrance
into heaven, with songs of joy, would have been
received with expressions of jealousy and fear. It
is easy, it is said, for God to depart from his right
to punish. But by whom is this said ? By men
who have never been convinced of sin, who know
not how exceedingly sinful a thing it is ; who
know nothing of the extent and spirituality of the
law of God, and have never felt their need of, and
dependence upon, a Saviour. Ask the awakened
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 19
sinner who has felt the terrors of the law coming
like water into his bowels, and like oil into his bones,
if he thinks it an easy thing for God to forgive sin ?
He will tell you that when a violated law set all his
sins in array before him, and when conscience con-
firmed the sentence of the law, so far was he from
thinking it an easy thing for God to forgive his sins,
that hardly all the grace manifested in the Gospel,
could persuade him to believe it possible, that even
with God, there could be an extent of mercy sufficient
to forgive his sins, — that while he felt no difficulty
in believing the general proposition, that with God
there is mercy for sinners, he feels that nothing but
a divine power could have enabled him to apply the
general proposition to his own particular case, and
to believe that there was mercy with God sufficient
for him. It is easy we are often told, for God, by a
mere act of grace to pardon, and by a mere act of
power to regenerate and save sinners. It is easy for
him to forego his right to punish the transgressor.
But it is not seen, nor, save by the awakened sinner,
can be seen, that in so doing he foregoes all the
inflexibility of his justice, all the sacredness of his
truth, all the sanctity of his law, all the spotless
purity of his holiness, and all the majesty of his
government, and is destroying all the security that
is founded on the immutability of his character.
And as to the mercy which it is supposed would
have been illustrated by such an act of grace, I think
it has been shown already, and will be more dis-
C 2
20 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
tinctly shown afterwards, that mercy would have
been outraged by such a proceeding. Moreover, the
pardon of sin, without any manifestation of its hate-
fulness, and of the perfections of God, would have
brought both his wisdom and power into question.
For surely it would have exhibited much more of
both, to sustain man from falling at all, than to leave
him to fall, merely in order to rescue him from the
effects of his fall, by an exercise of power put forth
at the expense of all his moral attributes ; while all
the lessons taught by the work of redemption, for
the sake of which the earth was made, and man upon
it, would not only have been entirely lost, but it
would have been impossible to determine, why some
men were saved, and others left to perish, — why
grace was offered to one fallen race, and none offered
to another ; and it would indeed have been a question
which defied solution, for what one useful purpose
could such a being as man possibly have been made ?
The Jews erred grievously when they supposed that
the dispensation, of which they were the recipients,
terminated in themselves, and was given them, not for
the sake, but to the exclusion of all other nations.
And we carry the same error to a much more per-
nicious extent, and still more effectually mar the
glory of the work of redemption, when we consider
that work as terminating in man, — when we consider
ourselves as an insulated race, and not as beings
intimately connected with, and made for the sake
of all the rational family of God. We might just
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 21
as rationally hope to ascertain the true position and
motions of the earth, without referring to the heavenly
bodies with which it is connected, and of the system
constituted by which, it is an essential and integral
part, as hope to ascertain the true position and the
use of such a being as man, and the bearing of the
work of redemption, without referring to those hea-
venly intelligences with whom he is intimately con-
nected,— a connection recognized in every page of
the Bible. Had no nation been to be blessed but
the Jews, the Jews would never have been chosen ;
and had no being been to profit by the work of
redemption but man, it seems impossible to conceive
one rational purpose that could be answered, by such
a creature as man being made at all. The Sadducee
might think himself exceedingly learned, and very far
above all vulgar prejudices, when he could prove that
there was " neither angel nor spirit ; " and might
shew what a canting hypocrite was the Pharisee who
confessed both. But if the Pharisees could not con-
vince them out of the Law of Moses, there were not
wanting heathens who stood forward to vindicate
their prerogatives as men, and to prove the being of
a God, and the immortality of the soul. And the
modern infidel may think himself exceedingly learned,
and very far above all vulgar and superstitious preju-
dices, when he denies, — and perhaps founds his denial
on the very alleged fact of the insignificance of man,
— all the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. But even
were we unable to vindicate the truth, other orders
22 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
of beings would come forward to vindicate their own
share in the glorious work of man's redemption. The
Sadducee and the infidel may perish in groping round
the contracted circle of their own dark and narrow
conceptions ; but the enlightened among men, and
higher orders of beings, will contemplate with the
eye of a deep veneration, and of an intense interest,
that glorious work, from which they have already
learned much, and from the farther development and
the final consummation of which, they expect yet to
learn more, of the character of the Almighty Maker
and Ruler of all.
It was when it was declared that fallen man should
be saved, and when it appeared not how that sal-
vation could be effected, without casting doubt and
distrust over all the perfections of God, unhinging
all the principles upon which his moral government
was founded, and thus producing the most disastrous
and fatal consequences throughout the whole universe,
that the great mystery of redemption, into which
angels desire to look, and from which they learn
wisdom, began to run its mighty course. It was
then that the eternal Word was announced as the
Redeemer of the fallen race, who should rescue them
from their thraldom, and bring them back to holiness,
to happiness and to God. Now in the accomplishment
of this work, the Redeemer has three parties to deal
with, — him who holds the captives in bondage, — the
captives themselves so held in bondage — and him, who,
for their rebelHon, gave them up to captivity : and each
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 23
of these parties renders the possession of certain
powers essentially necessary in the Redeemer. He
who holds the captives in bondage may be determined
that they shall not go free for any price, or upon
any consideration. The Redeemer therefore, must
of necessity possess power to compel him to let
them go. The captives may be utterly insensible
to the misery of their bondage, and unwilling
to be delivered. The Redeemer therefore must possess
a power to convince them of the misery of their
state, and to awaken in their hearts the desire of
liberty. The captives may be totally ignorant of the
way that leads to the home whence they have been
exiled, and totally incapable of encountering the
manifold difficulties and dangers with which that way
abounds. The Redeemer therefore must possess
power both to lead them in the right way, and to
support and strengthen and uphold them against all
opposition. The captives may have acquired habits
and dispositions which totally incapacitate them for
the occupations and enjoyments of the country to
which they are to be brought. The Redeemer there-
fore must possess power to change the whole tenour
and current of their habits, affections, and dispo-
sitions. The captives may have been driven from
home for their crimes, and their return would be an
infringement of that law by which they were con-
demned, a dishonour to the sovereign by whom they
were banished, and dangerous to those of his subjects
who never rebelled. The Redeemer therefore must
24 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
possess a power to insure them a welcome reception ;
that is, he must bring them back in such a way as
to magnify and make honourable the law by which
they were condemned, — to display the equity and
justice, as well as the goodness and mercy of the
sovereign by whom they were exiled, — to give fresh
stability to all the principles of his moral government,
and additional security to all his faithful subjects.
He must be able to reconcile, and to preserve in the
most indissoluble union, these apparently most irre-
concileable things, the glory of God, and the safety
of the sinner, — to unite, in most harmonious union,
these apparent contraries, the mercy that pleaded for
the sinner's safety, with the truth that demanded his
punishment, — the righteousness that condemned him,
with the peace that was promised him. Such are
the powers which it is essentially necessary that the
Redeemer should possess ; or to sum up all these
powers in three words, he must be a Prophet, a
Priest, and a King, in the highest and most extensive
application of these terms. Such powers, it is clear,
no created being could by any possibility possess ;
but such powers were found in the Son. Announced
therefore as the Redeemer of men, he was announced
as Prophet, Priest, and King ; and the first acts of
each of these offices he performed personally. As
Prophet he announced to man the hope of deliverance
through the " woman's seed." As Priest he appointed
sacrifices as typical of his own death for sinners, and
clothed oiu- first parents with the skins of slain
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 25
beasts, instead of their own fig leaves, as a token that
he would cover their spiritual nakedness by a right-
eousness much more effectual than any that they
could provide.^ And as King he sent them forth to
cultivate the ground, until they should return to the
dust from which they were taken. These offices,
thus formally and personally assumed by the Son,
were thenceforth delegated to his representatives, till
the fulness of time should arrive for his coming in
the flesh. To what extent the knowledge of men or
of angels, as to these offices might then go, we have
no means of ascertaining ; but we may be well assured,
that they would study with the most careful attention
every type and every prophecy, which could throw
light upon so important a subject ; and this we know,
that at that period commenced, and, in the evolution
of the work of redemption, was gradually unfolded
for the instruction of both, an exhibition of the
glory of God's perfections, of the majesty and stability
of God's government, and of the sanctity of God's
law, far beyond aught that could have been derived
either from the sinless obedience, or from the endless
punishment of all created beings.
It will be observed that I here consider the Son,
not simply as elected to, but as actually invested with
the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and as dis-
charging the duties of these offices, from the moment
* This may appear rather a forced interpretation of this transaction. It
has however been sanctioned by some able and sober writers ; among others,
by the Rev. C. Benson in his Hulsean Lectures on Scripture Difficulties,
26 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
of the fall. After that period, every prophet that
announced to the church any portion of the will of
God, received his commission from him who is the
great and only Prophet, — every priest who ever offered
an acceptable sacrifice to God, had it accepted only
through Him who is the great and only Priest, — every
king that ever reigned was the delegate of, and ac-
countable to Him who is the great and only King.
During the period anterior to his incarnation, and
from the beginning, he acted as the Prophet, Priest,
and King of the Church. The proof of this however
will occur more naturally afterwards ; and I might
proceed at once to consider the circumstances at-
tending the incarnation, but a preliminary question
occurs, which must be first disposed of. The question
to which I refer is one that has been often asked,
If the incarnation was necessary, why was it so long
delayed ? To this it may be replied, that had not
the incarnation been delayed, its necessity would not
have been seen. Had the Word been made flesh
immediately on the Fall, sin would not have had
sufficient time to develope its native malignity, nor
would the miserable and degraded state of man have
sufficiently appeared. It was necessary that man
should be placed in a great variety of situations, both
before and after the Incarnation, that by the endless
variety of situations in which he was placed, might
be seen the utter helplessness and hopelessness of his
state ; and his utter inability, under any circumstances,
of emancipating himself from the bondage of Satan.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 27
Under the patriarchial dispensation, there were
circumstances extremely favourable to the cultivation
of holiness, and the return of men to God. Paradise
was as yet before their eyes, though guarded by the
heavenly host and by the flaming sword. Adam
lived for many ages among them, to tell them of the
blessedness of the state from which he had fallen,
and to tell them too, upon the authority of the divine
promise, of the hope of being restored to that state,
— and Cain was among them, a monument of the
miserable consequences of unsubdued passion. Under
these circumstances, we should naturally expect to
find them looking to Paradise, and deploring with the
deepest penitence the happiness they had lost ; and
looking up to God with humble gratitude for the hope
of restoration ; and seeking by the most lowly and
earnest obedience to secure the speedy fulfilment of
the promise. But what do we in reality find ? A
God who could not be at that time unknown, yet
utterly despised, and wickedness prevailing to an
extent which has never been surpassed.
Immediately after the deluge, it might have been
expected that men, with the recent traces of so awful
a visitation every where before their eyes, would have
been effectually deterred from sin. So far however
was this from being the case, that they went on in-
creasing in iniquity, till the very name of the true
God was forgotten, and his worship abandoned for
idolatry of every form. Men were therefore left to
use or abuse the knowledge already given, as they
28 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
were able, or disposed ; and the whole history of
the heathen world proves how utterly lost, how
hopelessly degraded man is. And if the exhibition
was continued down to the time of our Saviour's
appearance, it cannot be thought to have been con-
tinued too long ; since, though through the greater
part of the world, it has been continued down to
the present day, it has not yet sufficiently impressed
men with the humbling, but necessary lesson, which
it is designed, and so well fitted to teach, — no, nor
though continued to eternity ever will teach it. For,
in the face of all the multiplied and deplorable proofs
afforded by the odious, the disgusting and revolting
practices of idolatry, both in ancient and in modern
times, both among savage and civilized heathens, of
the utter imbecility of man's understanding, the
perversion of his reason, the corruption of his heart,
and his total inability to rescue himself from the state
of deep degradation into which he has fallen, there
are men who can deny that man is a fallen being at
all, and can talk of the extent of the human under-
standing, and of the sufficiency, nay the glory of
human reason. Human reason is indeed a glorious
thing when guided and sustained by the Spirit of
God ; but such men do themselves shew how utterly
perverted and degraded it is, when left to its own
resources, and how hopelessly they are blinded, when
they can gravely maintain a position, the utter ab-
surdity of which is written, in lines of horror and
of blood, on every page of the history of man ; and
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 29
when, indebted as they are to the knowledge com-
municated by the great Prophet, for their own
exemption from the degradation of saying 'Ho a
stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone. Thou hast
brought me forth," they can yet pretend that no
revelation of God was necessary. If the history of
the world teaches any thing, it surely teaches this,
that " the world by wisdom never knew God." Reve-
lation is necessary even to the existence of pure Theism.
Polytheism and idolatry is all that man has ever
proved himself capable of attaining by his own un-
aided reason. Somniaverat Deum, non cognoverat,
saith Lactantius of Plato ; and what was said of Plato,
may well be said, I suppose, of all other heathens.
But impressively as the lesson of man's helpless
and degraded state is taught by the whole history
of man, when left to himself, or with only a tra-
ditionary revelation to guide him, the lesson is ren-
dered still more impressive by the exceptions to this
state which have occurred. The Israelites were placed
in circumstances which might have been expected to
repress every corrupt propensity, and to ensure the
most devoted obedience. God chose them for his
own peculiar people, he was continually manifesting
his power, and his presence among them, and that
very often in a manner directly miraculous ; he gave
them a ritual so splendid as to leave them no room
to look with envy upon the most splendid ceremonies
of the heathens around them ; he hired them to
obedience by the worldly prosperity which it never
30 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
failed to produce, and deterred them from rebellion
by the sufferings with which it never failed to be
followed. Under such circumstances one would
think disobedience almost impossible. And if men
were unfallen creatures, or if the perversion of their
understanding, and the corruption of their heart,
were capable of being corrected by any circumstances
however favourable, it would have been so. But
what is their whole history ? Surely it is a most
decisive proof that the native tendencies of the human
heart to evil, and the imbecility of the human under-
standing, are not to be corrected by any external
circumstances, however fitted for that purpose. Over
barriers which one would conceive to have been almost
unsurmoun table, they rushed into the most unnatural,
and most revolting of the practices of the heathen
around them.
It may be said, however, that the dispensation
under which the Israelites were placed, though it did
present strong motives to obedience, and enlisted
the selfish passions on the side of holiness, by its
temporal rewards and punishments, was yet defec-
tive. It preceded the Incarnation, and the degree
of knowledge as to man's eternal prospects, which it
communicated, was extremely defective, and wrapped
up in all the obscurity of types and shadows. Its
appeals to the higher principles of human nature were
indistinct, and therefore feeble ; and therefore though
men under this dispensation did prove both that their
rea.son was blind, and their hearts corrupt ; yet still,
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 31
man, placed under other circumstances, and under a
dispensation more distinctly and more directly ap-
pealing to the higher principles of our nature, might
prove that that hlindness of reason, and that cor-
ruption of heart, may be cured, without the direct
and immediate agency of the Spirit of God. The
experiment has been made. The great Prophet came,
and communicated to men that knowledge of divine
things, to which no addition has ever been made.
He gave to men instructions so clear that it is im-
possible to mistake them ; he sanctioned these in-
structions by motives of the most resistless urgency,
by the prospect of eternal happiness on the one hand,
and of eternal woe on the other ; he animated them
to obedience by providing for them the most effectual
assistance and support ; and he gave them the most
perfect security that their labour should not be in vain,
but that their reward should be sure. He established a
dispensation which appeals, in the most direct and
forcible manner, to all that is lofty in human thought,
and to all that is sensible in human feeling, and to
all that is pure in human affection ; and what was
the result ? Did the moral darkness of the world
pass away before this glorious light, like the darkness
of night before the rising sun ? Did men every where
and eagerly embrace the "glad tidings of great joy"
which were announced to them? Exulting in that
*' life and immortality " which had been brought to
light, did the securing of, and preparation for that
life and immortality, become the engrossing object
32 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
of all their thoughts, sinking all the petty concerns
of time into insignificance ? No. The result has
proved in the most impressive and decisive manner,
not only that man is a fallen being, but fallen
to a depth from which he cannot be recovered
by any means, however weU adapted to that end,
without the immediate agency of God : that there is
an inveteracy in the perversion of man's reason, and
in the corruption of his heart, which no other hand
can cure. It is in vain that we are surrounded by
all the advantages for moral improvement which God
can bestow ; it is in vain that weapons of the most
heavenly temper are put into our hands ; till we be
quickened by the Spirit, the arm that should wield
them is unnerved in all the torpor of spiritual death.
The lesson taught by the whole history of Christianity
is, that the possession of a dispensation of a religion
of absolute and unimproveable perfection, does not in
the slightest degree emancipate us from a total depend-
ance upon God, for the possession of all moral good.
Yet that lesson, though so impressively taught,
has been very imperfectly learned. There are many,
and many of those too who believe the gospel, who
maintain that man is not a totally corrupted and
depraved creature, — that death and natural evil are
the only consequences derived to us from the fall, —
and that since God has given to us the 'gospel, we
require no farther aid, but are abundantly able to
apply and to improve it of ourselves. Now if there
be men who, with the history of Christianity actually
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 33
before their eyes, can maintain such doctrines as
these, what would have been the consequence, had
the gospel, at its first promulgation, spread with
resistless force through all the world, and manifested
its enlightening and purifying effect in every
heart ? We are very apt to regret that this should
not actually have been the case, and infidelity has
reared some of its puny arguments upon the fact,
that Christianity has neither been communicated to
all lands, nor has given spiritual life to all, to whom
it has been communicated. But this fact, like all
other facts when properly understood, is a proof
of the wisdom of him who does all things well.
Had our Lord's object in the establishment of the
new dispensation been to save the greatest possible
number of persons, in the shortest possible space
of time, then the unresisted and universal triumph
of the gospel would have been the most direct means
of accomplishing his design. But if his object was
to give the most important possible instruction to
the greatest possible number, both of angels and
men, then the early and universal triumph of the
Gospel would have defeated that purpose. For if
men who see the determined resistance which has
been offered to the reception of the Gospel in all
ages and countries, and who are aware of the
perpetual tendency in those who do receive it,
to modify it to their own views, can yet main-
tain such doctrines as those just referred to, what
would have been the consequence, had the . Gos-
34 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS,
pel been uniformly successful. Had the Gospel
been received in all its simplicity, and obeyed by
every one to whom it was announced, — had it
operated with all the regularity and efficiency of a
physical cause, then much more in that case would the
idolatry have been committed, of attributing to the
means, that efficiency which belongs only to the Holy
Spirit. If men can forget and deny their depend-
ence on the Spirit now, how much more w^ould it
have been denied under such circumstances ? Men
would have thought that to become a Christian, was a
mere matter of course ; and had fruit been as regularly
produced in the one case as in the other, would
have felt the necessity of the agency of the Spirit, to
render the seed of the word fruitful in their hearts,
just as little as they are now apt to see the necessity
of a divine agency to fructify the seed in their fields.
Thus the agency of the Holy Spirit, — a doctrine as
essential to the Gospel as that of the atonement
itself — would have been denied ; and this v/ould
speedily have put an end to Christianity. Thus the
early and universal triumph of the Gospel, would
have ensured its early and universal overthrow.
To this conclusion we are clearly led by the history
of the past ; and the history of the future, as far as
it is revealed, leads us still more clearly to the same
conclusion. God will not give his glory to another,
no, not even to the Bible ; nor will permit men to be-
lieve that the Gospel makes its way in the world, or in
the human heart by its own intrinsic power and excel-
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 3.3
lence, but by his Spirit. This is taught by the past and
the present history of Christianity, and the Millenium is
approaching to give to this truth the last decisive proof,
and to render it for ever impossible to doubt, that for
the reception and possession of all spiritual good, man
is immediately dependent on God, without whom he
can never either acquire or retain one moral excel-
lence. The Millennium is described as a state of
universal righteousness. It is the triumph of the
Gospel, when Christ shall possess the heathen for
his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for a possession. But we are told that this state of
universal righteousness is to terminate in a state
of almost universal apostacy. Now what is to bring-
so holy and blessed a state to such a fearful termina-
tion ? It is plain that this can happen only from the
withdrawing of the Holy Spirit ; and it is equally
plain that the Holy Spirit will not withdraw, till men
have forgotten their dependence upon him, and ceased
to pray for him. And that they will do this we may
be certain both from the history of the past, and
from what we see at present. We live in most
eventful times. The elements of some mighty move-
ment have, for some years, been gathering around
us, with unexampled rapidity. The ancient bonds
of society seem to be worn out, and bursting asunder.
The old despotisms appear to be crumbling to dust,
together with the superstition on which they lean ;
while the present aspect of society promises to sub-
stitute in their room nothing better than liberalism
36 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
allied with infidelity, — an infidelity so much the more
dangerous, in that it has assumed the form of Chris-
tian theology, and proclaims its dogmas by the mouths
of men who eat the bread of the Church, and call
themselves her ministers. Yet under circumstances so
appalling, when we feel beneath our feet, what seems
to be the heave and the swell of the approaching earth-
quakes, men can pillow their heads in security, and
dream of the uninterrupted advance of society to per-
fection, and loudly proclaim that men have now reached
a point in the progress of improvement, from which
there is not only no danger, but no possibility of re-
ceding. Now if men can reason in this manner at
present, how much more will they reason thus, toward
the end of the Millennium, when circumstances will
afford an infinitely better ground for such reasonings,
than any that can be found at present ? Yes, after
centuries of universal righteousness, men will begin
to forget that they are corrupted and depraved crea-
tures ; that for all their excellences they are indebted
to the quickening energy, and sustaining power of
the Holy Spirit. So little accustomed to sin, they
will begin to forget that they are in any danger of it.
They will imagine that they have arrived at a point
in the progress of moral excellence, from which it is
impossible that any retrograde movement can take
place.. The folly of all rebellion against God will
appear in so clear a light, that they will be ready to
think it impossible that any rational creature can ever
more be guilty of it. They will look upon the pre-
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 37
sent state of Christianity with a feeling very similar
to that with which we look upon the absurdities of
heathenism, wondering how beings endued with
reason, could ever be misled by the delusions to
which we are so commonly yielding, or could con-
sider themselves Christians at all. And, thinking it
impossible that ever Christianity can be reduced to so
low a standard again, as it is among us ; and forget-
ting that they are naturally as weak and as corrupt
as we are, and that their strength is not in themselves,
they will less earnestly pray for the Holy Spirit. He,
provoked, will withdraw ; and then cometh, in their
apostacy, the fearful demonstration, that men never
can be exalted to a pitch of moral excellence and
spiritual power, where they may be safely left to their
own unaided powers, to increase, or even to retain
what they have acquired. When the Spirit has
withdrawn, and Satan is again let loose, then will it
be seen that even all the glory of Millennial excel-
lence will not prevent man from being carried by the
corrupt tendencies of his heart, into a state of bond-
age to error and guilt. And then cometh the end,
when the rational family of God have no more to
learn from the wanderings of their prodigal brother.
These considerations appear to me very satisfac-
torily to shew that the Incarnation could not take
place, either immediately after the beginning, or
immediately before the end of the world. Had our
Lord come in the flesh at an early period of the
world, the history of Christianity would have been
38 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
the same. There must first have been a long, a very
partially successful struggle, in order to prove, what
we feel it so very difficult to admit, that the Gospel
makes not its way to our hearts, because we so clearly
see, and so readily yield to its excellence ; but solely
by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Then would
have followed its universal triumph, in order to shew,
that however incapable of making w'ay by its own
intrinsic excellence, yet when he chose to put forth
his power, all the guilt and all the power of the
world, could oifer it no effectual opposition. And
then would have come the apostacy, in order to shew,
that there is no point in the progress of spiritual
attainment, at which man, unless sustained by an
Almighty arm, and borne onward by an Almighty
power, would not rapidly recede into a state of guilt
and of suffering. In this case the world would long
since have reached its termination : but while what is
properly called the Christian dispensation, would
have afforded the same instruction, at w^hatever period
it had taken place, yet some important links in the
chain of man's history, and some important points
in the instruction afforded by it, would have been
w^anting. Let us acknowledge then the wisdom of all
the divine arrangements, and admit that for these
reasons, and probably too for other reasons, which
we cannot see, it was necessary that our Lord should
delay his coming till the period when it actually took
place.*
* See note B. Appendix.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 39
Having thus disposed of the preliminary question,
we may now proceed to consider the circumstances
of the Incarnation itself. These are stated with
much simplicity in Scripture ; and the discussions into
which it will afterwards be necessary to enter, will
enable us to be very general in our remarks here.
The first inquiry to which our attention is here called
is, who was it that became incarnate ? To this the
reply is, that it was the Son, the second person of
the Holy Trinity. Reasons why the Son alone could
become incarnate, are drawn from considerations on
the Trinity, which cannot well be introduced here, as
they would lead us too far from the present subject.
But there is one reason which, though far from the
most satisfactory, is yet so very simple and intelli-
gible, that I shall content myself with stating it.
Had the Father become incarnate, then, being the
Father by nature, and becoming a Son by incarna-
tion, he would have been both Father and Son,
which would have been altogether incongruous ; and
there would moreover have been two Sons in the
Trinity. For a like reason the Holy Ghost would
not become incarnate, for then, becoming a Son by
incarnation, he would have been both Son and Holy
Ghost ; and in this case too, there would have been
two Sons in the Trinity. Hence to become incarnate
was suitable to the Son alone.
We may now go on to consider how the act of the
Incarnation proceeded ; and in doing so, we must
simply take the Evangelist for our guide, who thus
40 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
describes it. " And the angel answered and said
unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ;
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born
of thee, shall be called the Son of God." ^ Here we
are told that when the Son assumed our nature, " he
was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by
the power of the Holy Ghost." Now when, in
assuming our nature, he consented to be conceived
and born of a woman, that which he took into
indissoluble union with his person, was a true body
and a reasonable soul. The reality of his body is
proved by the same circumstances that prove the
reality of our own. He hungered and thirsted, he
was weary and slept, he was born and grew, he
sweated and bled, he died and was buried ; all which
things are proper to a real body, and prove that his
body was no phantom, but truly flesh and blood.
That he took also a reasonable soul, admits of
equally easy proof. For he grew in wisdom ; he felt
grief and sorrow and sore amazement, which neither
his body nor his Divinity could feel ; he had a will
also distinct from his Divine will ; and he died, which
he could not have done had he not had a soul ; for
death consists in the separation of the soul from the
body. Neither his soul nor his body could ever be
for one moment separated from his Divinity, but
they were separated from each other, which consti-
' Sec note C. Appendix.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 41
tutes death. Thus it is clear that he took a true
body and a reasonable soul, that is, every thing that
is essential to full and complete manhood.
There are two questions however, one with regard
to our Lord's body, and another with regard to his
soul, which require some attention. As to his body,
we must inquire whether it was really formed of, and
nourished by, the substance of his mother, as the
bodies of all other men are ; or whether it was derived
from some other source, and merely passed through
her as a canal of conveyance. Did he derive from
her, all that every other man derives from a mother ?
Was he, in short, her son in reality, or in appearance
only ? Such questions were often, of necessity,
treated of by the primitive writers. But after being
so amply discussed by them, we might certainly have
hoped to be spared the mortification of being com-
pelled to return to the discussion, amidst the grey
hairs of the world's old age. Indeed I hope that
the discussion is in reality totally unnecessary. It has,
however, been loudly proclaimed, that the heresy
which denies that Christ has come in the flesh,
has widely overspread the land, and has deeply in-
fected the Church. That this charge has been most
grossly exaggerated, I well know. That it is totally
groundless I am willing to believe, but have no right
to assume. I shall not however enter on the dis-
cussion, but shall merely state the grounds upon
which it may be most decisively proved, that Christ
was tnily the Son of Mary,— -that the contagion of
42 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
the fall excepted, she imparted to her Son all that
other mothers impart to their children, — grounds
which may be insisted upon by those who feel more
disposed to enter upon the discussion than I do ; or
who have more ample means than I have, of knowing
that the discussion is at all necessaiy. That Christ
was truly the son of Mary, and took his flesh of her
substance, is a most important point of Christian
doctrine, and may be proved by the following argu-
ments.— If he took not a bodv of the substance of
his mother, then was his whole life one continued
scene of deception. Not only did Mary call him her
son, but he called her his mother, — he was subject
unto her, and on the cross he manifested his filial
duty to her by providing for her a home in the house
of the beloved disciple. Now if Mary was not
as truly his mother, as any other woman is the
mother of her child, his recognizing her as his
mother, from the beginning to the end of his life,
was in reality a deception. And, as Tertullian most
justly remarks, if the Marcionites considered it as a
degradation of the eternal Word, to suppose that he
would submit to be born of woman, it is surely a
much greater degradation of him to suppose that he
would profess to be her son, while in reality he was
not. He would much rather be the son of Mary in
reality, than falsely pretend to be so. Again, if he
took not flesh of Mary, then is he no brother, no
kinsman of ours, and his right of redemption alto-
gether fails. In this case, he not only is not David's
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 43
son, but he is not the son of man at all, as he almost
uniformly calls himself, — deceptively it must be ad-
mitted, unless Mary was truly his mother. Neither
in this case could we with any truth be said to be
" members of his body^ of his flesh, and of his
bones," if in reality his body was a different sub-
stance, and derived from a different source from ours.
Moreover he could not call us " brethren," any more
than we can apply that appellation to the angels that
surround the throne of God, or to the worm that
creepeth in the dust. Fellow-creatures they are,
but, without an entire community of nature, our
" brethren " they are not. And when we are required
to " put on the Lord Jesus Christ," we are required
to do what is not merely a moral, but a physical im-
possibility, if there lie between us and him, the utterly
impassable barrier of a different nature. If he took
not his fleshly substance of the flesh of his mother,
then not being as truly man as we are, he could not
fairly meet and conquer our oppressor, or at least his
victory can give no assurance of victory to us. For,
to express a very common sentiment in the language
of Irenasus, ' Had he not been man who conquered
our enemy, he would not have been fairly conquered ;
and on the other hand, had he not been God who
gave us the victory, we could hold it upon no secure
tenure.' ^ And finally, if he took not flesh of the
^ Si enim homo non vicisset inimicum hominis, non juste victus esset
inimicus. Rursus autcin nisi Deus donasset salutcm, non firmiter habcremus
cam. / (7'. I, Cap. 30.
44 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
substance of Mary, then was he not truly the " wo-
man's seed," and the great original promise, upon
M'hich all subsequent promises are built, remains as
yet unfulfilled. But it is not more essential that the
serpent's head should be bruised at all, than it is that
it should be bruised by the " woman's seed." Hence
if Christ was not truly and really the "woman's
seed," then the whole foundation of our hopes fails.
Upon these grounds we not only hold it most im-
portant to believe, but consider it to be most irre-
fragably proved, that Christ was as truly " made
of a woman " as we are, — that his body was truly
a body composed of flesh and blood, as ours is.
The question with regard to his soul, to which I
referred above, is, — Did he take a reasonable soul ?
A distinction was made, in early times, between the
reasonable soul, and the sensitive soul or vital prin-
ciple ; and not a few heretics maintained that our
Saviour took the latter, but not the former ; that in
him the divinity supplied the place of a reasonable
soul. This distinction, I observe, has been abolished
by some of the most celebrated modern physiologists,
who confound the reasonable soul with the vital
principle. The distinction however, I apprehend,
rests upon the most undeniable grounds, and in this
respect, the ancient heretic has the advantage over
the modern physiologist. With this however, I have
nothing to do ; but, while it is certain that he as-
sumed the vital principle, the question is. Did he
also assume the reasonable soul of man '? I surely
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 45
cannot be called upon to waste any time in the dis-
cussion of such a question : for if there be few,
if any, who deny the reality of our Lord's body,
there are, I should think, still fewer, who are so
utterly ignorant of the Gospel, as to deny that he
took a reasonable soul ; and to maintain that, in him,
the divinity occupied the place of the soul. Should
any discussion be, by any, found necessary, they will
find that every argument which proves that he had a
soul at all, proves it to have been a reasonable soul.
Our belief therefore is, not simply that the Word, in
being made flesh, took a body and soul, but, as our
catechism, with guarded accuracy of expression, hath
taught us from our childhood, that he took " a true
body, and a reasonable soul."
That our Lord really had a reasonable soul, seems
to be sufficiently proved by the fact, that he was
made man : for this would not be true if he had
only a human body ; because a human body is not a
man, but only part of a man. The argument com-
monly urged by the fathers, against the ApoUinarians,
seems also to be perfectly decisive. They maintained
that there was the same reason for his taking a soul,
as for his taking a body ; for the soul had sinned
and needed redemption as well as the body. Thus
one of them, urging that if that which is inferior in
man was assumed that it might be sanctified by the
Incarnation, for the same reason must that which is
superior in man have been assumed, says, " If the
clay was leavened and became a new mass, Oh, ye
4(3 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
wise ones, shall not the image be leavened and
mingled with God, being deified by the divinity ? " ^
But this view of our Lord's humanity seems to
bind us down to the adoption of the tenet, that it
was fallen, sinful humanity. For it is acknowledged,
that his mother was a fallen, sinful woman. If then
his body was formed of her substance, then must it,
of necessity, have been fallen and sinful. This how-
ever, by no means follows : for, in the^rs^ place, it
is not the body of man that is fallen, nor the soul
of man, but the whole man, consisting of both. His
body therefore, might be taken of the substance of
his mother, as it most certainly was, without in-
vohdng any necessity that he should be a fallen man.
Next, his body being formed of the substance of his
mother, no more infers that body to have been in all
respects, the same as hers, than the formation of the
world out of chaos, infers the world to be a confused
and indigested mass ; or than the creation of matter
out of nothing, infers matter to be, as many ancient,
and some modern philosophers, have determined it
to be, nothing, or the formation of Adam's body
^ 'El 0 Ttrfkoi; e^t^/ASt.'2r») /cat veov ^v^dua yeyovev (a coiSoi, vj (ikuv ov
'CpfJiu'^-/l(Telat, Kai ic^oi; @eov ayaKrja^TjcreJai ^eu^fiaa S Matt. vii. 24.
H
98 CHRIST OUR PROPHET.
of Christ is the sole ground of our salvation, there-
fore their own holiness is a matter of little or no
consequence. For to hope that we may be saved,
without being made holy, is a direct contradiction
in terms. It is to hope, in other words that we
may be saved, without being saved. It ought not
to be forgotten, that holiness is not, and cannot be
the means of salvation, for this plain reason that it
is salvation itself If therefore we should be able to
say to Christ, " Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and
in thy name done many wonderful works ? " All
this will avail us nothing, if we be " workers
of iniquity."
If Christ be our Prophet, then we are bound to
communicate to others that knowledge of God that
he has taught to us. To this we are urged by eveiy
doctrine which the gospel inculcates, and by every
principle which it implants in our hearts. If we love
God, we will desire to make his glory known. If
we love men, we will be anxious to promote their
best interests. And if we love not God and men, or
if our love to them be too feeble to urge us on to
make any active exertions, or submit to any sacrifices,
I need not stop to prove that we have yet to learn
what Christianity is. If Christ submitted to all the
humiliation, and endured all the sufferings recorded
in the gospel, in order to manifest the glory of God,
and to save the souls of men ; can we call ourselves
his disciples, and say that we have drank of his
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 99
Spirit, if amongst us, and around us, and through-
out the world, we can see the glory of God given to a
thousand idols, and the souls of men perishing,
without feeling ourselves urged to every exertion that
may be within our power, in order to terminate a
state which no Christian can contemplate without the
most painful feelings ? No, the Christian is essen-
tially a missionary, and every Christian Church is
essentially a Missionary Society. The believer, in
learning the value of his own soul, has learned how
to estimate the souls of other men ; and the same
spirit that imparted to him a knowledge of the truth
as it is in Christ Jesus, and taught him to feel all its
importance, imparted to him at the same time, the
desire to communicate it to others. Every man vv^ho
calls himself a Christian, professes to be a living
monument of the glory of God ; and according as his
conduct is, or is not, consistent with this profession,
will it be an encouragement to, or a stumbling block
in the way of others embracing the gospel. His
character must exercise a beneficial or a malignant
influence, upon all who are connected with him ; and
either his light will so shine before men, as to lead
others to glorify our Father who is in heaven, or his
conduct will lead to the conclusion that the adoption
of the gospel is calculated only to add hypocrisy to
guilt, and thus cause '* the way of truth to be evil
spoken of." The believer therefore feels, that inde-
pendent of his own personal obligations to hold the
truth in righteousness ; there rests upon him an awful
H 2
100 CHRIST OUR PROPHET.
responsibility with regard to the effect which his con-
duct may have upon other men. In these days
especially will every Christian weigh well the import
of the declaration, " He that is not for me, is
against me ; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad." In primitive times, the holy
lives of Christians was one of the principal means
of giving to the gospel such astonishing success ; and
were every man who calls himself a Christian now,
to prove himself by his conduct to be a Christian in
reality, there can be no doubt that Christianity would
rapidly spread throughout the world. It is a melan-
choly reflection, that Mobile the progress of Christianity
has been so slow, that progress has never been
retarded by all the efforts of its declared opponents.
A man, in order effectually to injure Christianity,
must profess himself a Christian ; and I cannot
think that it is overstating the matter to say, that
every man who calls himself a Christian, without in
reality being so, inflicts a more essential injury upon
Christianity, and does more to retard its progress in
the world, than any one declared opponent that ever
existed.
Upon the whole then, it appears that the death
of Christ, and consequently his Incarnation, was
essentially necessary to the discharge of the duties of
his Prophetic office. Without dying he could not
have given us that manifestation of the Divine charac-
ter,— that knowledge of the perfections of God,
without which we can never have our hearts " right
CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 101
with God." And it no less plainly appears, that
to make him a fallen sinful man, is to sweep away
the very ground of all the knowledge which he im-
parted, and to extinguish the light of his Revelation,
by covering it with a cloud of impenetrable darkness.
If he had no sin, either original or actual, then he
was not fallen and sinful, and we draw from his life,
and especially from his death, a knowledge of God
which we can never exhaust. If he had either
original or actual sin, then indeed he was fallen and
sinful ; and in this case we can learn no more from
his death, than we can learn from that of any other
man.
I may remark also, that every argument which
has been used to disprove the tenet that Christ was
a fallen and sinful man, applies with equal force to
prove that he was not a mere man.
CHAPTER IIL
CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
I NOW proceed to consider the Priesthood of our
Saviour, This also will lead us to see the necessity
of his death, and consequently of his Incarnation ;
and at the same time will carry us very directly and
irresistibly to the conclusion that in becoming man,
he did not become a fallen sinful man. That he
actually was a Priest, I hold to be sufficiently proved
by the fact, that he is called so in Scripture. It is
no doubt argued that he is called so only figuratively,
as all Christians are called priests, and with a refer-
ence to the priests under the Levitical dispensation.
To this I reply, that a figure must be drawn from a
reality ; and if he was only figuratively a priest,
then where is the man who was really one ? It will
not avail to say that under the law there were real
priests, from whom the name was improperly applied
to him. For if he was no Priest, then unquestion-
ably they were none ; unless it be maintained that
they did what he could not do ; and that the Jewish
dispensation, instead of being only the shadow of
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 103
good things to come, was in fact the reahty of which
Christianity is only the shadow ; a position which I
suppose few will be hardy enough to maintain. If
then the great " High Priest of our profession " was
only figuratively a Priest, assuredly those priests who
only exercised the delegated powers which they re-
ceived from him, could be no more ; and consequently
there never was a real priest in existence. The very
word, upon this supposition, stands in the unpre-
cedented situation of having a figurative application,
without having ever had a real literal meaning. But
it will be said that the priests under the law were
really priests. This I most readily admit ; and I
admit too that the sacrifices which they offered, were
perfectly efficacious for the purposes for which they
were appointed. They exempted the offender from
temporal punishment, and restored him to his place
in society, and to his situation in the congregation
of the Lord. But they could do no more. The
blood of bulls and of goats could not take away
sin. But if the priests under the law were real
priests, and their sacrifices possessed a real efficacy,
to however limited an extent, then we seem to be
shut up to one of these conclusions, — either that
the sacrifices were efficacious by reason of their own
intrinsic value, — or that they were so by reason of
the power and favour which the offering priest enjoyed
with God, — or, finally, that they derived their efficacy
solely from their reference to, and connection with,
the sacrifice offered by a priest of a higher order.
104 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
The first of these conclusions will hardly be espoused
even by the hardiest rationalist. If the second be
adopted, then it is admitted that under the law, there
was an atonement, to a certain extent ; and that
there was a priest who, through the medium of gifts
and sacrifices, offered for sins, had access to God,
and a ground upon which to found an acceptable and
a prevalent intercession, in behalf of the sinner ;
advantages of which, under the Christian dispensa-
tion, we are totally deprived. And if Christ, instead
of giving us the substance, of which the law only
exhibited the shadow, has in fact reduced to a figure
that atonement, and that priesthood, which under
the law had an actual and efficient reality, then the
Apostle had little ground for his boasting of the
superiority of the priesthood of Christ over that of
Aaron. We come then to the conclusion that Christ
was a real Priest, and the Priest from whom all
other priests derived their power ; and through whom
alone their sacrifices possessed any efficacy.
The duties which Christ discharges as our Priest,
are to make atonement for us, and to intercede for us ;
or to adopt better language than any that I can
frame, " Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in
his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy
divine justice, and reconcile us to God ; and in his
making continual intercession for us." Now these
duties he discharged from the beginning, for from
the beginning he forgave sin. This however he
could not do excepting as a Priest. He was the
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 105
*' Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
His Incarnation and death were so absolutely certain,
that men were pardoned in consequence of his
Atonement, long before that atonement was actually
made ; so that his failure in his work was an im-
possibility ; unless it were possible that the counsel
of God could fail, and that, through a defect of
prescience, he had admitted into heaven, the ' right-
eous Abel ' and others whom it might be necessary
afterwards to cast out.
The necessity of an atonement, — the absolute
impossibility of pardoning the sinner without it,
has, I conceive, been already abundantly manifested.
If sin indeed be considered merely as a debt, then
the necessity of an atonement cannot be proved ; for
there can be no impropriety in a rich creditor forgiving
a poor debtor, without the interposition of any surety.
That our sins are debts is perfectly true ; but many
and mischievous are the errors into which men have
been led, by considering them merely as debts ; and
one of the worst of these errors is, that if sin be
merely a debt, then is an atonement altogether un-
necessary. But if God be considered as the Supreme
Ruler of the Universe, appointing what is necessary
for the welfare of all his creatures, — -and if he be a
wise Ruler who does not make a world which has
no connection with, nor effect upon the whole, but
makes every world with reference to all other worlds ;
in other words, if no part of the universe be useless
or superfluous ; — and if our sins be considered, as
10() CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
infractions of that law, of the inviolable sanctity of
which it is necessary that every creature should be
clearly convinced, and as practical denials of those
divine perfections, of the absolute infinity and im-
mutability of which it is necessary that every creature
should be well assured ; then they assume a very dif-
ferent aspect. In this case we see clearly that were God
to forgive them without atonement, he would in truth,
by so doing, abrogate the law, of w^hich they are
infractions, and acquiesce in that denial of his own
perfections which they imply. Let the death of Christ
as a Priest be denied ; let it be admitted that it was
the death of only a fallen sinful man, dying for the
same reason that other men die, and for what pos-
sible purpose, unless a most disastrous purpose, such
a world as this was created, I cannot even venture to
conjecture. But view our sins as a rebellion against
the Supreme Ruler, and the death of Christ as the
death of our great High-Priest, atoning for these
sins ; and we see at once the high and important
situation which man occupies in the government of
God ; while the atonement through which his sal-
vation is effected, exhibits to the hosts of heaven a
view of the sanctity of the law, and of the glory of
the divine perfections, which as no language could
exhibit, so no language can describe.
This view of the matter however has been suf-
ficiently discussed, and it has been shewn that God
could not have pardoned sin without atonement,
without producing consequences the most disastrous
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 107
to the whole universe. I shall now endeavour there-
fore, through a somewhat different train of reflection,
to lead the reader to the same conclusion, and to
prove that the death of Christ was really an atoning
sacrifice. It will, I think, he admitted, as a maxim
of indisputable truth, that pain inflicted when there
is no necessity for it, or inflicted to an extent beyond
what the necessity of the case demands, is a violation
of justice. And it will be admitted that God cannot
by any possibility violate justice. Whenever therefore
God does inflict pain, it will be admitted that that
pain, and the whole extent of it, was required by the
necessity of the case ; and consequently that the
remission of any part of it, would be unjust. But
God did inflict pain upon Christ,^ — nay " it pleased
the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief." Now
either that pain, and every part of it, was imperiously
required by justice, or it was not. If it was not, —
if our salvation, the object of Christ's coming, could
have been accomplished w^ithout it, then God, in the
infliction of this pain, was clearly violating justice, —
a violation of which they surely will not believe him
to have been guilty, who seem to consider God, as
merely a name for some unintelligible personification
of mercy. It is of no use to say that God might
justly inflict a degree of pain which Christ was
willing to bear, in order to promote our salvation.
For we are arguing on the supposition that our sal-
vation possibly could have been effected by him,
without these sufferings. And it is not easy to see
108 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
how our salvation could be effected by his sufferings,
if they were unnecessary, and therefore unjust, be-
cause carried beyond what the necessity of the case
demanded. It must be concluded then, that the
sufferings of Christ, in all their extent, were im-
periously demanded by justice.
We must next inquire then, upon what ground
Justice founded this demand. That his sufferings
were of the most agonizing kind, cannot be denied.
Extenuate them as you will ; call them the sufferings
of a mere man, still in the union of bodily pain with
mental anguish, they stand unequalled in the history
of human endurance. Now, why were sufferings
of this exquisite kind necessary ? Say that he was
bearing our iniquities in his own body on the accursed
tree, — that he was sustaining the curse due to us for
our violations of the law, and the reply appears to
be perfectly satisfactory, because it appears to assign
a perfectly sufficient ground for these sufferings.
Assign any of the inferior grounds which have been
alleged as the cause of his sufferings, and see
whether they are equally satisfactory, or whether they
will render these sufferings at all compatible with
Justice. It is said that he died to confirm the truth of
his doctrines. Granted ; but was his death absolutely
necessary for this purpose ? Would his doctrines
not have been believed, had he not died to confirm
them ? Had he constructed them with so little
intrinsic rationality, and supported them by so little
external evidence, that his death was necessary, im-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 109
periously and essentially necessary, to their reception ?
Or, if his death was necessary, were all the agonizing
circumstances that attended it, necessary too ? Unless
this be affirmed, unless it be maintained that had one
pang that was inflicted upon him been spared, his
doctrines could not have been believed, then it must
be admitted that to say he died merely to confirm his
doctrines, does by no means render his sufferings
even compatible with Justice ; much less does it give
a satisfactory account of them. But that he died in
confirmation of his doctrines at all, is an allegation
that we surely could little expect to hear from men
who require very different evidence indeed, than either
his life or his death affords, before they will receive
any doctrine that he has taught, — who will believe
nothing, unless they imagine that they can prove
it, whether Christ ever taught it or not. Moreover,
if there be any one doctrine which, beyond all others,
his death was designed to confirm, it is this, that he
was equal with God ; for it was for the alleged
blasphemy of this, that he was condemned as worthy
of death by the rulers of the Jews. Yet this is the
very doctrine, which they who tell us that his death
was intended to confirm his doctrine, make it the
fundamental point of their system to deny. We may
surely say to them, if he died to confirm his doctrine,
why do you not believe his doctrine ? We expect
more consistency in rational men. Either admit
then, that his death was more than a confirmation
of his doctrine, or admit that his sufferings were a
110 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
plain violation of Justice, since you receive no doc-
trine which you would not have received, whether he
had suffered or not.
But farther, the death of Christ could not by any
possibility prove his doctrines to be true, if they
were previously doubtful. It could only prove his
own sincerity ; and if this was doubtful before, it is un-
certain whether it could have been very satisfactorily
established by that event, under the particular circum-
stances of the case. But without dwelling upon this; I
would observe that to prove a doctrine to be true, and
to make it true, are two very different things. Now the
death of Christ did not merely prove his doctrines
to be true ; but it made them true. For example, he
declared that his death was necessary in order to the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, — " It is expedient for
you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the Com-
forter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I
will send him unto you." Now if Christ could
actually have given the Holy Spirit without dying,
this doctrine is false. ^ The same remark may, in
one form or another, be applied to every doctrine
of the gospel. They depend not for their confirma-
tion, but for their truth, on the death of Christ.
Take that away, and Christianity at once dwindles
down to simple Deism. Again, therefore, I remark,
that to say that Christ died to confirm the doctrines
of simple Deism, is just to say, that suffering was
inflicted upon him, in order to prove the truth of
^ See note D. Appendix.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. Ill
doctrines which the Deist pretends that he can prove
very well, though Christ had never either lived or
died. In this case then, assuredly his sufferings were
not at all required by the necessity of the case, and
were consequently inflicted in palpable violation of
justice.
Again, it is said that he died to give us an example
of patience in suffering. This also is most fully
granted ; but the question is, was his death imperi-
ously necessary for this purpose ? Could we not
possibly have acquired for ourselves, or could God
not possibly have wrought in us, the spirit of forti-
tude and patience, had the sufferings of Christ been
less severe ? The objector to the atonement cannot
on his own principles, pretend to say this. He must
then admit, either that the sufferings of Christ had
a higher object, or that they were unjustly inflicted.
Neither this purpose then, nor the proving of his
doctrines, could render his death a matter of imperi-
ous necessity, nor consequently a matter of justice.
Another purpose which, it is said, was answered
by his death was, that by rising again, he might
give to us the most perfect assurance of the resurrec-
tion. Now it is most readily admitted, that the
accomplishment of this purpose rendered his death
imperiously necessary. But then the easiest and
most honourable death, would have accomplished this
purpose, just as well as the most ignominious, and
the most agonizing. The agony in the garden and
on the cross, and all the bitterness of death, were
112 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
totally uncalled for by this object, and were therefore
inflicted to the violation of justice, as they were in-
flicted without being at all required by the necessity
of the case.
Are there any other purposes supposed to be
accomplished by the suff'erings and death of Christ ?
It is useless to inquire. Be these purposes what they
may, if they fall short of an atonement for sin, I
may venture to say that it will be found impossible,
on any ground which these purposes can afi^ord, to
reconcile his suff'erings and death with the plainest
dictates of unalterable justice. Justice then did im-
periously demand an atonement, for it demanded the
suff'erings and death of Christ ; and upon no inferior
ground can the justice of the demand be vindicated.
But in maintaining the doctrine of atonement, we
are in the habit of using language much more dis-
pleasing to those who deny it, than when we say that
an atonement was required by the justice of God.
For we are very apt to talk of the wrath of God
against sin : and while the Scriptures tell us that
God is angry with the wicked every day, nay that
his soul abhorreth the wicked ; and while they
describe his wrath in terms of the most terrific
import, we hold it to be the very reverse of modesty
to comply with the enervated delicacy of modern
theology, and reject such expressions as harsh and
inappropriate. For it is quite clear that sin must be
the object of supreme hatred to God, since it not
only tramples upon his authority, but denies his
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 113
very existence, and would, were it permitted to pro-
duce its full eiFect, involve the whole universe in
undistinguished ruin. It is perfectly true that wrath
is not in God, as it is in us, an agitating, disturbing
passion, excited by some strong impulse, and follow-
ing out its career with blind, ungovernable fury.
God is totally unsusceptible of any passion ; but we
can speak of him only in human language, and we
ascribe to him wrath, much in the same way that
we ascribe to him hands and feet. But then there
is something in God, analogous to wrath in us ; and
that it is not in him an agitating passion, renders it
just so much the more dreadful. Passion would
abate, its fervour would cool ; and the same weakness
that gave it birth, would ensure its termination.
But wrath in God is not an emotion, and therefore
can no more change, than any other part of the
Divine character can change. And while the Scrip-
tures call this particular manifestation of holiness
and justice, — for it is nothing else — by the names
of wrath, and abhorrence, and indignation, we need
not scruple to call it by the same names ; since it
will infallibly produce all the same effects that these
passions tend to produce among men, and that in a
manner infinitely more terrible to the objects of it.
Now the question is, how are we to escape this
wrath ? As it is not a passion, it does not render
God unwilling to forgive ; but, derived from the
purity of his holiness, and the inflexibility of his
justice, it plainly renders forgiveness impossible,
I
114 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
unless that forgiveness can be rendered perfectly
compatible with these perfections, — with the sanctity
of the law, and the safety of the universe. God
cannot deny himself, nor act in a way contrary to
his own perfections. Now an atonement, which
shews the hatefulness of sin more impressively than
either our obedience, or our destruction could do ;
and displays all the perfections of God, in a way in
which they never otherwise could have been displayed,
does render it not only a just but a glorious thing
for God to forgive the sinner. Pardon communicated
through this medium, shews God to be just, while he
is "the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
" He washed us from our sins in his blood;" but
if his blood was shed merely as a testimony to the
truth of his doctrines, or as an example of suffering
patience, or as a preparatory step to the resurrection,
this cannot be true ; we are as yet unwashed, and the
wrath of God abideth upon us still. But that wrath
Jesus in very truth did feel to the uttermost, when
he cried out, " I am poured out like water, and all
my bones are out of joint : my heart is like w^ax ;
it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength
is dried up like a potsherd ; and my tongue cleaveth
to my jaws ; and thou hast brought me into the dust
of death." ^ Sin, strictly speaking, is never par-
doned. The sins of unbelievers are not pardoned ;
for they are driven away in their iniquities. The sins
of the believer are transferred to Christ. He took
' Psalm xxii. 14, 15.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 115
them upon him, and while they are fully and freely
pardoned to the believer, they were not pardoned
to his substitute. The penalty of them was exacted
of him who was able to endure it without sinkino-
under it. And when he had endured that penalty,
it not only becomes a just thing to remit it to the
believer, but it would be unjust to inflict upon him
personally, that which he has already endured in his
surety. I hold it, therefore, to be language most
Scriptural and true, to say, that we can escape the
wrath of God only through the sufferings of Christ,
who was made a curse for us. Hence the Church
is called a "purchased possession," we are expressly
declared to be ''bought with a price," and the price
is stated to be " the precious blood of Christ, as of a
lamb without blemish and without spot." Nay so
completely was the notion of purchase, in early times
associated with atonement, that the very word WUl
came to signify a price. ^
Now if any person choose to say that this repre-
sents God as implacable, — as determined to have
punishment, and an infinite amount of it, which
Christ endures for so many, while the divine wrath
still continues unabated toward all others, — that it
represents the Father and Son as actuated by different,
and even opposite feelings toward the sinner, I can
only reply that I am totally at a loss to discover upon
what part of the statement the objection can be
founded. If we look to the sufferings of Christ, I
' See note E. Appendix.
I 2
116 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
say that the infliction of these sufferings can be
reconciled with justice, on no other ground than the
supposition that they formed an atonement for our
sins ; for, on no other ground that has ever yet
been alleged, were they imperiously required by the
necessity of the case. And taking a higher view
of the matter, I say that had God, as supreme Ruler
of the universe, after he had declared that death was
the wages of sin, forgiven sin without any atonement,
— without actually inflicting the penalty, then the
plainest dictates of justice had been violated, and the
very foundations of his moral government subverted.
That the Father was less deeply interested in the
salvation of sinners than the Son, or that the Son
is less unalterably repugnant to the salvation of
sinners, excepting through the medium of atonement,
than the Father, — that the love of the one is, or at
any time ever was, greater than that of the other,
is most distinctly and unequivocally denied. Nor
am I aware that from any part of the preceding
statement a difl'erence of aifection toward fallen
man, in the difl'erent persons of the Trinity, can
be drawn. I have already shewn why neither the
Father nor the Holy Ghost could become incarnate.
But if I have said any thing from which it may be
fairly inferred, either that they were less deeply
interested in the success of the atonement, or that
the Son would have been more ready to forgive the
sinner without it, in so far I am not only willing
to admit, but anxious to announce, that I must
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 117
have misstated the doctrine of Scripture upon the
subject.
But the Mercy of God, it is thought, would have
been much more highly honoured, and more con-
spicuously displayed, had that mercy been at once
applied to the sinner, without any atonement being
required. God, it is said cannot be considered as
exercising mercy at all, in the pardon of the sinner,
when he does not grant the pardon without first
inflicting the penalty upon the sinner's Surety. Now,
if one attribute of the Divine character can be con-
sidered, as more imperiously demanding atonement
than any other, mercy is assuredly that attribute ; for
I apprehend that without the atonement, the very
existence of such an attribute as Mercy in the Divine
character, is incapable of any satisfactory proof. We
want to know that God is merciful, — that he is
infinite in mercy, — that there is no case of guilt to
which his mercy will not extend. And how are we
to learn this ? Should God forgive some sinners, and
condemn others ? this would prove that his mercy
was limited. And as every sinner, when made ac-
quainted with the plague of his own heart, very
naturally thinks himself to be the chief of sinners,
every sinner would in this case, when he felt his need
of mercy, feel also that he was placed beyond that
limit to which mercy extends. Even the death of
Christ does not always prevent him from thinking
this. But let us suppose that God should pardon
every sinner, without requiring any atonement, would
118 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
this prove him to be merciful ? No, this abrogation
of the law, this encouragement to sin, this utter
subversion of his moral government, would be the
very reverse of an act of mercy. And moreover,
should God pardon all sin, the inference would be,
not that God is merciful, but that sin is no evil.
Even the atonement does not prevent the sinner from
thinking that God is like himself, and does not hate
sin. If sin were pardoned without any atonement
this would be an undeniable truth. Now we know
that God is merciful, not simply because he pardons
sin, but because he pardons it after he has avdully
demonstrated how infinitely and unalterably hateful
it is to him ; and because he gave up his Son to
death in order to render pardon possible. This was
an act of mercy so great, that none other can ever
surpass, or even equal it. " Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins." And we
hold the Apostle's reasoning to be irresistible, "He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up
for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give
us all things ? " This is an argument with which
we can go to the mourning sinner, whose soul is
troubled, while conscience is setting all his sins in
array before him, and who is ready to say * There
is no hope ; ' and we can tell him that God is per-
fectly willing to bestow upon him all the glory and
blessedness of heaven. And we can shew him that
he has no reason whatever to doubt this ; for when
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 119
God brings him into that city of which such glorious
things are spoken^ and crowns him with glory,
honour, and immortality, he is in all this giving him
a much smaller expression of love than that which
he has already given, in giving up his Son to death
for sinners. Here is an act of mercy so much
greater than any other that ever can be displayed, that
we need not wonder that unbelief, — that doubts as to
whether God really loveth us, and be willing to
fulfil to us every promise that he has made, should
be set forth in Scripture as the worst of sins. After
such an expression of his love, after such a manifes-
tation of mercy as the cross of Christ aifords, — the
very highest that heaven could furnish, — can any thing
so deeply mark the depravity of the human heart,
or offer such an insult to God, as still resolutely to
doubt whether he be willing to " forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all our iniquities ? "
But, let it be supposed, that the death of Christ
was not strictly and properly an atonement, demanded
by the justice of God, and necessary to avert from
us the curse of a broken law, and we are not only
effectually deprived of this, the only sufficient argu-
ment by which we can combat the sinner's fears, the
only satisfactory ground upon which we can call upon
the sinner to trust in God, but it becomes altogether
impossible to prove that there is any such attribute
in the Divine character, as mercy at all. The most
plausible arguments that could be used for this pur-
pose, might be readily met by equally plausible
120 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
objections. And even without any objections what-
ever, take away the atonement, and there is no
argument that will lead the sinner to rely on the
mercy of God. This is a feeling which does not
naturally, nor easily enter into the guilty heart. The
sinner is more inclined to dread God, and when
sensible of his guilt, like Adam, to hide himself
from the face of the Lord. Even the atonement is
not uniformly and immediately successful in removing
the fears which guilt has awakened, and in leading the
sinner to believe that after a thousand sins and follies
past, God still views him with a Father's love, and
will welcome him back with every expression of a
Father's tenderness. Take the atonement away, and the
mourner in Zion is left without the hope of comfort.
So far then is it from being true, that the mercy
of God would have been ready to forgive the sinner
without atonement, had justice allowed it ; and that
it would have been highly honoured by so doing, that
the very existence of mercy can be proved only by
the atonement. Remove that proof of it, and I may
very safely challenge all the wisdom of human philo-
sophy to prove that any such thing as mercy exists.
I know not if this view of the matter be urged upon
the attention of the Church, with sufficient frequency
and prominence : but if it were, I can hardly think
that so strange an objection to the atonement could
ever have been conceived, as that which considers
the atonement, — the only fact by which the very
existence of mercy, and much more its infinite extent,
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 121
can be proved, — as a drawback upon the fulness and
freeness of that mercy.
I need not dwell upon a remark, which however
it is necessary that I should here make ; that if Christ
did not die solely as our substitute ; if the imputation
of our guilt was only partly the cause of his death ;
if he was a fallen sinftd man, and died of necessity
because he was so, then the argument which we draw
from the atonement, in proof of the boundless extent
of the Divine mercy, in order to lead the mourning
sinner to " peace and joy in believing," totally fails.
The sinner, in such circumstances, it is well known,
is peculiarly ingenious in finding out arguments
against his title to embrace the salvation offered to
him in the gospel. We can triumphantly repel every
argument that his fears suggest, against his having
ground to hope in the mercy of God, by referring to the
cross of Christ. Let it be the cross of a fallen sinful
man, — let the imputation of our guilt be only one of
the causes that placed him there, — and it would require
but a small portion of that argumentative skill which an
awakened conscience never fails to supply, to neutralize,
if not to annihilate every ground of comfort that we can
draw from the cross. The death of one fallen sinful
man is far enough from proving that God is infinite
in mercy, and that all men however fallen and sinful
they may be, may safely rely upon that mercy, nay,
may " come boldly to the throne of grace, that we
may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time
of need." The death of a fallen sinful man could
122 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
never, by any possibility prove this. The death of
Christ does prove it, else it is yet unproved, and our
receiving of mercy and grace, instead of being so
certain that they may be sought with all holy boldness,
rests only upon a peradventure.
In order to give effect to the atonement, the free
and voluntary consent of all the parties concerned is
essentially necessary. If God do not consent to
accept of the obedience and sufferings of a Mediator,
as affording a more glorious display of the Divine
perfections, and more solemnly confirming the prin-
ciples of his moral government, than either our
obedience or our death could have ever done, the
obedience and sufferings of the Mediator can be
of no avail ; for God has an unquestionable right
to determine whether he will forgive the sinner at
all, and on what grounds he will do so. And this
is the very ground of our reliance upon the atonement
of Christ, that it was appointed by God himself : and
that it was accomplished to the fall extent that he
required, was proved by his raising up of Christ and
giving him glory. Not less necessary is the consent
of the sinner. For if he declare, that while he seeks
for eternal life, he will not accept of it as the free
gift of God in Christ Jesus, but depends for his jus-
tification before God, in whole, or in part, upon
something else than the atonement, all scripture —
nay all reason — declares that he can have neither
part nor lot in the matter. If the work of atone-
ment be sufficient to reconcile us to God, and to
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 123
render the pardon of our sins compatible with his
perfections, then nothing needs to be added, or can
be added to that which is already perfect. And if
his work be not perfectly sufficient for that purpose,
it is vain, and worse than vain, to hope that we are
capable of supplying the defect. The consent of the
Mediator himself is also clearly necessary. If he
were appointed to the sufferings which he endured,
against his own will, and was dragged reluctantly to
the altar, and was compelled to resign a life which
he would have gladly retained, and to endure suf-
ferings which he would have avoided, had it been in
his power, then nobody, I suppose will maintain that
sufferings thus inflicted could form any ground for
his successful intercession, or in any way be rendered
available for our good. If from the period of his
appointment to his office, down to the period when he
shall have fully accomplished the purposes for which
he assumed it, there was one step which he did not
voluntarily take, — one moment when he would have
withdrawn from his work if he could, that one step,
that one moment vitiates the whole proceeding, and
destroys the ground of our reliance upon it. For that
is a step, — a moment — with regard to which, instead of
looking on the travail of his soul and being satisfied,
he must regard as subjecting his soul to a travail
which he did not expect, and which, had he an-
ticipated it, would have prevented him from under-
taking the work at all. His consent was consequently
given, under a mitigated and mistaken view of what
124 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
would be required of him ; — a consent which, had he
foreseen that step, — that moment — he never would
have given. Can we believe this of Christ ? Can we
suppose that when he consented to take our iniquities
upon him, he had not a clear and most distinct view
of the whole extent of suffering to which his under-
taking subjected him ? Or can we suppose that even
during the most agonizing moments of his course,
he regretted, that is, virtually cancelled the consent
which he had given, to undertake it ? If so, then
at that moment the benefits which we derive from
him, supposing we could in such a case, derive any
benefits from him, were not the free gifts of his grace,
but were forcibly wrung from a reluctant and unwilling
benefactor.^
Christ then voluntarily consented to be made sin
for us ; and he gave that consent with a distinct
view of all the sufferings to which it would expose
him ; and the most agonizing of these sufferings
never once induced him to withdraw that con-
sent, by making him express or feel a wish that he
had withheld it. Now this is one of the consi-
derations that lead most directly to the proof of his
divinity. Supposing him to have been a mere
creature, then either he was a creature, created
originally for a different purpose, but was induced
to consent to undertake the work of man's redemp-
tion ; or he was a creature created originally for that
express purpose. In neither case could he have
^ See note F. Appendix.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 125
given that consent which is essential to the validity
of atonement. If he was originally created for a
different purpose, then we must admit a want of
prescience in God. He created this being for one
purpose, but afterwards found it necessary to alter
this creature's destination, and employ him for a
different purpose. But in this alteration of his des-
tination, he, as a creature, totally dependant upon
God, could have no consent either to give, or to
withhold. But let us take the very highest idea
of him, that has been, or that can be framed, by
those who deny his divinity. Let us suppose him
to be a Super-angelic Spirit, created for the express
purpose of manifesting the glory of God, in the
work of redemption. It is plain that he could not
in this case, any more than in the former, give that
voluntary consent to being appointed to make
atonement, without which atonement is a nullity.
For if he was a creature — a super-angelic creature,
created specifically for the purpose of becoming in-
carnate and making atonement, then it is clear that
he was appointed to this work and to all the labours
and sufferings which it imposed upon him, before
he had a being at all, and consequently before he
was capable of either giving or withholding his
consent. To say then, that Christ was a mere
creature, even making him the very highest of all
created beings, is effectually to deny the atonement.
It must also be observed, that if he became, in
his Incarnation, a fallen sinful man, it does not
126 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
follow indeed that he withdrew his consent to endure
all the sufferings which his undertaking imposed upon
him, but we have no evidence that he did not, and
we have strong ground for thinking that he did.
And upon a point of such fundamental importance,
it is surely necessary that we should have evidence
of the most indisputable kind. And such evidence, I
shall in the sequel have occasion to shew, we have in
abundance. I merely remark here in passing, that
if Christ became a fallen sinful man, then he became
a man as liable to death, as unable to avoid or resist
it, as any other man, — an opinion that is openly and
strenuously maintained, as of plain necessity it must,
by those who say that Christ was fallen and sinful.
He was then bound to die by two different obliga-
tions,— ^by that voluntary consent to become obedient
unto death, without which his death could be no
atonement, — and also by that personal constitution
which rendered his death unavoidable, whether he
had been under any covenant obligation to die or not.
Now it is obvious that the existence of the latter
of these obligations, altogether obscures the evidence
of the former, by shewing that he must have died
though that obligation had never existed. It is of
the utmost importance for us to know, that though
every step of the painful process through which he
passed, the benefits derived to us by his sufferings,
were not by constraint wrung from him, but willingly
purchased for us, — that he was not bound down to
endurance by the iron chain of his own fallen and
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 127
sinfiil personal constitution, but by the golden chain
of that love to God whose glorious perfections he
was manifesting to the universe, and of that love to
men through whose salvation he was making the
manifestation, which no waters could quench, and
no floods could drown. For aught that we can tell,
that love was eftectually quenched ; and in the inten-
sity of his sufferings, he regretted that he had ever
undertaken to bear them, and would have escaped
from them, had he not, as if distrusting his own
resolution, placed himself in a situation which ren-
dered escape impossible. For aught that we know,
the reproach cast upon him on the cross was true —
" He saved others, himself he cannot save." It
may be that the insulting challenge, " Let him come
down from the cross now, and we will believe," was
a challenge which he declined, from total inability,
through personal weakness, to meet it. And if so,
what becomes of the atonement ?
I may here notice what is often said as to the
bearing of the atonement. It is said that as God is
unchangeable, atonement therefore can have no
bearing upon him. If therefore it have any bearing
at all, it must be upon us. If the Church taught
that the great, and indeed only object of atonement
is to render God willing to forgive the sinner, then
the remark would be perfectly correct. But the
Church teaches no such doctrine ; nor have I met
with it any where, save in the writings of Socinians,
who very often represent the doctrine of the Church
128 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
in this manner, that they may be able to overthrow
it ; a task which they would find not quite so easy,
if they would take the trouble to acquaint themselves
with what it is that the Church really believes upon
the subject. If indeed it could be said with truth
of any of the offices of Christ, that it bears not
upon men at all, but solely upon God, it is of his
Priesthood that the remark would be made. The
bearing of the other offices upon us, is palpable.
As a Prophet he enlightens us ; as a King he subdues
us to himself, rules, and defends us ; and what more
do we want ? or what is left for the Priesthood to
accomplish ? If then the Priesthood can have no
bearing upon God who is unchangeable, and is un-
necessary to us who are renewed without it, there
seems to be no room for it whatever. This mode
of reasoning has often been employed against the
doctrine of atonement. And were the atonement
that which the Socinian makes it, when he attempts
to refute it, a means of rendering God willing to
forgive, the reasoning would be good. But the
Priesthood has an essential bearing upon us. It
cancels the sentence of condemnation, and of aliens
and enemies, makes us children of God ; placing us
in that situation in which we must of necessity be,
before any grace whatever can be conferred upon us.
But in changing the relation in which we stand
toward God, it has as distinct a bearing upon him as
upon us. It is not indeed requisite in order to render
him willing to forgive; but as " God cannot deny
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 129
himself," it is requisite in order to render forgiveness
compatible with his own perfections, and the interests
of the universe : and if therefore it do not bear upon
the whole character of God, upon every perfection
of his nature, and upon every principle of his moral
government, then it has failed in attaining its object.
When atonement, in this view of it, is shewn to
be unnecessary ; and when it is shewn what possible
purpose such a being as man can possibly serve in
the government of God, without such an atonement,
it may be necessary to enter into a more minute
consideration of the bearing of the atonement. But
as long as the opponents of the doctrine hunt a
phantom of their own formation, they may be allowed
to pursue it without molestation, as the Catholic doc-
trine is not at all concerned in the result of the chase.
So far then it appears certain that Christ was a
Priest, and that his death was truly an atonement ;
for he suffered for no sin of his own ; yet he did die
for sin ; " For the iniquities of my people was he
smitten." His death then was the penalty due to our
sins, for on no other ground can it be reconciled
with justice. And as the justice of God demanded
the death of Christ, when he took our iniquities upon
him, so the mercy of God no less imperiously de-
manded his death, because without it, the very
existence of mercy could never have been proved. It
appears too that the efficacy of the atonement may
be securely relied upon, because it was appointed by
God, and its accomplishment rewarded by him ; and
K
130 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
also because it was voluntarily undertaken by Christ,
and voluntarily carried on by him through its every
step. The consent of the sinner alone therefore is
necessary to enable him to reap all the benefits of
atonement.
Having mentioned one of the necessary qualifica-
tions of Christ, for the making of an atonement,
that he could undertake it with his own voluntary
consent, and a consent given with a clear view of all
the sufferings to the endurance of which his under-
taking would expose him, — a consent without which
his sufferings could have had no atoning efficacy, and
a consent which, had he been a mere creature, how-
ever exalted, he never could by any possibility have
given — I cannot choose a better place for noticing
some other qualifications that were necessary, to
enable him to make an atonement for our sins.
It was essentially necessary to the accomplishment
of the atonement, that he who undertook it should
be God. Without being Divine, our great High
Priest could have been only such a Priest as were
those under the law, and he could have offered no
more effectual a sacrifice than they did. His Divinity
was necessary not merely to enable him to give that
voluntary consent to his appointment, without which
his death could have been no atonement ; but was no
less necessary in order to furnish him with an offer-
ing. "It is of necessity that he should have
somewhat to offer." One, among many reasons,
why the sacrifices under the law were of no avail to
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 131
the taking away of sin, was, that the animals offered
were already as completely the property of God, as
they could be made, by being presented to him in
sacrifice. " I will take no bullock out of thy house,
nor he-goats out of thy folds ; for every beast of the
forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
I know all the fowls of the mountains ; and the wild
beasts of the field are mine." And had our Saviour
not been God, his sacrifice must have obviously
laboured under the same defect. He could not have
said, of that life which he gave for a lost world,
what no created being can say, " No man taketh it
from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."
This, I say, is what no created being could ever say ;
for the highest of created beings has received his life
from God, holds it in dependence upon God, and
has no authority whatever to lay it down. But Christ
in giving his life for that of the world, was giving
that which was strictly and properly his own, that which
he assumed at his own pleasure, that which could be
demanded from him by no law, and that which could
be wrung from him by no power ; but was assailed in
vain by death, and him that had the power of death.
In laying down his life for his sheep, therefore, he
was laying down that which was entirely his own, —
his own in such a way as no creature ever did, or by
any possibility ever can call his life his own ; and
which he had consequently the most indisputable
right to dispose of as he pleased.
K '■I
132 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
But it is obvious that our Saviour's Sacrifice alto-
gether wanted that indispensable characteristic of an
acceptable and efficacious sacrifice, that it should be
offered by him who can say that it is his own, and
that he has an unquestionable right to offer it, if we
suppose that Christ was a fallen and sinful man.
For then he had no more control over his own life,
than we have over ours ; and could not say that he
had power to lay down that which, in reality, he
had no power to retain ; but which he must give up,
whether he pleased or not. To maintain, then, that
Christ was a fallen sinful man, is most clearly and
directly to deny the Atonement ; for it is to deny that
he had any right to dispose of that life which he gave
for the world. This matter will require a more
extended consideration, at a more advanced period
of our discussion ; but the remarks just made are, I
think, sufficient to show that Christ was neither a
mere creature, nor, as to his manhood, fallen and
sinful.
In order to make the atonement, it was not less
necessary that he should be truly Man, than that he
should be truly God. Had he not been tinily man,
then the serpent's head could not have been bruised
by the ' woman's seed.* Had he not been truly man,
by whom our foe was conquered, then, as Irenseus
remarks, our foe had not been fairly overcome, for
as "by man came death," even so was it necessary,
that by man should come " the resurrection from the
dead." Again, the atonement was to be made by
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 133
suffering. But the Divinity cannot suffer. It was
necessary therefore, that the Son should assume, and
assume into such union with himself, a nature capa-
ble of suffering, as would render his sufferings in
that nature his own sufferings, just as certainly as his
Divine personality is his own ; so that the Scriptures
speak of God purchasing the Church with his own
blood, and of the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory.
It was necessary also that the atonement should be
made by him who was truly man, not only because
it was man that was to be redeemed, but because
man is the only rational being who is capable of suf-
fering without personal guilt. Had Christ assumed
the angelic nature, in order in that nature to have
manifested the perfections of God, he could, in that
nature have endured no other death than spiritual
death, which is identical with sin. But assuming a
human nature, he could, by an exercise of Divine
power die, without doing, and without knowing sin.
Moreover it was necessary that he should be man,
and should make the atonement, from which all the
rational families of God were to learn wisdom, in
that nature which is at present the lowest of rational
natures, but which, from its uniting of the only two
substances of which we have any knowledge, matter
and spirit, in its composition, is capable of becoming
the most perfect of created natures ; for had the
atonement been made in a higher nature, that know-
ledge of God, which it alone can give, would have
been unknown to man, one of the rational families
134 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
of God. And had it been made for fallen spirits
alone, it might have been doubted whether it could
descend so low as to us. Thus had the atonement
been made in a higher nature than that of man, the
lessons taught by it would have been neither so
extensively, nor so impressively taught. This sub-
ject also however, will require more particular notice
hereafter. In the mean time it seems sufficiently plain,
that he who made the atonement must of necessity
be man.
It was also necessary that he who made atonement
for the sins of men, should himself be perfectly holy.
Under the law, no person could be found possessed
of this perfect holiness : but the utmost care was
taken to render the Levitical high-priest, as far as
possible, a striking type of Christ in this respect.
He was required to be perfectly free from all bodily
defect and deformity. He was to be born of a mother
who had been, not a widow, but a virgin, when
married to his father. He was consecrated to his
office by ceremonies of the most solemn kind. He
M^ore upon his forehead a golden plate, on which was
graven, " like the engravings of a signet, holiness
TO THE LORD." He was not permitted, like other
men, to mourn for those that died, nor to contract
any ceremonial uncleanness, even for his father or
his mother. And on the great day of atonement,
when he entered into the sanctuary, he prepared
himself for the solemnity, by offering first an atone-
ment for himself. Thus the utmost degree of cere-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 135
monial holiness was conferred upon him, that he
might be a proper type of the immaculate holiness
of our great High-Priest.
Now if all this ceremonial holiness was necessary
in those priests who were only types of the great
High-Priest, how much more necessary was all the
reality of that holiness in our great High-Priest
himself ? If this ceremonial holiness was necessary
in him who appeared before the Shechinah, how
much more necessary was all the reality of that
holiness in him who is the Shecinah ? If the one
was necessary in him who appeared only once in the
year, in the earthly tabernacle, how much more
necessary must the other be considered to be in him,
who appears continually in the heavenly sanctuary
to bless us, not once in the year, but always from
thence ? If such was the awful solemnity to be
observed in passing, on one appointed day, into the
holy of holies, how unspeakable the holiness of him,
whose death rent asunder the veil that concealed
that holy place from mortal eye, thus profaning the
typical representation while he went into the reality,
even into holy places not made with hands, there to
appear before God for us ?
Now it is not denied that Christ was perfectly im-
maculate ; but it is maintained, at the same time,
that he was fallen and sinful. The one of these
positions appears to me to be a direct contradiction
of the other. If the propensities of fallen man were
in him, these propensities were in themselves, criminal
136 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
before God, entering into and unfitting him for the pre-
sence of God, until like the High-Priest under the law,
he had first offered sacrifice for his own sins. And
that he did redeem his own creature substance, is a
tenet openly avowed by some of those who maintain
that he was fallen and sinfid. But if he who was
fallen and sinful could redeem himself, I see not M^hy
we, who are also fallen and sinful, should not be able
to redeem ourselves. If it be said that we have been
guilty of actual sin, which he never was, I reply that
still he was in the state of an infant, a fallen sinful
creature, but without actual sin. If then, his death
redeemed himself, — or his own creature substance,
which was just as much himself, as his Divinity was
himself — then, with regard to infants at least, we
may affirm, that their death is a redemption of them-
selves. Now while I maintain the salvation of all
infants, dying before actual sin, I deny that any one
of them is, or can be saved by its own death, but
only by the death of Christ. Besides, if the death
of Christ, a fallen, sinful, but actually guiltless being,
could redeem not only himself, but others also ; why
should not the death of other fallen, sinful, but
actually guiltless beings, be sufficient to redeem not
only themselves, but others also ? And upon what
principle can we find fault with those who offered to
God their " first-born for their transgression, and the
fruit of their body, for the sins of their soul,"
excepting that the infants themselves had not given
their consent to the sacrifice ? If the sacrifice of one
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 137
fallen, sinful, but guiltless being, be sufficient to
redeem the souls of others ; the sacrifice of another
fallen, sinful, but guiltless being must have equal
efficacy, unless some exception of this kind be taken ;
an exception, be it remarked, which has no reference
whatever to the personal constitution of the being
excepted against, — a personal constitution which fits
the fallen, sinful, but guiltless infant as eifectually for
either priest or sacrifice, as the fallen, sinful, but
guiltless Saviour could be.
For it must be remarked that Christ was required
to be holy, not merely as the Priest who offered the
atoning sacrifice, but also as the Lamb which was
offered. To offer to God that which was not perfect
in its kind, was, even under the law, an offence of
the most g-rievous nature, " Cursed be the deceiver,
that hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacri-
ficeth to the Lord a corrupt thing : for I am a great
King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dread-
ful among the heathen." In this respect also the
divinity was essentially necessary to our Lord, in
order to give that dignity to his person, and that
value to his sufferings, which they could not otherwise
have possessed. His sufferings are available for our
salvation, not simply as they are sufferings, but as
they are the sufferings of the " Lord of glory ; " his
blood cleanseth us from all sins, not simply as it is
pure, and innocent, and holy blood, but as it is the
blood of him who is " God over all, blessed for ever,
Amen." He was not divested of the divinity on the
138 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
cross, for he could not be divested of himself ; and
his divinity was himself, as much as the humanity
which suifered was himself. The Godhead in him
was not separated from his Godhead properties, but,
inseparably united to his own humanity, sustained
it to endure what would have overwhelmed any other,
until he could say, " It is finished." And this was
what rendered his death an exhibition of the divine
perfection, from which angels learn wisdom, that he
who was " bruised for our iniquities," was not a man
emptied of the divinity, and dying in consequence
of the sinfulness of his flesh ; but was God purchasing
his Church with " his own blood." As the sacrifice
offered then, the divinity was not less essential to
him, than it was essential to him as the Priest by
whom the sacrifice was offered.
Both as the victim offered then, and as the Priest
who offered it, it was necessary that Christ should
possess all the perfection of holiness, — a holiness not
resulting from a successful resistance of the motions
of sin in the flesh, but a holiness resulting from the
total absence of any such motions. For an inclina-
tion to sin, however successfully resisted, and however
completely repressed from going forth into actual
transgression, is itself criminal, and totally incom-
patible with the holiness of the " Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sins of the world," If such
inclination was in Christ, then was he under the same
necessity as the Levitical high-priest, to prepare him-
self for appearing before the Lord, by offering first
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 139
a sacrifice for his own sins. The holiness of him,
therefore who, " through the eternal Spirit, offered
himself without spot to God," was not a holiness
that resulted from a successful repression of the sinful
inclinations of the flesh, or from a successful over-
coming of the renitency of the human will against
the Divine will ; but from the total absence of any
such inclinations, or such renitency in the Man
anointed in the moment of conception, with all the
plentitude of the Holy Ghost. Had he been in any
manner, or to any degree involved in the guilt of men,
he could not have substituted himself in the room of
guilty men, but must have died for his own guilt.
Upon this subject I shall again avail myself of the
language of Augustine. After stating that a sacrifice
can be offered only to God, that it must be offered
by a righteous and holy priest, that it must be ac-
cepted by those for whose sakes it is offered, and
that it must be without blemish, he thus goes on —
' Who then was so righteous and holy a priest as the
only Son of God, who had no need to purge away
his own sins, original or actual, by sacrifice ? And
what could be so properly taken from men, to be
offered for them, as human flesh ? And what so fit
for this immolation as mortal flesh ? And what so
pure, for purifying the sins of mortal men, as flesh
born in the womb, and from the womb of the virgin,
without any contagion of carnal concupiscence ? And
what so grateful could be offered or received, as the
flesh of our sacrifice, the prepared body of our Priest ?
140 CHRIST OUR PRIEST,
That as four things are considered in every sacrifice,
to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is
offered, and for whom it is offered, the selfsame only
and true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the
sacrifice of peace, remained one with him to whom
he offered, made one in himself of those for whom
he offered, and was himself both the person who
offered, and the thing offered.' ^
Another part of the office of Christ as our Priest
is to make intercession for us. All that I have to
do at present is to shew, that Christ actually does
intercede for us, and to notice one or two of the
principal circumstances connected with that inter-
cession. That he interceded for his people before
his appearance in the flesh, is, I think, very distinctly
shown in the first chapter of Zechariah. There it
is written, "Then the angel of the Lord answered
and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not
have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah,
against which thou hast had indignation these three-
^ Quis ergo tam Justus et sanctus sacerdos, quam unicus Filius Dei, qui
non opus haberet per sacrificium sua purgare peccato, nee originalia, nee ex
humana vita quae adduntur ? Et quid tam congruenter ab hominibus
sumeretur quod pro eis ofFerretur, quam humana caro ? Et quid tam aptum
huic immolationi, quam caro mortalis ? Et quid tam mundum pro mundandis
vitiis mortalium, quam sine ulla contagione carnalis concupiscentiag caro
nata in utero et ex utero virginali ? Et quid tam grate offerri et suscipi
possit, quam caro sacrificii nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri ? Ut
quoniam quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, cui offeratur, a quo
ofiferatur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse unus verusque
Mediator, per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos Deo, unum cum illo maneret
cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui
offerebat, et quod offerebat.' Dc Trinilatc, Lib. 4. Cap. 14.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 141
score and ten years ? And the Lord answered the
angel that talked with me, with good words, and
comfortable words." Now it requires no very nice
attention to the structure of the prophecy from which
this quotation is made, to shew, that the angel who
is here represented as interceding for Judah and
Jerusalem, and who was answered with good and
comfortable words, was no other than the angel of
the covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is distinctly
recognized as Jehovah. In this prophecy He is here
stated very plainly to have exercised the office of
intercessor, and to have exercised it with efficacy,
long before his appearance in the flesh. That he
exercised the same part of the priestly office while
he was on earth, needs no proof to those who are in
the habit of reading the Bible. We have there a
most instructive specimen of his intercession for his
people in general, in the seventeenth chapter of John,
and we have also a proof of his intercession for every
individual believer, in his declaration to Peter, — " I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." I do
not stop just now to shew how clearly this proves
him to have been a priest when he was on earth, but
go on to remark that he continues to make inter-
cession for his people now. Of this I can offer no
more satisfactory proof than that which is furnished
by the following texts of Scriptures: "Who is he
that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea
rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
142 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
US." ^ " Wherefore he is able also to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing
he ever liveth to make intercession for them." "^
With regard to this intercession I shall not inquire,
whether he makes use of words, or only presents
himself silently before God, as it were a " Lamb
that had been slain ; " neither shall I inquire whether
actual prostration be employed in his intercession, —
questions which I surely characterize very gently
when I say that they are foolish. They have arisen,
I suppose, from considering the intercession of Christ
as having a reference solely to our prayers. Now it
is certain that our prayers can find acceptance with
God, only through the intercession of Christ. This
is indeed acknowledged in our prayers, all of which
we offer up in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and beg an answer to our prayers only for his sake.
But every duty that we perform, every grace that we
exercise, and every blessing that we receive, is as
intimately connected with the intercession of our
Mediator, as our prayers are. The very word inter-
cession has received an improper and incorrect
limitation, from its supposed exclusive connection
with prayer. But the intercession of Christ just
means that he stands between God and men, as the
medium through whom alone every deed of man
becomes acceptable to God, and every blessing that
God confers upon man is conveyed. We are wrong
if we suppose that any prayer can be heard, if we do
' Rom. viii. 34. " Heb. vii. 25.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 143
not offer it in the name of Christ ; but if we suppose
that any work of righteousness that we do, can be
accepted of God, or rewarded by him, if it be not
wrought in the name of Christ, we are equally wrong.
If we offer up any prayer to God, on the ground of
our own righteousness, and desire to be heard because
we deserve to be so, we are thus setting aside the
intercession of Christ, and cannot by any possibility
be heard. But if we work any deed of righteousness,
which we hope will be accepted of God and rewarded
by him, on account of its own excellence, we are
equally setting aside the intercession of Christ, and
are equally deceiving ourselves. "The ploughing
of the wicked is sin." And why? Just because the
ungodliness of the principles upon which he acts,
having no reference whatever to his dependance upon
God, communicates its contamination even to his
most indifferent actions. The prayers and alms of
the Pharisee, though excellent deeds in themselves,
are hateftd in the sight of God, for they are per-
formed without any regard to the authority of God,
and without a reference to him for their reward. In
the same way, not only the good deeds of the believer,
but his most indifferent actions — derive their com-
plexion from his general principles, and wrought in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, they become
sacrifices of righteousness, accepted of, and rewarded
by God, as expressions and fruits of faith in the
Redeemer whom he hath provided. If then we do
not recognize the intercession of our Lord Jesus
144 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
Christ in every deed of righteousness that we do,
and in every grace that we exercise, and in every
blessing that we receive, — if, in short, we confine
our views of his intercession to our prayers alone,
in which that intercession is distinctly and formally
acknowledged, we are limiting our views, in a way
that cannot fail to prove most injurious both to our
progress in the Christian life, and to our enjoyment
of spiritual pleasure.
While I think it of the utmost importance to in-
culcate upon my reader the fact, that for every step
that he takes in the Christian life, he is indebted to
the Intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ, — that he
can make no progress until he can say, " I live,
nevertheless not I, but Christ liveth in me," I hold
it also important to remark, that the Intercession
of the Lord Jesus Christ must be always successful.
"What we ask in his name, believing, we shall, we
must receive. Nothing can be more certain than
this. He is the well-beloved Son, and what we ask
for his sake, if it be agreeable to his will, cannot be
denied. God requires us to hear him when he in-
structs us ; and can we suppose that God himself will
refuse to hear him, when he calls upon his Father to
fulfil those petitions which his instructions alone have
taught us to offer ? His intercession must prevail,
because in asking every blessing that the Gospel
promises, in his name, we are asking nothing but that
which we have a covenant right to ask. We deserve
nothing, but Christ hath deserved all things ; and if
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 145
it be true, as I apprehend, it most clearly and certainly
is, that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that his
righteousness is imputed to us, then there is nothing
that we may not ask. The terms of the covenant of
salvation have already been fulfilled by our Divine
representative, and whatever he deserved we may
confidently ask ; for if the covenant has been fulfilled
on our part, we may rest assured that it will not
fail to be fulfilled on God's part. His faithfulness
and justice are now pledged to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all iniquity. When there-
fore we ask for all blessings, we ask only for that
to which we have an undoubted right, if we be
truly members of the body of Christ ; for in him
all fulness dwells, and dwells just for our sakes,
that " of his fulness we may all receive, and grace
for grace."
It is the most delightful privilege of the Gospel,
that the believer has at all times access to God, with
the perfect certainty of being heard. His prayer is
considered as being the prayer of Christ himself, —
as in truth it is, for the salvation of the believer is
the glory of Christ, — and it rises to the throne of
grace with all the efficacy which such a consideration
can give it ; and is enforced with all the weight of
his merits, and with all the sanctity of his peace-
speaking blood. " This is the confidence that we
have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to
his will, he heareth us. And if we know that he
hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have
L
146 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
the petitions that we desired of him." ^ From this
view of the matter, I think, two conclusions appear
to be perfectly certain. The first is that a prayer
oifered up to God, without any reference to the
Intercession of Christ, cannot by any possibility be
granted ; for this would be to prove that there is
some other way of access to God, than through
Christ Jesus, and that in fact his mediation is un-
necessary. The next is, that a prayer offered up to
God, with reference to, and dependence upon the
Intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ, must, to an
absolute certainty, be heard and answered. When
Christ intercedes for us, our prayer must be granted ;
because he asks only what is agreeable to the will
of the Father, and what therefore the Father has
pleasure in granting. He asks only what he has
paid for, and what therefore justice requires to be
granted. He asks, as Mediator, only what, as God,
he has the power and the privilege of bestowing, and
what therefore must, most certainly, be bestowed.
The prayer of faith, therefore, must prevail.
But both these positions, it will perhaps be said,
are directly contradicted by well-established facts ;
and against facts there is no reasoning. A slight
examination however will, I apprehend, be sufficient
to shew that this is not the case. With regard to
the first of these conclusions, that a prayer not
offered in the name of Christ, cannot be granted, I
need enter into no discussion ; for they who " deny
' 1 John V. 14.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 147
the Lord that bought them," may be presumed to be
but little in the habit of praying at all. Spiritual
blessings they cannot receive, for they depend not
upon the Spirit of God, but upon their own exer-
tions, for all the virtue that they hope to acquire.
Temporal prosperity they may possess. But while
the arrangements of providence render it necessary,
that temporal good should be indiscriminately dis-
tributed, with little regard to moral character,
prosperity is far from being always a blessing.
" The prosperity of fools destroys them."
With regard to the other conclusion, that the
prayer of faith, offered in the name of Christ, must
be heard, I conceive nothing can be more derogatory
to the Divine character, than to doubt it. The facts
which seem to militate against this conclusion, may
be satisfactorily accounted for by such considerations
as the following. First, it must be recollected that
the prayer even of a true Christian is not always a
Christian prayer. I refer not to that coldness of
heart, and deadness of affection, and poverty of
expectation, and distrustful timidity which so often
characterize our prayers ; but to that mere formality
of which the Christian may occasionally be guilty.
There may be a want of any exercise of faith in the
prayers which we offer up. The name of Christ may
be mentioned merely as a form, and without any real
specific believing reference to, or reliance upon his
Mediation. Now, we cannot hope that he is to
adopt as his own, and enforce with all the efficacy
L 2
148 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
of his Intercession, a prayer which we are offering up
in a way which clearly indicates to his all-seeing eye,
that we are taking no interest in, and feeling no
anxiety about the matter, but are praying in mere
formality.
Again, we may have offered up our prayer in
faith, but we may then have gone away and for-
gotten it. But if we wish to have our petitions
granted, we must not only pray, but we must also
" look up," waiting for and expecting an answer. If
we have engaged some person to intercede for us
with some great man from whom we expect a favour,
we wait with the most anxious expectation to learn
the result of the application. But if when we have
applied to God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, we
go away, and think no more about the matter, nor
make use of the means which he may actually be
putting into our hands, for the very purpose of
enabling us to obtain the blessing that we desired,
then no doubt our prayer fails ; yet is it not the less
true that the prayer of faith foils not. Our petition
may have been heard, while our subsequent careless-
ness has thrown away the blessing.
Farther, we may often pray for things the posses-
sion of which would prove really hurtful to us, and
the denial of which things therefore, is the most
gracious answer to our prayer. God alone can tell
what is really good for us, and graciously reserves
to himself the prerogative of determining whether
the petitions which we offer be fit to be granted.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 149
" Me have ye bereaved of my children, said the
mourning patriarch, Joseph is not, and Simeon is
not, and ye will take Benjamin away. All these
things are against me." Nay, Jacob ! but these are
the steps whereby God is providing a place, where
thou and thine may be satisfied in the days of famine.
How often does the wayward child struggle and cry,
while the tenderest hand is performing offices essen-
tially necessary for its health and comfort ! And
how often are we, in the hands of God, very wayward
children, fretting and murmuring at that which is
necessary for our spiritual health and comfort ! God
may therefore often deny our petitions, because he
sees that to grant them would be detrimental to us.
But in this case there is no reason to doubt, that he
will always give us a blessing more appropriate to our
situation, and of greater value, than that which he
has refused. In this case then, though our petition
be denied, yet the prayer of faith is not in vain. A
beloved child may ask an indulgent father for some-
thing, which the father sees would be hurtful. This
therefore he refuses ; and the child who knows both
that his father is wiser than he and knows much
better what is good for him, and also that he is so
good that he will refuse him nothing that is really good
for him, will rest perfectly satisfied with the decision.
One or two objections to the doctrine of Christ's
intercession, may deserve a passing notice. It is
said, if the Father himself loveth us, as our Lord
declares, then there can be no need of any intercessor
150 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
to induce him to grant all necessary blessings to
those whom he himself loves. It is also said that if,
as we maintain, God has actually decreed to confer
upon the believer every thing necessary to fit him
for the kingdom of heaven, and to bring him into
it, then can we want no intercessor to obtain for us
those blessings. These objections, if they have any
validity, must put an end not merely to the doctrine
of Christ's intercession, but to the propriety of any
prayers on our part. For, on the principle on which
they are founded, we must say, that it is useless to
make known our wants and desires to God, who
knows what things we have need of before we ask
him, and better than we can know, and who is abun-
dantly disposed to supply all our wants. God has
indeed determined to give all necessary blessings to
the believer ; but he has also determined to give
them only through the mediation of his own Son.
And surely it argues no defect of love on the part
of God, that in order to render our salvation com-
patible with the interests of the universe, and the
blessings appointed for us perfectly secured to us, he
has appointed his own Son to be the medium through
whom our desires may be addressed to him, and his
blessings conveyed to us.
There is one objection however which, if it can
be established, will effectually destroy the doctrine
of the intercession, and remove all the comfort that
we derive from the thought, that when we approach
God in prayer, we are sure to be heard, because we
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 151
are introduced to him by the Son of his love. If
Christ was not a Priest when he died, then his death
was no atonement ; and the atonement denied, the
whole foundation of his intercession is removed.
But if I have succeeded in shewing the necessity and
the reality of the atonement, then the certainty and
the prevalence of his intercession, necessarily follows.
It must be farther remarked, that as a fallen sinful,
but regenerated man was totally unfit to make atone-
ment ; even so such a man could give us no security
in the character of intercessor. For if one fallen
sinful, but regenerated man can effectually intercede
for us with God, then why should not another man
of the same character perform for us the same service ?
Or rather why should any regenerated man place
any reliance whatever upon another man, who is
exactly in his own situation, fallen, sinful, but regene-
rated ? It is useless to say that his intercession
avails, because he was appointed by God to the office
of intercessor ; for if he was not a Priest while he
was on earth, if he became a priest only by virtue
of his resurrection, then he has no such appointment
that we know of ; and moreover without the atone -
ment, there is no ground laid for his intercession,
which is just the constant application of the benefits
of the atonement. And as little can it avail to say,
that his intercession may be relied upon, because he
is God as well as man ; for they who maintain that
he was a fallen sinful man, maintain also, that in
him the divinity was quiescent, was self-suspended,
152 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
was limited ; in other words was a non-entity. It is
declared that in him the Godhead person was separated
from Godhead properties. Now I would remark not
only that if this separation existed w^hile Christ was
on earth, his intercession can have no place, for he
could lay no effectual ground for it ; but I would
remark farther, that if this separation be possible at
any time, then it is perfectly clear that there is no
such being as God at all. If God can, at any time,
or under any circumstances, cease to be " Infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom,
power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth," then
he never could possess these characteristics at any
time, — that is, he never existed. And if Christ be
God as w^ell as man, then that was his character
when he was on earth as certainly as it is so now.
And if this was not his character when he was on
earth, — if he had divested himself of these, the
essential characteristics of Godhead, then not only
do atonement and intercession fail ; but he was not
God then, he cannot be so now, nor can there be a
God at all, if he is capable of being separated from
his Godhead properties.
Such are some of the results of the system that
teaches us to believe that our Lord's humanity was
fallen, sinful humanity ; results not drawn from that
system by remote and dubious deduction, nor wrung
out of it, by torturing it into conclusions which
would not readily suggest themselves to the supporters
of that system ; but results directly and unavoidably
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 153
springing from what they expressly avow. For the
quiescence, the suspension, the limitation of the
Godhead in Christ is openly avowed. And this is
much worse than maintaining that he was a mere
man : for they who maintain that he was a mere
man, yet leave untouched the principles by which the
existence of God is proved. But if we believe that
in Christ the Godhead was quiescent, suspended,
limited, we may continue to believe, if we please,
that there is a God ; but our belief is perfectly
gratuitous ; we have swept away every ground upon
which his being can be proved ; we have left our-
selves no defence against the arguments of him who
denies that there is a God ; for a Godhead that is
capable of quiescence, suspension, and limitation, is
plainly no Godhead at all. At least so thought
Elijah, when, deriding the divinity of Baal, he said to
the priests, " Cry aloud ; for he is a god: either he
is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." ^
Christ, then was really and truly a Priest, an
unfallen and sinless Priest. He had a life which
was strictly his own, which he could by no law be
required either to assume, or to lay down ; a life
which in this respect differed essentially from the life
of every created being ; for no created being as-
sumes life, but receives it at the will of God, without
the possibility of giving his own previous consent to
its reception, and without the possibility of having
' 1 Kings xviii. 27.
154 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
or of acquiring any right to dispose of that life as
he pleases. Christ thus having a human life differing
from the life of every created being, had power to lay
it down at his own pleasure, and in any manner that
he might think proper. He did lay it down, and
his death was really and truly an atonement. It was
the payment of our debt, the ransom of our redemp-
tion, the endurance of our penalty, the price by which
we were purchased, the removal of the wrath of God
from us, by its transference to our substitute. This
atonement was demanded by all the attributes of the
Divine character, all of which are gloriously illustrated
by it. It was demanded by the interests of all the
rational family of God, which would have been in-
volved in dismay and in ruin, had sin been pardoned
without that proof of its unalterable hatefulness in
the sight of God, which the atonement alone could
furnish. The justice and mercy of God are the
attributes most commonly brought into view when
speaking of the atonement ; of the former of which
it is said, that God might very justly have departed
from his right to punish, and the latter would have
been much better displayed, by the absence of any
atonement. It has been shewn that such a statement
results from a total misapprehension of the nature of
atonement ; — that justice did imperiously demand it ;
and that without it, the very existence of such an
attribute as mercy in God, is totally unsusceptible
of any satisfactory proof. By the atonement, Christ
has laid a ground for an intercession which must
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 155
always be effectual, so that the prayer of faith offered
unto God through him, can never fail to be heard.
*' For Christ is not entered into the holy places made
with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of
God for us." ^ We have seen also at every step, how
utterly ruinous to the Priesthood of our Lord, and to
all the hopes that we found upon it, and to all the
comfort that we draw from it, is the system which
maintains that he was a fallen, sinful man, and entered
upon the Priesthood only in consequence of his
resurrection from the dead. I proceed now to mention
some of the duties which we owe to Christ as our
High-Priest.
The most important duty, and that which we most
clearly and obviously owe to our great High-Priest,
is to renounce every self-righteous thought, and every
self-dependent feeling, and account the pardon of our
sins, and eternal life as solely the free gift of God
through him. That we can be justified by any deeds
of the law, or by any works of righteousness, is a
notion so often and directly denied in Scripture, — is
so utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of atonement
and is so clearly repugnant to right reason, that it
is matter of wonder that any man, and especially
men believing the Scriptures to be the word of God,
could ever for a moment adopt such a notion. That
every deed of righteousness that we do, is not one
of the causes, but one of the effects of our justi-
' Hebrews ix. 24.
156 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
fication, is a truth of the very utmost importance ;
and a truth which may perhaps be most satisfactorily
proved by considering some of the most common
objections that are opposed to it.
It has been objected to the doctrine that we are
justified solely by the atonement made by Christ,
that no necessary connection can be discovered be-
tween the pardon of a guilty person, and the death
of an innocent one ; nor can any one explain how
the latter can be the cause of the former. To this
it has been answered, — and the answer is a complete
counterpoise to the objection, — that there is just as
little connection, that we can see, between pardon
and repentance, or between pardon and anything else
that may be considered as its cause, as between
pardon and atonement. If it be said that this reply
is calculated rather to silence the objector than to
remove the objection, it may be farther remarked,
that both the objection and the answer are particular
instances of a universal truth, which is, that no
necessary connection is discoverable by us between
any two events, which, nevertheless, we are accus-
tomed to consider as cause and effect. And if no
such connection be discoverable in any case, then it
can form no objection to the doctrine of atonement,
that such a connection is not discoverable in it. It
may also be observed, that the will of God has
established a connection between the atonement of
Christ, and the pardon of the believer ; and what,
besides the fiat of the Almighty, is requisite to
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 157
establish a connection between any two things ? or
what else has made any one thing in the universe to
be the cause of any other thing ? Fire consumes
what is submitted to its action. Is this a power
residing in the element itself, which has not been
conferred upon it by God, nor can be suspended at
his pleasure ? No man, who admits the being of
God, will pretend to say this. And if, even in
physical things, the will of God be allowed to be the
sole ground of the connection between cause and
effect, much more clearly must the same admission
be made with regard to the pardon of sin. If a man
has been offended, he may prescribe what terms he
pleases, as the condition of pardoning the offence ;
and surely we cannot reasonably deny to God a
privilege which we allow that every man possesses.
It is true that a man may prescribe terms that are
foolish and unreasonable, a supposition which we
cannot for a moment admit, with regard to God.
If, therefore, we could see no reason why the pardon
of sin is communicated through the expiatory sacri-
fice of Christ Jesus, — if we could see no necessity
for atonement whatever, yet when the fact is revealed
to us by God, that we can be pardoned only through
a crucified Redeemer ; it would become us, as offend-
ing creatures, depending altogether on the mercy of
God, to receive the annunciation with all humility
and gratitude. Even in this case, it would be most
irrational to object to it. But when God has graciously
permitted us to see, in part at least, the absolute
158 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
necessity of atonement, and some of the important
moral purposes answered by it, it is worse than
foolish, it is the very perfection of rationalism, to
find fault with this method of communicating pardon ;
and to say, that if we cannot be permitted to purchase
our own pardon, instead of receiving it as the free
gift of God, through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, we will not accept of it at all. Nothing,
I conceive, can more effectually, or more justly subject
a man to condemnation, than to say that he does not
see the wisdom of the medium through which God
is pleased to communicate the pardon of sin, and
rather than ask for it through that medium, he will
not accept of it at all.
When it is said that God is willing to pardon us
upon our repentance, without any atonement, it is
taken for granted that we can repent when we please.
For if repentance be something entirely out of our
power, then it can afford us no comfort to tell us,
even if it were true, that repentance will purchase our
p|hdon. For, besides that it seems just as difficult
to perceive the connection between repentance and
pardon, as to perceive the connection between atone-
ment and pardon, I know not that even the most
determined rationalism, has ever promulgated a tenet
more clearly absurd, or more decidedly opposed to
all experience, than the tenet that a man can repent
of himself, without being led to do so, and enabled
to do so, by the Holy Spirit. Many a sinner is no
doubt soothing himself to peace by the promise of a
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 159
future repentance. But he neither knows as yet what
repentance is, nor his own need of repentance, else
he would build himself up in no such foolish delusion.
For what does the sinner do, when he promises him-
self a future repentance ? He just says, to-day,
nothing shall induce me to abstain from indulging
every appetite and every desire, nothing shall lead
me to think of God at all, or to think of him without
dread and aversion ; nothing can make me delight
to contemplate his perfections, or find any pleasure
in drawing near to him : to-morrow, I will sit down
and mourn, in the utmost anguish of spirit, those
indulgences from which nothing shall induce me
to-day to abstain, and wish a thousand times that I
had never yielded to them ; nothing shall give me
such delight as the contemplation of these glorious
perfections which, to-day I hate to think of; and I
shall account nothing such a privilege as to draw
near to that throne of grace, before which nothing
shall induce me, to-day, to bend the knee. This is
exactly what the sinner says, when he promises him-
self a future repentance. He promises that to-morrow
he will hate with the most cordial detestation, that
to which, to-day, he clings with the most ardent affec-
tion. He who says, to-day I am bowed down with
all the weight of threescore years and ten, but to-
morrow I am resolved that I shall flourish in all the
vigour of unbroken youth, forms a resolution quite
as rational, and quite as much within his power to
accomplish, as he who says to-morrow I will repent.
160 CHRIST OUR PRIEST,
He who says, I will make to myself a new heaven
and a new earth, makes a promise just as much
within his power to accomplish, as he who says, I
will make to myself a new heart and a new spirit.
Repentance and renovation are not sacrifices which
we give to God, as the price of our justification ;
but gifts which God bestows upon us, and which
God only can bestow, in consequence of our having
been freely justified. That man has surely little
reason to lay claim to the appellation of rational,
who goes so directly in the face of common sense
and of all experience, as to teach the sinner that he
is capable of repenting, and that repentance will
purchase his pardon ; a tenet which whether it be
more deplorably absurd, or more fearfully fatal, I
shall not take upon me to determine. He who is
brought truly to see his need of repentance, neither
fancies that he can repent of himself, nor defer to
to-morrow his seeking of repentance from God.
I have already noticed, and may notice again, the
objection which says, that the doctrine of atonement
represents God as a sanguinary and vengeful being,
who, having once acquired a right to gratify his thirst
of blood on the human race, refused to forego his
claim till a nobler victim was offered in their stead.
This objection, though often urged, and dwelt upon
by the new theology with many a pathetic, and many
a tragic exclamation, is probal)ly brought forward
rather for the purpose of perplexing, than from any
weight that even they who make it, can suppose it
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 161
to possess ; and were it not that as some are weak
enough to make it, others may perhaps be weak
enough to be influenced by it, it would be altogether
unworthy of any answer. They who make it know,
or at least ought to know, that we who maintain the
doctrine of atonement, actually do not consider God
as a sanguinary being, any more than they do. On
the contrary we consider him as a God of love, and
we consider the atonement as a proof of love so
great, that no language can do it justice. Had he
been of a sanguinary or cruel nature, he would not
have provided a ransom for us, and especially such
a ransom as the blood of his own well-beloved Son,
It was the love of God that laid our help upon one
that is mighty to save ; that gave up his Son to
death for us ; that sustained him throughout the
whole of his work of redemption ; that ' ' raised him
up and gave him glory, that our faith and our hope
might be in God," He communicated pardon
through atonement, not because he delights in blood,
but because in no other way could it be com-
municated, without producing the most fatal conse-
quences. They therefore who believe the atonement,
when they see the absolute necessity of it, and the
many important moral purposes answered by it, are
very far indeed from considering it as a proof of any
thing vindictive in the divine character, but consider
it as a proof of exactly the contrary ; and are well
disposed to adopt the language of the Apostle, that
" it became him, for whom are all things, and by
M
162 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto
glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect
through suffering."
But the grand objection to the doctrine of atone-
ment is, that it is hostile to the interests of moraUty.
It is said, that to tell a man that he is justified, not
by his obedience to the law of God, but solely by the
merits of our great High Priest, is to cut the very
sinews of exertion ; to place a pillow beneath the
head of the sluggard ; to spread a couch for the
repose of indolence ; to take away the most powerful
motives to diligence in doing good, and to steadfast-
ness in resisting temptation. It is very natural, say
such objectors, for a man to reason thus — As my
justification depends not at all on my own holiness,
therefore it is unnecessary for me to put myself to
the pain and trouble of cultivating holiness. I need
take no care, since I have a sufficient surety to answer
for all my failures. That some men should be found
who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, is
what any one acquainted with human nature, would
be prepared to expect ; — and that there are men who
reason in this manner, I am far from being disposed
to deny. But the Gospel is not responsible for the
errors of those who pervert it to their own destruc-
tion ; and did I conceive that the view of atonement
held by the church, and which I have endeavoured
to state, afforded the slightest ground for such
reasoning, or were in any way hostile to the interests
of morality, I trust I should not be the last to
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 163
renounce that view, however reluctantly. For I
conceive that no truth is more certain, than that the
promotion of holiness, is the great end of all that
Christ has done and suffered for us, — that to raise
man from his state of moral weakness and degrada-
tion, and to lead him to the perfection of his moral
nature is the grand purpose, as far as we are con-
cerned, for which the great plan of our redemption
was devised, and carried into execution. But the
atonement is not only not hostile to this purpose,
but furnishes the only means by which it can be
accomplished. Indeed the reasoning of those who
say, that if our holiness do not justify us, it is there-
fore unnecessary, hardly needs a refutation ; since it
involves two very obvious errors, viz : — that justifica-
tion is all that is essentially necessary in our salvation,
and, consequently, what does not promote that can
be of no use, — and that the only adequate motive
to the cultivation of holiness, is the dread of con-
demnation ; since, if that be removed, there remains,
it seems, no longer any motive to its cultivation.
Now, if men will adopt reasoning that involves such
palpable errors, there does not appear to be a pos-
sibility of stating any doctrine, in terms so plain that
they will not misunderstand it. If a man will make
no exertion whatever, then, no doubt, a cobweb will
bind him ; and surely he must be incapable of making
any exertion, who is bound by such a cobweb as this
reasoning ; and who does not see, that though our
holiness does not, and cannot justify us, it may be
M 2
164 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
essentially necessary notwithstanding ; and that though
the abyss of woe were shut up, and its fires extin-
guished, and the undying worm were dead, yet neither
the number nor the influence of the motives which
urge the believer on to the cultivation of holiness,
w^ould be in the slightest degree diminished. He
who can adopt such a view of the doctrine of atone-
ment, as held by the church, has little pretension to
set himself up, as an improver of received Christianity,
since it shews such a grossness of intellect, and such
a destitution of moral feeling, as exhibits, if not to
himself, at least to others, a powerful proof of the
necessity of having the understanding enlightened,
and the heart renewed from above.
That the doctrine of atonement tends to diminish
our veneration for the law of God, and to abate our
dread of sin, can be supposed only by those who do
not understand it. It will be granted that religion
consists in regarding our Maker with all those feel-
ings which his perfections are calculated to inspire ;
or, as the sacred writers emphatically call it, having
the " heart right with God." To believe in the being
of God, is the first article in religion ; and to know
his nature is the first step toward religious perfection.
Consequently, whatever tends most effectually to
instruct us as to the character of God, and most
deeply to impress upon our hearts a sense of his
glorious perfections, must also most effectually tend
to produce holiness, by impressing us with the deep-
est veneration, and the warmest love for him who
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 165
unites in his character all that is venerable, and all
that is lovely. Now, which of the two has the
clearest and most impressive view of the divine
character, he who believes in the atonement, or he
who considers it as unnecessary ? In the death of
Christ, viewed as a sacrifice for sin, the one sees the
holiness of God, and the " exceeding sinfulness of
^in " so awfully displayed, that, were he asked if he
knew of any thing, that could display it more
strongly, or convince him of it more deeply, he
would reply, that he could not form the most distant
conception of any thing that could display it in a
manner half so striking, — that not even the destruc-
tion of the whole human race could, in so awful and
impressive a manner, manifest the holiness of God,
and the utter and inconceivable hatefulness of sin, as
the humiliation and death of the Son of God. He
deeply feels the force of the exhortation which says,
" Be ye holy, for I am holy ; " and he feels also the
force of the reason given, why we should pass the
time of our sojourning here in fear, namely, that,
we " were not redeemed with corruptible things,
as silver and gold, from our vain conversation, re-
ceived by tradition from our fathers, but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish, and without spot." ^ In the death of Christ
the other sees no such sacrifice, nor any manifestation
whatever of the holiness of God, or of the evil of
sin ; and he would tell us that the Deluge, the des-
^ 1 Peter i. 16.
166 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
truction of Sodom, or the final perdition of any one
human being, is, beyond all comparison, a much
more awftil proof of the hatefulness of sin, than the
death of Christ. Is it possible then, that the latter
can have as deep and impressive a view of the holiness
God, as the former ; or have his heart so effectually
aroused to a dread of sin, and a sense of its malig-
nity? Can he enter at all into the feelings which
make even angels veil their faces with their wings,
when they minister before the throne of God, and
contemplate his holiness ? or into the feelings of the
people when they cried, " Who can stand before this
holy Lord God? " or into that sense of the meanness,
and worthlessness, and imperfection of the highest
human excellence, when brought into comparison
with that which is divine, which made Job exclaim,
" Now mine eye seeth thee; I abhor myself, and
repent in dust and ashes ? " It is altogether impos-
sible. As far, then, as veneration for God, and
dread of sin enter into morality, so far the interests
of morality are not injured^ but inconceivably strength-
ened and promoted, by the doctrine of atonement.
Again, with regard to love to God, that important
principle of morality, what can be so well calculated
to awaken it, as a belief of the doctrine of atone-
ment ? " We love him because he first loved us ; "
and it is in the atonement that we witness the exhi-
bition of a love ineffable and inconceivable. He
who, awakened to a sense of his guilt, has felt him-
self ready to sink under its insupportable weight, and
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 167
has found safety and peace in the blood of the " Lamb
that was slain," finds himself totally unable to express
his sense of the mercy of God, in providmg such a
a ransom for his offending creatures. He feels it to
be a love that passeth all understanding. It is in the
very God against v^hom he has rebelled, that he finds
his help ; and a life devoted to his service is the
necessary consequence of that supreme gratitude and
affection which have been implanted in his heart.
Who will love God most ? He who sees him pro-
viding a way by which pardon may be granted, while
we are placed in a situation in which pardon was so
difficult, that without the shedding of blood there
could be no remission ? — or he who only considers
him as pardoning, while there was no obstacle
whatever to the granting of that pardon ?
While, then, in the cross of Christ, all the per-
fections of God are clearly displayed, and every error
into which we can fall with regard to his character,
is corrected ; while the holiness of God, his love to
men, and the hatefulness of sin, are so awfully ma-
nifested, that foundation is laid upon which alone the
principles of morality can ever be securely built. He
who persuades himself that God is all mercy, and
will never treat his creatures with severity, and thus
encourages himself in his evil ways, will see in the
cross a fearful proof, that unless we become new
creatures in Christ Jesus, then " he that made us
will have no mercy upon us, — he that formed us will
shew us no favour." And he, on the contrary, whom
168 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
guilt has taught to look on God with terror and dis-
may, will have his slavish dread changed into filial
veneration and love, when he sees God manifesting
such love to the world, as to give up his Son to death
for its ransom. It is here that apparent inconsist-
encies are reconciled, and apparent impossibilities are
accomplished. The Justice and Truth of God are
fully vindicated in the punishment of sin, while
mercy triumphs in the salvation of the sinner. It is
here alone that God can be just and yet justify the
sinner. Here the unalterable sanctity of the law is
most impressively manifested, and every motive that
either hope or fear can supply to urge us to the cul-
tivation of holiness, is exhibited with the most
resistless force. It is by habitually turning his eye to
the cross, which exhibits at once the perfection of
mercy and of judgment, which unites all that is awful,
with all that is encouraging, in the character of God,
that the Christian is impressed with a veneration,
which the attending proofs of mercy prevent from
degenerating into despondency and servile dread ; and
with a confidence of love, which is prevented by the
accompanying proofs of holiness and justice, from
swelling into a presumption which might produce
security and carelessness.
And who treats the Law of God with the greatest
respect, — he who considers its claims as so limited,
that he is fully able to satisfy them ? — or he who con-
siders it as so pure and so extensive, that he only
looks forward to conformity to it, as the completion
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 169
of his salvation, and the perfection of his nature ?
he who considers every deed of righteousness which
he performs, as so much of the labour accomplished,
which is to purchase heaven for him, and for
Mhich he looks on God as his debtor ? — or he who
considers it as a new step gained in his progress to
perfection, and a new ground of gratitude to God ?
In every view which can be taken of the subject, the
law appears to be " made void," not by the man
who sets it aside as the ground of justification, be-
cause he has so high an idea of its sanctity, that he
considers justification, and all the blessings connected
with it, as so many means adopted to produce con-
formity to the law ; but by him who considers it
only as a means for attaining a farther end ; and a
means, too, which we are perfectly capable of em-
ploying. The end of the one is to be justified, and
conformity to the law the means by which it is to
be accomplished. The end of the other is to be
renewed after the image of his Maker, in righteous-
ness and true holiness ; and justification is only one
of the means by which that end is to be attained.
The one obeys that he may he justified ; the other
obeys because he has been justified. Much has been
forgiven him ; therefore he loveth much. Upon what
possible ground, then, can he who denies the atone-
ment, and thus subverts every moral principle,
triumph over him who adopts it ? or talk of his
regard for the interests of morality, after he has
degraded holiness from its lofty situation as the very
170 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
end of our being, the end for which we were created
and redeemed, into the rank of a means for the
attainment of some farther and more important
object ? or how can he pretend that he is exalting the
dignity of human nature, who contends for the
debasing doctrine, that if the dread of punishment
be removed, there is no longer any sufficient motive
to the cultivation of holiness ?
It is then the first and most sacred duty that we
owe to Christ as our Priest, to consider the pardon
of our sins as resulting solely from his work as our
Priest, — as freely granted antecedently to any holiness
that we do or can possess, and consequently as
being in no sense, and to no degree, the effect of
that holiness. And this belief, so far from being
hostile to the interests of morality, affords the only
ground upon which the principles of morality can
be securely built ; as it makes holiness not the means
to some farther attainment, but the ultimate attain-
ment, the final perfection of man ; and as it not only
furnishes the only effectual means for the successful
cultivation of holiness, — a consideration into which
I am not called upon here to enter — but sets before
us motives for its cultivation of a more impressive
urgency, than any thing else that w^e can conceive,
possibly could do.
Another duty which we owe to Christ as our Priest,
is to consider him as the only Priest, through whom
we can have access to God, or receive any blessing
from him. While some who call themselves Chris-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 171
tians, deny that Christ is a Priest at all, or at least
deny that he was so till after his resurrection, and
thus, I conceive, plough up the very foundations
of Christianity ; there are others who do the same
thing as effectually, by maintaining that there are
many Priests under the Christian dispensation. By
some professing Christians, the ministers of the
Gospel are very commonly called priests. There
would be a less glaring impropriety in calling them
prophets or kings. There is no minister who has
the slightest pretension to be called a priest. He
can oifer for the sinner no sacrifice, without which
he can be no priest ; he can make no intercession
for us, farther than one man may do for another.
That his intercessions are more likely to be available
than those of another man, I am most ready to
admit, on the ground that he is appointed by the
great Head of the Church, the great High-Priest of
our profession, to perform this duty. But his
intercession is totally different from that of Christ.
He can intercede only through the medium of another
intercessor ; his intercession is not necessarily and
certainly successful, for he cannot so frame his
prayers, that they shall be certainly agreeable to the
will of God, as his knowledge is limited ; and he can
offer no sacrifice which pledges the faithfulness and
justice of God to grant whatever he may ask, as
Christ has done.
Christ hath, " by one offering, perfected for ever
them that are sanctified," and if there can be no
172 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
more offering for sin, then there can be no other
priest. If the death of Christ was perfectly suf-
ficient for our justification, then nothing needs to be
added to it ; and if it were not perfectly sufficient
for that purpose, then it could not effect it in any
degree ; for no idea can be more utterly absurd, —
more totally unworthy of any serious refutation,
than the supposition, that our own righteousness
will justify us, as far as it goes, and that the righte-
ousness of Christ will supply what is wanting in our
own. He justifies us wholly, or he justifies us not
at all. And our justification is complete and un-
alterable, before we can have any acceptable com-
munion with God, or can receive any spiritual blessing
from him. For God can grant no such blessings to
the man who stands to him in the relation of an
impenitent and unpardoned rebel. And if we possess
justification at all, we possess it with a completeness
to which no addition can be made ; for it is not a
thing that admits of degrees. We must be perfectly
justified, or we are not justified at all. Holiness
admits of all possible degrees, and our sanctification
is gradual, and is made to depend considerably on
our own diligence ; but our justification is as perfect
at the first moment of our being quickened from our
death in trespasses and sins, as it will be when openly
declared before an assembled world of men and of
angels ; and is no more derived from our own
exertions, that the atonement of Christ was derived
from them. One man may very well be more per-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 173
fectly sanctified tlian another ; but no one man can
be more completely justified than another.
Now if that justification which admits of no degrees,
which must be perfect, or exists not at all, which is
equally possessed by all that possess it, be founded
solely upon the atonement of our great High-Priest,
then it follows very clearly, that there can be no other
priest, and that the man who assumes the title of
priest, or who professes to perform the office of a
priest, is guilty of the most daring invasion of the
prerogative of Christ. In this respect the Church
of Rome is grievously guilty. But upon this subject,
where it would be easier to write a volume than a
page, I am not called to enter. Without, however,
looking to the errors of others, I would urge upon
my reader very seriously to consider, whether an
error of the same kind do not exist in his own heart.
Self-righteousness is not so much a speculative error
embraced by an particular Church, as a practical
error derived from the depravity of the heart, what-
soever may be the creed believed. There is always
a tendency to substitute something in ourselves, in
part at least, as the ground of that grace which
can be derived from our great High-Priest alone, a
tendency which manifests itself in a great variety
of ways.
When the sinner becomes sensible of the danger
of his state, and of his need of pardon, his first
impulse naturally is, to recommend himself to the
favour of God by the reformation of his conduct.
174 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
When he becomes sensible of the folly of this attempt,
and of the impossibility of success ; when he becomes
sensible that the pardon of sin could be purchased
by the blood of Christ alone, that it has already been
purchased by that blood, and cannot be purchased
again, but must be sought only as the free gift of
God, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus ; his next impulse is, that if he cannot recom-
mend himself to the favour of God, but must seek
it through the mediation of Christ, he must at least
recommend himself to the favour of Christ, and
render himself worthy of his mediation before apply-
ing for it. He feels the w^eight of his sins to be so
great, that he is altogether unworthy that Christ
should at all interest himself in his favour, and
imagines that he must remove, or at least diminish
that unworthiness, before he can venture to apply,
or to hope for the mediation of Christ in his favour.
Now it is perfectly easy to shew the folly of this
notion, — to prove, that we are no more capable of
recommending ourselves to the mediation of Christ,
than we are capable of recommending ourselves to
the favour of God without it. That we cannot first
repent and sanctify ourselves, and then cai-ry them
to Christ as the price of his mediation ; but must go
to him destitute of these, and of all spiritual good,
that we may receive them from him ; and that nothing
can be more irrational than to say, that we will of
ourselves take the first and most difficult steps in the
work of our own salvation, and then having sue-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 175
cessfuUy begun that work ourselves, we will go to
him to complete it : — all this it is very easy to prove ;
but unhappily, against moral weakness and spiritual
blindness, the clearest logic and the best-constructed
arguments avail nothing ; and most believers have
probably experienced in some degree this manifestation
of a self-righteousness which far other means than
logic and argument are necessary to subdue. And
he in whom it has been subdued, while, on looking
back he wonders that he ever could for a moment
be influenced by such palpable delusions, at the same
time feels, that, had it not been for the operation of
the Holy Spirit, the spell would have been unbroken
still, and no force of reasoning would have availed
to convince him of the error of what he now sees
to be so utterly foolish and irrational. Nothing can
well be simpler than the truth that our sins can be
forgiven us only through the blood of Christ, — that
through that blood, God is perfectly ready to forgive
them, — and that the more guilty we are, we have the
less reason to delay our application, since not one
spiritual gift can we receive, till we be first forgiven.
But simple as all this is, and clearly as it is stated in
Scripture, so deeply rooted is the feeling of self-
righteousness, so dark our hearts, and so averse to
believe the love which God hath to us, and so little
disposed to rely on the grace of our High-Priest,
that unless we be divinely taught these simple truths,
we shall never learn them. " For what man knoweth
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is
176 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth none
save the Spirit of God. Now we have received,
not the spirit of the world, hut the spirit which is
of God ; that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God." " But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for
they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned." ^
One of the most insidious forms in which self-
righteousness, and a distrust of our High Priest
manifests itself, is in that of an apparently holy
dissatisfaction with our own works, and our own
prayers, and our own services. Now the Christian
will never feel that he is entitled to look upon his
own performances with aught of the feeling of self-
complacency ; and even when he has done his duty,
and has reason to feel satisfied that he has been
enabled to do it, still he will also feel that it becomes
him to say, that he is an unprofitable servant, and
has done what it was his duty to do ; and, far from
glorying before God, will admit that his best services
require to be offered to God through the mediation
of Christ, in order to be accepted. To the Christian,
boasting is most effectually excluded ; for every
attainment in righteousness that he makes, and every
deed of righteousness that he does, so far from mak-
ing God his debtor, is nothing more than a new favour
conferred upon him through the atonement, and ren-
ders him so much more deeply a debtor to divine
1 I Cor. ii. 11, 12, 14.
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 177
grace. But it sometimes happens that the Christian
is so far from boasting of his services, that he goes
as far wrong in an opposite direction, — as we are
naturally more ready to overvalue than to undervalue
ourselves ; this happens not often, it may be, but it
does happen, and I have met with it. In this case
the Christian, — for I have never met this insidious
form of self-righteousness, excepting in cases where
the evidences of genuine faith were of the most
decisive kind — so far from looking back upon his
services, with the satisfaction of thinking that he has
been enabled to glorify God, looks upon them, not
only with dissatisfaction because they have not been
so perfect as they might have been, but with a feeling
of distress ; for he now sees distinctly how he could
have rendered the service more perfect. He dwells
upon the defects of his service, or upon some impro-
priety of motive that has mingled with his perform-
ance of it, till he looks upon it with pain instead of
pleasure. Few things are more disgusting than the
canting whine about the defects of their best services,
which we not unfrequently hear from those who are
only anxious to catch a compliment : and few things
are more calculated to awaken our sympathy, than
to see the truly humble Christian deploring that
imperfection of his best services, which nothing but
the anguish that it occasions him, induces him to
mention. This is one of the ways in which Satan
attempts to destroy the peace, and retard the progress,
of the estabhshed Christian. In this case I have
N
178 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
found the following mode of address effectual in
removing the delusion, and restoring peace. I have
said to the sufferer, ' Your sorrows arise from your
indulging a self-righteous spirit.' The charge is of
course eagerly and conscientiously repelled. ' But
then,' I ask, ' do you expect that your services are to
be accepted, and your prayers heard, only through
the mediation of our great High Priest, or on ac-
count of their own intrinsic and faultless excellence ? '
the latter supposition is also earnestly repelled. ' Well
then, you expect that your desires and prayers can
be accepted by God only through the mediation
of our great High Priest ; but you suppose at
the same time, that his mediation is of so little
efficacy, that it will procure no acceptance to your
services and prayers, unless they, in themselves
possess that absolute perfection, which would enable
you to look upon them with satisfaction, and to
hope for their acceptance, without any reference to
his mediation at all.' This also is strongly denied.
' Then you admit that if your services and prayers
are conscientiously presented to God, through the
mediation of Christ, they will be accepted of him on
the ground of that mediation, even though they
possess no such intrinsic excellence and perfection
as would make them acceptable without it ; and if
therefore you are distressed because you can detect
imperfections in them, you are clearly distrusting
the sufficiency of the mediation of Christ.' This
mode of reasoning appears to admit of no reply ; and
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 179
I have found it successful in enabling the mourner
to detect the source of his causeless sorrows, and to
recover that peace which results from a simple and
unhesitating reliance upon our great High Priest, for
the pardon of all our sins, and the acceptance of all
our services.
Another duty which we owe to our great High
Priest, is to live up to our privileges ; and that both
as it regards our advancement in the spiritual life,
and our enjoyment of spiritual pleasure. The Chris-
tian life is essentially a progressive thing ; for if the
Christian be not improving, he is degenerating ; if
he be not going forward, he is backsliding. Nothing-
can be a greater mistake than the opinion which
seems to be entertained by many, that when a man
has once reason to think himself a Christian, no
farther improvement in his character can be expected,
or needs to be sought after ; — that there can be no
reason why he should possess a stronger faith, or
more lively hope, or a larger measure, or a more
active exercise, of all Christian graces when he is
forty years of age, than when he was thirty. He
who entertains such a notion has abundant reason
to doubt whether he yet knows any thing about the
Christian life. The Christian cannot be satisfied
with his attainments in righteousness. He has felt
the blessedness of being able to approach God as a
Father, and of being delivered from the distressing
and degrading bondage of sin, and of having *' a
conscience void of offence ; " and he will not, and
N 2
180 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
cannot be satisfied with any measure of that blessed-
ness which he may attain. Every new attainment
only communicates a warmer desire, and additional
power, for making still further attainments. He
comes to no period in his course, at which he will
conceive he may safely stop, or at which, if he be
animated by the genuine spirit of Christianity, he
will feel disposed to stop. He looks forward to per-
fect conformity to the image of God, — to the complete
extinction of that body of corruption which dwells
in him, — to the consummation of holiness, as the
final end of all his exertions, the ultimate aim of his
being. And with all the glories of heaven in his
view, and animated by that faith which is " the sub-
stance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen," he will consider every day lost which does
not add to the treasures which it is the grand object
of his life to lay up there "where neither moth nor
rust corrupt, nor thieves break through to steal."
But among all the manifold and powerful motives
that urge the Christian on in his course, the fact that
his duty to his great High Priest imperiously requires
a continual growth in grace, is fitted to operate with
peculiar force — " He died that he might redeem us
from all our iniquities," and he entered into heaven
— there to appear before God in order to procure
for us, and bestow upon us, all the grace and all the
power necessary to enable us to make our path " as
the shining light, which shineth more and more unto
the perfect day." And while our Priest stands ready
CJIRIST OUR PRIEST. 181
to procure for us all spiritual blessings and all heavenly
gifts ; and feels himself honoured and gratified the
more largely that we draw upon him for those fruits
of righteousness which are " to the praise of his
grace ; " how can we pretend to be his disciples at
all, or with what feelings can we hope to meet him,
if we can permit days, and months, and years, to pass
away, without even calling upoii him at all, or calling
upon him only in a feeble and formal manner, for
the exercise of his gacerdotal office on our behalf;
and are living as if, so far as we are concerned, it
were a matter of no consequence whether Christ be,
or be not a Priest, — whether he do, or do not possess
the power of procuring for us, every thing necessary
to enable us to go on from grace to grace, and from
strength to strength, till we appear perfect before
God in Zion, The Son of the Sovereign announceth
to the discovered and condemned rebel, that he pos-
sesses an influence which enables him to secure to
the rebel not only his Father's pardon, but such
favour as will advance him from step to step, and
from rank to rank, till he occupy a high and honour-
able place m the court of the King against whom he
had rebelled ; and that he will with delight exercise
that influence on his behalf, both because he loves
the rebel, and because every exercise of 'that influence
manifests his own power, and adds to his own honour.
Now if the rebel never applies for the exercise of that
influence in his behalf, if he act just as if no such
offer had ever been made to him, who will believe
182 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
him when he says, that he not only believes the
announcement made to him, but receives it with all
joy and gratitude, and glories in having such a
mediator ? Is it not plain that through some fatal
delusion, — some unaccountable infatuation, he in
reality prefers his imprisonment, his chains, and
his condemnation ? Or would it at all mend the
matter for him to say, that though he was making
no use of the privilege offered him now, he was fully
determined to avail himself of it hereafter ? Would
not such a profession be still considered as amounting
to absolute insanity ? And would not the rebel be
justly held to be treating the offered mediation with
insult, and to be rendering his execution both certain
and unpitied ?
Now I need hardly say that the conduct of this
supposed rebel, is the very description of the conduct
of many who call themselves Christians. Our great
High Priest stands before the throne of God, ready
to procure for, and bestow upon us, justification,
adoption and sanctification ; together wdth that assur-
ance of God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the
Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance
therein to the end, which in this life do either accom-
pany or flow from them ; and finally to make us per-
fectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all
eternity. Yet there are many of us who call ourselves
Christians, and profess that we believe all this, and
that the all-sufriciency of Christ is all our hope and
all our desire, while in fact we are regarding all these
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 183
blessings as something that we profess to hope that
we shall sometime or other obtain, but which we are,
in the mean time, neither possessing, nor even seek-
ing to obtain, as a present possession ; — nay nor
even seeming to be at all sensible, that, as a present
possession, they are at all to be either obtained or
sought after. Salvation is looked upon as something
to be obtained and enjoyed in a future state, and to
be seriously sought for, only when we can engage in
worldly concerns no longer ; not as something which
it is the first concern of man to obtain, and the pos-
session of which alone is able to carry us comfortably
through all the duties and trials of life. This is
exactly as if the rebel should say, that when actually
brought to the scaffold, it would then be time enough
to think of the effectual Mediator offered to him ; or
as if the sick man should say that he would enjoy his
disease as long as possible, and then when death
seemed inevitable, would apply to the physician who
could, and who alone could certainly heal him. Can
this delay in seeking for salvation, and for all the
blessings which attend it, be considered as any thing
else than the most grievous insult to our High Priest ?
And if the rebel or the sick man just mentioned,
would be considered as clearly insane, should they
act in so absurd a manner, when life is at stake ;
upon what possible grounds can we consider those as
less clearly chargeable with insanity, who act in this
manner, when eternal life is in question ? " The
children of this world are wiser in their generation
184 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
than the children of light ; " and were it not that
our hearts are depraved, and our minds blinded, and
our moral perceptions so blunted, and our moral
judgments so perverted, that we call " evil good and
good evil," it is utterly impossible that any man could
ever be guilty of conduct with regard to the salvation
of his immortal soul, which no man could be deemed
sane who should follow with regard to his worldly
concerns. And will not every mouth be stopped
before God, and every one be totally incapable of
offering the slightest reason why the vials of a right-
eous indignation should not be poured out upon us,
when we have refused to seek a salvation which he
so long waited to bestow upon us ? " How shall we
escape, if we neglect so great salvation ? "
And how often is even the true Christian charge-
able with living far below his privilege ! He not only
believes in the efficacy of Christ's mediation, but has,
in some measure experienced that efficacy, and has
been brought out of darkness into hght, and made a
partaker of the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
But is he then always found rejoicing in the step
which he has already gained, and, animated by the
experience of the past, pressing onward to new
attainments, in the hope of still higher enjoyments?
With a power put into his hands to enable him ever
to renew his strength, to mount up with wings as
eagles, to run and not be weary, to walk and not
iaiut ; is he always found applying this power to the
utmost, and rejoicing as a strong man to run his
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 185
glorious race '? How often, on the contrary, does
he seem to forget that he has a race to run, and a
warfare to wage ! and, loitering amidst the occupa-
tions or the cares or the pleasures of life, to need the
monitory rebuke, " Be watchful, and strengthen the
things which remain, that are ready to die ; for I
have not found thy works perfect before God ! " And
can our High Priest fail to be offended, and his Holy
Spirit grieved, when he sees the grace which he is
so ready to give, so little used, and so sparingly
sought ?
The Christian life ought to be, because Christ has
amply provided the means by which it may be made,
a life of alacrity and joy. It is not more the privi-
lege of the Christian, than it is a duty which he owes
to his High Priest, to " rejoice always. " " Woman,
why weepest thou," were the first words of the risen
Saviour to Mary, and they seem to be generally
applicable to the life of the Christian. He can look
upon that rich field of privilege and of promise placed
before him in the Bible, and can say that it is all his
own. And where is the want that the blessed fruits
of that field cannot supply, the distress which they
cannot relieve, the wound that they cannot heal,
the fear that they cannot quell, or the sorrow for
which they do not furnish abundant consolation ?
Where then is the cause for depression ? Friend of
Jesus, why weepest thou? If you have " an Advo-
cate with the Father," throug-h whom your sins are
all forgiven, and you are made a child of God ; and
186 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
the Holy Ghost is given you as your sanctifier and
comforter ; and you are assured of having Almighty
power for your support, and unerring wisdom for
your guide, and heaven for your eternal home, what
can overhalance or suppress the joy which naturally
results from such privileges as these ? Trials we
may, we must meet with ; but can these depress us,
when we know that " our light affliction, which is
but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceed-
ing, even an eternal weight of glory ? " If tried by
bodily pain, we just feel more keenly the happiness
of the hope which anticipates the time when we shall
have " a building of God, a house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens." Worldly losses will
not overwhelm us, if we know that we are undoubted
heirs of an "inheritance that is incorruptible, vmde-
filed, and that fadeth not away." Friends may
change ; but we will be comforted by the assurance
that in Christ we have a " brother born for adversity,"
nay " a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."
There rolls between us and our Father's house, the
deep and restless tide of this world's corruption,
through which we must of necessity pass, and the
deeper and still more dangerous tide of the corrup-
tions of our hearts, and we are surrounded by enemies
on every side ; and when we feel our own weakness,
we may be ready to fear lest we should one day fall
by the hand of some of them. But every distressing
fear is removed when we recollect that we " shall
not be tempted beyond what we are able to bear,"
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 187
and that, in point of fact, there is no limit to our
power, for we " can do all things, through Christ
strengthening us," and that the life that is in us is
the life of Christ, a life which no power can extinguish
in any one of Christ's members, any more than it
can extinguish it in our glorious Head.
In every thing, therefore, does it become the
Christian to give thanks, — even for those trials
which call into exercise, and thus strengthen his
graces ; for though " no chastening for the present
seemeth to be joyous, but grievous : nevertheless
afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteous-
ness to them which are exercised thereby." The
Christian can therefore " glory in tribulation," well
knowing that when he comes to the end of his course,
and looks back on all his blessings, and on all his
trials, when he sings of mercy, he will see reason to
sing of judgment too. But when we drag on heavily,
as if there were disheartening difficulties to be met,
and heavy penalties to be endured, at every step, we
bring up an evil report upon the good land ; and
make the world believe that we serve a harsh master,
who demands much while he gives little ; and confirm
the too readily adopted notion, that religion is a dull
and gloomy thing, the death of all pleasure, and the
grave of all enjoyment. And if we go to the dis-
charge of every duty, as if there were a " lion in
the way," and go to meet trial and temptation with
feelings like those with which Saul went from Endor
to Gilboa, what but discomfiture can we expect,
188 CHRIST OUR PRIEST.
when we engage under the depressing influence of
anticipated defeat ? We are invited to come, and
that even " with boldness, to the throne of grace."
And why should we not do so ? If indeed, we
depended for obtaining the petitions that we ask,
upon our own merits, and might ask nothing but
what we deserve, then it would be useless to go to a
throne of grace, or to take the name of God into
our lips at all ; since we have deserved only wrath.
But if our petitions be founded on the merits of
Christ, then we can ask nothing that he has not
deserved, and nothing that, if it be really good for
us, he is not willing to bestow. In this case, to
come to God with fear and hesitation, to limit our
petitions to small matters, because we feel that we
have no claim to ask larger, or to make our own
merits, in any degree the measure of our acceptance,
or to ask, as if God would grudge what he bestows,
— in all this we are just dishonouring our great
High-Priest, and living far beneath the privileges
which he bestows upon us. To consider religion as
being our business, but the world as the source from
which we must draw our pleasures, — to approach
God in prayer as a duty which it is right, and proper,
and profitable to perform, but without any notion or
feeling of its being a privilege which it is delightful
to enjoy,— to come to him as a Judge whose good
will it is our interest to conciliate, without being able
to look upon him as a Father whose power, and
riches, and kindness, it gives us pleasure to con-
CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 189
template and celebrate, and whose approving smile,
the light of whose countenance, is a greater treasure
than corn and wine and oil, — is to take a view of
that communion to which God calleth us, and of the
privileges which he has conferred upon us, that must
greatly mar both our peace, and our progress in the
Christian life. While therefore every thing approach-
ing to presumption, or to that affected familiarity
with God which some appear to mistake for filial
confidence, is to be guarded against with the most
sedulous care ; with equal care ought we to guard
against that distrust of our High-Priest which makes
us dread to exercise and to enjoy, with the most
perfect confidence and freedom, the privileges which
in Christ Jesus we possess.
CHAPTER IV.
CHRIST OUR KING.
I PROCEED now to the consideration of our Lord's
regal office ; and here it will be seen that his death,
and consequently his incarnation, was essentially
necessary to the due discharge of his functions as a
King. From all eternity, he was Lord over all ;
possessing in common with the other persons of the
Godhead, power to sustain and to bless his true
worshippers, and to involve his enemies in destiTic-
tion. But as Mediator, he was the Father's Servant,
and could have no kingdom which was not conferred
upon him. And no kingdom could be conferred
upon him which he did not gain ; nor could he be
the Saviour of men without conquering men's foes ;
nor could he be Lord of all things visible and in-
visible, for the purpose of effectually securing the
salvation of his people, without purchasing this
dignity, by a full and faithful discharge of the duties
imposed upon him, and undertaken by him in the
covenant entered into between him and the Father.
A kingdom was given to the Son by the Father ; a
kingdom which he will continue to hold until the
CHRIST OUR KING. 191
mystery of redemption be finished, when he shall
again deliver up the kingdom, that God may be
"All in All." It is to this kingdom that we refer,
when we speak of Christ as a King ; and not of that
underived lordship, which, as God, he possessed
from all eternity ; which could not be conferred upon
him, and which cannot be taken away from him ;
which had no beginning, and can have no end ;
which admits of no increase, of no diminution, and
of no change. Of this kingdom we speak not.
With regard to the Mediator's kingdom, we must
first inquire how far it extends. The answer to this
inquiry is, that his kingdom extends over all things
visible and invisible, — over all the works of God,
and is just as extensive as the dominion which he
possesses as- God. In confirmation of this, I refer
not to those texts of Scripture in which he is declared
to be the Maker of all things, and consequently their
possessor ; for nothing gives so strong a right to
dominion, so plain a title to lordship, as creation ;
because these texts refer to his absolute dominion as
God. But I refer to the numerous passages in which
it is declared that God hath committed to him all
rule, and all authority, and all judgment, — that he
hath " set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all principality, and power, and
might, and dominion, and every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to
come ; and hath put all things under his feet, and
given him to be the head over all things to the church,
192 CHRIST OUR KING.
which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all ; " ^ — that " God hath highly exalted him, and
given him a name which is above every name ; that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth ; and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father." 2
The possession of this universal dominion is plainly
necessary to the Mediator. For if there exist in the
universe some power or influence which he cannot
control and direct at his pleasure, then it is clear that
he can give us no absolute assurance of salvation ;
because that power may become adverse to our sal-
vation, and Christ being unable to control and
direct it, having no dominion over it, cannot ac-
complish his gracious design toward us. The
possession then of all power and authority, over all
things visible and invisible, must, of plain necessity,
be in the Saviour. We are held in bondage by the
" god of this world," and are opposed by all the
powers of a fallen world, by temptations from with-
out, and by corruption within, — we contend not
merely with flesh and blood, but " with princi-
palities and powers, with the rulers of the darkness
of this world, and with spiritual wickednesses in
high places." Now if our Saviour possesses not
the most unlimited dominion over all these, he plainly
cannot accomplish our salvation.
' Ephesians i. 20, -" Philippians ii. io.
CHRIST OUR KING. 193
It is plain, too, that this universal dominion must
have heen conferred upon him, and must have been
exercised by him, from the moment when man first
became dependant upon a Mediator. For if he saved
men from the beginning, then from the beginning
was he universal King. But this seems to be in
direct opposition to those texts of Scripture, — and
they are neither few nor of doubtful import, — v^^hich
represent the conferring of dominion upon him, as
the reward of his obedience unto death. These
texts however do not contradict, but perfectly har-
monize with the assertion, that Christ, as Mediator,
possessed and exercised universal dominion, long
before his death or his Incarnation. In order to
shew the perfect agreement of these texts with this
assertion, I would remark that there never was any
other Saviour besides the Lord Jesus Christ ; and
that he never saved sinners through any other method
than by atonement. Abel and the primitive saints
were saved only in consequence of the death of
Christ ; and yet they were saved long before he
actually accomplished his decease at Jerusalem. They
were washed from their sins in his blood ; yet the
washing was effected long before his blood was
shed. To suppose that they were saved without
the mediation of Christ, is to suppose that that
mediation was altogether unnecessary. Without the
shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But
sin was remitted, and remitted only in consequence
of the shedding of a Saviour's blood, and yet re-
o
194 CHRIST OUR KING.
mitted long before the shedding actually took place.
Again, the gift of the Holy Ghost is one of the fruits
of Christ's death and intercession. Thus at one
period we read that " the Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because Christ was not yet glorified," and our
Lord himself, shewing the necessity of his death,
says, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is ex-
pedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I
depart, I will send him unto you," But had the
Holy Ghost never been given before the death of
Christ actually took place ? Yes, often, both in his
miraculous and in his saving efficacy. Yet it is not
the less true that the Holy Ghost never could, by
any possibility be given, except as the fruit of Christ's
death. From these instances we may see how the
universal dominion of the Mediator was conferred
upon him in consequence of his becoming obedient
unto death, and was yet enjoyed and exercised by
him long before that death actually took place.
From the moment that he undertook to obey unto
death, from that moment did he receive power
to confer all the benefits of his death, and from
that moment men were made partakers of the
salvation which is in him. Had there been a
possibility that he might fail in his engagement,
— that his sufferings might overcome his resolu-
tion, or overtask his ability, then no pardon could
have been given, no sanctification conferred, and no
blessedness bestowed, until he had actually died, and
CHRIST OUR KING. 195
thus fairly proved that failure was no longer possible,
nor to be feared.
But there was also a real exaltation of Christ after
his death, and in consequence of his death, in that
humanity, which, having no existence previous to his
Incarnation, could not possibly have any participation
in that dominion which belongs to the Mediator.
But that exaltation of Christ, after his death, was
not the conferring upon him of any new power or
glory which he did not previously possess. It was
an open manifestation of that glory which he had
from the beginning, — an open declaration of that
which was not previously known. Appearing in the
flesh, his condition was one of lowliness and humili-
ation. His glory was but partially known. But his
assumption of humanity was not a limitation of his
Divinity ; and after performing his appointed work,
he was, in that humanity, publicly and openly in the
presence of his Apostles received up on high. But
this exaltation was no conferring upon him of that
which he did not previously possess. It was giving
him the same glory, in a new condition. But the
glory was the same, as he himself declares — " And
no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in
heaven ; " ^ and again, " What and if ye shall see
the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ? " ^
And when he prayed that he might be openly glori-
fied, he prayed for no new accession of glory which
1 John iii. 13. - John vi. 62.
O 2
196 CHRIST OUR KING.
he had not previously possessed, but that, in his hu-
manity, he might possess that same glory that he
possessed before his Incarnation, — " And now, O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was."^
In his exaltation therefore he received no new
power, which he had not exercised long before. But
its exercise was founded on his death ; and after that
death had actually occurred, then was he exalted in
his humanity, and his exaltation was then openly
declared and manifested to the world, and the con-
dition upon which it depended was shewn to have
been satisfactorily accomplished. As the king can
and does exercise all the functions of royalty previous
to that solemn coronation which formally invests him
with these functions, even so our Divine King dis-
charged all the duties of his office, long before that
assumption of humanity, and obedience unto death,
which formed the ground upon which he received,
and was the open declaration that he had received, the
kingdom.
That Christ was a King from the beginning may
therefore be considered as proved. This however forms
one of the most important points in discussing the
question as to the sinfulness of his humanity, and
therefore calls for a more minute and extended proof.
It will however be better given after shortly noticing
the titles by which he holds his kingdom. He holds
his kingdom by the Father's gift^ as has been already
' John xvii. 5.
CHRIST OUR KING. 197
observed. Of this I need produce no proof what-
ever, both as it must be perfectly familiar to all
readers of the Bible, and because I know not that it
is doubted or denied by any who acknowledge that
he is a King. He holds the kingdom also by the
title of conquest. Mankind were the slaves of Satan,
who had brought them into a bondage from which no
human being was ever found who could emancipate
himself. Christ became man, and conquered him,
and, ascending up on high, led captivity captive.
Satan therefore is the ' ' god of this world " no longer.
We may continue to obey him, and yield to his sug-
guestions, and promote his designs, and reject Christ,
if we will. We are not however the less the subjects
of Christ, The Master whom we serve is Christ's
vassal, and we are as completely dependent upon him
as his most devoted worshipper. When, as man,
he reduced Satan beneath his power, he reduced at
the same time beneath his power, all the subjects
of Satan. And this I conceive to be a sufficient
answer, besides other answers that may be given, to
the question put to us by the new theology, in sup-
port of the doctrine of universal redemption, — ' if
Christ did not redeem all, what right can he have
to judge the unbeliever, whom he did not die to
redeem ? ' The question, though triumphantly asked,
is silly enough, and is nearly similar to another.
Our Lord says of believers, " Thine they were, and
thou gavest them me." Hence it may be asked,
\Nhat right has he to sit in judgment upon those who
198 CHRIST OUR KING.
were never given to him ? I would reply, that in
one sense, even the impenitent were given to him,
though not in the sense used by our Lord in the
above expression ; but it is a sufficient reply to both
questions, that our Lord holds his kingdom not
merely by gift, — a gift that in one sense includes all
mankind — but also by conquest. And becoming, as
Man, Lord of the sinner's master, he becomes Lord
of the sinner too.
He holds his Kingdom also by purchase. This, in
these days, is a very obnoxious expression. There is
however no help for it, as the matter is undeniably
true. He purchased us not from Satan ; but took us
as a prey from the mighty, and as captives from the
strong. But we were held fast also by the Law of God,
bound down to punishment by his Truth and Justice.
These could not be conquered ; nor, excepting by
fallen sinfid beings, could they be opposed. Christ
could not, by any exercise of power, wring us out
of the hands of the Law, nor could he at all exercise
any power in opposition to it. He fully admitted all
its demands. He made no attempt whatever to abate
the slightest iota of them ; but, acknowledging, nay
proclaiming, the justice of its claims, he satisfied these
claims to the full, — endured its penalty, — paid all its
demands, and, by purchase, set its victims free.
The whole of its rights, therefore, were fully trans-
ferred to him, to bind or to loose, to remit or to
retain men's sins, as he should see good.
It was necessary to prove that Christ actually exer-
CHRIST OUR KING. 199
cised all the functions of the Priesthood while he was
on earth, because the tenet that he was not anointed
to the Priesthood until his resurrection from the
dead, which has long been one of the leading tenets
of Socinianism, and is now maintained by a different
class of theologians, is an effectual denial of the
atonement. For if he was not truly and properly a
Priest when he died, then it is clear that his death
could be no atonement. For a similar reason, it is
necessary to enter a little more largely into the proof
that he was a King from the beginning ; for this is
also denied, and it is maintained by some that he was
anointed as a King only at his resurrection, and by
others that he is not anointed to that office yet : and
this doctrine, as will be seen by and by, is quite as
effectual a denial of the atonement. In proof then that
Christ was a King from the beginning, I would refer
to Psalm ii. It may indeed be said, and truly said,
that that Psalm is a prophecy which yet remains to
be fulfilled. But that it refers to the past, as well as
the future may, I think, be very decisively proved.
Into that proof however I need not here enter, both
because satisfaction upon that point may probably be
met with in any commentary, and because I have abun-
dant proof of my proposition, even if the argument
from that Psalm should be held to be disputable.
I would refer also to Psalm xlv. There the pro-
phetic character of Christ is first spoken of, when
it is said, " Grace is poured into thy lips: therefore
God hath blessed thee for ever," and then follows
200 CHRIST OUR KING.
this splendid description of his regal power and autho-
rity, " Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Most
Mighty, with thy glory and thy Majesty. And in thy
Majesty ride prosperously, because of truth, and
meekness, and righteousness ; and thy right hand
shall teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are
sharp in the heart of the King's enemies ; whereby
the people fall under thee. Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is
a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and
hatest wickedness : therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel-
lows." In Psalm xxii. also, his prophetic and royal
characters are so blended, as to render it impossible
to suppose that the one of these could commence
at one period, and the other at another. In
Psalm ex., his regal character is, in the same way,
combined with his Priesthood, leading irresistibly to
the conclusion, that all these characters he adopted,
that to all these offices was he anointed, at one and
the same time. Indeed a perfectly conclusive
proof of this, to all who have not pledged them-
selves to the support of some hypothesis with which
it is inconsistent, would, I should think, be found
in the fact, that he saved men from the beginning ;
and surely he could save no man without being Pro-
phet, Priest, and King. At least if he could save
men while destitute of any of the powers of any of
these offices, at one time, I can see no reason why
he should not be capable of doing the same thing at
CHRIST OUR KING. 201
another time, and at all times, nor, consequently,
why he should assume at all any office which was not
necessary to enable him to save sinners.
The prophet Daniel has determined an appointed
time " to anoint the Most Holy ; " but he has taken
no notice whatever of a variety of anointings at very
different times. But if Christ was in reality to be
anointed at very different times, and for different pur-
poses, then the statement of the prophet with regard
to a time appointed for anointing him, is not merely
defective, but has a strong tendency to mislead.
That Christ was a King at his coming into the
world, is proved by the fact, that the first specific
character under which he is presented to us in the
New Testament is that of a King. " Now when
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days
of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from
the east to Jerusalem, saying, where is he that is
born King of the Jews ? " Now when these men
were led by the Holy Spirit from a far country to
proclaim the birth of this King, and when they must
have come to worship him, not merely as King of
the Jews, a person in whom they could have no con-
cern, but as that generally-expected King, who arising
in Judea was to obtain the dominion of the world,
who was to be the " Salvation of God to all the
ends of the earth," — " a Hght to lighten the Gentiles^
as well as the glory of Israel," — a King the expecta-
tion of whose coming was so general, that the flatterers
of Vespasian professed to find the fulfilment of the
202 CHRIST OUR KING.
prophecy in him ; upon what possible ground can it
be rationally maintained that the person so distinctly
announced as the long-promised king, was in reality
at that time no king at all, nor to be made a king
till after his death ? He was revealed to, and dis-
tinctly announced by the wise men as a King ; and
I cannot conceive how any man can deny this state-
ment, and maintain that Christ was no King till after
his death, or that he is no King even yet, without
seeing that he is as flatly as possible contradicting
the Bible. Nothing can be more clear than that
Jesus is, at his birth, designated a King. If then
he in reality was not a King, then the conclusion is
unavoidable that the scripture statement is not true.
Again, when our Saviour entered into the temple
which the Jews were making a house of merchandise,
and when, " Having made a scourge of small cords,
he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep
and the oxen ; and poured out the changers' money,
and overthrew the tables ; and said unto them that
sold doves, take these things hence ; make not my
Father's house a house of merchandise," he was
surely, in thus purging the temple, not only assuming
to himself both a sacerdotal and royal prerogative,
but was giving a most unequivocal manifestation of
his royal authority. For who is this who not only
utters so unpleasant a command, but who so im-
periously compels an instantaneous obedience to it ?
Is this the carpenter's son, the despised Nazarene,
the obscure peasant from the polluted land of Galilee
CHRIST OUR KING. 203
of the Gentiles ? Assuredly, no. Had he appeared
in the temple under no other character than this, and
attempted such a purgation of it, he would at once
have been stoned to death, or torn in pieces. It is
plain that they who thus submitted to be driven
from the temple, which they had converted into a
house of merchandise, who even saw their money
poured out without daring to resist, must have beheld
in him who thus drove them away, the unequivocal
manifestation of a majesty that was not to be opposed,
■ — of a regal authority and power, that might not for
a moment brook resistance. He was at that time
claiming to himself the honour and the submission
due to a King, and as assuredly and as fully possessed
that character then, as he does now, or ever will do.
All the prophets describe Christ as a King, Their
testimony however I shall not quote, because it might
be alleged, — especially considering the mode of inter-
preting prophecy now adopted, or rather the mode
of rambling through it in a style that bids defiance
to all interpretation, — that these prophecies remain
yet to be fulfilled. One however, with regard to
which no such allegation can be made, I shall quote.
*' Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, O
daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King cometh
unto thee : he is just, and having salvation ; lowly,
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of
an ass." ^ Here it is most distinctly declared that
Christ should come as a King ; and the prediction
> Zech. ix. 9.
204 CHRIST OUR KING.
was fulfilled to the very letter, when, at the trium-
phant entrance of our Lord into Jerusalem, " The
whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice, and
praise God with a loud voice, for all the mighty
works that they had seen, saying, blessed be the
King that cometh in the name of the Lord ; peace
in heaven, and glory in the highest." Now the
evangelists do expressly declare that by this entrance
of our Lord into Jerusalem, the prophecy of Zecha-
riah was fulfilled. If then Christ was no King at
that time, the plain consequence is that the evangelists
were mistaken. And can any man then deny that
Christ was a King, and yet pretend to reverence the
Scriptures ? — Moreover when the Pharisees were
offended at the open declaration made by the disciples
that Christ was Messiah the King, and desired him
to rebuke them ; so far was he from complying with
their request, and repressing the voices that hailed
him as the long-promised King, that " He answered,
and said unto them, I tell you that if these should
hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry
out ; " thus declaring it to be a matter of the most
absolute necessity that he should be openly announced
as King. Indeed had there been any one of his
offices, in which he did not distinctly announce him-
self to the Jews, then, so far, had they been guiltless,
they could not be charged with the guilt of rejecting
that which was never oifered to them.
That Christ was distinctly announced to the Jews
as a King, is certain, not only from the fulfilment
CHRIST OUR KING. 205
of the prophecy just quoted, but from the terms in
which they accused him to Pilate, ^ — " We found this
fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, saying, that he himself is Christ a
King." And was he, who thus distinctly announced
himself to the Jews as the long-expected King, whom
their eyes were almost failing with looking for, — who
was acknowledged by Nathanael, and hailed by the
multitude, as " King of Israel," — who was accused
by the priests of this very thing, that he declared
himself to be a King, — and who distinctly acknow-
ledged himself, before Pilate, to be a King, whose
kingdom was not of this world ; was he, after all,
no King in reality, but only a King in expectance ?
And are we to suppose that it was without the pro-
vidence of God, and without the dictation of his
Holy Spirit, that Pilate wrote, and, though intreated
by the oiFended Jews, refused to alter that inscription
which officially, and more truly than Pilate knew,
declared that he who was suspended on the cross
was " King of the Jews ? " In short, if the proofs
given us in Scripture that Christ was a King, when
he was on earth, still leaves that matter doubtful,
nay, if in the face of all that proof, we are to believe
that in reality he was no King, then we may at once
set aside the Scriptures altogether. They are totally
incompetent to establish any fact ; for there is no
fact that they more clearly and decidedly teach, then
that Christ was a King.
But Christ came not only as King of the Jews,
206 CHRIST OUR KING.
but he came that in man's nature he might overthrow
mans' foes, might spoil the spoiler, divest Satan
of his long-usurped dominion, enter into the strong
man's house, bind him and take from him his goods,
and cast out the prince of this world. He came as
a King, that he might meet and conquer him who had
become the king of this world, and for this reason
the contest was carried on in such a way, as to render
the conquest of Christ, and the fall of Satan as
lightning from heaven, perfectly manifest to all. I
might refer in proof of this to what is related by
different authors with regard to the silencing of the
heathen oracles. Thus we are told by Nicephorus,
Lib. i. cap. 17, that when the Roman emperor con-
sulted the oracle of Apollo with a double hecatomb,
he received for answer, ' A Hebrew child, a God who
rules the gods themselves, has commanded me to
depart, and to return to my dreary home. Hence-
forth therefore let the suppliant retire unanswered
from my altars.' I prefer however confining myself
to what is related in Scripture. One of the most
prominent facts recorded in the Gospels is, that
Satan was, about the time of our Lord's appearance,
permitted to take possession of men in a very extra-
ordinary manner, thus openly manifesting and exer-
cising his power over them, in a way which they
were plainly incapable of resisting ; and a great pro-
portion of our Saviour's miracles consisted in casting
out devils. Now all the different hypotheses that
have been resorted to for the purpose of accounting
CHRIST OUR KING. 20?
for the possession of the demoniacs mentioned in the
Gospel, I hold to be just so many expedients for
evading the plain and palpable statements of Scrip-
ture. Having but little reverence for the learned arts
by which the obvious meaning of Scripture is refined
into something too sublime for vulgar apprehension,
I conceive the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel,
just to have been persons possessed by Satan, w^ho
was thus permitted to exercise an unusual degree of
power, both that it might not be thought that the
woman's seed assailed him at a time when his power
was either more restrained, or less energetically
exercised than usual, and that his defeat and Christ's
superiority might be more clearly manifested to all.
This view of the matter our Lord himself teaches us
to take. When the seventy returned again to him
rejoicing that through his name even devils were
subject to them, his remark upon their communica-
tion is, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from
heaven." Yes, the devils knew him to be the " Holy
one of God," they trembled at his name, they shunned
his presence, they fled his approach, they off^ered no
resistance to his commands, but, to the utter astonish-
ment of the people, shewed their complete subjection
to him ; thus proclaiming with their own mouths the
fall of Satan from his seat of usurped power, and the
complete victory of him who proved himself to be
his long-expected conqueror by this, that the people
from what their own eyes saw, could say, " What
thing is this ? what new doctrine is this ? for with
208 CHRIST OUR KING.
authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits,
and they do obey him." They did obey him, and in
many cases openly confessed who he was ; and we
wonder at, and mourn over the hardness of their
hearts, who could look upon the manifest victory
of Christ, and his resistless destroying of the works
of the devil, and yet could refuse to believe ; while
we ourselves can look upon the same thing, and yet
coolly deny, that when he conquered Satan he was
a King at all.
When man was made, there was given to him
*' dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth." By his fall, man in a great measure
became divested of that dominion. But our Lord
as an unfallen man, possessed all that dominion
which fallen man had lost ; as is plainly declared
in Psalm viii. ; and is amply proved by the record
of his life. But not only as an unfallen man did
he possess all the dominion over the inferior creatures,
which was lost by the fall ; but angels ministered to
him, devils were subject to him, the elements of
nature obeyed him, death gave up his prey at his
command, and yet he was no King. Can the power
and influence of theory be more fatally manifested
than in them who maintain this ? Some of the
people said, " When Christ cometh, will he do more
miracles than this man doeth ? " So would I say,
when he is anointed a King, will he do any thing
of a more decidedly regal character, than he did
CHRIST OUR KING. 209
when he was on earth ? Will he do more than rule
over the material and spiritual world, — over that
which is fallen, and that which never fell, — over the
dominion of Satan and the power of death ? That
his power will be more visibly exercised, and more
extensively manifested, I most willingly grant ; that
it will or can be more really exercised, or more truly
manifested, I am inclined to think impossible.
During his life, the devils had no power over our
Lord, but their defeat was made manifest by the
resistless authority with which he issued his com-
mands to them ; so that they could assail him only
through the instrumentality of wicked men. But
the hour of their power did come, — the hour when
the soul of Jesus began to be " amazed and very
heavy," words which fall far short indeed of the
energy of the original, as the original, and all other
language must fall far short of expressing, in an
adequate manner, all the fearfulness of that amaze-
ment and horror which then seized him. The hour
did come which made him cry out, " Now is my
soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save
me from this hour ! but for this cause came I unto
this hour. Father, glorify thy name." Now what
was it that made the prospect of this hour so terrible
to Jesus ? Was it the mere dread of death ? The
supposition is totally inconsistent with the whole of
his conduct and character ; and no less inconsistent
with the fact, that he knew well that death had no
power over him whatever, farther than he himself
p
210 CHRIST OUR KING.
was pleased to allow. Many of his disciples have
endured the cross, and submitted to the most cruel
tortures ; and even women and children have suffered
all these tortures without a groan. And did Jesus
look on the mere pain of dying, with more than all
the terror, and cling to a troubled life with more than
all the weakness of mortal man? No. It was not
dying that he dreaded, but the fearful conflict by
which his death was to be preceded. The powers of
darkness were all let loose upon him, to assail him
with their utmost force. A broken law came to
demand of him the restitution of its violated honour,
and to inflict upon him the curse due to its violation.
And was it only a part of its demands that it then
insisted upon ? No, it came armed with all the
authority of inflexible justice, and not one iota of
what that justice entitled it to claim, was remitted.
" The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all," and
he " bare them in his own body, on the tree: " and
he bare them not in outward seeming merely, without
in reality feeling all their final consequences. And
the amazement and sorrow that these consequences
inflicted upon him, he himself could not express, and
we can not conceive. For if, when the sinner is first
awakened to a sense of his guilt, or when the back-
slider begins to be filled with the fruits of his own
ways, — when conscience is setting all his sins in
array before him, and the law is stamping all the
bitterness of its curse upon every one of them, thus
filling his heart with terrors that can find expression
CHRIST OUR KING. 211
only in groanings unutterable, and more fearful by
far than the terrors of death ; — if the guilt of one
individual can thus fill the heart of that individual
with such anguish and such agony, who may venture
to form any estimate of the agony endured by Christ
when he made his soul an offering for sin, — when the
deceit of Jacob, the adultery and murder of David,
the denial of Peter, and the persecutions of Paul, —
when the sins of an apostate world were collected
into one dark mass, and its whole burden laid upon
him ? The law, inexorable as the stony tablets on
which it was engraved, was there, setting all the sins
by which a guilty world had been polluted, and its
sanctity violated, in array before him, filling his soul
with all their terrors, and exacting from him the
penalty due to them all. And death was there,
armed with a power, and clothed with terrors, with
which he never before or since assailed living being.
It is sin that forms the sting of death, and invests
him with all his powers. And if his assaults be
terrible to every individual of us, on account of our
own individual sins, — and if he be terrible to us
often, even when we know that these sins are all
forgiven, who may estimate the power and the terror
with which he assailed our Lord, when armed with
the power, and invested with the terrors, not of the
sins of an individual, but of those of a lost world ?
And he who had the power of death, even Satan,
was there, with all his powers unfettered and un-
restrained, to try what they might avail against the
P '2
212 CHRIST OUR KING.
" second man," in the hour of his sorest travail.
And the prince of the power of the air spread dark-
ness over all the land, and made the earth to quake
in the mightiness of his efforts. But these were only
faint and feeble shadows of the darkness and com-
motion, which were raised in the soul of the sufferer,
in that hour of his dismal conflict, when his power
to accomplish the original promise was put to its
last fearful trial ; when he fully realized the hope
which fallen man had long been given to cherish,
that we should be delivered from our bondage, and
raised from our fallen and sinful state, by a suffering
conqueror.
Now had there been, in any department of Christ's
person, any thing to which the terms fallen, sinful,
rebellious, could, with the most distant approach to
truth or justice, be applied, was his escape from this
hour of the power of darkness a thing within the
bounds of possibility ? Had the law found in him
the slightest taint of sinfulness to which it might
attach the curse due to its violation, it would have
held him fast in its adamantine chain, as a debtor on
his own account ; and never would he have been able
to rescue himself, much less us, from its inexorable
grasp. Had death, and he who had the power of
death, found the slightest ground in which the sting
of death could be planted, then assuredly had death
had forcible dominion over him, and the blackness
of that darkness which was around him and within
him, in the garden and on the cross, had been his
CHRIST OUR KING. 213
portion for ever. But he endured their utmost rage,
deeply tried, tried with a trial beyond aught that
mortal man may ever comprehend, yet unsubdued,
and unsubdued just because there was in him nothing
fallen or sinful. He endured till the law had no
farther claim, till the powers of darkness fled, their
utmost efforts defeated and baffled, and with them
passed away the darkness from the land, and from the
soul of the victorious and triumphant sufferer, and
Satan saw that his long usurped dominion over the
world was now utterly and hopelessly broken. He
endured till he could say " It is finished," till " hav-
ing spoiled principalities and powers, he made a
shew of them openly, triumphing over them in his
cross." He endured till the agony which wrung from
him the bitter complaint of being forsaken was past,
and holy peace and joy returned, with the light of his
Father's countenance, to his soul, from which they
had for a time withdrawn ; and then, having openly
shewn that the prince of this world had nothing in
him, he freely and voluntarily gave a life which was
still his own to give or to keep, for the life of a lost
world. Fearful was the conflict that he sustained
during the hour of the " power of darkness," but
happy and glorious was the result, and splendid and
blessed was the victory in which his sufl'erings termi-
nated, and most royally triumphant was his death.
From these remarks as to the regal character of
Christ's death, the inference is very fairly deducible,
that his death, even up to the last moment of his
214 CHRIST OUR KING.
mortal existence, was perfectly voluntary, — that at
that moment, whether he would or would not die,
was a thing as completely within his power to deter-
mine, as, previous to his Incarnation, it was within
his power to determine whether he would or would
not become man. But this is a point of by far too
much importance to be left without more direct and
abundant evidence : for the decision of this question
will very effectually decide the question whether our
Lord's humanity was fallen and sinful : and I may
add that it will also decide whether his death was an
atonement or not. They who maintain that the
humanity of Christ was fallen sinful humanity, also
maintain, — as of plain necessity they must, — that he
died by the common property of flesh to die because
it was accursed in the loins of our first parents, —
that he died just for the same reason that other men
die, that he was just as incapable of shunning or re-
sisting death, as any of the fallen race of Adam.
And if he was fallen and sinful, this conclusion there
is no avoiding. If then it can be shewn that death
had no power over him, that he died because he
pleased so to do, when he pleased, and how he
pleased,^ then is it also decisively shewn that he was
not fallen and sinful.
' Demonstravit Spiritus Mediatoris, quam nulla poena peccati usque ad
mortem carnis accesserit, quia non earn deseiuit invitus, sed quia voluit,
quando voluit, quomodo voluit. Augustine De Trinitate, Lib. iv. cap. 16.
A chapter the object of which is to prove that the death of Christ was spon-
taneous. But upon this subject I shall have abundant extracts to produce
from the primitive writers, in the sequel.
CHRIST OUR KING. 215
In support of the position that Christ was not
subject to death, but that he laid down his life of his
own accord, I quote his own express declaration to
that purpose — " Therefore doth my Father love me,
because I lay down my life, that I might take it
again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down
of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This commandment have I
received of my Father." ^ Nothing, it appears to me,
can possibly be simpler, or clearer, or more unam-
biguous than this declaration of our Lord, that his
life was at his own disposal. This he spoke of his
human life ; for it would be worse than absurd to
suppose, that before he had a human life, he could
have used any such language, or could have said of
his Divine life, that he had power to lay that down.
And when he stated, with regard to the human life
which he had assumed, that he had power to lay it
down and to take it up again, he was stating what
was not true, if he were a fallen sinful man, and
just as liable to death as other men, and for the same
reason. He could not say that he had power to lay
down his life, and to take it up again, in order to
shew that he was Lord both of life and death, if in
fact he was just as incapable of avoiding or resisting
death as those to whom he spoke. Nor could he
say at all that he had power to lay down his life, if,
in point of fact, he had no power to retain it. If he
was not God, and had not assumed human life at his
' John X. 17, 18.
216 CHRIST OUR KING.
own pleasure, then he could have used no such lan-
guage ; for no created heing can, by any possibility,
possess the power here claimed by Jesus. But if he
was God, and if the human life which he had as-
sumed w^as as truly his own life as his Divinity was
his own, then he unquestionably did possess a sove-
reign right to dispose of that life as he pleased. And
if he had not that power over his own life which no
created being can have, then it was not possible to
present that life a voluntary offering for the world.
It was not his to give. In that case he did no more
than Codrus, Curtius, and a hundred more have done.
Being bound to die at any rate, he was generous
enough to anticipate the date of his death, in order
to accomplish an important purpose, and acquire a
deathless fame. Though what important purpose
could be accomplished by his death, if he had placed
himself in a situation where death was unavoidable,
Jt is not easy to see.
It manifests little reverence for Scripture to attempt
to mystify so very plain and explicit a declaration of
the fact, that our Lord's life was not taken from him ;
a declaration that might safely be left, without com-
ment, to produce its own effect upon every unsophis-
ticated mind. When our Lord's auditors saw him
standing before them in living humanity, and heard
him say, " I have power to lay down my life, and I have
power to take it up again," can we suppose that they
would, or possiblv could think of any other life than
just that human life which they saw him to possess,
CHRIST OUR KING. 2l7
or could understand the words which they heard to be
equivalent to these, ' I may truly say that I have
power to lay down my life, because though now, in
consequence of the constitution which I have taken,
I am as little capable of escaping death as other men,
yet I took that constitution voluntarily, and had it
in my power to choose whether I would take it or
not.' They neither could so understand him, nor
did so understand him. And the plain meaning of
the text is undeniable, that even after Christ had
become Man, he was under no other obligation to
die than the obligation resulting from his covenant
engagement to lay down his life for his sheep, and to
become obedient unto death.
Should the possibility of a doubt yet remain whe-
ther the text under consideration just means what it
so very plainly states, — should it be thought possible,
without impiety, to understand our Lord to mean any
thing else than just that at the moment when he was
speaking, he had absolute power over the life which
his hearers saw him possess, to lay it down and to
take it up at his pleasure, let us consider the purpose
for which he made the declaration. His object was
to convince his auditors that he was the Life, and
that therefore all who committed themselves to him
would be perfectly safe, for none could pluck them
out of his hand, which would, in fact, be equivalent
to the plucking of them out of his Father's hand,
with whom he declares his unity. And the proof
that in him their life was safe, was, that he himself
218 CHRIST OUR KING,
had a life which no man could take from him, — a
life over which death had no power. Now this is
just the ground on which our confidence in him rests,
that " as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he
given the Son to have life in himself." But if, when
the hour of trial came, it was found that he could
not resist the power of death in himself, nor realize
the declaration that he made, that no man could take
his life from him, — then how can we possibly rely
upon him, that he can repel the power of death
from us, or falfil the promise that he has made to
us, that none shall ever be able to pluck us out of
his hand ? Surely the power that wrested his own
life out of his hands, may well be supposed capable
of plucking ours out of his hands. He who could
not save himself from the grasp of the King of ter-
rors, can afford us little confidence in his power to
save us. If, then, to maintain that Christ, as a
fallen sinful man, was as incapable of resisting the
power of death as we are, — if to maintain that when
the hour of trial came, he conquered not death, but
death conquered him, if this be not directly to falsify
his own express declaration and to overthrow the
very pillars of the Christian's hope, I know not what
can be considered as doing so.
It is of no avail to tell us that, at his resurrection,
this gift of having life in himself, — this power by
which the life of every one of his members is in-
fallibly secured against all assaults, was restored to
him. For how do we know that he holds that gift
CHRIST OUR KING. "219
now, by a firmer tenure than that by which he held
it before ? Or rather how can we help knowing that
he holds it by no firmer tenure? When he made the
declaration to the Jews with regard to his power of
kying it down and taking it up again, he had all the
fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him, to enable
him to resist any violence by which he might be
assailed. Can he have more than all the fulness of
the Godhead to guard it noiu ? Yet we are told that
a stronger than he came, and by violence took away
the gift which the Father had given him for the life
of the world. After the restoration of that gift, are
we not left to dread, that by similar violence, it may
again be taken away ? since assuredly it can be secured
by no stronger power now, than it was at first.
The text now commented upon is very frequently
quoted by the early writers ; and, as far as I recollect,
not the slightest doubt as to its meaning just what
it so plainly expresses, is manifested by any of them.
Ample proofs of their clear and unvarying conviction
that our Lord's life was not taken from him, but
voluntarily given, will occur in the sequel. In the
mean time, as a confirmation of my own view of the
text, I shall quote two justly celebrated fathers.
Gregory Nyssen says, ' Remember what our Lord
says of himself, and you will know his power, and
how by his own will, and by no necessity of nature,
he separated his soul from his body, — irw? avloKpaJopiKtj
for no man, saith he, taketh my life from me, but
220 CHRIST OUR KING.
I lay it down of myself. This being so, what is
sought will easily appear ; for he who disposes of all
things by his own authority, awaits not any necessity
arising from his being betrayed, nor the assault of the
Jews as of thieves, nor the sentence of Pilate, that
their malice should become the principle and cause
of the common salvation of men, &c.' ^ Gregory
understood the Christian system too well to suppose
that if Christ died by the necessity of a fallen sinful
nature, his death could be any atonement. Augustine
says, 'There is much weight in that /; for / lay
down, saith he, I lay down my life, I lay down.
What means, I lay it down ? Let not the Jews glory ;
they can rage, but power they can have none. Let
them rage as much as they are able, if I choose
not to lay down my life, what will their raging
avail? &c.'2
Another text which very clearly evinces our Lord's
victory over death is thus written, — "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."^ To him, as man, death
was naturally terrible ; and coming to him armed
* Sermon I. On the Resurrection, Works Vol. II. p. 821.
' Cum raagno pondcre dictum est Ego ; quia ego pono, inquit, pono
animani meam, ego pono. Quid est, ego pono ? Ego illam pono : non
glorientur Judaei ; soevire potuerunt, potestatem habere non potuerunt.
Soeviant quantum possunt ; si ego noluero animam meam ponere, quid
scEviendo facturl sunt ? With much more to the same purpose. On John.
Tract 41. Section C. ■* Hebrews v. 7.
CHRIST OUR KING. 221
with terrors incalculably greater than he ever assaulted
any other man with, awakened prayers and sup-
plications of the most earnest and pathetic descrip-
tion. One of them we have recorded in Psalm
xxii. which he repeated on the cross : " Deliver my
soul from the sword ; my darling from the power of
the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth, for thou
hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
Such were his prayers in the hour of his fearful
conflict with the powers of darkness. And how
was he heard ? Was it by being given up, a bound
captive, into the power of death, and of him who
had the power of death, that is, the devil ? No ; but
he was heard by being sustained against all their
violence, till he triumphed over them on the cross,
and death, and he who had the power of death, fled
away baflied, and found that they had met with one
man, against whom their utmost efl"orts could avail
nothing. And then he voluntarily laid down a life
which was still his own, to give or to retain ; and he
entered into the domain of death, not as a captive,
but as a conqueror, to fulfil the prediction, " O death,
I will be thy plagues ; O grave, I will be thy des-
tiniction." Could he accomplish this prediction by
being overcome by death on the cross ? No ; had
death, and he who had the power of death, for one
moment overmastered him, then was every hope of a
lost world extinguished, and that for ever.
I would refer also to the peculiar phraseology used
with regard to the death of our Lord by the Evan-
222 CHRIST OUR KING.
gelists Matthew and John : H'l'^^ '^° ■^"f'^j^a) he sent
forth the ghost ; -s-apeSwAce h 'KvtviA.a, he gave up the ghost.
This language is apphed to Christ alone ; and though
a variety of phrases are used both in the Hebrew and
Greek, to express the act of dying, no such phrases
as these are ever applied to any other. I am aware
that to give up the ghost, is repeatedly applied to
others, in our translation, but in not one instance
does the original sanction the translation. I am
aware too, that in the Greek classics, a phraseology
somewhat similar is employed ; for example, ''^ y^P
€vS-a8e i/zvxvjv afriK€ MeveXcw?, Eurip. Hel. Fov Meneluus
died not here. But the ^-■'xv of the poet is not
equivalent to the 'r^^evi^a of the Apostles. And even
if it were, yet the careful appropriation of this
phraseology to Christ alone, would afford sufficient
ground for the supposition that they meant to speak
of his death, as differing from that of other men, in
its being voluntary. In short, the Greek phrase
iPvx^v affiKe has little analogy to that of the apostles,
and the Latin effiare animam has none whatever.
Emisit animam, non amisit, is the appropriate remark
of one of the fathers, I forget at the moment which
of them.
There is another declaration of our Lord, uttered
just before his last fearful conflict, which sets the
voluntary nature of his death in a very clear light, —
" The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing
in me. But that the world may know that I love
the Father, and as the Father gave me command-
CHRIST OUR KING. 223
ment, even so 1 do." ^ Had the prince of this world
found any thing in Christ with which he could claim
alliance, any thing, however slight, derived from
him, either mediately through the guilt of our first
parents, or immediately through his own temptations ;
had he found in him aught of that law of the mem-
bers which warreth against the law of the mind, then
this would have been quite sufficient to authorize and
enable him to inflict upon our Lord that death, the
power of inflicting which had been delegated to him.
But our Lord declares that though he was about to
meet Satan, and was also about to die, he died not
in consequence of any power which the prince of this
world, the prcepositus mortis had over him, — against
this fatal idea he carefully guards his disciples, — but
he died solely to shew the world the depth of his
love to the Father ; to shew that though the com-
mand of the Father required him to submit to the
very last extremity of mortal suffering, his love was
sufficient to make him obey even unto death. But
what becomes of this proof of his love, if in reality
he was suspended on the cross because he could not
help it, and his life was wrung from him by a
violence which he could not sustain ? If the prince
of this world conquered Christ upon the cross, and
violently took his life away, then it is clear that
Christ was not then, " King of kings, and Lord of
lords ; " he had met with his superior ; he was not
even a King at all, but a fallen sinful man. But
' John xiv. 30.
224 CHRIST OUR KING.
how then could he save men, from the beginning of
the world ? And if the cross was the scene of his
defeat, and the monument of his weakness, how can
it also be the foundation of our hopes, and the
. ground of our glorying ? Or with what truth could
the Apostle say that he triumphed over principalities
and powers on the cross, if there they, in reality
triumphed over him ? If he died not as a King,
and as a conquering sufferer, unquestionably his cross
was the reverse of a triumph, and the Galatians were
not so much to be blamed for being ashamed of it.
I appeal also, as a proof of the regal, the triumphal
character of our Lord's death, to the circumstances
that attended it, all of which strongly shew that, at
the moment when it took place, it was perfectly
voluntary. When the band of men and officers
went out to take him, he shewed how easily he could
not only have escaped out of their hands, — that he
could have done long before, for he knew well of their
intention to come and take him, and could have
frustrated the traitor's purpose by going out of the
way, — but how easily he could have resisted their
utmost power, for " x\s soon as he had said unto
them, I am he, they went backwards and fell to the
ground," overwhelmed, evidently, by some exhibition
of his Divine power. And when his disciples would
have defended him, he told them that if he wanted
defence, he could have for that purpose, not twelve
unarmed Apostles, but twelve legions of angels.
" But then how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled,
CHRIST OUR KING. 225
that thus it must be ? " Even after he was fastened
to the cross, he shewed that he was still the life ;
and even there did he exercise his regal functions
in the promise that he made to the penitent thief.
What could possibly induce that malefactor to apply,
in such circumstances to a fellow-suiferer, to one
who we are assured, was as incapable of resisting
the death to which both had been doomed, as him-
self ? It is unquestionable that he had observed in
Christ something more than mortal, when he ad-
dressed to him the prayer, "Lord, remember me
when thou comest into thy kingdom." And why
has the Holy Ghost recorded the fact, but to shew,
that he who, in such a situation, could make the
magnificent promise, "Verily I say unto thee. To-
day shalt thou be with me in paradise," was not
himself the weak victim of death ? And are we to
say that he who thus, almost with his dying breath,
conferred eternal life, was unable to save his own
life from the assault of death ? And when he had
endured all that his foes, whether men or devils,
could inflict ; when the darkness passed away, and
the victory was won ; then did he cry out, not with
the feeble breathings of a man whose agonies had
worn him down to the very lowest stage of existence,
and of whom death had all but taken possession,
but with the shout of a conqueror, whose life, after
all the assaults of death, — after innumerable deaths
had been inflicted upon him, was yet as whole within
him as it had ever been ; thus plainly intimating,
Q
226 CHRIST OUR KING.
that even at that moment, instead of bowing his
head and giving up the ghost, he could have stepped
down from the cross. " But then how should the
Scriptures be fulfilled ? " When the centurion saw
" that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he
said, Triily this man was the Son of God." And
deeply is it to be regretted that Christian divines,
and masters in our Israel, should adopt systems of
theology, or rather negations of all system, which
compel them to deny a fact so clearly evinced to the
centurion by the evidence of his own senses, as to
draw from him this confession, — a confession which
the Holy Ghost has thought good to record for our
conviction, that this man fi'eely gave up, for the
redemption of a lost world, a life which neither
earth nor hell could wring from him, and over which
death had no power, and which at the ver}' moment
of giving it, he could have retained had he chosen so
to do. And the completeness of his death is also
to be remarked. They who were crucified with him
were not so clearly and undoubtedly dead, as to
render the breaking of their legs an unnecessary
ceremony. But Jesus was so evidently dead that
not a bone of him was broken ; for when the soldiers
" came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,
they brake not his legs." And Pilate wondered at
his being dead so soon, for when Joseph of Arimathea
begged his body, it is said " Pilate marvelled if he
were already dead." How much more would he have
marvelled, had he seen what the centurion saw ; had
CHRIST OUR KING. 227
he seen Jesus at one moment crying out " It is
finished," with a "loud voice," and seen him the
next moment so certainly and so unquestionably dead
that even the soldiers noticed it, and brake not his
legs ? And yet we are most dogmatically called
upon to deny the very facts which awakened the
wonder both of Pilate and the Centurion, and to say
this was the death, not of the Son of God, who,
from love to the Father, and in obedience to his
command, gave up his life freely, but the death of a
fallen sinful man, who died by the common property
of flesh to die. This new gospel I believe not, nor
in the face of such evidence, can believe. I believe
that on the cross, Christ defeated the powers of
darkness, and that by death he destroyed them. He
laid down his life of his own accord, in order to
shew that he had a power which no created being
can ever possess, power to lay down his life, and
power to take it again. He laid it down that he
might be Lord of the quick and the dead. He
laid it down that death, as well as life, might be
subservient to the happiness and glory of his people,
and that they might have nothing to fear from the
former, more than from the latter. He laid it down
that he might be able to address his Church in this
cheering language, " I am he that liveth, and was
dead ; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen,
and have the keys of hell and of death."
And is it possible, in the face of such facts as
these, to believe that this suffering conqueror had
Q 2
228 CHRIST OUR KING.
in him any thing whatever, which could justify the
application to him of the terms fallen, and sinful ?
It was essentially necessary that he who was to deliver
others from their sins, should himself be perfectly
free from any thing to which such terms could have
the remotest application. And it was necessary that
we should have the clearest and most decisive evidence
of this ; for upon the certainty that Christ was not
fallen or sinful, depends the reality of the atonement,
and the certainty of all our hopes. And never was
any thing so severely tried, and never was any testi-
mony so decisive as that which proves the total and
perfect sinlessness of the Man Christ Jesus, at all
times, and in all respects. The traitor who betrayed
him pronounced him innocent. His accusers he
could boldly challenge to convince him of sin. The
sentence of the judge who doomed him to the cross
was, " I find no fault in him ; I will scourge him and
let him go." Much guilt however might have been
in him, which no mortal eye could detect ; and in a
matter in which we are so deeply and vitally concerned,
much stronger evidence than that of the Jews and of
Pilate was necessary ; and much stronger evidence is
given. The justice of God assailed him, armed with
all the demands of a violated law, saying, "pay me
that thou owest." The debt was paid, the penalty
was endured, every demand was satisfied, and divine
justice retired, saying, ' I find no fault in him ; I
have scourged him with every stripe due to an apos-
tate world ; let him go,' The powers of darkness
CHRIST OUR KING. 229
were let loose upon him, to try if their malice could
find aught in him with which they might claim
alliance, or on which they might ground the slightest
charge against him ; and after efforts the power of
which we can little apprehend, they fled haffled away,
howling out in anguish their own hopeless doom,
while forced to say, ' We find no fault in him ; we
have scourged him with worse than scorpion's stings,
and have been compelled to let him go.' And while
heaven, and earth, and hell are thus proclaiming to
us the entire and perfect sinlessness of God's holy
child Jesus, and pouring on our hearts the resistless
conviction, that in him was no fault, — nothing which
the inexorable justice of heaven could condemn, and
nothing on which even the unmitigated malice of hell
could lay hold, who are they who dare to come
forward and tell us, that had they been at the fiery
trial, they could have found something sinful in him,
and could have proved that if he had never been led
into actual sin, it was from no want of inclination,
from no absence of a sinful disposition, for that all
the propensities of fallen man were as truly and as
strongly in him as they are in us ? — who tell us
that while our Lord teaches us to pray that the
will of God may be done on earth as it is done
in heaven, he himself was far from exemplifying
that petition ; for he obeyed, if indeed he did obey,
not from filial love, and with the feeling of delight,
as the angels do in heaven, but from that compulsion
which makes even the devils, against their will, pro-
230 CHRIST OUR KING.
mote the purposes of God, — that in his manhood he
obeyed, not, as he himself declares, because it was
his meat and his drink so to do, but because ' the
will of the Spirit enforced the flesh to do it unwilling
service.' Who are they who, in a Christian land,
venture to utter such daring impieties, and that too
under the name of Christian doctrines ? and who tell
us that when our Lord gave up the ghost, it was not
the ineifable goodness of God purchasing his Church
with his own blood, but the weakness of fallen man-
hood sinking beneath the oppression of superior
force ? and who, when they have cast the most
unjust reproach upon the flesh of Christ, extend that
reproach, in the most unmeasured terms to all who
are zealous in defending his honour ? And who can
listen to such impieties, without exclaiming, in the
language of Gregory Nazianzen, ' I am filled with
grief and anger, — and would that ye could sympathize
with me, — on account of my Christ, when I see my
Christ dishonoured for that very reason for which he
should be honoured most. For tell me, is he un-
worthy of honour, because he was humbled for thee ?
Is he therefore a creature, because he careth for the
creature ? ' ^ Who are they who come forward
to astound the world with the portentous novelty,
that, from his cradle to his cross, the humanity of
ifj-in;, olav iSoj S.f.va.c„ ^ Trap' avlw 'jreot iavlov' Kai 7a? «xev w? avS'paTTU)
1:0,00. lov tK ^€ov TTol^o^ "Koyov tbiKox; voovfAevui 'K^oa-a.'Klei, la,q Sf wf
S'eoTTpeTiet? jttovsy lu tK @eov %a.l§oi; Xoyai, ai^o,^€[A.a. e^u. Cyril's M^orks,
Vol. VI. p. 167.
454 PARTICULAR TESTIxMONIES.
lations upon that humanity which is described as
fallen, sinful, guilty, and alienated from God, and
inclined to all forbidden things, they speak of it as
contemplated apart from the Divine Nature, apart
from which, if it ever existed, then the council of
Ephesus, and the whole Christian church in all ages,
must plead guilty to the charge, not merely of
unaccountable ignorance, but of fatal error. The
council denounces its anathema upon those who
contemplate the humanity apart from the Divinity.
They who teach the sinfulness of Christ's humanity
openly profess to contemplate the humanity apart
from the Divinity, and maintain that they have the
authority of the primitive church, and indeed of the
Catholic church in all ages, for their speculations.
Here then the only question is, whether shall we
believe the unsupported assertion of a few modern
writers, or the solemn declaration of the council of
Ephesus with regard to the faith of the primitive
church ? And this is a question which I suppose no
reader would thank me for wasting a moment in
determining.
The following is the eleventh of the twelve chapters,
— ' If any one confesseth not that the flesh of our
Lord was quickening, and the very flesh of the very
Word of God the Father ; but maketh it as it were
the flesh of some other besides him, conjoined with
him in dignity ; or as flesh having the divinity dwell-
ing in it, and not rather that it was quickening,
because made the very flesh of the Word, who is able
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 455
to quicken all things, let him be anathema.'^ That
the council was perfectly orthodox in its sentiments
there is no room to doubt ; but that this language is
very objectionable, inasmuch as it is extremely liable
to abuse, cannot be denied. Had such language been
used by any of the defenders of the Catholic faith in
the present day, no terms of reprobation would have
been found sufficiently strong to characterize it. Nor
do I say this upon conjecture ; for every term of
reprobation has been exhausted, by those who main-
tain the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity, upon
language from which no such meaning could be
extorted, as that which may be so naturally and
easily deduced from the language of the Council of
Ephesus. No fault, however, was found with the
strongest of the language in ancient times. Cyril
who penned it was looked upon as the very standard
of orthodoxy, though his writings contain much
language still more objectionable than this. The
Oriental bishops who opposed the twelve chapters^
shewed very plainly by the objections which they
made to them, that their opposition arose from
personal pique against Cyril, and from no doubt
whatever as to the soundness of his doctrine ; the
orthodoxy of which very soon after the sitting of
the Council they very fully admitted, though they
^ Ei 7n; 011% o/xoXoye* l't]v lov Kvotov a-aoKO, ^woTrotov etvat, Kai iZtav
avlov lov €K Qeov wa/p o? Xoyov, aXX' wq elegov livot; itcco' avlov (^vvrjiJifAivov
(*.€V avlw Kola, l-riv a^iau, riyavv t'^ y.ov'/jV ^etav evoiKfjO'iv eo'y^ifiKolo:;, /cat
ofjjj Stj y.a,Xkov ^oioirotov, ui^ eiSvjiAev, on yeyovev idtac, lov Xoyov lov la.
navla ^aoitoutv ta-'/^vovloq, a,ya^(iA,a e^u. Cyril's Works, Vol. vi. p. lyo.
456 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
objected, and I think very justly, to some of the
terms in which it was expressed. But that they
were far from objecting to that language, on ac-
count of its distinct condemnation of the tenet
of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, appears very
clearly both from their own remarks upon it, and
from those of Theodoret their great defender. I shall
quote a few lines from the latter, which will clearly
shew this. He first charges Cyril with embracing in
this chapter the Apollinarian heresy, because he
mentions only the flesh of Christ, without noticing
his soul, a heresy of which Cyril not only was not
guilty, for by flesh he meant the whole humanity,
but of which Theodoric could hardly help knowing
that he w^as not guilty. After thus attaching to the
chapter a heresy to which it gives no countenance,
he concludes his remarks thus : — ' But we declare
the animated and rational flesh of the Lord to be
quickening, through the quickening Godhead united
to it. But he himself reluctantly confesses the diff'er-
ence of the two natures, when he mentions flesh, and
God the Word, and calls it his own flesh. God the
Word then was not changed into the nature of flesh,
but has his own proper flesh, namely the assumed
nature, which he made quickening by the union.' ^
Now nothing but the heat of one of the fiercest con-
troversies that ever agitated the church, would have
(Ta-CKOc, 8ia l^iv ■/)Vuia.€1/yiv avlfj X^uoTioiov ^(olfilcc. 'O/z-oXoyft Se avlo^ a.Ku:v
Itcv Sm3 fvui^v h btafoooy, aa^KCc Aeyuv, nai $(ov 'Kfty(iV, km i^iav ccvlov
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 457
prevented so able, and so very candid a writer as
Theodoret from seeing, what he afterwards very readily
owned, that his own doctrine was precisely that of
Cyril, and expressed indeed in almost the very terms
of Cyril. The most objectionable at least of these
terms, the ' quickening flesh,' he uses without scru-
ple; only he takes care to shew that by flesh he
means not merely the body of Christ, but his com-
plete manhood. But then Cyril and the Council
meant this just as certainly as he did, only they did
not put in the words ' animated and rational,' in
order to shew that it was not merely of the body
of Christ that they were speaking, when they talked
of his flesh ; as they could not anticipate that any
person would so far misunderstand them, as to sus-
pect them of a leaning to the heresy of Apollinarius.
Now let the reader who is interested in this question,
(and I take it for granted that every Christian feels
deeply interested in it,) compare the language, I do
not say of the Catholic Council of Ephesus, but the
language of Theodoret while writing expressly against
that Council, — of Theodoret who suffered much in
his person while living, and much in his reputation
when dead, as a Nestorian, with the language against
which such a vehement outcry of heresy has been
raised at the present day ; and let him determine
fv(Ti)/, aXK' mav ej^ft (rcx,2Ka^ Irjy avaXyjfSfKrav fvaiv, Kai 'i^uo'KOiou
avl-^v l-ri evuaei TrittQi-^Ktv. Theodoret' s Works, Vol. iv. p. 721. and Cyril' x
Work.1, Vol. ■>;!. p. 237.
458 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
whether the latter ever could give a thousandth part
of the ground for the outcry which is given by the
former against the opposite heresy of Eutyches. Nay,
let him compare the language of Theodoret, the
accused and persecuted Nestorian, — let me do him
the justice of saying, most unjustly accused of that
heresy, and most iniquitously persecuted for it, —
with the habitual language of those who charge all
with Nestorianism who deny that the flesh of Christ
was fallen, sinful, wicked flesh ; and then let him
try to imagine, if he can, what sentence the Council
which condemned Theodoret, would have pronounced
upon those who are guilty of such language. If they
be right, then nothing can be more clear than the
fact, that all the pretended denials of the flesh of
Christ in the present day, are perfectly orthodox,
when compared with the gross and glaring heresy
of the Council of Ephesus ; and even with the heresy
of Theodoret, repeatedly condemned for the very
opposite heresy of Nestorianism. In fact, while I
have seen no language used by any defender of the
Catholic faith in tlie present day, from which any
thing approaching to a denial of the flesh of Christ
could by any fair interpretation be inferred ; the
language of both the Council of Ephesus, and of
Theodoret is such, that though I doubt not the
soundness of their sentiments, yet I should be sorry
to defend the mode in which these sentiments are
expressed. For I think that a very rigid interpreter
of the language quoted above, might easily find both
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 459
guilty of incautiously and unintentionally making
by far too near an approach to that heresy, with
which the church is at present so groundlessly
charged.
I proceed next to the council of Chalcedon in 45^1 .
If ever the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was fallen
sinful flesh, was held by the church, then the open
and unequivocal expression of that doctrine was
imperiously called for here. Neither the Gnostic nor
the Apollinarian heresy more urgently demanded the
expression of that doctrine, than did the heresy of
Eutyches which was condemned in this council.
Eutyches maintained that after the Incarnation there
was still only one nature in Christ, formed by some
imintellio-ible mingling of the human and divine
natures. He thus made Christ a person neither
human nor divine, but something more than man,
and less than God. While therefore he exalted the
humanity of our Lord too high, as if it had been
absorbed by the divinity, and was no longer true
humanity, we might expect to hear from every quarter
of the council the plain, distinct, and vn^gent declara-
tions, not merely that the human and divine nature
remained perfectly distinct and unmixed in Christ,
but that he was not only really man, but a fallen
sinful man. Had some of the six hundred and thirty
bishops assembled, used lang-uage which might seem
to derogate from the dignity of our Lord's humanity,
— to imply, nay openly to declare that it was fallen
sinful humanity, there not only would have been no
460 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
reason to be surprized at it ; but had they believed
that doctrine, then were they, with all their zeal,
guilty of a grievous dereliction of duty in not ex-
pressly embodying that doctrine in their canons.
There is certainly no such necessity now as there was
then, for inculcating the doctrine that Christ, as to
his humanity, differed nothing whatever from us in
guiltiness and alienation from God. Yet so far was
the council from inculcating and reiterating that
doctrine, that they condemn it in terms as clear and
express as can be chosen.
In this council the letter of the council of Ephesus
to Nestorius was read, and received with acclama-
tions. The council also adopted, as a correct expo-
sition of the faith of the church upon the subject,
a letter addressed by Leo bishop of Rome, to Flavian
bishop of Constantinople, the following extract from
which will shew what were their sentiments with
regard to the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. After
stating that the properties of the two natures remain
entire in the one person of Christ, who was totus in
suis, totus in nostris, the letter thus proceeds, — ' But
those thino-s we call ours which the Creator formed
in us from the beginning, and which Christ assumed
that he might restore. For as for those things which
the deceiver brought in, and man, being deceived,
admitted, there was no vestige of them in the Saviour.
Nor because he undertook the communion of human
infirmities, was he therefore a partaker of our delin-
quencies. He assumed the form of a servant without
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 461
the defilement of sin, increasing what was human,
not diminishing what was divine.' ^ I quote not this
as the language of Leo, who in many parts of his
writings, especially in his Sermons upon the Nativity
denies the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, but as the
language of the council of Chalcedon, which adopted
it as the expression of their own decision upon the
subject. Now the reader I think will agree with me,
that if a council were assembled at present, in order
to condemn the doctrine of those who declare that
the flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, wicked flesh ;
that taking flesh of a fallen sinful woman, he partook
of his mother's impurity ; that his will was in bondage
to the devil, the world, and the flesh ; they could
not condemn such impieties in more pointed or
appropriate terms than those used by the council
of Chalcedon. Had the council believed any such
doctrine, had they believed that in our Lord was that
law of the members which warreth against the law
of the mind, — that lusting of the flesh against the
spirit, — that inclination to all forbidden things, — and
all the evil propensities of the fallen man, which we
derive from the fall of Adam, could they by any
possibility have declared, that ' as for those things
which the deceiver brought in, and man, being
' Nostra autem dicimus, quae i.i nobis ab initio Creator condidit, et quae
reparanda suscepit. Nam ilia quae deceptor intulit, et homo deceptus admisit,
nullum habuere in Salvatore vestigium. Nee quia communionem human-
arum subiit infirmitatum, ideo nostrorum fuit particeps delictorum. Assum-
psit formam servi, sine sorde peccati, humaaa augens, divina non minuens.
Epistles of Leo. Epistle xxiv, in some Editions x.
462 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
deceived, admitted, there was no vestige of them in
the Saviour ? '
We have then the clear unequivocal testimony of
two general councils against the doctrine of the sin-
fulness of our Lord's flesh. There is another council
to which I would gladly refer, but I can find no cop)'^
of its anathemas. I mean the fifth general council,
which was held at Constantinople. The reader who
has the opportunity of consulting these anathemas
will find it decreed in one of them, (the thirteenth I
believe, but am not sure,) that Christ is to be wor-
shipped according to both his natures, with one and
the same adoration. It was to this council that the
emperor Justinian presented his celebrated confession
of faith. In that confession he has embodied a
number of anathemas against various heresies. One
of these anathemas is directed against Theodore of
Mopsuesta, and among a variety of opinions attributed
to him, I find the following condemned, — ' That
Christ suffered trouble from the passions of the mind,
and from the desires of the flesh,' — ' that by baptism
he received the grace of the Holy Ghost,' — and ' that
after the resurrection, he was made altogether im-
mutable in his thoughts, and impeccable.' Now
every one of these tenets is intimately connected with
the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity,
and may be found openly avowed in the pages of
some of the defenders of that doctrine. That neither
that doctrine nor these tenets formed any portion of
the Christian faith, nor were to be named but with
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 463
an anathema, the emperor Justinian and the council
of Constantinople are very competent witnesses.
I now pass on to the testimonies of individual
writers. I shall make my selections from them much
less copious than I originally intended, because after
the multiplied and overwhelming proofs of the utter
abhorrence in which the tenet of the sinfulness of
our Lord's flesh was held by the primitive Christians,
and of the entire abrogation of all that they held
sacred, which the adoption of that tenet would have
produced, which are furnished by that slight and
rapid view of some of the principal heresies with
which they had to contend, which I have given ; and
by the decisive testimony of several general councils
which I have produced ; I feel that to carry out the
exhibition of individual testimonies to the extent
which I at first designed, is totally unnecessary. To
all who are free to form an impartial conclusion,
from the evidence laid before them on the subject,
the evidence that the primitive church did not, and
could not, believe in the sinfulness of our Lord's
flesh, is already more than sufficient. I shall how-
ever exhibit, within as short a compass as I can,
the views entertained by the writers of the first four
centuries, simply premising these two things, — first,
that I in no instance give a quotation which I have
not myself copied from the place from which it
professes to be taken ; and second, that I give no
quotation from an author without meaning it to be
understood, that, to the best of my judgment, that
464 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
quotation is a fair representation of the general sen-
timents of the author quoted, upon the subject. To
this remark there are two exceptions, Hippolytus and
Eustathius, my quotations from whom are taken
from the fragments of their works preserved by
Theodoret. I have no doubt whatever that their
sentiments were in perfect unison with those of the
whole Church, with regard to our Lord's humanity ;
but my acquaintance with their writings is too slight
to enable me to vouch for this on my own personal
knowledge. The reader who has the opportunity, is
earnestly requested in every instance to turn to the
quotations, in the original, when, if I mistake not,
he will find them still stronger than in the detached
form in which I have necessarily given them.
I begin with BARNABAS, the eldest of the
Apostolical Fathers, a name familar to the readers
of the New Testament. Referring, in chapter vi. to
the text, "Behold I lay in Zion a sure foundation
stone," he says, ' Does our hope rest upon a stone
then ? Far from it ; but because the Lord placed his
flesh in powder, for he saith, I have placed myself as
a solid rock.' ^ There is some ambiguity here, as
eS-TjKa may be understood in two different senses ;
' Ett* Xi^ov ovv yifAoiv ij cXttj? ; f/.-/} yevoilo' aXX' e7re« ev la-'xivei
e^rjKe l-qv aa^Ka avlov 6 Kvjxo^" Keyei ycco, Kat e&njfca //,€ ix; (rec^av
Tcel^av. The reference here is to Isaiah 1. 7, where the Septuagint has
e^YjKa lo 'Kooa-U'Kovi^ov iiq g-eoeav ireZpav where Barnabas has understood
it^oauTcov f^ov as just equivalent to /ue; and that, as appears from the
preceding member of tlie sentence, is just equivalent to aaQKa.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 465
but the sentence cannot be understood in any sense
consistent with a belief, that our Lord died by the
common property of flesh to die, because it was
accursed in the loins of our first parents. What
follows is very fanciful, — as indeed is the whole
epistle, — but it is to the same purpose. He finds
the Incarnation of our Lord to be expressed by the
entrance of Israel into the land flowing with milk
and honey. His argument is, that man is just earth
endued with sensation, and that our Saviour entering
into this earth, entered into a good land, a land
flowing with milk and honey. His language, after
quoting one of the texts which refer to the land
flowing with milk and honey, is — ' Learn what know-
ledge saith : Hope in Jesus who is to be manifested
to you in the flesh. For man is earth endued with
sensation ; for of the substance of the earth was
Adam formed. What then saith it? Into a land
flowing with milk and honey. Blessed be our Lord
who giveth to us wisdom, and the understanding of
his hidden things.' ^ A little after, having quoted
Gen. i. 26, he adds, — ' Then the Lord seeing man
his fair workmanship, he saith, ' Increase and mul-
tiply and replenish the earth.' These things he saith
to the Son.' 1»'^'!^ Tff"? 7ov tiov. In chapter viii., speak-
ing of the ashes of the burnt heifer, he says, — ' But
why was the wool placed upon wood ? Because the
Tt Xeya vj yi/axri^, [Aa^ele' eXma-ale eiti lov ev a-a^Kt fAeXXovla
yap 7ij? "yvj^ '^ itXaa-K; lov ASa^t* eyevelo. Tt ouv Aeye* ; Trjv y/ji/ l-^v
aya^rjv, Iyjv oeovaav yaXa, km jxe'ki.
2 H
466 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
kingdom of Jesus was upon wood,' namely upon
the cross. ^
From these passages, — and he who looks into the
original will see, that by detaching them from their
contest, I have unavoidably weakened them, — it is
perfectly clear that the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh,
and his consequent liability to death, equally with,
and upon the same grounds as other men, is a
doctrine which Barnabas had probably never heard
of, and certainly did not believe. I may remark too,
that however fanciful may be considered his under-
standing earth to mean the flesh of our Lord, we
shall see in the sequel, that one of the ablest writers
of antiquity, Ambrose of Milan, introduces the same
idea, and if possible in a still more fanciful manner.
I may remark farther, that in chapter vi. we find the
first traces of a sentiment that afterwards became a
favourite one among the Fathers, namely, that as
Adam was formed of virgin earth, which had not
yet been violated by the hand of cultivation ; even so
the second Adam was formed of a virgin mother.
This sentiment we often meet with in the writings
of the Fathers. I do not recollect if this fact has
been adverted to, by those who have laboured to
establish the genuineness of the epistle. It may
however very well be urged for this purpose ; and
it may be still more strongly urged as a proof that
they who used it believed that our Lord difl'ered
* O'li Se TO fj)(0)/ fKt To Q-rfKov ; oh ij 'Suo'iKeta lav \rj(TOv cnri ]o
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 467
in his humanity from us as widely, and on the same
grounds, as unfallen Adam differed from his fallen
posterity.
There is a passage in Hermas, whose name is also
recorded in the New Testament, which clearly enough
discovers his opinion upon the subject ; but after
having extracted it, I have mislaid it, nor is it worth
while to waste much time in seeking for it. Should
it fall in my way, I shall give it in a note. In the
meantime I pass on to CLEMENT OF ROME,
whose name also is honoured by being recorded in
one of Paul's Epistles.^ He wrote an Epistle to the
Corinthians, for the purpose of healing the unhappy
divisions, which, it appears, still continued to agitate
the Church there, notwithstanding all that the Apostle
Paul had written. In merely enforcing the necessity
of peace, — which he does just in such a manner as
we would expect from a man honourably mentioned
by the Apostle, — he has little opportunity of giving
any opinion upon the subject of the present inquiry.
But besides some passages in which his belief in the
pre-existence of Christ is clearly, though incidentally
shewn, there is one passage from which we may
very well understand what he thought of our Lord's
humanity. It occurs in Chap. ii. and is as follows,
— ' Ye were all of a lowly mind ; not puffed up ;
1 Grotius disputes this, and thinks the Clement mentioned by Paul,
Philip, iv. 3, was a diflFerent person from Clement of Rome. I think he is
wrong ; but the thing is not worth disputing about.
2 H 2
468 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
subject rather than subjecting others ; rather giving
than receiving ; contented with the provision of God,
and carefully keeping his words ; having your hearts
enlarged, and his sufferings were before your eyes.' ^
Here Clement distinctly mentions the sufferings of
God. But it was taught by all antiquity, and indeed
must be admitted by every man, that the divinity in
Christ could not suffer. It was the manhood alone
that suffered, and yet what suffered is, by Clement,
called God. He has also the clearest Scripture
authority for this mode of expression ; for there we
are told that the blood shed on the cross was the
blood of God ; that he -who was crucified was " the
Lord of glory ; " and he who was killed was " the
Prince of life." Could Clement possibly conceive
that when he spoke, in perfect accordance with Scrip-
ture precedent, of the sufferings of God, that God
was also, not merely a real man, else he could not
have suffered at all, but a man suffering in fallen,
sinful, wicked flesh ? It is so painful, so very
revolting to the mind, even to place two such
ideas in juxta-position, that we may w^ell conclude
that he had no conception of the sinfulness of our
Lord's humanity, when he spoke of the sufferings
of God.
As a farther illustration of the meaning of the
^ Tlavle^ le e7a'ir€ivo fciilia--
&f«? fTr' avlov, Koci yvcv^ oci^ c 'na.ayji-j, r^^tov f/.v/jfjL'qv ccvlov yevetr^cct
(V If) ^aCtXeia. ft,- 7a fAelcc laxla' o Se ev^v^ au.vr,a-tay ocvlci Iujv Trooye-
•yovo/s'v y^a.oKTa.fjt.f.yoe;, €<{ Tra&aSei/ri aXri^fiai/ vpovixccplvp-iarj, Kdi t^^^'J vnoy pay-ixov 'Kapa.Ty^ffKu,
Book VII. Chajt. xxii.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 471
The Clementine Homilies, and the Recognitions,
are still more palpable forgeries, and are full of
heresies. Yet upon this subject, if they were worth
quoting, they would be found as far from admitting
the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity as possible.
Leaving them, therefore, I proceed to IGNATIUS,
Bishop of Antioch. There is a tradition that he was
the child whom our Saviour took and set in the
midst of his Apostles, when he inculcated the lesson
of humility upon them. Whatever credit may be
due to this tradition > we have at least no reason to
question the truth of his own declaration, when he
says, that he saw our Lord after his resurrection from
the dead. The passage to which I refer occurs in
the Epistle to the Smyrneans, chap. iii. I do not
quote it, for it would lead me into a longer comment
than I can here afford space for ; but one thing it
proves most distinctly, that he conceived the body
which our Lord shewed to his disciples after his
resurrection, and desired them to handle that they
might be convinced of its reality, was the very same
unchanged body which had hung upon the cross .
and lay in the tomb. If he held the flesh of our
Lord to be sinful during his life, it is certain that he
held it to be equally so, after his resurrection. I
think he was right in this respect ; but I avoid the
discussion now, curious and important though it be,
for the same reason that I avoided it in the first part
of my work, that full justice cannot be done to it
U^
472 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
without a larger discussion than can be given to it
in such a treatise.
In the first chapter of his first Epistle, which is
to the Ephesians, he speaks of ' the blood of God,'
I . saying, ' being followers of God, greatly animating
yourselves by the blood of God.' ^ Here what is
peculiarly an affection of the man is ascribed to God.
But then he has the most direct Scripture authority
for this mode of speaking. For it is a rule which
can never be too carefully inculcated, upon this
subject, that whatever may be said of the flesh of
Christ, may with perfect propriety be said of Christ.
The early writers go farther, and apply to God what-
ever terms are applicable to the flesh of Christ. It
was the flesh only that could bleed, yet that blood
was the blood of God. It was the flesh alone that
could die, yet the "Prince of life" died. It was
the flesh alone that could be affixed to the cross, yet
the "Lord of glory" was crucified. On the same
ground, if it be Christian language to say that the
flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, wicked flesh, guilty
and alienated from God, inclined to all forbidden
things, and in bondage to the devil, the world, and
the flesh ; then may all these things be with equal pro-
priety said of Christ and of God. I have not hitherto
insisted on carrying out this rule to its full extent,
because I had no occasion so to do, and knew that
the primitive writers would carry it out for me to
that extent. Now when we find Clement speaking
^ lji.ilji.-ffl at ovlii; Qiov, ai/a'^ccTcvpvj'ra.yhi; ey dt[Aah 6eov,
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 473
of the sufferings of God, and Ignatius of the blood
of God, and recollect how clearly such language is
authorized by Scripture precedent ; and when even
they who maintain the sinfulness of Christ's flesh
fully admit, that what was born, and sufl^ered, and
died, was very God ; we must surely feel ourselves
compelled to admit that what was fallen, sinful,
wicked, and impure, was also very God ; or to reject
the application of such terms to Christ, or to a part
of Christ, as the most direct and revolting blasphemy
that any heresy has yet produced.
A rule constantly observed by the inspired writers,
and from them followed by every Catholic writer ;
and a rule of the utmost importance in all theological
speculations, is this, — If there be any one term, how-
ever innocent it may be, which may be properly
applied to the humanity of Christ, but cannot be
applied to Christ, or even to God, then that humanity
was a person distinct from Christ and from God.
The nineteenth chapter of the same epistle com-
mences thus, — ' The prince of this world knew not
of the virginity of Mary, nor of her child-bearing,
nor of the death of the Lord ; three mysteries to be
preached, which were accomplished by the power
of God.' ^ It is necessary that I should give some
account of a translation that deviates so widely from
* Kat eXaS'e lev aa'^ovla, lav aicovoi; lovlov v] Tia^^ei/ia. Mapia,;,
Kai oloKeloi; ocvlrji;, ofAoiax; Kat l ^avaloi; 7ov 'Kvoiov, lota /Aii^fj^ta,
Kpauy^f, dltva ev rj
Tfiv tlivyriv. AXX' o jMev, aitoXvioc, cij to /cavreXe? av^^uTcivwv i:a.^uiv.
Aja rovTu yap Kai fAovoi; k^it-^^, oti avajixapTij-ro? f/.ovoq. Padagogue.
Book I. Chap. ii. See Note M. Appendix.
^ AXX* eTTt i^iv Tov 2wT»jps? TO TbiiAsc, UTtaiTf.i.v w? (T'ji(A.a rai; ccvay-
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 491
one of the very passages produced by Priestley for
the purpose of proving that even as to the humanity
of our Lord, the Fathers held an opinion not materi-
ally differing from that of the Gnostics. Utterly
indefensible as is the position of Priestley, it must be
admitted that such language as this is equally in-
defensible, and enabled him to give but too plausible
a colour to his assertion. No man in the present
age, would, I suppose, make use of such language
as this ; yet the church in the present age is charged
with denying the flesh of Christ ; while at the same
time it is asserted that all the Fathers, not only
maintained the reality of that flesh, but believed it
to be fallen, sinful flesh !
MARCUS MINUTIUS FELIX, a Roman lawyer,
wrote a very elegant defence of Christianity, about
the beginning of the third century. He has had no
occasion to enter upon the question of our Lord's
humanity ; but the following passing remark shews
clearly enough his opinion upon the subject. It
occurs a few pages from the end, — 'Nam quod religioni
nostra hominem noxium, et crucem ejus adscribitis,
longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum
credi, aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum :
Kaiaq iiTiYj^ecrtai etc Sia/xov/jv, yeXuq av er^' efajev yap ov 8' eidei'/if^ev vjXikov -q
KaraaK-fivcca-aa-a Ivvaixii; ev ra crufAari itpoi; l^uvjv Zvvaiat, ti? /A'JTe
avio Toti; aXXoii; ojaoiov ipaiv€q e^t'v avrov
Tta^aatiaai xico tuv evayyeXiKuv ypa/^/xaTwv o-tTOVfAei/ov, kui 1:01a criTov-
[ji.evoi/. AXX' €^u, Xeyera) avTov €€€^uKei/at //.era rui/ /xaS'ijTwv ti; itatTyjx
W fAovov etivovra to. ' EireS'HjW.ia eTve^vixvjcra tovto to tzaa-y/x, fayeiv [/.e^'
vfAui/," aXXa Kai ^et^uKOTa. Aeyeru 8' avrov Kat ^i^p'/jaai/Ta irapa ryj
TT'/jyij Tov laKu€ TieTCOoKevai, ti lovro irpoi; ra itf^i tov crujJiaTOi; avrov vip
7JIA.WV XeyojAeva ; crafax; Se faiverai i^Srt^o? ixera tjjv avw^aan/ titguKccq,
Against Celsus. Book i. near the end p. 54 of Spencer's edition. He alludes
to what he had stated in a previous part of the same book, see particularly
pp. 26 and 29.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 497
by the union and mixture of the Word, it received
all that is great ; and by a participation of his
Divinity, became God.' ^
These passages are perfectly sufficient to shew that
Priestley might have quoted Origen also in order to
give a colour to the charge of Gnosticism, which he
brings against the Fathers. I have at present no
opportunity of consulting his work '"■6^* apx^y. but
there is a collection of passages bearing on the In-
carnation, selected from that work, and translated by
Ruffinus, from which I may take a few sentences.
Speaking of the human soul of Christ, he says, —
' It was anointed with the oil of gladness then, when
by an immaculate federation, it was united to the
Word of God ; and by this it alone of all human
souls was incapable of sin, because it was well and
fully capable of receiving the Son of God ; and
therefore it is one with him, and receives his names,
and is called Jesus Christ, by whom all things were
made.' And he adds that he conceives that it is of
this soul that the apostle says, " Your life is hid with
Christ in God." Again he remarks that as a mass
of iron placed in a furnace, is said to be made fire,
and appears so to the eye, and if any one try to touch
or handle it, he will feel the force not of iron but of
^ 'Of^eoq §6 tj-wo-a)/ (j crapKt, ava^tf*.a. e>.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 503
tion I make the same reply, but with considerably
less confidence in the genuineness of the creed than
in that of the anathemas. After condemning those
who make different adorations due to Christ, one
divine and one human, and explaining the doctrine
of the Incarnation at much length, the creed says :-—
Non dues personcB neque du^ nature, nee enim
et quatuor adorari dicimus, Deum, et jilium Dei, et
hominem, et Spiritum Sanctum. That this creed
was written long before the Eutychian heresy is
quite clear, and seems to be directed against that
of Apollinarius, though it may as well be supposed
to refer to that of Paul of Samosata. But whoever
was its author, it is certain that the sinfulness of our
Lord's flesh formed no part of his faith. A sounder
view is given a little lower down, — ' There was one
Son before the Incarnation, and after the Incarnation
the same was man and God, both as one : there is not
one person of God the Word, and another of the
man Jesus ; but the same who was previously the Son
was united to the flesh of Mary, constituting himself
a perfect and holy and sinless man, and administer-
ing the work of the Incarnation, for the salutary
renovation of humanity, and of the whole world.' ^
1 Unus filius ante incarnationem, et post incarnationem idem homo et Deiis
utrumque tanquam unum: et non alia quidem persona Deus Verbum, alia vero
homo Jesus ; sed idem qui prius erat filius, unitus est carni ex Maria, consti-
tuens seipsum perfectum, et sanctum, et sine peccato hominem, et administrans
opus incarnationis ad renovationem salutariam humanitatis, et totius mundi.
I know not if the original of this creed has ever been published. I quote
from a translation of it by Turrianus which is inserted in the works of
Gregory.
504 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
METHODIUS was bishop of Tyre, and suffered
martyrdom in the year 302, or 303. His sentiments
have been already sufficiently seen, in the manner in
which he attempts to escape the pressure of the text
urged by the Gnostics against the resurrection, —
" flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of
heaven." He is the first author whom I have met
with, who exalts the Virgin Mary with those ex-
travagant praises which ultimately led to the adoption
of the notion, that even she was born without original
sin. In his discourse upon Simeon and Anna, he
speaks of her in a way in which we are not now
permitted to talk of Christ himself, without being
charged with heresy ; declaring that her bosom was
a throne far surpassing all humanity, and that time
would fail him, and all generations, worthily to praise
her. And as to the humanity of our Lord being
inferior to that of unfallen Adam, he in some places
seems to intimate that that humanity was the identical
soul and body of Adam united to the Word. I feel
it, therefore, totally useless to produce any of the
extracts which I had made from him,
ARNOBIUS was a professor of rhetoric in Sicca,
a city of Numidia, in the beginning of the fourth
century. He has written a treatise, in seven books,
against the heathens. As he wrote when he was
only a catechumen, his work is of much greater value
as an exposure of the follies of paganism, than as an
illustration or defence of Christian doctrine. He
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 505
falls into various errors ; but they are obviously the
errors, not of a man attempting to improve the
gospel, but of a man imperfectly instructed in it.
Indeed it may be remarked of most of the primitive
defenders of Christianity that they find so rich and
inviting a field in the absurdities of Paganism, that
we are grievously disappointed in reading them, to
find that they hardly notice the doctrines of the
gospel at all. This remark is naturally suggested by the
work of Arnobius, who was much better acquainted
with the errors of the religion that he had forsaken,
than with the truths of that which he had embraced.
In Book I. page 12, he has a great many cjues-
tions, each commencing with the words, ille mortalis,
aut unus e nobis fait ? — ' Was he mortal, or one of us,'
who did so and so ? All this however may be sup-
posed merely as fitted to prove the Divinity of our
Lord. But in page 18, he takes up the objection
that he was slain as a man. He replies that it was
not he, but the man whom he put on and carried
about with him ; and enters at much length into the
matter, in language more objectionable than any that
Nestorius, some time afterwards made use of, but
clearly enough shewing that of the sinfulness of our
Lord's flesh, he had no idea. I copy in the margin
the conclusion of the passage.^ I need not translate
' Vides enim si nollet inferri sibi a quoquam manus, summa illi fuisse
contentione nitendum, ut hostes ab se suos vel potestate inversa prohiberet ?
Qui csecis restitucrat lumina, is efRcere si deberet, non poterat csecos ?
Qui debilibus integritatcm, is debiles reddere difficultati habuit, aut labori ?
Qui claudos prsecipiebat incedere, is motus alligare membrorum nervorum
506 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
it It is plain that Arnobius had not the most dis-
tant idea that Christ died by the common property
of flesh to die. By an inverted application of his
power, that is, by using it to hurt men instead of
healing them, he could have smitten his enemies with
blindness, and withered up all their strength. In
talking of the pueriles ineptits, Arnobius goes much
farther, and a great deal too far. But though his
lang-uage here is very objectionable, and though
throughout the whole passage it more widely deviates
from the truth than that of Nestorius ever did ; still
it seems plain that his errors were merely the errors
of ignorance, — as indeed Cassidorus says that those
of Nestorius himself were ; only he obstinately de-
fended them, and that might be easily overlooked in
a catechumen, which called for the most distinct
notice, and the most severe censure in the bishop of
Constantinople, then the imperial city. And it is
quite clear that among his errors that of the sinful-
ness of Christ's flesh could not be numbered.
LACTANTIUS studied rhetoric under Arnobius,
and wrote his Institutions about the year 320. I
have already had occasion to shew that upon any
duritia nesciebat ? Qui extrahebat a tumulis mortuos, hinc arduum fuerat
letum cui vellet indicere ? Sed quia fieri ratio ea, quae fuerant destinata,
poscebat ; et liic in ipso mundo, nee naodo, quam gestum est alio, in-
estimabilis ilia atque incredibilis lenitas injurias in se hominum, puerilibus
pro ineptiis ducens, manus in se porrigi ab immanibus passa est durissimisque
latronibus, nee imputandum putavit, quod illorum dissignasset audaciaj
dummodo suis ostenderet, quid ab sese expectare deberent. The edition from
•which I copy, is that appended by Rigaltius to his edition of Cyprian.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 507
point of Christian doctrine, his opinion is not worth
quoting. He was, I believe, the first to argue upon
a ground which has since been often employed to
disprove the Divinity of our Lord, and is strongly
relied upon in proof of the sinfulness of his humanity.
The principle upon which he reasons, if it be a sound
one, is perfectly sufficient to accomplish both those
purposes. But it is certain that he contemplated no
such results, nor saw the danger of the ground on
which he argued. That he did not believe that our
Lord took fallen sinful flesh, is apparent from the
following crude statement : — ' For God the Father,
the origin and principle of things, since he has no
no parents, is most truly said by Trismegistus to be
aTraJtcp km aiAfilup, witliout Father and without Mother,
as he is procreated of none. Therefore also it be-
hoved the Son to be twice born, that he might
be without father and without mother. In his
first spiritual nativity, he was without mother, be-
cause without the intervention of a mother, he was
generated of God the Father alone. In his second
fleshly nativity he was without father ; since without
the intervention of a father he was generated in the
virgin's womb, that hearing a middle substance between
God and man, he might lead this our frail and feeble
nature, as it were by the hand to immortality. He
was made the Son of God through the Spirit, and
the Son of Man through the flesh, that is, both God
and Man. The power of God appeared in him from
the works which he wrought ; the frailty of man
508 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
from the passion which he endured, which why he
undertook, I shall shew in a little. In the mean
time we learn from the prophets that he was both
God and man mixed of both.' * Should any one
choose to charge Lactantius with the heresy which
was afterwards known by the name of Eutychianism,
such language would aiford a ground for the charge.
But the truth is that he had no design to teach that,
or any other heresy ; he improperly expressed what
he imperfectly understood, that is all.
JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS wrote under
the government of the Emperor Constantius and
Constans, and consequently near the middle of the
fourth century. Who he was, what he was, or of what
country, is unknown. He has addressed to the
Emperor just named, a very small but a very excel-
lent treatise, De religionum profanarum errore.
Though like the two last-quoted authors, he assails
the absurdities of paganism, yet he shews himself
much better acquainted with the doctrines of the
^ In prima enim nativitate spiritale afj-riTccg fuit ; quia sine officio matris
a solo Deo Patre generatus est. In secunda vero carnali ayraTwo fuit ;
quoniam sine patris officio, virginali utero procreatus est ; ut mediam inter
Deum et hominem substantiam gerens, nostram banc fragilem imbecillemque
naturam quasi manu ad immortalitem posset educere. Factus est et Dei
filius per spiritual, et hominis per carnem, id est, et Deus et homo. Nee
Deus nee homo, would have been a truer definition of his niedia substantia. —
Dei virtus in eo ex operibus, que fecit apparuit ; fragilitas hominis, ex
passione quam pertulit, quam cur susceperit, paulo post docebo. Interim
et Deum fuisse et hominem, ex utroque genere permistum, prophetis
vaticinantibus discimus. Institutiones, Lib. iv. Cap. 13. Edition of Spark,
Oxford, 1664.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES 509
gospel than either of them. His object, indeed, does
not lead him to enter into any particular exposition
of these doctrines ; but his incidental notices of
them shew an acquaintance with them which neither
Arnobius nor Lactantius had attained. In one place,
he thus speaks, — ' But this holy stone, that is, Christ,
either sustains the foundations of faith, or placed
upon the corner, conjoins the two walls, that is,
collects into one the people of the Old and of the
New Testament ; or certainly he associates with man
a diversity of body and mind by an inviolable immor-
tality ; or promulgates the law ; or bears testimony
against sinners, &c.' ^ He says also, — -' We drink the
immortal blood of Christ ; the blood of Christ is
joined to our blood. This is the salutary remedy for
thy crimes, which repels the deadly poison from the
people of God.'^ Again, — ' All the elements were
troubled during the combat of Christ, then, namely,
when first he armed his human body against the
tyranny of death. For three days that conflict en-
dured, till death, all the powers of its malice being
conquered, was broken.'^
^ Lapis autem hie sanctus, id est Christus, aut fidei fundamenta sustentat,
aut in angulo positus, duorum parietum membra aequata moderatione conjun-
git, id est, Veteris et Novi Testamenti in unum colligit, gentes; aut certe
corporis et animi diversitatem, inviolata homini immortalitate consociat;
aut legem promulgat, etc. p. 35, Edition of Wowcr, Oxford, 1662.
" Christi immortalem sanguinem bibimus ; nostro sanguiniChristi sanguinis
adjunctus est. Hoc est salutare remedium scelerum tuorum, quod a Dei plebe
mortiferum virus excludit, p. 37.
^ Omnia elementa Christo pugnante turbata sunt, tunc scilicet cum primum
contra mortis tyrannidem humanum corpus arenavit. Per triduum ista con-
510 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
It was common among the Fathers to apply to
the crucifixion of our Lord, the text, " the govern-
ment shall be on his shoulders," some applying it to
his cross being laid on his shoulders while he bore it
to the place of crucifixion, and most applying it to
the circumstance of its being applied to his shoulders
while it bore him ; so much were they in the habit
of considering the cross as the scene of our Lord's
triumph over death, and not as the scene of death's
conquest of him. They expound consequently the
figure of the cross, as significative of his dominion.
They differ no doubt in the details, which in all, will
in the present age, be considered as fanciful. Some
tell us that the bottom of the cross being: sunk in
the earth, denoted the dominion of him on whose
shoulders it was, over the infernal powers ; its top
erected toward heaven signified his dominion over the
heavenly powers ; and the ends of the transverse
beam, pointing in opposite directions, shewed the
the extension of his dominion over all things. This
is not exactly the interpretation of our present author,
nor is it worth while to give it. It is enough to say,
that it is exactly the same in principle. I refer to it
for the sake of the reflections with which he follows
up his explanation. It is one of his peculiarities, —
and a very excellent pecuHarity it is, — that the
mention of a heathen absurdity, commonly reminds
him of some opposite excellence in Christianity. The
flictatione pugnatum est, quamdiu mors, superatis maliciae suee viribus,
frangeretur, p. 41.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES, 511
mention of some of the horned gods of the heathens
reminds him of the horns of the cross, that is, the
ends of the transverse beam, and according to him
the upper end also of the upright beam ; after having
shewn the meaning of which, he says : — ' Behold
the venerable horns of the cross ! behold the im-
mortal excellence of holy power, and the divine
structure of a glorious work ! Thou, Christ, by
extended hands, — extended on the cross, namely —
sustainest the world and the earth, thou sustainest
the government of heaven : our salvation adheres to
thy immortal shoulders ; thou, Lord, carriest the sign
of eternal life ; thou by thy adorable inspiration, hast
told us this through the prophets, for Isaiah saith,
" Unto us a Son is born, and the government shall
be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be the
messenger of great counsel." These are the horns
of the cross by which all things are supported and
contained. Upon these horns the life of men se-
curely rests.' ^ Such sentiments, somewhat fanciful
though they be, I confess I feel to be pleasant after
the eloquent ignorance of Lactantius.
EUSTATHIUS, bishop of x\ntioch, died about
the year 335. He has written a treatise on the
Pythoness, which I have not read. Some fragments
of his other theological works are preserved by Theo-
doret, from whom I take the following quotations.
^ p. 38. As I quote the passage for no argumentative purpose, I may be
spared copying the original.
512 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
On the text, *'The Lord created me the beginnmg
of his way," he says, — ' For the temple is properly
the pure and immaculate human tabernacle of the
Word, in which God dwelt,' and in proof of this he
quotes the text, " Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will rear it up." ^ The following is from his
book on the soul — ' Their ungodly calumny may be
easily repelled ; especially if he did not, for the salva-
tion of men, willingly give up his own body to death.
For, first, they attribute much weakness to him, as
if he had not been able to repress the attack of his
enemies.' ^ Again, — ' If then, from what has already
been stated, the Divinity of Christ is shewn to have
been impassible, they in vain refer to the decision of
the Apostles. For if Paul says, " The Lord of glory
was crucified," plainly referring to the Man, it will
not be proper on that account to attribute the suffering
to the Divinity. Why then do they join these things,
saying, that Christ was crucified through weakness ? ' ^
EUSEBIUS of Cesarea died in the year 338.
^ Nao? 'ya.f Kvpiu(; 6 Ka^ccpoc, kui ay^pavTo^, t] Kara rov av^pwjrov
e^t Ttepi TOJ/ Xoyof cKyjV^, ev&a irpo^aucci; cTK-Tjv&'cra? uKrij tij? tuv av^puTccov kv€K€v cruT7jpia<; eii; ttjv tok ^avarov
C7fay/]v TO tSiOv €KOV(Tta}(; e^eSiSou .vpiov tvj^ ^o^vj^ t^avpucr^ai, (rafux;
fji; rov av^peoirov afopuv, ov iiapa tovto 8e>)0"et ma^oi tw ^eiai Tipoa-aTrreiv.
T« ovv ravTa atJvaTirova-t irXeKOVTeq cf aa^eveiai; ei^-avpaxr^ai XeyovTeq
rov Xpig-ov. Eranistes. p. 157.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 513
Remarking that our Lord by his Incarnation neither
changed his essence, nor lost what belonged to his
own nature, nor fell away from his Divinity, he says,
— ' Nor did he converse with those only who were
there where his human vessel was present, forbidden
to be in other parts of the universe. For then when
he had his conversation with men, he nevertheless
filled all things, and at the same time was with the
Father, and in the Father, and also managed all
things in heaven and in earth, by no means shut out,
as we are, from being present every where ; nor
prevented from exercising his Divine powers in the
usual manner, but communicating the things that
belong to himself to the man, not however receiving
from the mortal man the things belonging to him ;
furnishing that which was mortal with Divine power,
but not on the other hand participating in that which
was mortal.' ^ In Book III. chap. iv. he enters
largely into the question, and shews that our Lord's
death was perfectly voluntary, and that when he had
arisen from the dead, he shewed himself ' in the
flesh, in the body, the very same that he had been
before, to his disciples ; ' ^ but I prefer the two
following sentences from another Book, as they are
short, — ' Therefore nobody having power over his
^ aXXa, raj/.€v e^ avTov f/Lera^i^ovi; tw av^puitu, toe S' €k
rov ^vrjTov f/.'/j avrtXa^tavuv' Kai ttj? fxev ev '^eov tvva[ji.eut; tu Srv>)T(u
y^op-^yaiv, t/ji; 8' e/c tov ^v/ito\i fjt.riTovai.ac, ovKavTenccyojx.evcK;. Evangelical
Demonstration, Book IV. chap. xiii. Edition of Vigerus, Paris 1628.
2 Kat ^fiKvvaeye itaXiv auTO^ eavrov evaapKOV, cvct&j/aov, avTOV
enetvoUf otov Kat to %piv ijv, ron; oiKeiOK; /ixaS'vjTO*?.
2 L
514 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
life, he of his own accord laid it down for men, as
he himself teacheth, saying, no man taketh my life
from me,' &c. ^ Again, — ' Also when I hung upon
my mother's breasts, receiving the food of infants,
I was thought to be like other human children,
imperfect, and without the use of reason, not being
such, though I had a body like that of men ; for
neither in power, nor in essence, (or substance) was I
like others, but altogether free as thy Lamb, O thou
who art my God,' &c.^ The whole of Book X.
abounds in remarks of this kind.
While speaking of Eusebius, I may remark also
that Marcellus of Ancyra, against whom he wrote a
treatise, though very heretical with regard to the
person of our Lord, yet repeatedly and distinctly
admits, that his flesh was immortal. Now his pecu-
liarity was, that the Word of God never had a
personal existence until the Incarnation, and that
after the mystery of God was finished, he should
again lay aside his distinct personality, and exist only
in the Father as before. This opinion would natur-
ally have led him to adopt the Socinian views, that
our Lord was merely a mortal man. And it is a
strong proof of the nature of the sentiments then
^ Ato [AVjZevoi; €%oi/to? e^ovaiav tvji; avrov ip^XOi eKuv avro^ vvep
av^pcoTiuv avri]v re^etKeVy uaTtep ovv StSacr/cei 'Keyuv, ovtn aipet t>jv
^vxyjv y-ov. K. T. X. Book X. p. 496.
^ AXXa /<■«* ore aito [/.a^aiv f^rjrpoi; [aov t')jv v^ttjwSij rpofYjV avaKaj/.-
'^avaiv, fvoiA.i§ojji.€v ouoioii; tok; toiv av^pwnuv tpefeaiv areXrji; eivai km
a,Xoyo<;' (/.rj eav yap rotoino^, €t Kai aaifAU [/.oi ofAoiov av^pamOK; ■»jv, Kai
T1JV 8vva/A»v, ovSf T>jj/ ova-iav, to*? itoXKoiq uv 6/A^e/)'/j?, avfTOi 8e Kai
wnokvTOi. K. T. X. BookX. p. 500.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 515
universally entertained, that even he, obviously against
his principles, and with undisguised reluctance, admits
that the flesh of Christ was immortal. By immortal,
he of course meant that he did not need to die unless
he pleased, as he was very far indeed from denying
that he actually did die.
ATHANASIUS, bishop of Alexandria, died in 373.
The zeal with which he laboured, and the fortitude
with which he suffered, and the uncompromising
fidelity to the truth which he uniformly manifested,
have secured for him a well-deserved, and undying
fame. I can make room only for one or two extracts
from him, but there is no writer to whom the reader
may be more safely referred for sound views upon
the constitution of our Lord's person. His zealous
opposition to the Arians naturally gave him a leaning
toward the opposite extreme to theirs, that of exalting
the humanity too high ; yet I recollect at present no
expression of his upon this subject, which can be
deemed directly erroneous, though certainly he has
much language stronger by far than that which, in
the present age, has been held to imply a very palpable
denial of the humanity of our Lord altogether. Of
this the following sentence will afford abundant proof,
— ' But as we, having received the Spirit, do not lose
our own nature, even so our Lord, after he was for
our sakes made man, and took a body, nevertheless
remained God : for he was not diminished by being
clothed with a body, but rather deified the body, and
2 L 2
516 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
lendered it immortal.' ^ This language may probably
be deemed too strong at present, even by those who
would shun with the utmost care the tenet of the
sinfulness of our Lord's flesh ; but in the age of
Athanasius it was common. It is certainly very
liable to abuse, and has probably been the more
carefully avoided in modern times, that at the Refor-
mation, some Lutheran divines went so far as to
maintain, that all the attributes of the Divinity were
communicated to the humanity of Christ, than which
a more fatal error cannot well be conceived. Athan-
asius had no such meaning ; but it is clear that using
such language, he was far indeed from entertaining
the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, for
they who in the present age have been accused of
going so far away from that doctrine, as to deny the
flesh of Christ altogether, have used no language so
strong as this. He states his sentiments also very
strongly in his third discourse against the Arians,
chap, xxxii. and xxxiii. But instead of multiplying
extracts, I prefer taking one from his treatise on the
Incarnation, of which I have had occasion to avail
myself on a former occasion. In chap. xxi. of that
treatise he argues against those who thought that if
Christ must die, he ought at least to have laid aside
his body in an honourable manner, and says, that if
^ AXXa txTTrfp rj[/,€t(; to i:vevixa "kaiA-tavovroc;, ovk aTroWvynv r-qv
iSiav €ai,vTav ovaiav' 6vru(; o Kvpo? yevof/.evoi; Sj' •^jwa^ av^poiiro;, Ktzt
a-uu,a Xiopetraq, ovhev ijttov >)v Beo^' ov yap TjKXaTTOVTO tvj itepitokti tov
>i/.aTOi;, aKKa Kat [xaXXov eS'eoirojejTo rovro, Kai a^avarov aTrere^ei.
Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nice, chap. xiv.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 517
Christ had died in bed like other men, he might have
been supposed, like other men to have died through
infirmity of nature, and to have had nothing more
than other men. He goes on in the same manner
in the succeeding chapters, till he comes to xxivth.
which I give entire.
' It is necessary to anticipate an objection that may
be raised by others, for some may be ready to say,
* If it was necessary that Christ should die in the
sight of all, that the declaration of his resurrection
might be believed, he ought surely to have chosen
an honourable death, or at least to have avoided
the ignominy of the cross.' But if he had done so,
it would have given room for the suspicion that he
could not prevail over any kind of death, but only
over that which he had chosen ; and hence there
would have been no less a pretence for denying the
resurrection. Hence death came to his body, not
from himself, but from treachery, that whatever death
they might inflict upon the Saviour, he might destroy
that death. And as a noble challenger, alike prudent
and manly, chooses not opponents for himself, lest
he should be suspected of cowardice, but leaves that
to the spectators, especially if they be enemies, that
having conquered whomsoever they may choose to
oppose to him, he may be judged the conqueror of
all ; even so the life of all, our Lord and Saviour
Christ, chose not for himself the death of the body,
lest he might seem to fear any other death ; but even
the death of the cross, chosen by others, and especi-
518 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
ally by enemies, which they, as bitter and igno-
minious, conceived was to be avoided, he refused
not to undergo ; that even this being dissolved, he
might be believed to be the Life, and the power of
death might be entirely destroyed. There happened
therefore something wonderful and unexpected, that
while they thought to inflict an ignominious death,
that just became a trophy over death itself. Hence
he neither suffered like John, by decapitation, nor
like Isaiah was sawed asunder, that even in death
his body might be preserved entire, and no pretence
might be aff'orded to those who might wish to divide
the Church.' '
In chap. xliv. of the same treatise, he argues that
as corruption was inherent in the body, so it was
necessary that in the body of Christ life should be
inherent. ' If death inhered in the body, and was
stronger than it, it was therefore necessary that life
should be inherent in the body, and that the body,
endued with life instead of death, might reject cor-
ruption.' Indeed such sentiments abound in him to
such a degree, that some attempts have been made to
call in question his belief in the human soul of Christ.
I need not say that this is a point upon which there
can be no question whatever ; but had he written
nothing save his treatise on the Incarnation, it is a
charge from which it would not be easy to defend him.
^ As the weight of the testimony here depends not upon a single phrase,
about which there might be a difference as to the proper mode of translation,
but upon the general strain of the reasoning, the labour of copying the
original seems unnecessary.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 519
HILARY, bishop of Poictiers, died in the year 367.
In maintaining the purity of the Catholic faith against
the Arians, he was the second man in that generation ;
and he was the second, only because the first was
Athanasius. Like that mighty master whom it was
his delight to imitate, and whom it was his greatest
crime, in that backsliding age, zealously to defend,
he suffered banishment for the truth's sake ; like
him, he endured suffering with the most unshrinking
fidelity, and fortitude ; and like him, was at last hap-
pily restored to his Church and died in peace. Of
such a man it is impossible to think or to speak
without respect. I much regret therefore the neces-
sity of introducing his name into this discussion at
all ; for with regard to our Lord's humanity, his
opinions were of the most fatal description. He
maintained that our Lord was never capable of feeling
hunger, or thirst, or weariness, or pain, or sorrow,
or fear ; that he felt them all in appearance only, not
in reality. Nor is it merely in a passing sentence,
which might be hastily put down and easily over-
looked, that he expresses such a view. The great
object of his tenth book on the Trinity is just to state
and defend this view ; and so warmly does he enter
into it, that he calls in question the genuineness of
that part of the Gospel of Luke which relates our
Saviour's bloody sweat, and the coming of an angel
to comfort him ; stating that it is wanting in many
copies both Greek and Latin. But on the supposition
that it may be genuine, he shews how it may be
520 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
explained in conformity with his views of our Lord's
humanity. He is one of those who have richly
furnished Priestley with materials for giving a plau-
sible colour to the charge which he brings against
the Fathers, of maintaining a view of our Lord's
humanity which does not materially differ from that
of the Gnostics. As it is to me the reverse of a
pleasure to draw into notice the errors of such a
man, I shall merely justify the remarks which I have
felt it necessary to make, by throwing into the margin
a passage from his tenth book on the Trinity, without
translation. ^
MACARIUS of Egypt. There were several of
this name who lived nearly at the same time, towards
the end of the fourth century. To which of them
we are indebted for the fifty homilies that bear this
name has not been ascertained ; nor is it a matter
of much consequence, as they are of little value. Of
an Egyptian monk, in the end of the fourth century,
' Homo itaque Jesus Christus unigenitus Deus per carnem et Verbum, ut
hominis filius, ita et Dei filius, hominem verum secundum similitudinem
nostri hominis non deficiens a se Deo, sumpsit : in quem quamvis aut ictus
incideret, aut vulnus descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio
elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem
passionis inferrent, ut telum aliquod aut aquam perforans, aut ignem com-
pungens, aut aera -vulnerans. Omnes quidem has passioncs natuia; suaj
infert, ut perforet, ut compungat, ut vulneret ; sed naturam suam in hsec
passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel
pungi ignem, vel aera vulnerari, quamvis naturae teli sit vulnerare, et
compungere et forare. Passus quidem Dominus Jesus Christus, dum cseditur,
dum suspenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur, sed in corpus Domini
irruens passio, nee non fuit passio, nee tamen naturem passionis exercuit ;
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 521
who certainly was not endued with much power of
close thinking, or with much extent of knowledge,
it can hardly be necessary to say, that he is as far
as possible from holding the tenet of the sinfulness
of our Saviour's flesh. He is full of allegory and
mysticism, and seems to have been a good man with few
clear ideas upon any subject. Speaking of the brazen
serpent which Moses made, he calls it a ' new work,'
and then goes on thus, — ' So the Lord made a new
work out of Mary, which he put on, for he brought
not his body from heaven ; he framed the heavenly
spirit that entered into Adam, and this he mingled
with his divinity, and put on human flesh, and
formed it in the womb. As then before the time
of Moses, God had not commanded a brazen serpent
to be made in the world ; even so until the time of
our Lord, a new and impeccable body appeared not
in the world.' ^ From such an author, this I suppose
will be held suiRcient.
cum et poenali ministerio ilia dessevit, et virtus corporis sine sensu pcense,
vim poenge in se desaevientis excepit. Habuerit sane illud Domini corpus
doloris nostri naturam, si corpus nostrum id naturse habet, ut calcet undas,
et super fluctus eat, et non degravetur ingressu, neque aquse insistentis
vestigiis cedant, penetret etiam solida, nee clausae domus obstaculis arceatur.
At vero si Dominici corporis sola ista natura sit, ut sua virtute, sua anima
feratur in humidis, et insistat in liquidis, et exstructa transcurrat, quid
per naturam humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu Sancto caro judicatur?
Caro ilia, id est, panis ille de coelis est. Et homo ille de Deo est, habens ad
patiendum quidem corpus, et passus est, sed naturam non habens ad dolen-
dum. Naturae enim propriae ac suae corpus illud est, quod in ccelestem
gloriam transformatur in Monte ; quod attactu sue fugat febres, quod de
sputo suo oculos format, p. 244. Edition of Paris, 1672.
' 'Ovrci) Kat 0 KvpiO(; Kaivov epyov e'/c TYjt; Mapiai enoi-i^a-e, Kai rovro
fvthvo'aroy aXX' ovk ■/jve-y/ce to (rcoy.a, e| ovpccvov' to Tcytvy-a to ovpaviov tv
522 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
OPTATUS, bishop of Milevi in Africa, died about
the year 372. He has written a treatise against
Parmenianus a Donatist of some celebrity, against
whom Augustine has also written. Near the begin-
ning of his treatise, after stating the order in which
he means to proceed, he says, — ' But before I pro-
ceed to these matters, I shall first shortly shew how
improperly you have treated the flesh of Christ. For
you have said that that sinful flesh, sunk in the flood
of Jordan, was cleansed from all impurity. You
might properly say this, if the flesh of Christ, being
baptized were sufficient for all, so that no one should
be baptized for himself. If this were so, then the
whole human race, every thing of corporeal birth,
would have been there. There would be no difl'erence
between the believer and any heathen, for they all
have flesh. And whilst there is nobody who has not
flesh, if, as you say, the flesh of Christ was sunk in
the flood of Jordan, all flesh would partake of this
benefit. But the flesh of Christ in Christ is one
thing, and the flesh of any individual in himself is
another thing. What mean you by saying that the
flesh of Christ was sinful ? I wish you would say
the flesh of man in the flesh of Christ. Nor even
then would your notion have any probability. For
every believer is baptized in the name of Christ,
Till AS(Zjtt €J(7eXS'oy €ifyaactro, kcci tovtov (7vv€K€paa-e ttj S'eor^Tj, Kai
evehvaaro av'^ fwn ivtiv erapKa, Kai ejAopcpua-ev ev tij {/.'fjTpa. 'Qyirep ovv
ofii; y^akKovf; eaq tu yidovaiui; ovk (KeKev^r] v%o tov Yivpiov (v Koa-fAi)
yevea-^at' ovtco drj (jccjAa Katvov Kai avay,apTYjToy, eu<; rov Kvpiov ovk
i(fari\ iv ru Hoa-j/.w. Homily XI. p. 69.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 523
and not in the flesh of Christ, which was specially
his own. I add, that his flesh, conceived of the
Holy Spirit, could not with others be baptized for
the remission of sins, as it admitted no sin. You
have added, ' and sunk in the flood of Jordan,' using
that word inconsiderately enough ; as it belongs to
Pharaoh and his people, who, by the weight of their
sins, sunk like lead, not to rise again. But the
flesh of Christ, while it descended into Jordan, and
ascended out of it, you ought not to have said was
sunk ; — whose flesh is found to be holier than Jordan
itself, so that it rather purified the water by its
descent, than was itself purified,'*
Here at last we find the doctrine of the sinfulness
of Christ's flesh ; and we find it just where it might
^ Sed priusquam de rebus singulis aliquid dicam ; quod carnem Christi
male tractaveris, breviter ostendam. Dixisti enim carnem illam peccatricem,
Jordanis demersam diluvio, ab universis sordibus esse mundatam. Merito
hoc diceres, si caro Christi pro omnibus baptizata sufficeret, ut nemo pro se
baptizaretur. Si ita esset, ibi esset totum genus hominum ; illic omne quod
corporalitu natum est : nihil esset inter fideles et unum quemque gentilem ;
quia in omnibus caro est. Et dum nemo non est qui non habeat carnem,
sicut — si ut — dixisti, caro Christi diluvio Jordanis demersa est, omnis caro
hoc beneficium consequeretur. Aliud est enim caro Christi in Christo, aliud
uniuscujusque in se. Quid tibi visum est, carnem Christi dicere pecca-
tricem ? Utinam diceres, caro hominum in carne Christi. Nee sic proba-
biliter dixeris. Quia unus quisque credens, in nomine Christi baptizatur;
non in carne Christi, qua speciaiiter illius erat. Addo, quod ejus caro de
Spiritu Sancto concepta, inter alios non potuit in remissam peccatorum
tingi, quae nullum videbatur admisisse peccatum. Addidisti, ' et Jordanis
diluvio demersam : ' satis inconsiderate hoc usus es verbo. Quod verbum soli
Pharaoni et ejus populo debebatur, qui pondere delictorum, tanquam plum-
bum, ita mersus sit, ut ibi remanserit; Christi autem caro, dum in Jordane
descendit et ascendit, demersa a te dici non debuit. Cujus caro, ipso Jordane
sanctior invenitur, ut magis aquam ipsa descensu suo mundaverit, quara ipsa
mundata sit. Lib. I. p. 8. Paris 1676,
524 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
have been expected to be found, not in a churchman,
but in a Donatist, who is justly rebuked by the
Cathohc bishop for thus speaking of the flesh of
Christ. Something similar however to the notion
of Parmenianus, and indeed more grossly expressed,
may be found at a still earlier period. There is in-
serted among the Epistles of Cyprian a small treatise,
written by an anonymous author, but of or near the
age of Cyprian, and opposing that Father's tenet,
that they who had been baptized by heretics ought to
be re-baptized. In that treatise mention is made of a
book entitled Pauli Proedicatio, — it should be Petri
Predicatio — and it is said, — In quo lihro contra
omnes Scripturas, et de peccato proprino conjitentem
invenies Christum, qui solus omnino deliquit, et ad
accipiendum loannis baptisma pene invitum a matre
sua Maria esse compulsum. Here Christ is made
' the only sinner,' with a vengeance. Parmenianus
I suppose did not go this length ; for such blasphemy
must soon have sunk under its own vileness. But
he maintained the flesh of Christ to be sinful, and
baptism to be in him, as in us, the sign of purifica-
tion or regeneration. But if baptism was in Christ
the sign of regeneration, then he must first have been
pardoned ; for there can be no regeneration without
pardon being previously granted. If, then, Christ
needed regeneration, there can be no doubt that he
needed pardon too. Moreover the baptism of John
was the baptism of repentance. If then the baptism
of Christ was in him the sign of regeneration, it was
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 525
as clearly the sign of repentance ; and he who repents,
who is pardoned and regenerated, is unquestionably
a sinner. And this Parmenianus must be presumed
to have held, though he went not to the extent of
impiety quoted above.
One thing particularly deserves attention, that
Optatus charges Parmenianus with holding the doc-
trine of universal pardon, because he calls the flesh
of Christ sinful. These are in fact only diiferent
pullulations of the same radical error. If the one
be true, the other must be so. This Optatus saw
clearly. Now it is not a little singular, that these
two different branches of the same error should spring
up about the same time, but as far as my information
goes, in different places, and from different heads.
Neither party I suppose saw at first, that the one
tenet involves the other. The two parties however,
I understand, are now nearly amalgamated ; and if
there be any who embraces the one of these tenets,
without embracing the other also, he may be assured
that he is yet very imperfectly instructed in the
grounds of his own error. And if the testimony
of Optatus be of any weight, he may be equally
assured that both the one tenet and the other was
held in reprobation by the primitive church.
HILARY, the Deacon of Rome, belongs to this
period, though the time of his death be uncertain.
He has left a commentary on the Epistles of Paul.
The whole of his comment on Rom, viii. 3, is very
526 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
direct to the purpose, but I can make room for only
a small portion of it. — ' For this reason he says — like,
because though of the same substance of flesh, it had
not the same nativity ; because the body of the Lord
was not subject to sin. For the flesh of the Lord
was purified by the Holy Spirit, that he might be
born in a body such as was that of Adam before sin.'^
His exposition of the expression, " he condemned
sin in the flesh," which immediately follows, is sin-
gular. His idea is, that when Satan assailed the
flesh of our Lord, he committed a sin against that
flesh, and for that sin was condemned. He refers to
the text " triumphing over them in it," which he
reads ' triumphing over them in him,' id est, in
Christo, that is, in Christ. So little did he know
of the interpretation which the tenet of the sinful-
ness of Christ's flesh forces upon this passage.
CYRIL, bishop of Jerusalem, died about the year
386. In his fourteenth catechetical discourse, chap.
vi. he says that Christ came to baptism that he might
sanctify baptism. So far I should suppose he is
right ; for if baptism sanctified our Lord, who sanc-
tified baptism ? In the same place he refers to Satan
^ Propterea ergo similem dixit, quia de eadem substantia carnis, non eamdem
habuit nativitatem ; quia peccato subjectum non fuit corpus Domini. Expiata
est enim a spiritu sancto caro Domini, ut in tali corpore nasceretur, quale fuit
Adae ante peccatum ; sola tamen sententia data in Adam. The concluding
clause I have not translated, because, if it has any sense, I cannot find out what
it is. For sola, the Roman edition, an utterly falsified one, has salva, which
would make sense ; and in not a few MSS. the clause is wanting altogether, as
I suppose it should be.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 527
being deceived by the bait of Christ's flesh hiding
his divinity, of which I have ah'eady had occasion to
speak. In the same discourse, chap. xiv. he says : —
* His birth was pure and unpolluted ; for where the
Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken
away. Most pure, however, was the fleshly birth
of the only begotten of a virgin, however heretics
may gainsay it.'^ He had previously spoken, in
chap. xi. of the ' holy flesh, the veil of the Divinity,*
but the passage cannot be translated. In discourse
13, chap. iii. he says: — " He gave not up his life
by compulsion, neither by violence was it taken away;
for hear what he himself saith, I have power to lay
down my life, &c." ^ In another place he says : —
* And do you wish to know, that not by violence he
laid down his life ? Neither unwillingly gave up the
ghost? He addresseth the Father, saying — Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit." ^
BASIL, bishop of Cesarea, commonly called Basil
the great, died in the year 379. In answer to the
question, ' In what manner is the Divinity in flesh ? '
he says, — ' As fire is in iron, not by transition, but
by impartation. For the fire runs not to the iron,
but remaining in its place, it imparts to the iron
^ Ax^sojiToq Ka.1 a^^virapo^ ij yevvyjo-ii;. o Ttov •yap icvei TTvef/xa ayiuv,
€K€t TrejxvjpujTat ira? jwoXvo-//iOij. Appvuoc ^ eva-aoKOi; yevvyja-iq rov fAoi/oye-
vovq €K TVji; Ttap^evQv, kocv avTiXeycoaiv oi dipertKai. Edition of Mills,
Oxford, 1703.
* @VK avayKatui; a^yjKe ruv '^u-^v, ofSe €iO(Tfayuq avffri^fj,
^ Kat SreXet^ yvuvai oti ov €ioaj? oiK€ia<; Suva/yiew?, oirep o^Te
eXaTTOvrai ttj [/.etatoo'ei, kui oKoi/ irXvipot eavrov to jM,6Te%ov. Kara.
TovTo Svj Kai 0 deof 'koya(; ovre e/cij/ij^y; ef kavrov, koli ((rKvivucrev ei/
'^/Aj Ka,raTtraij Ka'i ij av^puirivi] rov Kvpiov a-ccp^^
avrvi [/.erecrxe tij^ SreoT^jTo?, ov rrj ^eoTrjn [Aen^iuKe rtji; otKetai; aa-^e-
veiai;. H ovhe ra ^vvjrci rovru rovru itvpi lacot; ht^o)/; evepyetv rrjv
^eorvjra, aXXa ira^ro^ irepi rov aiia^ri €k tyji; av^^cii'!rtvrj(; aa^svetai;
favra'^Yj, Kai aitopeK; itcaq vj €vf^apro(; v ra aXe^i^r'/jpta KaraKparei ruv ipbaprt-
Koiv oiKem^evra, ru trwiAart' Kai u^ to evvnapx'^v ra oiKca vKoro^ ti}
2 M
530 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
In a subsequent part of the same homily, he says,
when speakmg of Joseph and !Mary, — ' Joseph was
minded to put her away, not because he felt any
detestation of her, but because he reverenced her as
one filled with the Holy Ghost. And thence it is
manifest that the constitution of the Lord was not
after the common nature of flesh. For what was
carried in the womb was immediately perfected, and
not formed by degrees, as the words plainly declare.
For it is not said, that which is conceived, but, that
which is born. The flesh, therefore, compacted of
holiness, was worthy to be united to the Divinity
of the only begotten.' '
In his treatise against Ennomius, book iv. he
decides that our Lord could not off'er up the prayer,
" If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," on
his own account ; for that would have been to accuse
himself of fear and weakness, and to doubt whether
there were not something impossible to God. More-
over he who gave life to the dead, had no need to ask
(TTfKrayeoyr] rov (puTo^ Xverai, ovtu^ 6 ei/^vvag-evuv ttj av^pceiiivri
^avaroi; ttj itapova-iot tij? S'eoTvjTo? afavi(r^rj. Kaj u^ (v ^SaT« izayoi;
ia-ov fAivy^povoy >t'5 fr' 'f«' tr/cia KaTa/cpare* tuv iypuv, ijXiov 8e S'aX-
irovToi; vTiorvjKerai ryjaKTivi, ovrec^ eta(riy.€iicre fxev o ^avarcq [^^Xp^
"KapoxKria^ Xp»rot^' eiietSy; Se tfav/i ij xa/"? fov 6(0v ^ a-urfipio;, Kai
avereiKev 6 ■^Kioi; t^? iiKato)/.o< tcc prjfAara,
ov yap eip-fjTai to Kvrj^ey, aXXa to yevvri^ev. e^ dyioji' fKevutre, Kai o y-ti 7]v 'Ttpoa-eXa'Sev. oii ^vo •yevo/Aei'OC. aXX' in
'cK ruv Svo yeveo'^ai avacrxoy-efoi;. 0eof yap af^forepa, to Te ntpoa-
Xatov Kai TO Trpoj/<€j'a< -vav tou avi:iKHiJi.ti/QV KTyj/A-aruv (aovov tov
Vol. I. p. 444. Paris 1615.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 537
necessary. In answer to the inquiry how Christ
could be at the same time in the grave, with the
Fathers in Hades, and with the thief in Paradise, he
first refers to his power of being every where, as God,
and then proceeds thus :
' But I have learned another reason of this, which,
with your leave, I shall shortly explain. When the
Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, and the power of
the Highest overshadowed her, it was that a new
man might be constituted in her, who is for this
reason called new, that he was created — eKha-^-rj — by
God. Not according to human custom, that he
might be the house of God, not made with hands.
For the Most High dwells not in houses made with
hands, that is, in the works of man. Then wisdom
building a house, and by the overshadowing of power
as by the impression of a seal formed within,^ the
Divine power was tempered with both the parts of
which human nature consists, that is, with both soul
and body, having mingled itself in a suitable manner
with each.^ As therefore each part was dead through
disobedience, (for the death of the soul is to be
separated from the true life, and the death of the
body is corruption and dissolution) it was necessary
that the mixture of life with both these should expel
death. The Divinity therefore being mingled in a
suitable manner with each of the parts of the man,
^ ToTe axiTOK; rov oIkov r-q^ a-oipiai; oiKo^o/AOva-fjc, Kcct to T'/j? dwccjAfut;
«7roiTK*aa'jM.aT: otovei tvnoo irf^ayi^o,; fvSoS'e)' KocTafAO^foo^evzo^ k, t. X,
2 'EKaregu KaTccKXyiXu)/; tavT'/jv KaiajAiqaira.
538 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
the manifest indications of the super-eminent nature
appeared in both. For the body shewed the Divinity
in it, curing diseases with a touch. The soul mani-
fested the Divine power, by its powerful will. For as
the sense of touch is peculiar to the bodv, so is a
choosing will to the soul.^ The leper approaches
with a body already dissolved and consumed ; and
how is he healed by the Lord ? The soul wills : the
body touches : by each the disease is expelled ; for im-
mediately, as it is written, the \eipro&\ Irft him."^ Again,
when so many thousands sat with him in the wilder-
ness, to send them away fasting he wills not. With
his hands he breaks the bread. You see how the
Divinity united to each part, declares itself, by both,
while the body acts, and the soul wills. But why
should I go over each of the miracles performed in
the same way, spending words on what is manifest ?
Therefore let us return to the subject on account of
which I mention these things. The question is —
How was the Lord at the same time in Hades and
in Paradise ? Of this question one solution is, that
no place is impervious to God, in whom all things
consist. iVnother solution is that to which our dis-
course now tends, namely, that God, having changed
the whole man into the Di\'ine nature by his mixture
with him, at the time of his death departed not from
' T;;? ^vy^fli 'h Kara mooaioetriv Kiv^jo-J?.
' There is nothing in the Greek answering to the words in italics. Some-
thing has evidently dropped out of the sentence, which is supplied as above
by Zinus.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 539
either part of the man whom he had assumed, for
the gifts of God are without repentance.^ The Di-
vinity did, of its own will, disjoin the soul from the
body, but shewed itself to be remaining in both. For
by the body, into which he admitted not that cor-
ruption which comes by death, he destroyed him that
had the power of death. By the soul, he opened a
passage for the thief into Paradise. Both were ac-
complished at once, the Divinity effecting the good
through both, — through the incorruption of the body
the destruction of death ; and through the soul,
brought to its own home, opened a way for man to
Paradise. Since then the composition of man is
two-fold, but the nature of the Divinity is simple
and one, in the time of the separation of the soul
and body, that which is indivisible was not separated ;
but rather by the unity of the Divine nature, being
equally in both parts of the man,^ they which were
separated were again united. And thus, as death
follows from the separation of what had been joined ;
so, from the junction of what had been separated
comes the resurrection.'^
That some slight error is here mingled with im-
portant truth, I may admit, but both the error and
the truth are directly opposed to that tenet which
^ 'Otj 6Ko> rov av^guTcov rov Beov, Zioi, rrji; ii^oq eavrov avaK^aaeu^t
ti^ T7)i/ S'etav (pvcriv iJi,era(rK€vaa-a,vro(;, ev ru Kcaga) ri/]i; Kara to ira^oi;
oiKavofAia(; ov ^wceoov (/.f^ovf to dira^ eyKoa^ev avaxupvitrey,
^ Trji; yacp ivoTfjTi t^? &6(a? ipva-ecoq, Tij? KaTO, to ktov fv a//t^OTe_p«f
ova-Yji;.
' Vol. II. p. 823.
640 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
teaches that the flesh of our Lord was fallen sinful
flesh, up to the moment of his resurrection ; flesh
dying by the common property of flesh to die.
AMPHILOCIUS, bishop of Iconium, died about
the year 395. In his Sermon on the Mother of God,
he denies the name of Christian to any one who
denies that Mary was made like Eve in her unfallen
state ; and says that as fire purges out the rust of
iron, so the Holy Spirit perfectly purged out all evil
from Mary. From him one sentence may suffice.
' He is truly impious and alienated from the truth,
who does not say, that the Saviour and Maker of all,
according to both natures of which he consists, has all
power and efficacy, and is free from all necessity.' ^
I observe too, that at page 81, he applies the text,
' Free among the dead,' to Christ, as Cyril of Jeru-
salem also does ; misapplying the text indeed, yet
using it to express an undeniable truth ; for Christ
most certainly was ' free among the dead,' going to
death, and returning from it when he pleased.
AMBROSE, bishop of Milan, died in the year
396. The manner in which he proves that the Holy
Spirit is to be worshipped, is as follows. ' But the
apostles and angels adore not only his Divinity, but
' Aa-it-^q ovrui ej-t, Kai t»j? a\r}^€iaq aXXor^ioi;, o iayj Xeyuv tov
2w7>)j)a ruv oXuv koli itoiyiT-^v, kut' a(A.fu ruv e^ uv er« Kara ^vtrii/,
avre^ova-iov, Kai eve^yfj, Kat Tracrrj? avayKYji fX^v^epoy, Dogmatic Epistle
to Pancharius, p. 155. Paris 1644,
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 541
also his footstool, as it is written, ''Worship ye his
footstool, for it is holy," Or if they deny that in
Christ even the mysteries of the Incarnation are to
be adored, in which we observe certain traces of the
Divinity, and certain ways of the heavenly word, let
them read that even the apostles adored him rising in
the glory of the flesh.' But then nothing is to be
worshipped but God alone ; how then are we com-
manded to worship his footstool ? He therefore
proceeds to inquire what this footstool, which we are
commanded to worship, is ; and he finds that it is the
Earth, for it is written, " Heaven is my throne, and
earth is my footstool." But then neither are we to
worship the earth, which is only the creature of God.'
Having got so far he thus goes on : * But let us see
if the prophet do not say that that earth is to be
adored, which the Lord Jesus took in his assumption
of flesh. Therefore by the footstool, earth is meant ;
and by earth, the flesh of Christ, which we still adore
in the mysteries, and which the apostles adored in the
Lord Jesus, as we have said above. For neither is
Christ divided, but one ; nor when he is adored as
the Son of God, is he who was born of the Virgin
denied. Since then the sacrament of the Incarnation
is to be adored, but the Incarnation is the work of
the Spirit, as it is written, " The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee, and the power of the Most High
shall overshadow thee ; and that which shall be born
of thee holy, shall be called the Son of God ; " with-
out doubt the Holy Spirit is to be adored, when he is
542 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
adored who, according to the flesh, was born of the
Holy Spirit.' '
The same doctrine he elsewhere teaches thus, —
' But it is to be feared, you say, lest, if we should
attribute to Christ two principal senses, or a double
wisdom, we should divide Christ. Do we divide
Christ, when we adore both his Divinity and his
flesh ? When we venerate in him the image of God
and the cross, do we divide him, &c.' ^ He is treat-
ing of our Lord's growth in wisdom. He says that
he grew in it only as a man ; an interpretation of the
text which is contrary to that of most of the Fathers,
and which afterwards came to be deemed little less
^ Adorant autem non solum divinitatem ejus, sed etiam scabellum pedum
ejus, sicut scriptum est ; et adorate scabellum pedum ejus ; quoniam sanctum
est. Aut si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda mysteria
sint, in quibus velut vestigia qugedam divinitatis expressa, et vias quasdam
verbi coelestis advertimus ; legant quia et apostoli adorabant eum in carnis
gloria resurgentem.
Videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandum propheta, quam
Dominus Jesus in carnis adsumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terra
intelligitur : per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodieque in mysteriis
adoramus, et quam apostoli in domino Jesu, ut supra discimus, adorarunt ;
neque enim divisus est Christus, sedunus; neque cum adoratur tamquam
Dei Filius, natus ex Virgine denegatur. Cum igitur incarnationis adora-
dum sit sacramentum, incarnatio autem opus Spiritus, sicut scriptum est,
Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi : et quod
nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei : baud dubie etiam Sanctus
Spiritus adorandus est ; quando adoratur ille, qui secundum carnem natus ex
Spiritu Sancto est. De Spiritu Sancto, Lib. Hi. Cap. 11, Sect. 76 et 79.
Benedictine Edition, Paris 1690.
^ Sed vGi-endum est, inquis, ne si duos principales sensus aut geminam
sapientiam Christo tribuiraus, Christum dividimus. Numquid cum et
divinitatem ejus adoramus, et carnem Christum dividimus ? Numquid cum in
eo imaginem Dei, crucemque veneramur, dividimus eum ? De Incarnationis
Dominiccc Sacramento, Cap. vii. Sect. ^5. This I consider as being, upon
the whole, the very best treatise on the Incarnation that I have seen.
PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 543
than heretical. And indeed he himself, in his treatise
De Fide. Lib, v. Cap. 18, plainly intimates his dislike
of it, and says that Christ so loved his apostles that
he chose to appear ignorant of some things, rather
than tell them what he judged it was not proper for
them to know. Hence his Benedictine Editors sup-
pose that he only uses that interpretation here for the
convenience of refuting heretics, and not because he
himself approved of it.
In another place, quoting the text Rom. viii. 3, he
observes, — ' He does not say, in the likeness of flesh,
because Christ took the reality, not the likeness of
flesh ; neither does he say, in the likeness of sin,
because he did no sin, but was made sin for us ; but
he came in the likeness of flesh of sin, that is, he
took the likeness of sinfid flesh ; and therefore the
likeness, because it is written, " He is a man, and
who shall know him ? " ^ He was a man in the flesh,
according to man who might be known, in power
above a man, who could not be known ; so that he
has our flesh, but has not the blemishes of this
flesh. '^ In the following section he goes on to shew
' Kent av^puiroi; ecrh, Kat li^ yvacrelat ctvlov ; Jeremiah xvii. 9.
Septuagint translation.
^ Non in similitudinem carnis ait, quia Cliristus veritatem suscepit carnis
humanee, non similitudinem ; neque in similitudinem peccati ait, quia pec-
catum non fecit, sed peccatum pro nobis factus est : sed venit in similitudinem
carnis peccati, hoc est, suscepit similitudinem carnis peccatricis ; ideo
similitudinem, quia scriptum est : Et homo est, et quis agnoscet eum ? Homo
erat in came secundum hominem, qui agnosceretur : virtute supra hominem,
qui non agnosceretur ; ita et hie carnem habet nostram, sed carnis hujus
vitia non habet. De Poenitentia, Lib. i. Cap. 3, Sec. 12.
544 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
that he differed from us m not being conceived in
iniquity, and born in sin, as we are, and concludes
by saying, ' The flesh of Paul was a body of death,
as he himself says, "Who shall deliver me from the
body of this death? " But the flesh of Christ con-
demned sin, which in being born, he did not feel ;
and which in dying he crucified ; that in our flesh there
might be a justification through grace, there where
formerly there had been impurity through sin.' ^
EPIPHANIUS, bishop of Salamis, died in the
second or third year of the Fifth Century. The
following decisive testimony I give in the original,
without venturing to translate it. Avto to a-a/Aa aX>jS-v. Vol, VI. Sermon ii.
2 N 2
548 PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES.
stronger than that precious and holy flesh ? For by
the body he defeated the incorporeal and malignant
demons ; and by the cross he triumphed over the
adverse powers.' ^
He often and earnestly contends that the death of
our Lord was perfectly voluntary. This he does
especially in Sermon vii. Vol. v. upon the words,
*' Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me."
He assigns two reasons for the prayer. The one is
that as he permitted his body to hunger and thirst,
so he prayed also in order to prove that he was truly
a man. This it will be admitted is a very good
reason, provided it be allowed that our Lord's fear
was real. Whether Chrysostome allowed this, seems
doubtful. His other reason is, that our Saviour
might, by his own example, teach his disciples never
rashly to encounter dangers that they could avoid.
In the same Sermon he uses the expression that our
Lord prayed according to the humanity, and not ac-
cording to the Divinity. I mention this, as he is the
earliest author in whom I recollect to have met with
that distinction, a distinction which was certainly
calculated to prepare the way for that Nestorianism,
which, at a somewhat later period, was introduced
into the Church of Constantinople.
I have done. It could hardly answer any good
^ 'Eve^vaalo Kvpioi; ^vvafAtv, lovT e^i §<« /vj? aapKOt; auaXocfAxpaa'ai'
otKOVo^A-iav. ri yap eKetvrji; Irji ItfAia^ nat dyiaq aapKOi; Zvvalulepov ;
7i §6 kdyypalipQv ; 8