limited dominion over the earth has been entrusted by the Father to that divine Essence which is the Son; it has been entrusted for a specific purpose, and when that purpose shall have been achieved, the dominion shall be restored; "the Son himself shall be subject unto the Father," and a change shall then take place in the qualities of the Godhead, which shall bring them again into that perfect and unbroken Unity, in which they existed before the kingdom had been given to the Son

God shall be all in all."

again

The most usual mode, I believe, in which these and similar passages declarative of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ have been received, has been to imagine the kingdom to have been first given in its full extension after his Resurrection from the dead; at the time, when all the conditions of the Covenant of recovery had been actually performed. A peculiar force is thus given to the avowal which he made, between the periods of his Resurrection and Ascension. "All power is given to me in heaven, and in earth;" and the inference drawn is, that he did not possess that power, until all things up to that event, had been duly fulfilled. The effect of this opinion, among others, has been to introduce that uncertainty into the earlier parts of Scripture, which, we think, is so greatly to be reprobated; while it does not at all weaken the real point at issue; the unlimited exercise of a delegated authority by Christ, which has hereafter to be delivered up to the Father. The imperium in imperio still exists, with this sole difference; that it is supposed to have commenced later in point of time in the one case,

than in the other;-but its existence must still of necessity be admitted. We contend that it commenced with the Fall, and that the manifestations which Christ made of Deity to the Jews were in virtue of that empire. All enemies were to be subdued by Christ; every opposing power was to be vanquished by him. But how could this great strength commence with the Ascension? Were not the antediluvians enemies of Christ, who aggravated to a fearful degree the sins of mankind by their vices and idolatry? Were not the nations of Canaan and Egypt enemies to Christ? Were not the rebellious Jews his enemies? Nay, was not every Pagan nation under Heaven opposed to him, in that they were utterly alienated from the truth, and sunk in barbarism and error? How then could his reign commence with his Resurrection, consistently with the declaration of St. Paul that all enemies to God and holiness should be vanquished by Christ?

But concede the principle we contend for, and the first part of the ambiguity vanishes in the conclusion that the Revelations made from the earliest periods were not by the Father, but by an emanation from the Godhead in the person of the Messiah.

It is indeed fully compatible with every idea which we form of the Supreme Being; of the dread immensity of his greatness; the awfulness of his Majesty, that he should not suffer his purposes in Creation to be foiled and nullified, and not visit the transgressor with the annexed penalty of his wrath. But it is equally consistent with our notions of his essential and passionless mercy, that he should yield

to the Intercession of One, who from his equality in the Godhead, was competent to intercede, and who covenanted to present him hereafter with a race humiliated by their sin, and deeply sensible of his clemency towards them. Willing therefore to show mercy to those whom he had created; but unwilling that his forbearance of punishment should endanger the ends of his government on earth, he ordained in the person of his Son a propitiation for sin, and a means of reconcilement unto himself. The decree went forth from the Mercy-seat of Heaven, and by the acceptance of its conditions, Christ became the ruler-the Vicegerent of God upon earth.

Now it fully agrees with our notions of a Redeemer, that he should have the direction of the means; possess authority over those whom he was to lead to reconciliation; and exert it in that manner, which should seem to him most conducive to his purposes. It is consistent with such an end, that designing in his own good time to take the human nature upon him, and to secure the salvation of men by an irreversible decree, he should condescend to act ministerially among them, and teach them gradually that knowledge of his design, which might be a fit prelude to his Incarnation.

But in addition to the reasonableness of such a notion, we find Christ, in the 13th of Revelations, expressly denominated "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." There seems but one just and natural meaning which can be affixed to the expression, which is this:-that God considering that done by his Son, which was covenanted to be done, granted him from that moment all the privi

leges which would follow its accomplishment. His death was the great condition; and it took place in the Divine purpose, immediately the condition was accepted. Christ became the Counsellor and Prince of Peace to the earth. The government was laid upon his shoulder, and judgment was committed to his hand; and from that hour he entered upon his functions as the Saviour of the world, and administered to its concernments. But we proceed to the proof.

The first direct intimation which we discover of this intervention of Christ, was immediately subsequent to the acceptance of his intercession, when “the voice of the Lord God"-Jehovah Eloheem-was heard in the garden demanding the presence of our first parents, in the evening of the very day in which their sin had been consummated. It can scarcely be necessary to enter upon an elaborate proof that "the voice" mentioned in this place is referable to the Son of God-the Divine Word as he is styled by St. John. Indeed the consent of antiquity is so universal, that this voice was that of the Son of Godof Him who appeared as the delegate of his Father to man to proclaim, almost in the hour of his sin, the Atonement he had procured for him, that any lengthened argument upon it might almost have the appearance of being raised for the purpose of being confuted. But it may still be mentioned, in confirmation of this opinion ;-and indeed it is a point which must carefully be borne in mind during the whole of this enquiry;-that it has been often and most distinctly stated of God the Father, that neither by voice, nor resemblance has he ever been made mani

fest unto men. He has never been made evident to the outward senses. "No man," writes St. John, "hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

This expression is repeated by the Evangelist many years subsequent to that first assertion, when he wrote his first general epistle to the Christian Church. "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."†

Christ himself also, in speaking to the Jews, confirms the same idea, while he also marks it with a more distinct definition. He is combating the prejudices of the Jews against his own pretensions to the Messiahship. He appeals to the works which he has wrought as a testimony that he is sent of his Father; and adds, "The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.”‡

In the succeeding chapter, the Jews contrast his high pretensions with the lowliness of his birth as an argument against him. Christ states in answer to these murmurs, that no man can come to him, except he is drawn of the Father. "It is written in the prophets," he continues, "And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."§ The same idea is also found in the writings of St.

* John i. 18.

+ iv. 11.

‡ v. 37.

§ vi. 45.