he protected the Saints:-though his suffering was not to be wholly omitted.

The opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or Jews, was probably meant to obviate the low notions, which the Ebionites entertained of the character of Christ; in which case, the dignities belonging to the first state naturally came to be mentioned; the second state must be mentioned at least as a connecting link, and the third subjoined :-the third is not, probably, very unlike the first (John xvii. 5.) in our conceptions; and what difference there is, was not to be marked out here :-To the first state belong, "let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. i. 6.): to the second, "who was made a little lower than the Angels;" and, "for the suffering of death"-" crowned him with glory and honour,' (Heb. ii. 9.) to the third. John xiv. 28, Christ is speaking as being in the form of man, and as going to quit this world; he is therefore in his second state, and what he says is suitable to our notions; my Father is greater than I."-The Epistle to the Ephesians seems intended to induce the Jews to admit other men into religious society besides those, who had lived under the law of Moses: and therefore what is said of Christ, in the first Chapter of that Epistle, commences from his resurrection, and relates wholly to his third state or condition.

a

Now, many objections to our doctrines concerning the dignity of Christ may be solved, by attending to the difference of these three states: as our adversaries make their arguments against us, by confounding them together, and taking what is said of one, as if it belonged to another. Dr. Priestley

Eph. i. 20, &c. to the end.

Priestley makes "being in the form of God," to belong to Christ after he had been on earth; and describes his power in his third state, as if it was all the kind of power he ever had. He also makes the glories ascribed to Christ, Heb. i. 10. to have been conferred on him in consequence of his suffering; though the sixth verse mentions bringing him into the world. An hint has been already given of something like this rule, with relation to John xvii. -but he, who would see these three conditions described in a masterly manner, must read Bishop Sherlock's first discourse in his fourth Volume; in four parts.

32. 2. Objections may be answered, by attending to the two characters or natures of Christ, divine and human. The meaning of these has been sufficiently explained. But, though our adversaries will agree, no doubt, to reconcile Christ's being called a Lion, with his being called a Lamb; and, though they would not object to uniting all the characters of a suffering and a triumphant Messiah in the person of Jesus; yet they are not willing, in like manner, that we should unite the marks of Godhead and manhood in the person of one Christ.-I confess, I do not understand how the divine and human natures are joined in him; but yet the mode of expression seems necessary (as before mentioned) to collect into one agent all the acts and qualities ascribed to Christ. Socinus declares against this-as any one may be apt to do, who denies the divinity of Christ-for

his

b Phil. ii. 6. Familiar Illustr. p. 23. 46. the latter is from 1 Pet. i. 20, 21. which gives hints of all three states. See also Priestley's Letters, p. 119.

с

• Ill. p. 35.

d Art. i. Sect. 17.

Reconciling passages about Faith and works, and making

one doctrine out of them, is a process of the same nature.

his divinity is pre-supposed:-and Dr. Priestley (Letter 5. to Students, p. 80, 81.) says things against it something like what I have said in Sect. 8. in the character of Nestorius.-But no one should say any thing upon it, who does not previously acknowledge the divinity of Christ; it concerns only our method of classing texts, which, supposing some of them to express the divinity of Christ, seem contradictory, by sometimes making him God, sometimes man till any one thinks, that there are some texts, which represent Christ as divine, he has no concern with our method of classing . . . . or settling a seeming inconsistency, which he does not allow to exist. This remark may possibly preclude some dispute.

Our

The form of the objections, which I am now speaking of, is this; Christ is spoken of in Scripture as mere man, as inferior to the Father, and so on; therefore he cannot be equal to the Father. answer is, we acknowledge Christ to be human, and inferior to the Father as much as you can; but besides those passages, which you alledge in order to prove him man, there are others, which seem to us to speak him divine.-Dr. Priestley seems to argue in this manner, from John v, where he says, "that the honour to which Christ is intitled is" (&c.) " on account of what he derives from God, as his Ambassador."-No doubt, his being the sent of God is one reason for his being honoured.-To argue from human qualities of Christ against divine ones, would be the same as to argue from marks of a suffering Messiah against his being triumphant : or to infer, from Christ's divine qualities, that he was not human. To prove that we are inconsistent

is

• Familiar Illustr. p. 25, top: see also Letters, p. 71. 1 Tim. ü. 5. p. 144. "How could he be" "our Brother, if he was our Maker?"

is nothing in this case; we own, that we cannot reconcile Christ's divine qualities with his human. Suppose, on a Law trial, that the evidence of Marcus seemed inconsistent with that of Quintus, that these witnesses were men of equally good character, but that the Judges had made out the best decision in their power: what would be thought of a man, who dwelt upon the evidence of Quintus as certain? and insisted, that the evidence of Marcus must be false, because it contradicted that of Quintus, as Quintus was a man of good character: would this be entering into the difficulty?-would not there be the same ground for arguing, that Quintus's evidence was false, because it contradicted that of Marcus? would such arguing prove any thingwrong in the Judges?

The text before mentioned, Mark xiii. 32. having always appeared to me the most difficult of any of those quoted in the Socinian Controversy, I am inclined here to take some notice of it. This text may be considered in two lights, as the word "Son" is understood to mean Christ as superior to the Angels, (Heb. i.) or as mere man; his being mentioned, in rising to the Father, after the Angels, makes some (as Macknight) conceive him here in a rank higher than the Angels; his being said to be ignorant, makes him seem mere man. Now, in the former sense, as above Angels, the passage may afford an argument against the divinity of Christ, and in the latter sense, the difficulty is to conceive, how one person could, at the same time, know and be ignorant of the same event. If Christ had the divine nature joined with the human, he knew all things; yet, at the same time, he did not know the day of judgment.-Taking the text in the first light, one might say, First, supposing

John xxi. 17.

one

66

2.

one text inexplicable, that does not seem a sufficient reason for giving up a doctrine built on many others. The Text might be left in suspense. Macknight understands the verse to mean, that the Son of God was not to make known the time of his coming to judgment, but by uncertainty was to keep up the vigilance of his disciples: on the principle, watch, for ye know not," &c.-3. The stile is prophetic; and probably the passage has a double sense; which puts it upon a different footing from other descriptions of Christ. 4. It may mean to describe the office of the Son of God, as Ambassador from Heaven to Earth, who might not in that Office have the fixing of the day of Judgment in his Department. But the text may be taken in the second light, as speaking of the Son of Man, notwithstanding his being mentioned between the Angels and the Father: had the gradation been, 'Man, the Son, Angels, the Father, it would have been much more harsh and uncouth than as it is now; 'Man, Angels, Son, Father;' nay, it is scarcely conceivable, that an artless writer, who had a good ear, would not prefer the second series to the first, except falsehood was clearly declared by it: but, when we consider, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not always mentioned in the same order, in different passages, we must not lay very great stress upon order in the present case; especially when we consider, that the Son must be in some respects higher, though in others "lower than the Angels:"-and that here Christ is not spoken of in his pre-existent state. The Socinians will allow "the Son" to mean here the Son of Man, though a good part of our difficulty arises from there being this gradation; "no man," "not the Angels;""neither the Son;"-"but the Father:" -Man, Angels, Son, Father. Let us then suppose

the