human
We have not rested upon _single_ passages, nor drawn from the _fourth gospel_. This, we suppose, must be his reason for ignoring the passage in Luke ii. 49,
gpt
Did you not know that I must be about my father's business? for he directly contradicts it, by gratuitously imagining that our Lord came for St. John's baptism with the same intention as the penitents around him; and that, in spite of his own words, which we suppose are to be taken as another
human
gpt
So it becometh us to fulfil all justice, (Matt. iii. 15.) It must be on this principle of ignoring single passages such as these, even though they admit of combination, that he goes on to say of our Lord, that
human
and there
gpt
(p. 9;) and that not till then was he
human
{627} (p. 12.) This neglect of the sacred text, we repeat must be allowed him, we suppose, under color of his acting out his rule of abstaining from single passages and from the fourth gospel. Let us allow it; but at least he ought to adduce passages, single or many, for what he actually does assert. He must not be allowed arbitrarily to add to the history, as well as cautiously to take from it. Where, then, we ask, did he learn that our Lord's baptism caused him
gpt
that he
human
and that he then first was
gpt
? But again: it seems he is not to refer to
human
yet, wonderful to say, he actually does open his formal discussion of the sacred history by referring to a passage from that very gospel--nay, to a particular text, which is only not a
gpt
text, because it is half a text, and half a text, such that, had he taken the whole of it, he would have been obliged to admit that the part which he puts aside just runs counter to his interpretation of the part, which he insists on. The words are these, as they stand in the Protestant version:
human
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Now, it is impossible to deny that
gpt
etc., fixes and limits the sense of
human
but our author notices the latter half of the sentence, only in order to put aside the light it throws upon the former half; and instead of the Baptist's own interpretation of the title which he gives to our Lord, he substitutes another, radically different, which he selects for himself out of one of the psalms. He explains
gpt
by the well-known image, which represents the Almighty as a shepherd and his earthly servants as sheep--innocent, safe, and happy under his protection.
human
The Baptist's opinion of Christ's character, then, he says,
gpt
(pp. 5, 6.) This is like saying,
human
Isaiah declares, 'mine eyes have seen the king, the lord of hosts;' _but_, considering that doubtless the prophet was well acquainted with the first and second books of Samuel, and that Saul, David, and Solomon are the three great kings there represented, we shall easily perceive that by 'seeing the king,' he meant to say that he saw Uzziah, king of Judah, in the last year of whose reign he had the vision. As to the phrase 'the lord of hosts,' which seems to refer to the Almighty, we will consider its meaning by and by:
gpt
Ergo is the symbol of the logician--what science does a writer profess, whose symbols, profusely scattered through his pages, are
human
gpt
human
gpt
human
and