among his brethren the Jews, literally fo call'd; and fhould understand the word people, in the latter place, as applicable to the body of mankind in general; both accounts, however, would, at laft, meet in this one point: that THE MESSIAH was actually raised up, and chofen from among the human na→ ture, and not the angelical fpecies '.

AND, as to brethren in particular, we all know in what fenfe, and to what kind of perfons, OUR LORD himself applies the term, when he says by David, his type: I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Words, which the apoftle exprefly brings down to CHRIST; and from whence he takes occafion to obferve, in regard to all true christians, that OUR LORD is not ashamed to call them brethren 3. And, I humbly prefume, the idea infeparable from this relative character, in the common ufage of the word among ourselves, informs us, that creatures of the fame intelligent nature are always intended, wherever it occurs.If then the term brethren, always fignifies perfons of the fame common nature, and CHRIST be actually rais'd up from among his brethren; is not this fufficient to affure us, that he is an

CHRISTUS, ad quem dixi hoc oraculum effe referendum, eligitur non ex angelis aut coeleftibus principatibus, fed ex genere humano, de populo Judaico, caro ex carne ejus, os ex offibus ejus, ut frater inter fratres imperium obtineret. Mollerus in Pf. lxxxix. 19.

2 Pf. xxii. 22.

3 Heb. ii. 11,

12.

human

human, reasonable exiftence? Unlefs this be allowed, there appears to me no proper foundation for the prefent defcription. For if THE MESSIAH do not really poffefs that, which conftitutes the peculiar effence of a man (which by no means fettles in the body, or cafe ;) with what truth or propriety can it be afferted, that he is either chofen from among the people, or rais'd up from among his brethren? When it is certain, that it is the human intelligence or fpirit, which gives them their diftinguishing character in the scale of created beings. Tho' it is poffible, this fact may yet appear with ftronger evidence, if we take along with us those other words in the text; for Mofes adds: A prophet like unto me. Which, it is reasonable enough to fuppofe, may be defign'd to exprefs a fimilitude of nature, as well as of character; or, in other words, that CHRIST, this future prophet, was to be a man, like Mofes; as well as a faviour, a law-giver, and the reft. Because, I take it for granted that, there can be little ground for a comparison of this fort, if THE MESSIAH was to be like Mofes merely in the external fhape, or bodily organs of a man; and the resemblance did not, at the fame time, extend to that part of the human nature, which is internal and principal; meaning, a foul of the fame rank and ftructure with our own. But of this again, in another place. Wherefore to fubjoin what is yet more exprefs:

2

VI. IT is obfervable, in the next place, that holy fcripture frequently fpeaks of his foul or Spirit; particularly where St. Matthew gives us an account of OUR LORD's agony in the garden, and of his faying upon that occafion: My foul is exceeding forrowful, even unto death. With which St. Mark's relation likewise agrees, ch. xiv. 34. So again, his expiring on the cross is defcribed by his yielding up the ghost, in St. Matthew's gofpel : which is also, St. Luke's account of his death, with this additional circumstance (highly deferving our notice in the prefent cafe ;) that it was preceded by our LORD's charging HIS FATHER, in a very particular manner, with his unbodied fpirit. For the text at length reads thus: And when JESUS. bad cried with a loud voice, be faid: FATHER, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having faid thus, he gave up the ghoft 3. So David, having, under a prophetical impulse, impulse, a view of the change, which OUR LORD was to suffer on his crucifixion, by the diffolution of his human frame, as a real man; speaks concerning him in these words, perfonating, as we may fuppofe, THE MESSIAH himself: Thou wilt not leave my foul in hell, neither wilt thou Suffer thine holy one to fee corruption. Here then we may obferve, are the two things we want; the two conftituents of the real man, body and foul: with refpect to the former of which it is faid, that THE ALMIGHTY would not fuf3 Ch. xxiii.

1 Ch. xxvi. 38.

2 Ch. xxvii. 50.

46.

4 Acts, ii. 27.

fer

fer it to rot or putrify in the grave. And with refpect to the latter, that he would not leave it in a separate state of existence; as is the cafe with other departed fpirits in common.

I

Not, perhaps, but we may likewise, en paffant, be allowed to obferve from hence, that as this as intends the feparate state peculiar to departed fpirits, and is what our SAVIOUR calls paradife, with refpect to the juft [which proves it to be appropriate to fpirits of our own fpecies:] fo that it hav ing been the place of refidence to CHRIST'S foul, during it's feparation from the body; it affords us no flender reafon for concluding, that his Spirit must have been of the fame precife ftructure with theirs, whose common receptacle it was. Were it not fo (pardon the freedom of expreffion) one might justly ask: what business had it there? But to pass this, and attend the argument, as it rises from the premises in general.

If there be then any propriety in language; any fix'd ideas to terms, even those too, the moft plain and fimple, what are we to conclude? But that OUR SAVIOUR made ufe of thefe words in the fame common determinate fense, in which we use them every day among ourfelves. And, confequently, that by fpirit and foul, in thefe places, he abfolutely intends the like rational principle with that, which animates our own bodies; and, by no means, an intelligence of a different, or fuperior con

3

Luke xxiii. 43...

ftruction.

ftruction. This, I imagine, is very notorious, that OUR SAVIOUR here, in the profpect of a near-approaching death, makes ufe of the fame form of expreffion, with that used by St. Stephen under the like circumstances. The one faying: FATHER, into thy hands I commend my Spirit. And the other: LORD JESUS receive my spirit. If the latter then, namely, Stephen, be univerfally allowed to have intended by that word [fpirit] the fame rational intelligence, with what we call foul, and by which the human fpecies is effentially diftinguished from the brute-creation: is there not then parity of reason to conclude, that our bleffed SAVIOUR made ufe of the fame term, in reference to a fpiritual fubftance animating his body, of the fame nature or kind with Stephen's, and with that, which is common to our nature? If this be not demonftratively clear, I conceive, it will be impoffible to afcertain the true meaning of any one expreffion, be it ever so familiar: and, confequently, that we muft, at once, be obliged to confefs, that language has nothing in it truly ideal. But to wave that,

VII. ANOTHER medium in our favour, may be taken from thofe powers, affections and paffions, which we find peculiar to the human reasonable fpirit. For having, by the preceding head, got poffeffion of this existence itfelf, as the real fubftratum or bafis of the man; our next step, in order, will be, that we endeavour to inform ourselves (as well in 1 Acts vii. 59. confe