16

And well he might, " since of his fulness, of those abundant blessings which he came to communicate, have we all received, even grace for grace, i.e. grace proportioned to the gracious gifts of the Father to him, or, gracious privileges beyond the privileges of the former dispensation. "For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth (or the true grace) came by Jesus Christ. "No one hath seen* God at any time; i.e. no one hath been favoured by God with such clear disclosures of the secret purposes of his grace, as He communicated through Christ: the Only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, enjoying, in his more immediate presence, the tokens of his love and approbation, he hath revealed Him.

Such is the idea which (in its leading features) I have long entertained of the meaning of this much misunderstood, yet not obscure, passage. Without laying any stress upon my own interpretation in its minuter parts, I feel more and more satisfied as to the general principles of it; and so far from considering the passage as inconsistent with Unitarianism, it appears to me to declare the proper humanity of the Logos, and to contain nothing which, when interpreted by the general tenor of the New Testament and other passages of the Apostle's writings, is inapplicable to one who was strictly and properly

Though it is true that God is the King eternal, immortal, and invisible,' that he dwelleth' in light which no man can approach unto.' that no man hath seen or can see' Him, (see 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16,) yet the connexion here appears to point out another related meaning of the word see: viz. to understand, to know.

a man, but entrusted with the most illustrious commission, favoured with the most intimate communion with God for the purposes of his mission, and made the agent in the communication of the most important blessings. This passage declares no more of Jesus than what the Apostle assures us he wrote his Gospel to prove, viz. that he is the Christ, the Son of God; and I am satisfied that the rest of his writings teach us nothing further, respecting the nature of our Saviour. In fact, the Gospel of John, though it contains some expressions which, when interpreted by prevailing opinions, seem to intimate the pre-existence of our Lord, yet more than any other part of the New Testament affords proof, that whatever powers Jesus possessed, he derived them from God,—that he was inferior to and dependent upon Him,-that he was sent by God,and made it his steady aim to do the will of God.

But let us consider the evidence of this Gospel somewhat more in detail. The Evangelist records the assertion of others* that Jesus was the Son of Joseph, without any comment. Now without here considering how far this affects the truth of the miraculous conception, I ask whether it is probable that one who believed him to be the very and eternal God, or even that he pre-existed in a nature infinitely more excellent than human, and was the creator of all things, would so write, without at least some where

* John i. 45. vi. 42.

66

explicitly informing his readers that Jesus was, though in some sense a man, yet possessed of a nature infinitely beyond that of man? In the same manner he records instances* in which the appellation man is employed respecting him, also without any guard or comment. Surely either every Christian then knew, (without having been. taught, for we have seen that the other Apostles did not teach it,) that Jesus was a God-man," or the Evangelist himself did not know it: at any rate, he has written as no one would now write for the information of new converts or the conversion of Heathens, who laid any stress upon the mysterious doctrines of the first and second Articles. Admit the hypothesis which they teach, and while perusing the Gospels, and especially the Gospel of John, one is involved in perplexity: the simple narratives of his ministry appear artificial and obscure: sometimes the God-Man" must be referred to, sometimes the God, and sometimes the Man only,† contrary to the most plain and obvious sense of Scripture: and even Jesus himself, in whom was no guile, maintained for above thirty years the character of a human being,-spoke and acted and felt as one,-declared the source of his divine knowledge and power, and even said expressly, without guard or comment, that he was a man ; and, on the other hand, never gave his followers,

* John iv. 29. vii. 46. ix. 11, &c.

+ Ch. vii. 3. xi. 33, 35. xii. 27. xiii. 23. xvii. xix. 30, 42, &c.

during the period of his ministry upon earth, any intimation of his being the very and eternal God, or the Creator of the world, or even, in explicit language, that he existed before his human birth in a state of glory and happiness.* The Unitarians are charged by all other parties, with neglecting the plain and obvious sense of Scripture; but if the charge were just, the Trinitarians are not those who should throw the first stone. Jesus himself says to the Jews, 'ye seek to kill me, a MAN† that have spoken to you the truth which I have heard from God. He declares that the wonderful works which he performed were not performed by his own power, but by the power of God:§ that he came down

It may perhaps be said, that he has, in the most explicit language, and in the most solemn situation, while praying to God, spoken of the glory which he had with God before the foundation of the world; (ch. xvii. 5.) I shall show in the next Part (see Chap. VII.) that there is thoroughly adequate reason to understand παρα σοι with thee, in the same sense as παρα Κυρίῳ with the Lord, 2 Pet. iii. 8.

The expression (ch. viii. 58) πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι las been construed into a proof of the pre-existence; but whatever literal rendering be given it, it cannot be supposed explicitly to teach that doctrine. That the passage does not teach it at all, I shall endeavour to show in Chap. VII.

↑ John viii. 40. av‡ρwжоç, a human being.

How this passage is shown by Trinitarians to be consistent with their creed, I do not know. I have examined Doddridge, Whitby, Poole, Hammond, and Wolf; but with the exception of Wolf, they either knew of no difficulty, or did not think it necessary to notice it. Wolf refers us to Gusetus, who, he says, has refuted the arguments derived from this passage by an anonymous Unitarian; but I have no means of access to that writer. To myself it appears to throw an insuperable difficulty upon the doctrine of the proper deity of our Saviour.

§ Ch. v. 36. For the works which my Father hath given me to perform, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the

from heaven, (or came forth from God,) not to do his own will, but the will of Him who sent him that his doctrine was not his own, but that of Him who sent him.† We find that he manifested the affections of human nature, as possessed by minds of virtuous sensibility: that he experienced deep distress of mind at the incredulity of his nation, and at the prospect of his own sufferings:§ that he prayed to God,|| whom he calls the ONLY TRUE GOD, and his Father and GOD. Indeed, if any one can read the delightful and deeply affecting narrative contained in the last eleven chapters of John, without feeling that Jesus was, as to nature, in all respects like his brethren, though the highly honoured messenger and representative of the Most High, he can do more than I can. Were I to be convinced that Jesus possessed a nature infinitely beyond human nature, I should cease to perceive the simplicity of truth; and those affections of tenderness, of sympathy, of respect, of reverence, of gratitude, which the narrative now raises up spontaneously, would be checked by the perplexity and embarrassment of this compound nature, and by the perhaps scarcely

Father hath sent me.' Ch. xiv. 10. The Father who dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.'

*John vi. 38.

† Ch. vii. 16.

Ch. xi. 35, 36. xiii. 23. xix. 26. § Ch. xii. 27.

Ch. xii. 28. xvii..

Ch. xx. 17. but go to my Brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.' These are the words of Jesus to his affectionate disciple Mary of Magdala, after he had been declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.' Rom. i. 4.