wholly his own, arising out of the especial and unique circumstances in which he had stood. We have further seen that the revealed designs of this series of unexampled dispensations were, to establish a method of deliverance for mankind from a situation of guilt, degradation, and misery, the most melancholy and otherwise absolutely hopeless; to effect this, by laying, on the surest foundations and for ever, a ground in reason and equity, upon which it should be a dignified and glorious proceeding in the righteousness of the divine government, to reverse that ruined state on the behalf of all among men who should sincerely concur in this system of heavenly mercy; that, further, Christ might console his faithful subjects by the assurance not only of his aid, but of his never-failing and most generous sympathy in their distresses and difficulties; and that, in this admirable way of power, goodness, and wisdom, he might be the Deliverer from the greatest evils, and be the Author of the greatest benefits of which a rational nature is capable through the whole of its immortal existence. From the same sources, we have learned that the human constitution of Jesus, intellectual and corporal, was a vehicle or instrument, formed, taken, and used by another nature, superior and really divine; since the determined objects could not have been otherwise attained. We have found that the phraseology of inspiration is, in a variety of ways, most explicitly formed upon the position of this union of the human and divine natures; that this union does not merge the properties of the superior nature, nor overwhelm those of the inferior, nor commute the essence and attributes of either; that this fact is represented as the most consummate act of divine condescension; that, in this act and the entire series of acts requisite for its completion, the Messiah declined the display of his rightful possessions, and subjected his original and unextinguishable glory to a suppression of its proper manifestations; but that those possessions and that glory are the essential rights and properties of the Deity, as truly the characteristics of God as the necessary accidents of human nature prove the reality of that nature. It now lies upon the reader's serious judgment, after comparing the details of investigation with this summary, to form his conviction whether the scripture evidence, and the reasonings founded upon it, afford satisfactory proof that these are the just deductions from the facts of the case. CHAP. V. ON THE STATE OF MIND, AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE CON- The alleged ignorance of the apostles concerning a superior nature in the person of their Lord.-Statements of the Calm Inquirer, not equitable.-The claims of Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament descriptions of the Messiah. -Evangelical instruction communicated gradually to the apostles themselves. -The whole Christian revelation constructed upon this principle of an advancing process. How the reception of revealed truth is necessary to salvation.— Our Lord's mode of instruction directed to excite the intelligence and direct the ulterior conclusions of his disciples.-Peculiar state of belief and feeling in the Jewish nation.-The most surprising facts related by the Evangelists without any impassioned expressions.-Instances of extraordinary impressions upon the minds of our Lord's disciples. DR. PRIESTLEY has introduced an argument in bar of all our interpretations and deductions, which it would be unjust not to acknowledge to be of very serious weight. It is grounded upon the alleged silence of Jesus himself, and of the majority of the writers of the New Testament, and especially of the first three evangelists, concerning the doctrine of a superior nature in the person of Christ; upon the apparent ignorance of our Lord's own disciples and constant attendants, of any such extraordinary and stupendous fact; and upon our inability to assign the time when this fact, supposing its reality, was made known to them. Evidence has, I think, been adduced in the preced ! ing pages, abundantly sufficient to refute Dr. Priestley's oft-repeated assertion, that "Christ did not teach his own divinity." The other parts of this argument are stated by the Calm Inquirer in his usual strength of assertion. From his work I subjoin some extracts, which will do ample justice to his views:1 and upon them I submit the following observations to the reader's serious and impartial judg ment. i. The Inquirer overstates the case, and takes more than is equitable to his own side of the argument. We do not admit that the evidence in favour of the preexistence and deity of Christ "depends wholly upon the testimony of John and Paul." We have already adduced passages from the writings of Matthew and Luke, which, though few, cannot with justice be deemed "faint and obscure," in favour of the doctrine in question: and it will, perhaps, be seen in the following parts of this Volume, that the apostles Peter and Jude furnish also important materials, both incidentally and in a direct reference to this subject. The same want of argumentative justice appears in the representation, that the evidence, adduced from the writings of Paul, in favour of the controverted sentiments, is derived principally or wholly from only two of his epistles, besides that to the Hebrews: and those such as the Inquirer is pleased to denominate the most figurative and obscure. We shall see, in the following parts of this work, how far this is from being a correct representation. ii. It is necessary to a just representation of the case, to recollect that the claims of Jesus, as advanced by himself, and as first urged by the apostles and the three earlier evangelists, were addressed to Jews, who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, and looked for such a Messiah as it described. Their ignorance, indeed, and their prejudices were very great. It appears from the Gospels that both the higher orders of the Jews and the mass of the nation had very obscure, and probably inconsistent, notions concerning the Messiah, who was the object of their eager, but generally carnal and worldly, expectation. Yet this expectation rested upon the holy Scriptures; and it was proper to remit them to those Scriptures for the rectifying of their errors. It is plain that the immediate object, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, was to produce a conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was THE Messiah announced and described in the prophetic writings: and they evidently left the scrutinizing and application of details, to the duty and diligence of their readers. A similar course was followed by the apostles and their fellow-labourers, in preaching Christianity; as they regularly communicated to the Jews, in the first instance, the word of life. The converts were directed to "search the " scriptures daily;" they were assured that those scriptures testified of Christ; and it would follow of course, that all which they could discover in the inspired writings, concerning the characters, office, and dignity of the Messiah, would be transferred to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. But this would not be a rapid process: and, in proportion as they made progress in this study, would their knowledge of the truth, in this respect and in all its |