was not even the impofition of hands. The preaching of the word was the only mean: and the Spirit was given, at the very commencement of Peter's discourse, that it might appear to be wholly a divine work. This fpiritual baptifm is the very circumftance fingled out by John the Baptift, as the great external evidence of the fuperiority of Jesus: I indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whofe shoes I am not worthy to unloofe: be shall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with fire, Luke iii. 16. This evidence of fuperiority is, indeed, of an official kind: as the language denotes the unspeakably fuperior nature of his bap tifm. But when John referred his hearers to fenfible evidence, it was necessary that he should specify an act of Jesus as Mediator. For all that he did among men was in this character. However, it feems to be ultimately refolved into his effential dignity. Therefore, he is faid to be xvgoregos, mightier. John declares this to be a prefent attribute of Jefus: He Is mightier. The effential power was prefent, although the effect was future; He SHALL baptize. The debafing language, which John ufes concerning himfelf, also fhews that he was convinced of an effential, as well as of an official, diftinétion. For if Jefus was merely a meffenger, John being the fame, though the former be fupposed to have been much fuperior to the latter, being equally fervants of one infinitely superior to both, it is inconceivable that John fhould have declared, that he was unworthy to do the meaneft office to Jefus, even to unloose the latchet of his fhoe. He was not fo much of a courtier as to speak in this ftyle. He would have been chargeable with a grofs falfehood. For the greatest distinction in rank that can be fupposed to fubfift between two fervants of the fame mafter, cannot so far debase the one, as to render him unworthy to perform the meaneft office to the other. In deed, deed, from the Baptift's teftimony, as recorded, John i. 15. it is clear, that he confidered the effential dignity of Jefus as the foundation of his preference to himself with respect to office. This may be elsewhere illustrated. The effufion of the Spirit must be viewed as a certain proof of the Deity of Chrift, by all who believe that the Spirit is a Perfon. But although, according to the Socinian hypothefis, he should be confidered as only the power or virtue of the Divine Being, more would be ascribed to Jefus than can belong to a creature. To fuppofe that almighty power may refide in a finite fubject, is contrary, not to theology alone, but to found philofophy. For nothing can be received in a proper sense, which exceeds the powers of the recipient. But all power is given to Christ, in heaven, and in earth. There is no occafion, however, for abstract reafoning. The paffage, in its connexion, clearly fhews that Peter meant to exhibit Jefus as a divine Perfon. For his language concerning the gift of the Spirit evidently refers to what he had declared in the introduction. All the intermediate part of his discourse seems defigned to fhew, how he could attribute this power of giving the Spirit to one clothed with human nature. He fays, ver. 16, 17. This is that which was Spoken by the propbet Joel, and it shall come to pass in the last days, (faith God) I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, &c. He first ascribes the work to Then he ascribes it to Jesus ; God; faith God, I will pour. He bath fhed forth this. The fame verb is used in both places. Could any Jew doubt that he who exee shed or poured out, (ver. 33.) was effentially the fame, who in ver. 17. is made to fay, ɛxxɛw, I will pour out? What has been faid clearly fhews that this work could not be performed by Chrift as a mere inftrument. Befides, the very language excludes this view. As the Hebrew word, word, correspondent to that here used, implies the idea of copiousness, the metaphor being taken from the effufion of water from the clouds, (Ifa. xliv. 3.) it seems alfo to allude to the divine nature of the work; God alone being the Father of the rain. To whomfoever these words, I will pour out, apply, the Spirit which he communicates is his own. For it follows;-Of my Spirit. Now, if Christ be not God, the Holy Spirit could not be called bis. But we know that he is exprefsly faid to be the Spirit of Chrift, I' Pet. i. 11. And Christ himself says, I will fend him unto you-a mode (of speaking which must have discovered the most impious arrogance in any creature. Again, as this Spirit divideth of his gifts and graces unto every man feverally as he will, 1 Cor. xii. 11. either Chrift does not participate in this sovereignty of operation, or he does. If he does not, he cannot with the leaft propriety be faid to bed forth the Spirit. If he does, then he poffeffes divine fovereignty. For if it be abfurdly refused that, in the paffage referred to, the Spirit is spoken of as a Person, in order to make sense of the words, it will be neceflary to suppose that the Father is meant, whofe power he is faid to be; because sovereignty is the attribute of a perfon only. Christ being said to be exalted, and at the fame time, to have poured out the Spirit, it is evident that those who heard this difcourfe must either have fuppofed that the speaker afferted the ubiquity of Christ's human nature, or believed that he poffeffed a nature infinitely fuperior to that to which exaltation is properly afcribed. In a word, the apoftle refers to Pfal. cx. 1. The Lord faid unto my Lord. It is granted that David calls the Meffiah bis Lord. This is a term denoting dominion, and a right to worship; as he acknowledges, concerning the fame glorious Person, Pfal. xlv. 11. He is thy Lord, and worship worship thou him. But how could David be fubject to Chrift as bis Lord, if he had no existence before he became bis Son? Peter concludes his difcourfe with these remarkable words; Therefore, let all the house of Ifrael know affuredly, that God hath made that fame Jefus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Chrift, ver. 36. that is, the Father hath judicially conftituted him Lord and Christ, in human nature; and by this effufion of the Spirit hath manifefted that he really poffeffes all the dignity and power which these titles imply. He declares that Jefus is Lord; giving him a character expreffive, not of effence, but of authority; yet, as we have seen, of fuch authority as entitles the poffeffor to divine worship. Was it, therefore, poffible for the Jews to hear this, without being perfuaded that the apoftle meant to defcribe Jefus as a Divine Perfon? Indeed, the preceding words, Sit thou at my right hand, can be understood in no other fenfe than as a call to the Son, in our nature, to a participation in all the glory of the Father. For the Man whofe name is the Branch, not only builds the temple of the Lord, but bears the glory, and fits and rules upon his throne, that is, the throne of JEHOVAH. That they are defcribed as equal in power, and in glory, is evident from what immediately follows; And the counfel of peace shall be between them both, Zech. vi. 12, 13*. In a fubfequent difcourfe of the fame apoftle, on occafion of the curing of the lame man, he exhibits Jefus not only as Meffiah, and particularly as the prophet whom Mofes foretold, chap. iii. 22. but as the Son of God, ver. 13. In what fenfe he gives him this defignation, appears from the words that follow; But ye denied the Holy One, and the Juft, -and killed the Prince of Life, ver. 14, 15. Now, the meaning of these expreffions, as understood by his hearers, VOL. I. X Vid. Vitring. Obferv. Sac. lib. 2. c. 5. muft must be determined from the manner in which they had been applied in their own fcriptures. Had Peter called Jefus the Holy One of God, it might have been said that the Jews acknowledged this as a defignation of the Meffiah; without affixing to it the idea of Deity; because, as ufed in the Old Testament, it seems to refpect him in his official character. But the question is, how did they understand this exclufive language, the Holy One, as there ufed? When Job says, I have not concealed the words of the Holy One, chap. vi. 10. could he be understood as fpeaking of any other than God? When the prophet fings, The Holy One came from mount Paran, could there be any doubt that the fame glorious Perfon was meant, of whom it is faid in the claufe immediately preceding, God came from Teman? Hab. iii. 3. When they heard this language, Ifa. xl. 25. To whom then will Iye liken me, or fball I be equal? faith the Holy One; could they hesitate to understand it as uttered by JEHOVAH, and as an express claim of the exclufive poffeffion of perfect holiness? Had not God ftill revealed himself to his ancient people, as the Holy One in the midft of them? Hof. xi. 9. During the whole of the old difpenfation, was he not acknowledged by the Church under this exclufive character, expreffed in connexion with that mutual relation which fubfifted between them in regard to his infinite holinefs? Is it not for this reason, that he is so often celebrated as the Holy One of Ifrael? Therefore, could the Jews hear this well-known, this diftinctive character of the true God applied to Jefus, without fuppofing that his disciples afcribed Deity to him, and even held him forth as that very God whom their fathers had worshipped? Or could the dif ciples of Jefus give him this character, without the leaft caution or reftriction, and not be guilty of blafphemy, were he a mere man? Would the believing Jews have received |