vealed, and all flesh shall see it together." "All flesh "All flesh shall know that I, Jeho is as grass. When we therefore read of Christ's being made of the seed of David, according to the flesh; and of God's being manifested in the flesh; what right has man to exclude from the term the human soul, and say, that Christ took only a human body? This must be merely arbitrary, and not according to the general language of the Bible. Of Christ we read, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Of whom (i. e. of Israel) as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed forever." "Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, (David) that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ." Can we, in the view of the above quotations, feel warranted to say, that those expressions, of Christ's coming in the flesh, import that he took only a human body? As the word flesh, in the general language of the Bible, when applied to man, imports soul and body; why is not this the import of the word, when applied to Christ's coming in our nature? It is arbitrary, and unprecedented in the Bible, to say, that the word flesh, in such a connexion, relates to Christ's human body only. But this point is settled by the apostle to the Hebrews, in various passages. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Jesus then, was " made a little lower than the Angels." A preceding passage ascertains, that the words are in allusion to the exclamation of David, in Psalm viii. 4, 5, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?-For thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels." From this, the inspired writer infers, that Christ was made a little lower than the Angels. But the deduction rests on this ground, that Christ is a real MAN. For if he be not a real man, then it does not follow from man's being made a little lower than the Angels, that Christ was made a little lower than the Angels. The same apostle further decides the point. "For both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." How are Christ and his people one, in the sense here expressed, if he have no human soul? His assuming proper humanity, is the very point on which the oneness rests. "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.' But can a human body, without a human soul, constitute this oneness with his human brethren? Most certainly it cannot. The apostle proceeds. Forasmuch then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." Inasmuch as they were human; he likewise became human. He partook of flesh and blood, in the same sense in which they partake of them. But surely they have not only bodies, but souls. The sense of the passage under consideration, is not this, that Christ took a part of what they had; or took a body without a soul: But the sense is, that he fully participated with them in their nature. In the Greek it is more emphatically ex pressed;" Himself also, in like manner, participated of the same." The Greek adverb here used (parapleesioos) is more emphatical than the Engglish rendering" in like manner." It indicates, with the adjoining words, that Christ fully_participated with his brethren in their nature. But if he took only a human body, he was very far from fully participating with his brethren in their nature; and the assertion in the text appears in that casc an untruth. It purports to assert, that Christ became what man in his formation was. But we know the soul is the man. Christ taught the Sadduces, relative to the resurrection,* that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob now live, though their bodies are dissolved. Their souls then, are themselves. The apostle to the Hebrews further teaches, "For verily he (Christ) took not on him the nature of Angels; but he took on him the seed of Abrahim. It is true the word nature here, before An *Mark xii. 26, 27. gels, is not in the Greek. "He took not on Angels; but he took on the seed of Abraham. I acknowledge the Greek may admit the following rendering; He took not hold of Angels; but he 'took hold of the seed of Abraham. But the following consideration favors the sense given by our translators. Christ did indeed take on himself the seed of Abraham. He became one with Abraham's seed; and their elder Brother. In the divine promise to Abraham, Christ is identified with Abraham's seed. "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee." In the word seed here, we find, by other scriptures, three subjects are comprised. 1. Christ. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. 2. Believers are included. "If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 3. Abraham's natural offspring were included. "And I will give unto thee and to thy seed-all the land of Canaan." "Ye (infidel Jews) are the children of the covenant, which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Here are Christ, believers, and their natural offspring, all comprised in the term seed, in that covenant of grace with Abraham. Now therefore, can this scriptural representation admit, that while Christ is so classed with believers and their children, as to be known under one and the same term with them, the Seed of Abraham; yet that he is so dissimilar to them, as to have no human soul? Surely, if Christ took no human soul, he is not, according to any known language, the seed of * Aats iii. 29. Abraham. He, in that case, took on neither the nature of Angels, nor the seed of Abraham, in the sense of any language known to man. Further, says the sacred writer: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them, that are tempted." Can this sacred text leave any doubt on the mind, whether Christ took a human soul as well as body? Could he, in all things, be made like unto his brethren, without a human soul? The sympathies of humanity, expressed in this text, clearly imply, that Christ had a human soul; or I should despair of learning the true sense of language. And the history of Christ demonstrates, that he did possess all the feelings of humanity. In correspondence with this, the inspired writer further remarks; "For we have not an high Priest, who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Inspiration here unequivocally decides, that Christ had all the feelings of human nature, sin only excepted. And did he have these, without a human soul? The supposition of the affirmative is a glaring absurdity! and is contradicted by much of the language of this epistle. Could Christ so abundantly call himself the Son of man, if he had no human soul? Is not this appellation, which is so generally assumed by himself, fully calculated to show, that Christ meant we should understand he had a human soul? And would he deceive mankind? It has been esteemed a great excellency in the scheme of man's salvation, that we have a Saviour |