mind, on all occafions, they difcovered, cannot be accounted for, if they ever imagined him, in any of his discourses, to refer to fuch a ftate. The Jews, it is true, frequently pretended to underftand him as laying claim to a divine nature; but furely nothing can be argued from the falfe conftruction they were always difpofed to put upon his words. Let a fingle inftance be produced, wherein it can be fhown, that his difciples underftood him as referring to a ftate of pre-existence, and that Jesus Christ meant they should fo understand him, and then we fhall be difpofed to give up the question. No fuch inftances ever yet have been produced.

6. The apoftles, after the afcenfion of Jesus, continue uniformly to speak of him as a man. We are informed, Acts ii, that on the day of Pentecoft, ten days after our Lord's afcenfion, the dif ciples were affembled together with one accord, and in one place, that the holy fpirit was miraculously bestowed upon them, and that Peter, in the name of his fellow apoftles, delivered a difcourfe to the people, on the nature and evidence of the chriftian faith. It is natural to fuppofe that, in fuch circumstances, and upon fuch an occafion, being the firft difcourfe which was ever publicly delivered, he would inftruct them in every important article of chriftianity, especially in every thing relating

relating to the nature and dignity of his beloved master. Had he, at the time, known him to have been God, or a pre-exiftent being, the maker of the world under God, he would not have neglected to have informed his hearers of it, and to have laid a ftress upon thefe articles, proportionable to their importance. Not a fyllable, however, does he utter respecting either of these doctrines. On the contrary, he declares, in the most positive terms, that Jefus was A MAN, that he was approved of God by miracles, which God did by him, that he was crucified and buried, that God raised him from the dead, and made him Lord and Chrift. Similar to this were all the other difcourfes of Peter. See Acts iii. 12-26. iv, 23-30. v. 29-32. x. 3443.

Stephen, in the vifion with which he was favoured, declared that the perfon he faw ftanding at the right hand of God, was the sON OF MAN, Acts vii. 56.

See

The apostle Paul, at Antioch in Pifidia, taught the fame doctrine concerning Jefus, which Peter had taught, and nothing more. He declared to his hearers, that Jefus was the Meffiah, a defcendant of David, that the Jews crucified him, and that God raised him from the dead; and he concludes this part of his difcourfe with these remarkable words, Be

it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this MAN is preached unto you the forgiveness of fins. See Acts xiii. 23-38. When at Athens, he preached in the fame manner, declaring that God had appointed a day, in which he would judge the world in righteousness by A MAN whom he had ordained, whereof he had given affurance to all men in that he raifed him from the dead. See Acts xvii. 31. The fame teftimony he bears concerning him in his epiftles. Rom. v. 15. Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one MAN Jefus Chrift, hath abounded unto many. I Cor. xv. 21. For as by man (more properly a man) came death, by A MAN alfo is come the refurrection of the dead. Gal. iv. 4. God fent forth his Son MADE OF A WOMAN. I Tim. iv. 5. There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, THE MAN Chrift Fefus. Heb. ii. 9. But we fee Jefus, who was made a little lower than the angels, i. e. who was A MAN, (v) for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour. Heb. ii. 14. Forafmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he alfo himself likewife took part of (more properly was a partaker of) the fame, i. e. was A MAN, as the children alfo are. Ver. 16. 17. For verily he, took not on him the nature of (more properly helped not) angels; but he helped the feed of Abraham, wherefore it behoved him in all things

(v) Compare this verse with ver. 7th, and Pfalm viii. 5.

things to be made like (more properly it was right for him in all things to be like) unto HIS BRETHREN. For in that he himself hath fuffered, being tempted, he is able to fuccour them that are tempted.

7. Jefus Chrift, on the fuppofition he was a preexistent being, was not a man. For if he preexisted he muft either,

1. Have been a man only in appearance. In this cafe, however, it is evident he was not really a man, but an angelic, or fuper-angelic being in difguife. He could not, therefore, with any propriety, have been called a man. Or,

2. This angelic, or super-angelic being must have been the foul of Jefus Chrift. But then he could not have been a man; for he would have wanted a human foul. Nor would his works have been the works of a man, but the works of the pre-exiftent being which animated his body. This, however, is contrary to the exprefs declaration of Peter, that he was A MAN approved of God by miracles. Or,

3. There must have been two diftin&t beings, a man and an angel, fo united as to form but one being; which is abfurd and impoffible. But even allowing that these two beings were fo united, as to form but one being, this being could not be called

a man

a man. In fact, he would be neither man, nor angel, but being compounded of both, he would be of a nature effentially different from either. You might give him any other name you pleafed ; but you could not call him a man.

་་

The following quotation from Dr. Pricftley will perhaps place the argument in a more forcible point of view. "I would recommend it," he fays, "to the confideration of my readers, how the apoftles could continue to call Chrift a man, as they always do, both in the book of Acts, and in their epiflles, after they had discovered him to be either God, or a fuper-angelic being, the maker of the world under God. After this, it must have been highly degrading, unnatural, and improper, notwithflanding his appearance in human form. Custom will reconcile us to firange conceptions of things, and very uncouth modes of fpeech; but let us take up the matter ab initio, and put ourselves in the place of the apoftles and firft difciples of Chrift.

They certainly faw and converfed with him at firft on the fuppofition of his being a man as much as the felves. Of this there can be no doubt. Their furprize, therefore, upon being informed that he was not a man, but really God, or even the maker of the world under God, would be just a great as ours would now be on difcovering that

any