that his "Name should be called (according to Jeremiah) the Lord our righteousness;" and yet again (according to Isaiah), that his Name should "be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace;" all which expressions being conformable to the established phraseology of the Jews, were readily understood to mean, that, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, so, in the promised Christ or Messiah, there should be an especial indwelling of the Divine presence and power; that in him should be a manifestation of God's "might" and "wonderful works," and through him proclamation of God's fatherly kindness, and an offer of "peace" with mankind. Their customary use of the words "name" and "called" conveyed this sense to them.

The only question with them was, whether Jesus of Nazareth were the person to whom these prophecies applied, and in whom the Lord God had thus manifested Himself. They were all, more or less, startled and revolted ("offended" as the Evangelists express it) at his not coming forward with temporal power and splendour, as they had expected; but (as you may

observe in confirmation of what I have been saying) none of them seem to have been at all in expectation that He would literally, in our sense, bear the "name" of Emmanuel, and to have made it a matter of surprise or objection that He did not.

And you may observe that when the question was debated between the believers and the unbelievers in Jesus, the same kind of language was employed. Our Lord himself bids his disciples go forth after his ascension, and make converts to his religion, "baptizing them" (not in the name, as it appears in our translation,* but) "into the 'name' of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which is often spoken of, simply, as baptizing them into the name of the Lord Jesus;" enlisting them, that is, into his service, and receiving their confession that God had thus manifested or declared Himself in Him. This kind of language was, of course, equally intelligible to believers and unbelievers, much as they differed as to the fact. We find the chief priests using it when they forbade the

*This mistranslation seems to have been derived from that in the Latin version; "in nomine."

Apostles to speak to any man "in this name;' they having just before commanded a lame man to "rise and walk, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth;" and having declared before the assembly, that "there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved." Now it is plain there could be no miraculous virtue in the sound of the name, but in the divine power and manifestation of God in Jesus.

There seems every reason to suppose that this employment of the word "name" (or "title," as it might more strictly be rendered) arose from the custom of persons assuming, or having applied to them, a title alluding to some remarkable action* or quality; thence, the word 66 name" came to be used to denote the very performance of that action, or the possession of that quality, which had given rise to the appellation and, finally, it was thus used even when the appellation was not actually borne; as, for instance," the Lord thy God who is a jealous God," and "the Lord whose name is Jealous," were understood as equivalent expressions.

* Thus among the Romans we find the titles of Africanus, Germanicus, &c.

But whatever may have been the origin of the custom, you will find it very useful towards the right understanding of Scripture to familiarize your mind, by examining various passages, (of which you will find many more than I have cited,) to the fact, that the word is thus used, and ordinarily used, by the sacred writers, to denote any especial manifestation of God's presence and power, and immediate communication with man, and revelation of his will to us. And you will find such an examination will, if carefully conducted, with the aid of no greater reflection than the plainest Christian, guided by God's Holy Spirit, is equal to, gradually throw light on many important passages, which would otherwise be either very obscure, or liable to be mistaken. It will, for example, throw much light on the true character of that great Person whose coming into the world we this day celebrate.

And on this point I shall proceed to offer a few observations. Let us unite in the prayer which He offered up for us and his other disciples, to the Father, "that we may know Him, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent."

All Christians are agreed that Jesus of Nazareth was, in some way or other, the promised Emmanuel; that in some sense, and in some degree or other, "God was with Him," and was "declared" or manifested in and by Him; that He was called the Christ, Messiah, or Anointed, as being in some especial manner "anointed" (as the Apostle Peter expresses it) "with the Holy Ghost and with power;" He himself having applied to Himself the prophecy, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor." And many intricate and fruitless metaphysical questions have been debated among different sects of Christians, as to the divine nature of our Lord, and the manner of the union between the Deity and a man; the parties engaged in these questions being too often hurried into presumptuous, as well as unprofitable speculations; on points as far beyond the reach of the human intellect as colours to a man born blind; and forgetting that the union of the soul and the body of any one among us, can neither be explained nor comprehended by himself or any other, and appears the more mysterious the more we reflect on it.