*-:^^ v^^^ ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A. %^^ 1.0 I^KA iii Itt |2i2 122 S |d& 12.0 I.I ^ Hi 6" Fhotographic Sciences Carporatian 23 wht muun stmit WIKni.N.Y. I4SM i7U)tn-4soa D CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CtHIVI/ICIVlH Collection de microfiches. Ctnadian irwtitut* for Historical Microroproductiont / Institut canadion da microraproductions hiatoriquas Technical and BibHographlc NotM/NotM tcchniquM at bibllographiquaa T t( Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat originai copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha reproduction, or which may aignif icantiv' change tha uaual method of filming, are checked below. n D Coloured covera/ Couverture de couleur I I Covera damaged/ Couverture endommegie Covera reatored and/or lamli;atad/ Couverture reataurte et/ou pellicuite Cover title miaaing/ Le titre de couverture marque Coiourod mepa/ Cartea giographiquaa en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. eutre que bleue ou noire) r~n Coloured plataa and/or iiluatrationa/ D Planchea et/ou iiluatrationa en couleur Bound with other material/ RaliA avec d'autree documenta Tight binding may cauae ahadowa or diatartion atong interior margin/ Lareliure aarrAe paut cauaar de I'ombre ou de la diatoRion la long de la marge intirieure Blank laavea added during reatoration may appear within the text. Whenever poaaible, theae have been omitted from filming/ II ae paut que certainee pagea blanchee ajoutiee lore d'une reatauration apparalaeent dana la texte, mala, loraqua cela Atait poaaible, cee pagea n'ont pea «t« filmAaa. Additional commenta:/ Commentairea aupplAmantelree: L'Inetltut a microfilm^ la meiiieur exemnlaire qu'll iui a *t4 poaaible de ae procurer. Lea dAtaiia de cet exempleire qui aont paut-itre uniquee du point de vue bibllographique, qui peuvent modifier une Imege reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la mAthoda normale de fiimage sent Indiquto ci-deeaoua. T P o fl I — I Coloured pagea/ Pagea de couleur Pagea damaged/ Pegea andommagiaa Pagea reatored and/oi Pagae reetaurAea et/ou pelllcuMee Pagea diacoloured, atained or foxei Pagea dteotoriee, tachatAee ou piqutoa Pagea detached/ Pagea d4tach4ae Showthrouglu Traraparenoe Quality of prir Qualit* inAir lie de Umpreaalon Includea aupplementary materii Comprend du matiriel auppMmentaIre Only edition available/ Seule MItion dieponlMe I — I Pegea damaged/ I — I Pagea reatored and/or laminated/ H Pagea diacoloured, atained or foxed/ Pagea □ Pagea detached/ Pagea C^ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print variee/ r~1 Includea aupplementary material/ rn Only edition available/ T ai T V h d a b rl r n □ Pure wholly or partially obacured by errata ail^, tiaauae, e^c, have been refilmed to enaure the beat poaaible image/ Lea pagae totalement ou partlellement obacurdea par un ftulNet d'errata. une pelure, etc.. ont 4t# fllm4ee A nouveou da fa^on A obtenir la nteilleure image poaaible. ThIa item la filmed at the reduetk^n ratio checked below/ Ce document eat fllmA au taux de rMuctlon indlqu* ci-deeaoua. 10X 14X itx • 22X aix 30X J^ n 12X 1«X aox 24X Th« copy film«d h«r« has b««n r«produc«d thanks to th« ganarosity of: National Librsry of Canada L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica i la ginirosM da: Bibllothdqua nationala du Canada Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality posslbia considaring tha condition and laglblllty of tha original copy and In kaaping with tha filming contract spaclflcations. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmed baginning with tha front covar and andlng on tha laat paga with a printad or illustratad impras- slon, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara fllmad baginning on tha first page with a printad or illustratad impras- slon, and andlng on tha last paga with a printad or Illustratad Imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol — *> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whichavar appllas. Maps, platas. charts, ate, may be fllmad at diffarant raduotion ratios. Thosa too large to ba antiraiy included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams Illustrate the method: Lea Images suKrantea ont MA reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition at da la nettetA de rexemplaire fiimA. et en conformity avec lea conditions du contrat da filmage. Lea exemplalrew originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sent fiimis en commeti^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'impreasion ou d'iClustration. soit par le second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplairos originaux sent f limAs an commandant par la pramiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'lllustration et 9n terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte una telle emprelnte. Un des symboles sukants apparattra sur la dernlire imege de cheque microfiche, selon le caa: la symbols — ► algnlfie "A SUiVRE". le symbols ▼ slgnifie "FIN". Les cartaa. planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte i des taux de reduction diff Arents. Loraque le document est trop grand pour dtra reproiduit en un aaui clichA, 11 est fllmi A partir de Tangle aupiriaur geuche, de gauche A drolte, et de haut en baa, en prenant le nombre d'Images nicessalra. Les diagrammes sulvants iliustrent la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 2.%0n '/ €tfP CHPIST, THE SON OF GOD DISCOURSE IN REVIEW OF THE REV. DR. WILKES' SERMON, EMITXiED " WHO IS CHRIST ? " f»T ■-!- DELIVERED IN Mv.y.'. I.U^.llhM THE UNITARIAN CF.ITRCII, MONTREAL, ON SUNDAY EVENING, JAN. 19, 1851, BY JOHN CORDNER. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. illontrcal : PRINTED BY JAMES POTTS, HERALD OFFICE. 1851. mm mm m CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. DISCOUKSE IN REVIEW OF THB REV. DR. WILKES' SERMON, ENTITLED "WHO IS CHRIST?" DELIVERED IN THE DNITARIAN CHURCH, MONTREAL, ON SUNDAY EVENING, JAN. 19, 1861, BY JOHN CORDNER PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST, illontrcal : PRINTED BY JAMES POTTS, HERALD OFFICE. 1851. It hM been thought that the usefulness ox the following discourse would depend In a great measure on the proniptnosa of its utterance and appearance. Whatever has been pre- pared in haste, must always bear some marks of hasie. But this, we know, is no adequate apolog/ for serious errors. It is to bo hoped, howorer, that none such will be found in the following pages. To thoughtful, rerorent, and candid seekers after Christian Truth in all Churches, I humbly commond it. May the Spbrit of Ood assist and guide all such in their inves- tigations. J. 0. CHRIST. THE SON OF GOD. Mat. XVI., 15, 16.- -" Whom nay ye that I am ? answered and said, Thou art the Christ, And Simon Peter the Son of the living God. "Who is Christ?" horo is the question put by the Lord Jesus himself, and horo is the Apostolic answer. The appearance of a pamphlet during the past week pur- porting to give a definite an«l orthodox answer to the question " Who is Christ?" has led to the selection of these words as a text, from which I propose to oflfer some farther remarks on k.he same topic. And it is only proper I should state here, that this step would not have been taken, had it not been for the expressed desire of many persons to this effect, and some of these persons not members of my own congregation. Contro- versy 18 a task never specially grateful to my own feelings, and least of all do I desire to direct special strictures on the ex- orcises of any of the neighbouring pulpits. In the case before us, however, we can fairly do so without violating any rule of ordinary courtesy, since the respected preacher has freely given his sermon to the public, and permitted it to be printed Irom his own manuscript. £[aving done so, it is no longer to be regarded as the special property of any individual, or con- gregation. It belongs to you, to me, to all. It is public pro- perty, and legitimately amenable to public criticism. I, for my part, thank the author for its publication. Moreover, in the judgment of some, an answer seems to be demanded by him on page 15 ; where, in reference to those who differ front him on the point under discussion, ho says " it would not be impertinent to ask, what they think of Christ ? We confess to an Impatience of the merely negative. &c. ***** We rei>eat the query, What is Cmrist ?" This repeated de> mand, it has been thought, ought to be granted. And I think so too, provided there be any reasonable prospect of doing good by the reply. We do not hold ourselves bound to accept every challenge, but we do hold ourselves bound to state and defend our views of Christianity, whenever w. think the cir- cumstances of the times require It, and the cause of simple Scriptural Truth may be served by it. And this, I apprehend, is the only legitimate aim of contro- Tersy. But it is sad to think how frequently it has been mar- rod or forgotten. The divine form of Truth has been too commonly lost sight of amid the distracted tempest of man's tumultuous passions. Railing has >een put in the place of persuasion ; theological tcrmagancy has been substituted for reasonable argumentation ; men willing to hear, but at the same time resolved to judge for themselves, have been address- ed as obstinate fools ; weak and ill tempered polemics hare sought to gratify their own pride of opinion, rattier than serve the sacred cause of Truth ; and thus has the heavenly and heal- ing spirit of the blessed Jesus boon trampled under foot in unseemly quarrels about his religion. It is pleasant to observe that ni the sermon just published, there is no abuse of Unitarians, nor anything whicn violates Christian comity.* This entitles it to a respectful consideration from us, which it would not deserve, and should not receive, if the case were otherwise.t The arguments nre put with greater or less force, but wo see no unseemly manilestations of tem- per. And this loaves us without excuse if we lose our proper temper in the discussion. All controversy has its advantages and its disadvantages. But controversy concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, while in some oases it may oe highly beneficial, has yet peculiar perils. It has a tendency to keep the recognition and contemplation of our Saviour too exclusively in the domain of the understanding, while, if I apprehend his religion arighc, his proper abiding place is in the region of the neart. He was a Manifestation of the Father's love to man, and given to be loved by us, rather than to be argued about. His throne ought to be in the affections. To have Him, the Christ, form- ed within, living and breathing in the disciple, controlling the thoughts, feelings, words, and actions, making the entire in- ward and outward life holy, harmonious, and divinely beautiful — this is the triumph of the believer, and his hope of glory. •> This remark, while it applies to the Qermon, scarcely applies to the Author's note, which precedes his sermon. He speaks there of "the fiitndM of the Re- deemer" — meaning thereby, those who stand with himself within the circle of conventional Orthodoxy, which, bjr the way, when we come to scrutinise it, we flud to be dimlv enough defined. Hence, by implication, all who cannot take their place within his theological circle, become the enemUi ot the Redeemer. ■ Mow we contend that no man haa a right to pronounce such dogmatic iudg< ments. We abide by the words of Jesus as the highest form of Orthoaozjr. And by these we learn thut the humble disciples, who are carenil in thought and word to keep his holr commandments, are accounted by himself as nis friend*, (John xv. 14). *' Hot every one that saith unto me, Lord Lord," &c., (Matthew vii. SI.) We respecttVilly commend to our Orthodox brethren, the careful consideration of the practical Orthodoxy of the Lord Christ. I Wesay this, because we will never recognise abuse as argument. Unitarians in this region have reason for congratulation when they ai e spared abuse flrom the pulpit and the press, as their views are brought under notice. A certain class of preachers and pamphleteers, instead of encouraging the "search of the Scriptures," and the "proving of all things," until "full persuasion" should legitimately come to the mind, are occupied rather with " warning" the people against certain opinions, or, it may be against persons. This, doubtless, has its effect, with many minds, but whctlier the effect is edifying, we leave it to intel- ligent Christiaua to decide. It is a favorite stroke of oratory with this class, to represent Unitarians as identical with infideli, without making any reference to the fact, that Unitarians habitually appeal to tb« Sacred Scriptures as autho- ritative, and universally believe in the Divine mission of Jesus, as the Messiah of God, Another device is somutimes adopted to give greater effect, and that is, to set forth Unitarians as veorse than infidels, since the latter have the grace of candor, whidk the former want. According to this last stroke, the Unitarians are not only iutidels, but infidels in disg^se, deliberately compassing the ruin of souls — of their own, as well as the rest; although it would be difficult, on any known principles, to explain what special charm eternal perdition should have fur them, more than other mortals. Mistakes are occasionally made, however, iu such coses, which would be amusing, %vere it not fur the solemn connection in which they occur. In their excessive zeal against Unitarianism, preachers are sometimes found unconsciously citing Unitarian writers to sustain their confused argument. This has hippenod at least twice in this city, witliii, a few years past. We have reason to believe that in some <;tiarters the pe>v^ are gettmg in advance of the pulpits. And to tl.is ond should wo all humbly, earnestly, and patient- ly strivn, aa to tlio great end of our being. But if curious and Bpoculative men will nenetri(to the interior naturo of the Lord's Anointed, as they have attempted to penetrate the interior nature of the Inflnite Jehovah himself — if they per- sist in marking off this blessed Manifestation into two distmct natures, as they persist in partitioning oft' the Almighty Ono hito three distinct subsistences — then must we exert Uie facul- ties of the understanding that we may stand clear of their errors, and preserve for ourselves the Scriptural Christ, rather than the Metaphysical Christ — the Christ of the Bible, rather than the Christ of the Creeds. I do not envy the mind that cnn remain indifferent to the momentous truths involved in this question. The honor of the Lord Christ requires that we be on our guard against the perilous consequences of mere human speculation : it requires that we should accept his own teachings concerning himself in their simple and cbvious meaning. The honor of the Lord Christ requires that we hold our human inferences in humble subordination to his express declarations : it requires that we do not attribute to him that vulgar ambition, which is flattered and gratified by l^he bestowal of titles to which he never laid claim. The honor of the Lord Christ requires that we give Serfect deference just to what he has said, and reverent obe« ience to what he has commanded. It is thus that we shall best honor Christ ; not by the creation of a Christ of our own, from the subtleties of our human reason, mixed up with the declarations of Scripture, but by receiving with simple child- like faith the declarations he hoi^ made concerning himself and his mission. I repeat it, I do not envy anj minds that can remain indiffer- ent to the momentous truths mvolvcd in this discussion, and are afraid to stir, lest some present consequences should be inconvenient — who, for the sake of temporal interest, or pre- sent convenience, are content to walk crooked before God »• that they mi^ appear smooth, and straight, and respectable before men.* Wherever such unfaithfulness to conscience exists, lot it be judged by God in his mercy, and not by mnn in his weakness. But this I know, that a true souled man would rather have his body chained in the galleys, with his mind free, than have his body at ease, and clothed in purple, and his mind thus in bondage to his neighbor. While 1 speak, then, I would seek to address free and noble minds, candid and honest minds, humble and Christian minds. The free and noble minds will search for themselves like the Bereans of old. The candid and honest minds will openly profess • A friend observes with refereni-e to this rcninrlc, that it would bo a carious item of Htatistics, if we linew how many disbelievers in tlte doctrine of tlie Trinity, are engaged in sustaining Trinitarian churches in this city. But we •ay, " Be of good cliecr, O Friend, better is it to gatlier in a barn with only two or throe, and worsliip according to conscience, than bow in a Cathedral, with a multitude, before tlie forms of a Creed, wliich you inwardly disbelieve." The end is not yet. When the Lord in judgment lias tu enquire — "Man, why wert thou not true to conscience?" it will bo but a poor excuse to say — "Lord^ ] should have been so, only it might iiave put me to some ingonveuience." what thoj' inwardly bcliuvc. 'J'lio huniblu and Christian mindfl, whatuvur bo their own coiiclMsionB, will uvcr oncour- nao others to bo ti uo to their convictioiia, and cxorciio Clirist* liko charity towards all. In the Bormon under review our attention id specially di- rectcd to " fho teaching of Jesus Christ, as it related to his eternal existence, and to the constitution of his person" And in order to prove tho eternal existence, the foljowine quotations are offered on p. 6, from tho words of the Lorn himself: — '< Before Abrai:nm was, I am." " Glorify me with the glory which I had with thee beforo the world was." — <'Thou loTcdst mo bufuro the foundation of the world." — " He describes (I here ouote the sermon) the Hon of man as seated on the throne of judgment, who shall invite the iustifled to enter into the kingdom prepared for them br/ore the /bun« dation of the world; and it it be asked who then prepared it, ho replies — I prepare a place for you". Now here I submit that tlie proot fails to moot tho proposition. For the mtist which these citations can be understood to prove, is the exist- ence of Christ prior to a given point of time. But this is fur from being adeuuato to meet tho requiremunt of tho cose. — To stuto to me tliat any given being, or thing, was in existence prior to tho great French Revolution, is no proper proof that it was in existence at tho time of the Protestant Rotormation. Nor would proof of its existence, prior to tho Reformation, be adequate evidence of its existence since the beginning of the Christian era. These texts are accepted by many Unit- arians as proof of the existence of our Lord bnforo his appear- ance in tne flesh. But etoi'nal existence is very different from simple prl'existence, and Avhile they obviously fail of {»roving tne former, they may be regarded as proof of tho atter. It is very commonly urged by Trinitarians, however, that the expression employed in tho first quotation is identical with tne incommunicable name, and therefore proof of eter- nal existence. B' *. this soems to me wholly unauthorized. Let us see how it would read according to this interpretation, — " Before Abraham was, Jehovah." In such an expression I can discover no relevant meaning. The phrase used by Jesus is ono which was in common use, and if a theological purpose had not to be served, would be regarded according to its ordi- nary signification. Previously, in the same chapter (John viii), wo find him making use of the same expression (v. v. 24, 28), but as tho English translators have there supplied tho pronoun he, we see the meaning of it plainly enough indicated. If they had only supplied the same pronoun in v. 58 — " Be- fore Abraham was, I am he" — it would, at once be seen from tho scope of tho whole passage, that he was simply asserting his Mossiahship. This point is conceded by some of the most eminent Trinitarian theologians — such men as tho Rev. James Carlile, and the Rov. Dr. Pye Smith.* * Tho Rev. Jag. Carlile, in his Worlc, entitled "Jesus Christ the great God our Saviour," says, " I do not mean to rest any argument on tho expressiou, / ain, taken by ititiJi'. It occurs rrpeatedly in tliis chnpteri and is translated, / uj,v he one. ' As thou. Father,' continued he, ' art in me, and I in thee; so they also may be one in us ;' i. e. that the disciples ma; have ' the same mind \Ybich was in Chriet Jesus.' " 12 n I' i \ i ! i 1 i i 1 ! ! \ 1 1 !' f 1 tural quotations given in tliis poi-tion of tho discourse, and set forth so confidently to prove tno Supremo Deity of our Lord ? Simply these : that he healed sicknesses, knew the inward thoughts of others, and the like — in other words, that ho pos- sessed supernatural powers. But eyery reader of the Scrip- tures knows, that others possessed supernatural powers like- wise, so th&t the simple possession of them, proves nothing to the point. Tho question is, were they inherent or derived ? We say they were derived, and we affirm this from a compre- hensive survey of the teachings of the Lord Jesus — such a survey as enables us to see all parts together, and explain one portion by another. It is through such a survey only, that we can arrive at an adequate and impartial knowledge of Christ's teachings concerning himself. If we are to be guided simply by the teachings of the Lord Jesus himself, we must believe that all the power possess ad by him, in heaven and earth, ia derived.' "All power," he says, " is given unto me, in heaven and in earth." " Thou [the Father] hast given him [the Son^ power over all flesh, that he should give" ^c. We cannot quit the review of the paragraph before us with- out noticing another remarkable sentence. "Christ calls himself emphatically the Son of Man, and solemnly announ- ces that there is a sense in which the Father is greater than he, a statement which no mere creature could ever have thought it necessary to make." Now what is meant by stating here that " Christ announces there is a sense in which the Father is freater than he ?" Where does he make this announcement ? reply, no where. If he did, it would give a new character to the controversy between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian. It would give something like intimation, at least, of the Tri- nitarian's favorite theory of <* two natures" in Christ. Such may have been the preacher's conception of Christ's declaration, but what authority is there for this statement, as the declara- tion stands in the Record ? No such intimation is given. Let the candid enquirer consult the Scripture. Thn saying of Jesus is unconditional and absolute. *< My Father is |;reater than I." Here again, in the extract under notice, we discoror how the rhetorio of the pulpit melts away into nothing, when the simple logic of common sense comes to look at it. It is said that the statement (My Father is greater than I) is one ** which no mere creature could ever have thought it necessary to make.'' But the Apostle John states (1 John iii. 20,) that ** God is greater than our heart," — a statement of which it might also be said that **no mere creature could ever have thought it necessary to make it." However imposing such re- marks may be in appearance, we find them, m reuity, only solemn trifling. Now let us consider the matter soberly. From none but A being of derived existence could such a statement possibly come with trutli. Cynone but such an one could it possibly be true. If the Lord Jesus was tho Supreme God, then it was not true, and the statement thus absolutely made by him, standing as it does without any explanation from him, was calculated to deceive the people. He also states, " My Father I, and set ir Lord ? inward t he pos- 16 Scrip- r^ers liko- othing to derived ? compre- ; — such a plain one >nly, that dedgo of >e guided we must laven and nto me, in I him [tJie e us with- irist calls f announ- sator than e thought kting here Father is ncement ? character Unitarian, f the Tri- ist. Such eclaration, le declara- iron. Let saying of is greater re discover liing, when it It. It is 1 1) is one I: necessary i. 20,) that )f which it ever have ng such re> suity, only t none but nt possibly it possibly then it was do by him> n him, was My Father is greater than all ;" i. e. than all others, and all make Christ speak and act as two distinct beings, which would be an ab- surdity ; and if this were made the standard for explaining the difficulties of Scripture, to what errors would it lead!" Such is the character of the Trinitarian testimony which can be brought against the commonly received theory of the " two natures."'*' In the Discourse under review, an unusual shai-e of atten- tion is given to the circumstances of our Lord's trial. The writer thinks that in the confession of Jesus before the high priest, that he was " the Christ, the Son of God," he has dis- * The author from whom the above quotation is made, is the Rev, Horace Buahnell, D- D., the minister of a numerous and warmly attaclied church of Orthodox Congregationalists, in Hartford, Connucticut. tie i« a man of high standing in his denomination, for learninf? and piety. Three or four years since, we had the privilege of hearing: him preach a iine, far>seein(., and comprehen- iiive discourse, on belialf of the Orthodox Home Missionn, in the Rev. Dr. Kirk's Church, in Boston. It was the re-dclivery , if we remember right, of one Srevioutly preached by appointment, before tlie Homo Misaiotutry Society, ih few York. The discourse from which I quote, is one of three which are bound together in a volume, bearing the title of "God in Clirist," and its subject is the " Divinity of Christ." It was delivered ad clerum at the annual conmence- ment of Yale College, in 1818. The preacher tvas nominated bjr th General Association of Congregational Ministers of Connecticut, but this dees not make any of the individuals thereof responsible for the opinions uttered. The preacher speaks on his own responsibility, leaving others to agree or disagree with him, as their own judgments Idictate. He tells them, however, that he has known no other views on the subject discussed, since he began to be a preacher of Christ. We happened to have Dr. Bushnell's book on our reading table, when the discourse under review reached us, and could not resist the temptation of comparing tlie teaehing of the two Ortkpdox Congregational Miiilstero on the important subject before us. We found some striking con« trasts. Thus, while Dr. Wilkes says, page 7, " Christ's perfect manhood was taaght-4io mystery or doubt was allowed to gather about that," Dr. Bushnell says, page 123, " Christ was in such a sense, Ood, or God manifested, that the unknovm term of his nature, that which we are most in douht of, and about which we are least capable of positive afBrmation i* the human." Dr. Wilkes' Sermon professes to give an explanation as to "the constitution of Christ's person." Dr. Bushnell says : "As regards the composition of Christ's person, we perhaps know nothing.' Dr. Wilkes rests his argument on the theory of *'one person, in two distinct natures," and approp-iates the sayings and doingB of the Lord Jesus, now to one, and then to the oMier, as it suits his purpose. Dr. Bushnell says, " I shall not call Christ two. I '.hall not decompose him, and label off his doings, one to the credit of his Divir ity, and another to the credit of his humanity." He affirms tlmt such a mode " only creates difficulties a hundred-fold greater than any it solves." Viewed in connection with Dr. Wilkes' discourse. Dr. Buslmeil's book is extremely interesting to tlie student of opinion, as shewing the difference which prevails in the teaching of the " Orthodox" doctrines, as these are presented ad cfcrum at Yale College, and ad populitm in Moiitreul. f For liirther remarks on the theory of the "two natures,'"' gee Appendix. I i ; I ■ 15 bslstonccs Dounts foi' And Dr. >ns on tho 28) and I to prove iforiority. g to show iiage, it is h and not this is by- It is cer- For, to Divinity, ke Christ >e an ab- splaiuing it lead!" 'hich can tho " two Df atton- al. The the higli has dis- ev, Horace cliurch of lan of high rears since, omprehen- • Rev. Dr. 9lit,of one Society, ih Are bound ■ubject is ■ommence- b General > not make ed. TJie >r disagree >r, that he ran to be a ir reading resist the regational king con- nAoodwaa > Bushnell I that the »nd about •. Wilkes* f Christ's 's person, theory of ad douigg purpose. him, and the credit Rculties a with Dr. e student g of the liege, and >endi.x. covered irrosistiblo proof of Supremo Dioty. Tliis argument is elaborated through throe pages, and concludes with this inference as " the only rational one, that the being who so acted, is « new form of e.riatence — that in his person, time and eternity, infinity and limitation, laws the most opposite meet, and are reconiiilod, and that we behold in him the grand anomaly of infinito majesty clothed in meekness; supremo dominion rendering obedience ; absolute sovereignty exhibiting entire resignation ; in other and apostolic words, " God mani- fest in tho Ucsh." A great and weighty conclusion, certainly, from such a slender modicum of Scripture premises 1 As wo we scan this argument from its commencement to its conclu- sion, wo are strongly reminded of a pyramid standing on its apex, which is destined to remain just so long as the air is kept perfectly undisturbed around it. We have heard of a telescope several tons weight, so exquisitely balanced that an infant's touch will move it. Now this inverted pyramid of argument can only stand by some such exquisite nicety of balance, and the slightest stir of the air from investigation, or an infant's touch, wdl overthrow it. We may bo pardoned if wo overlook the structure of tho argument which goes on from its slender resting point, in- creasing in verbal dimensions until it reaches the vast con- clusion already stated. All proper purposes will be served by looking at the resting point itself — the little apex of Scrip- tural testimony which is mado to bear the weight of the whole. If any flaw or unsoundness be discovered in this, which would justify its removal, then, of course, the whole of the imposing superstructure must crumble to the ground. What, then, saith the Scripture concerning tho trial of the Lord Jesus ? What are the facts of the case, as we gather them by looking carefully at the accounts of the four Evan- gelists ? Briefly stated, the simple and mournful facts seem to be on this wise : — When the enemies of Christ had seized him, they brought him before tho priests and council. His death was evidently resolved on. Nothing less would satisfy their envy and malice. At first they do not appear to have any specific charge fixed against him, but trusted to tho chance of suborned witnesses to make some accusation which might enable them to accomplish their bad design, through tho forn\9, at least, of a trial. Such witneeses came, and made charges against him, but contradicted each other. Then came others ; and their charge was, that he threatened to de- stroy the temple. He was called on to answer this accusa- tion, but it was so obviously groundless he answered nothing. Then some of the council, knowing that he had still laid claim to be the Messiah, asked him : " Art thou the Christ ? tell us." But he knevv they v/ould not believe him, and his reply was : " If I tell you, ye will not believe." Then the high priest adjured hiin to answer whether ho were the Christ, the Son of God. Then Jesus aflirmcd his Messiahship. Failing in tho other charges, here was an avowal, upon which a tribunal re- solved on tho death of its victim, and blind to rJl sense of right and justice, might construct a charge of blasphemy. I ? II I'l _,. r I i: 16 This was done ; and amid a storm of rage and excitement, ho was then pn)nouncod dcsorving of death. lie was forthwith hurried to tho Roman governor, because the power of taking away lifo did not tlien remain with the Jews. They wore stiU in the tumult of confusion and passion, and when they brought him to I'ihite, conunenced urging other accusations againut him. Their motives wore evident to the Roman governor. He saw they had no fixed or proper charge against him, and know that it was tlirougli envy tlioy delivered Jesus unto him. After examining Christ, he was willing to liberate him. But his enemies would not hear of tills, and then they cried out : " We have a law, and by our law ho ought to die, because ho made himself tho Son of God." When Pilate heard this, it made him more afraid and cautious, in what he sought to do. Still the rage and excitement of tho Jews was so evident, that ho had no confidence whatever in tho fitness of their accusa- tion, or tho justice of their verdict, and he persisted in his endeavor to release Jesus. But the passion of his enemies "was not to bo satisfied but bv his tfcath, and they again shifted their charge to a political one, crying out to Pilato : *' If thou let this man go, thou art not Caisar's friend." Here- upon, Pilato resists them no longer, but delivered tho Lord to be crucified. Such are the simple and mournful facts of the case as I think you will find by collation of the accounts of the several Evangelists. Wo are willing to let this brief statement of scriptural fact stand as an answer to the lengthened and im- posing argument of the discourse, where such a stress is put on one of tho incidents. Jesus simply affirmed his Messiah- ship before the high priest and council, as ho had over been in the habit of doing throughout his previous teaching. This was the real amount of tho matter. And to base an argument by forcing-process, on the judgment given by avowed enemies, in the heat of passion, boiling with envy, rage, and malice: as if it were a grave, dispassionate, and dulv weighed judgment of Westminster Hall, must, we fear, be taken as indication of the weakness of the cause which has to seek such support* This argument is sufiiciontly answered, but before we leave it, we may be permitted to ennuire what effect any special statement of Jesus concerning himself bcfored tho Jewish council, would have upon the ordinary Trinitarian theolo- gians of the present day ? The preacher insists, at great length, that some such special statement was demanded by the circumstances. But suppose such statement made, what effect, we ask, would it have upon the Trinitarian theologian ? Suppose that our Lord, when he heard the charge of blasphe- my laid against him, had said : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, • In connection with John x. 30. Professor Stuart makes the following re- mark, which, will hold c(iuully good in the case above examined . — " The malig- nant disposition wliioh the Jews frequently displayed, may weli lead us to sus- pect, that they would, if possible, put such u construction" on his words as would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or rebellion agai.nst the Roman government. I would expound the words of Christ, therefore inde- pendently o*' any construction wliiuh his embittered euenues put upon them." The Jews charged Stephen with blasphemy against Moses andCiud. — Acts vi, 11. If I The Son can do nothinj; of himself but what ho seoth tho Father do." If ho had answered them " Is it not written in your law I said ye are Gods ? If he called them Gods* unto whom tho word of God came, and the Scripture cannot bo broken ; say ye of him whom the Father hatn sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphumest, because I said I am tho Son of Qod f If I do not the works of my Father believe mo not. But if I do, though ye believe not ,me, believe tho works." Now, suppose he had said this in answer to tho charge, it would only be what he had said before, to meet similar charges. t lie had said all this before, to show that his laying claim to bo the Son of God, was no proper ground on which to construct a charge of blasphemy. And suppoBO he had repeated it, what oifcct would it have upon the Jews in their rage of passion ? or what effect w<-uU it have upon tho ordinary Trinitarian theologians of luo present day ? Obviously nono whatever. Have they not already " labelled off" his declarations to this effect, to the account of the hu- man, of his alleged " two natures" ? And would they not nullify it again, through the same ready method, by vii*tuo of which, they can always accommodate his sayings to their fa- vorite theological system ? Thus rendering the plainest teach- ing of tho Lord of none effect through their traditional theory. When Peter was asked by the Lord, " Whom say ye that I am ?" His answer was : " Thou art the Christ, the Son of tho living God." Thig is our answer also, as it ought ever to be the answer of tho Scriptural Christian. But as wo find the term given to others in the Scriptures as well as to him, it will be requisite for us to consider in what peculiar sense he was the Son of God distinct from those others. In the book of Job, we find the angelic hosts stvled " the Sons of God." There the Almighty is described as demanding of Job where he was when the foundations of the earth were laid, and when " the morning stars sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy ?" In the Gospel of Luke, wo find Adam styled the <* Son of God." Solomon, also, in 1 Ghron., is called the Son of God in this manner. The Lord spoke to his father David concerning him, saying: " He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my Son, and I will be his Father." Of the children of Israel, it is said in Rosea that they shall bo called the ««Son8 of God." "It shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said to them. Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, ye are the Sons of tho living God." The Apostle Paul, in address- ing the Phllippians, when exhorting them to the pi'actice of various Christian graces, thus adverts to the results of such practice :— " That ye may be blameless and harmless (he says,) the Sons of God without rebuke." And the Apostlo John, in his epistle to Christians in general, speaks of tliem as being called the " Sons of God." "Behold (he says) what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God. * * * Beloved now are we the Sons of God." * See Tabid in Appendix. c f Jolui V. 19.— z. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. 18 Tlio term " Son of Go J," thon, is by no moans an unusual one in tho Sacrod Scrinturos. But wo maintain that when applied to Josus of Nazaroth, it is used in a high and peculiar sense. In the Now Testament it is commonly used as an equivalent for the term Messiah. Thus, in the angelic prediction of Christ's birth, it was said that he should <* bo called tho Son of God," that is, as Dr. Lightfuot says, " IIo shall be called tho Messiah, for Messiah and the Son of Qod arc convertible terms." In this sense also, Peter evidently imderstood it when ho said : "Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Such, we are persuaded, was tho pievailing idea which the Jews attached to the term. They expected a Messiah, from tho predictions of their ancient prophets, but they never looked tor thepersonal appearance of^ tho Supreme Ood in that capacity. Tlioir Messiali, as the name imports^ was to be a chosen and anointed messenger, sent by God to Eerform a special Avork for his people on the earth. Up to is lost hours on earth, oven after the trial, where, through envy and malice, they accused him of blasphemy and other charges, that they might deliver him to be killed, and while he hung upon the Cross, such was still their idea. When they derided him, it was professing to be tho " Messiah, the choun of God." Among foes and friends alike, this was the prevail- ing notion. Go we to tho family of Bethany, where tne pve- sence of Jesus was specially prized, and where every woru ho uttered was received as living bread from heaven, and we find the same idea. The bereaved and sorrowing sisters had their hope revived when this blessed Messenger of God's love drew near. One of them, under circumstances the most solemn and touching, confessed her belief in him. Not as the Supremo God, indeed, but as "the Messiah, the Son of God, which should come into the world." And it is evident that while she thus declared her belief in his Messiahship, or Divine Son** ship, she also held that he was dependent on that God, whose Son she confessed him to be. She had confidence in his power to restore her brother, but she knew that the original source of such power did not reside in the Messiah, but in God. " Lord, ir thou hadst been here," she says, " my brother liad not died. But I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of Ood, Ood will give it thee." On this point, we think there is little room for questioning or doubt. It is sufficiently obvious, we think, what the Jews understood by the title. Wo wish it could be as clearly set- tled and stated, what Christians mean by the term, Son of Ood, as applied to the Lord Jesus. On this point, Trinitari- ans havo differoncos among themselves, and the Unitarians have differences among themselves. Some of the Trinitari- ans assert tho eternal generation of tho Son, others affirm his generation in time. Tho Westminster Divines, in their " Con- fession of Faith," assert the former opinion : — " The Son is eternally begotten of the Father." While Dr. Adam Clarke pronounces this doctrine destructive of Christ's Deity. " The doctrine of the eternal Sonship," he saysi" destroys the Dei- ty of Christ," and from such " heterodoxies," prays deliver- 11 unusual that when high and nly used as he angelic should «bo says, « IIo fen of Qod evidently the Son of prevailing expected a )phets, but 10 Supreme 10 imports, by CTod to th. Up to e, through and other d while he iVhen thay the choaen »o prevail- e the Di-e- •y word ho ud we find i had their love drew >st solemn B Supremo od, which that while ivine Son-> od, whose ice in his 3 original ah, but in y brother ever thou 3stioning the Jews larly sot- , Son of Vinitari- nitarians 'rinitarl- ffirm his r " Con- 3 Son is 1 Clarke "The he Dei- deliver- 19 ance for the church. " The otoimal Son of Ood," says Dr. P}e Smith, " is, notwithstanding his Divine nature, suhordinato in the order of the Deity, and even perfectly obedient to the Father. To have been thus subioct to the Father, from all eternity, and by the necessity of the Divhie personality, is no more incongruous with the proper and essential Divinity of the Son, than it will be after the consummation of the present system of things, when the groat parenthesis of the Medi- atorial administration shall bo completed, and Ood shall be all in all."* Upon which statement, another Trinitarian Divine, Dr. Symington, remarks : " What the writer of these words means by a necessary and eternal subordination or subjection of the Son to the Father, apart from all respect to the Medi- atorial economy, wo know not. But we frankly confess for ourselves, that we can form no idea of any such tiling, without adopting the Sociuian, or the Ariuii herosy.t In this way do Trinitarians disagree among themselves, concerning the point before us. And Unitarians also, as I have just said, have differences of opinion among themselves, concerning the person of Jesus as the Son of God. But these diffei*onces are of loss importance than those of the Trinitarians. None of these affect their belief concerning the Supremo Godhead, or aiiy doctrine con- sidered as fundamental to their system. All Unitarian^ hold to the strict unity of the Supreme Being, and the unrivalled Supremacy of " the Father,'* as " the only True God." All Unitarians hold to the obvious teachings of the Son, wherein he constantly declares his subordination to the Father. They re- gard him as speaking with God's authority. They differ con- cerning his person, out none of their differences touch these distinguishing and fundamental points. Some hold to his simple h\imanity, and some believe in his pre-existence. In controversy between Trinitarians and Unitarians, it is generally found expedient that either party be permitted to merge its internal differences of opinion, and discuss the fmi- damental principle^ which distinguish the one from the other. Of what proper avail would it be in us to call on Trinitarians to define and defend the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, or any other point of thie character, while the great distinguishing principles, involved in our conflicting ideas con- cerning the Qodheaa, remain unsettled ? Or, of whut proper arall is it in Trinitarians to call on us to define and defend the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, or any such point under the circumstances mentioned? Dr. Wardlaw speaks judiciously on this matter in a note to one of his discourses : — *« When my object," he says, " was to defend a vital doctrine of Christ against those who oppose it, I thought it better to shun any dispute with those who maintain \t."X May not the Unitarian also be permitted to say, " When my object is to defend a vital doctrine of religion, such as the absolute and indivisible unity of God, against those who invade it, I think * Smith on Sacrifices, pp. 91 , 92. t Symington's Messiah the Prince, p. 386. , X Note to 9th Disc, on See, Controversy. r (I J; M it bettor to shun any dispute with thoie who uphold it.'* We mav obsorre, novertholoes, that if aiiy suppose that the Uni- tarian who believes in Christ's pre-existenco, has the same difficulty to contend with respecting the duality of natures, as the Trinitarian, he rests under a grave mistake. So long aa the nature of Christ is held to be flnite, and not infinite, modi- fications may bo possible therein, which could not be predi- cated of the Infinite Being without violating first principles. Never for a moment could the Supreme God, on whom the universe depends, be stripped of his power and glory. This were to bring chaos, or worse. Such a notion is mcompatible with our idea of his immutable existence. But such a change may be consistently enough affirmed of any other being in the universe, however exalted, for all other existence is derived, and whatever attributes it may possess, might flow back into Qod, the original source."' And now, '< who is Christ ?" We answer. He is the '* Son of Qod." This is the language of Scripture, and denotes the Christ of the Scriptures. We do not call him *< Qod the Son," for this is not the language of Scripture. It is the language of human creeds only, and only denotes the Christ of the Creeds. Peter's answer is ours: — "He is the Son of the living Qod." Is this declaration not sufficiently definite ? The Lora Jesus himself considered it sufficient. Must we define the co^nposition of his person before we can reach a saving faith? Not so, according to my view of the Qospel. If an earthly sovereign sends me a gracious message, it becomes me to accept it thankfully, without subjecting the bearer thereof to rigia scrutiny respecting his person or dignity. I will not be less respectful to my heavenly Sovereign than I should be to an earthly one. If he sends me a Messenger clothed with the fulness of his own authority, I will honor that Messenger accordingly. As I honor the Father, I will honor the Son, for he that honors not the Son, fails in honor to the Father who sent him. To whatever extent, and in whatever degree, the person of the Son forms an integral portion of the mes- sage, to that extent, and in that degree, it will shine with noon-day brightness. It does so ; and as I discern it, I am moved to love and reverence, for in it I discern a moving mani- festation of the Divine Mercy. Does any one complain that this is not sufficiently definite ? I cannot help this. The complaint lies likewise against the celebrated answer of Peter. Our Lord did not press the disciple with any subtleties concerning the composition of his Serson. He haid never taught him a syllable concerning & uality of natures in his person, nor does he now seek any confession of it. His teaching had been, that he was the Christ, the Son of Qod, and this is the declaration which, for the benefit of the world, he draws from Peter, and which he deems sufficient. With this declaration, and this belief, I ' — ^ ^..^ — * The remark* otfered above, have reference to the cue of those who believe in the pre-existent perionality of Chriot. But a belief in the pre-cxiitcnce may be held, without pasiing into tiiii form, A diecussion on thu topic, taow-^ ever, it not called for here. ifm^-"': S«S?tM^ «*a-S!8^?*»MR*-''v- ■•«-'- ■- •--' 21 Son of tea tho e Son," inguage of the of the >? The ) define ' aavjng If an ■nes me thereof "'ill not )uldbe )d with Monger 9 Son, father legree, > nies- > with I lam mani. nite? t the I the f his [nga any the lich, bich Bf,I Ueve •nee low- will content mysolf. I will sook too moro subtle, or more pro- ciao form orthodoxy than tho Lord Christ liimsolf domanuod. I will not subject bis porson to any procosi of psychological dissection. I will not prosumo to unulyso its contents by any exporimont of inotapli^sical chemistry. I walk daily in the midst of God's mystonos. Thu grass bladu which lifts its ![reen luof in tho spring time is to me a mystery. It ditfers rom the clod from which it springs, and contains a principle of life which I cannot expound. The fly which flits across tho window pane is to me a mystery. As I approach, it spreads its wing of gossamer, and is gone. The fly diifers from tho plant, and has something in its nature which I cannot properly doflne. The human infant smiling in the mother's face, is to me a mystorv. Tho infant diflfers from the insect. A subtle principle of intelligence is there, but after what manner it is there, I cannot adequately explain. And when the porson of the Lord Christ is presented t") me, what wonder if I cannot analyze and expound his interior nature ? If men offer me their theories concerning the life of tho grass blade or the insect, the intelligence of the infant, or the interior nature of the Lord, I am surely at liberty to reject their theories, and to eivo mv reasons for rejecting them, without being justly liable to the charge of slighting the facts themselves. I havo no hesitation, then, in discarding any theories rola- tinar to the person of Christ, which seem to me inconsistent with enlightened reason, reverently exercised, and the repre- sentations of the Sacred Scriptures. And I will do so, though I should have no language more precise to offer, than that of the Scripture itself. Jesus is '* the Christ, tho Son of tho liv- ing Qod." I will accept him as such, sratefuUy and rever- ently. A work more worthy awaits me, I think, than any cu- rious dissection of his person, or analysis of its contents. A work more worthy, I think, awaits me, and you, too, if we have onlv sufiicient grace to be worthy of it. And it is this : to look unto Jesus in daily Faith, and imbibe the lessons of Di- vine Love and Wisdom which the Messiah set forth — to accept him as the Medium through which a Merciful God seeks to reconcile unto himself a sinful world. God your Saviour, has manifested Christ as the means of your Salvation Turn not away, then, from the surpassing glory of that manifested Life. Nor fail to open your hearts to the moving influences of that awful Death, at which the very earth trembled, and daylight faded into darkness. Behold the broken sepulchre, and in the Resurrection there revealed, see life and immortality brought clearly to light, and rejoice in Hope. And as you dis- cern the form of the Risen Lord Ascending to the heavens, let your heads be bowed in reverence, and your hearts clow with love. For, remember his prayer on behalf of his faithful fol- lowers, that they should be with him where he is. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, then, who in mercy, hath begotten us to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadcth not away. — Amen. Amen. ■(■ , I p- I jji P ;i' Si W APPENDIX. (Note, Page 14.) The following remarks on the theory of the " two natures/' nally printed in the Bible Christian, we reprint here : — origi- Jesua says, " Mr Fathrb is oBBATEn tuan I." (John xiv. 28.) And again he says, " Mt Father is obgatek than at.l." (John X. 29.) To the same effect also is the language of the great Apostle of the Gentiles : — "But I would have you know, thatthe head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman is the raan ; and thb BEAD OF Chbist 18 GoD." (1 Cor. XI. 3.) Of a similar import is a large class of passages in the Bible. Their meaning is obvious, — it cannot be mistaken. They teach the subordination of the Son to the Father ; they teach the subordination of Christ to God. We all know, however, by what means it is sought to evade the force of such plain and powerful testimony of our Saviour and hit* Apostles. We are very well aware, how it is sought to make their words have no meaning in the controversy concerning Christ's Su- preme Deity, which, of course, forms an important portion of the general controversy concerning the Trinity. It is by a very ingeni- ous theory, but a most unwarrantable one. It is assumed that Christ had two natures ; and by a dexterous employment of this assumption, the advocates of the tri-une theory of the Godhead, seek to nullify every plain statement of the Scriptures, vegardine the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son. But the assumption is mtirely j;ratuttou«, adopted solely with a view to meet the pressing exigency before us. It is a pure fallacv — a mere logical artifice ; and yet without it, the Trinitarian ground could not be maintained one moment. It is assumed that Christ 'aad two natures — one Divine and the other human : — that he was perfect God and perfect man mysteriously combined. And then it is thought, that the force of the direct statements which teach his subordination, is turned aside by asserting, that such things were affirmed of, and by, our Lord, in refer- ence to his human nature only. This is a mournful way of dealing with the obvious teachings of the Word of God. That it meets with so general a reception, affords lamentable proof of the- readiness of men to adopt any method of explanation, which will enable them to cling to their favorite notions. Again we say, this distinction of two natures in Christ is a mere gratuitous assumption, adopted to meet the emergency of the case. Such a distinction is nowhere made in the Bible. Nowhere it is said, " This is spoken of, or by, Christ, in reference to his human nature," or, " This in reference to his Divine nature." We look in vain for the statement of such a doctrine as that of the " two natures," in the Soiiptures. Nowhere is it said in the sacred records, that " our Saviour had two natures." Such an expression is not to be found from the beginning of Genesis to the ena of Revelation. Well hath it been styled " a mere human inven- iion, to bolster up a human error." iii j'il In thus stating with such great plainness our opinion concerning the common doctrine of the two natures in Christ, we are not insen- sible to the fiict, that to many minds, some of our expressions may ap- pear abrupt, unauthorized, and dogmatical. We make free cc nfession that we have not endeavoured to trim, or soften, or smooth our phrase in this matter. Vie believe the theory of the two natures to bo falla- cious, and we have ventured to say so very plainly. Wo have styled it a mere assump.ion, because it directly rests upon a mere assump- tion. It is high time that people should look to this — it is high time that the attention of the inquirer should be fairly directed to it ; for on it really depends for support, the doctrine of the Trinity. If this prop be unsound, the whole structure of the tri-une theory of the Godhead must topple and fall. And it is unsound. We pray the reader's calm and candid atten- tion for a few minutes. Let us look at the mode of proof, by which it is sought to be established. Two Scripture phrases (or classes of phrases) are produced, in one of which it i"" said Christ's Supremo Deity is taught, and in the other, his subordinate nature. Both, it is urged, must be admitted in the sense attached to them, and from this it is urged that Christ had two natures. The theory thus constructed, is then employed to defend the doctrine of Christ's supremacy, against the overwhelming evidence of Scripture, teaching hb subor- dination, which can be arrayed against it. Now, we ask the candid and discriminating reader to mark the fallacy. Is it not plain, that, in the Brst instavice, in constructing the theory of the two natures, the real point in controversy, (Christ's Supreme Deity) is gratui- tously assumed, or taken for granted, without proof? And then the theory thus fallaciously constructed, is employed to protect the very doctrine which was gratuitously assumed for the purpose of construct- ing it. Is not the fallacy obvious 1 We ask the reader to consider this point carefully. Christ's Supreme Deity must be satisfactorilr proved before the doctrine of the two natures can be established. And this just brings us back to the primary question. We say, then, without any hesitation, that it is impossible to con- struct the theory of the two natures, without resorting to the fallacy of " begging the question." or assuming that to be true, which is the very point in dispute. Nothing short of a distinct Scriptural state- ment could warrant its adoption by the Scriptural Christian. And this, as we have already said, is nowhere to be found. There is great danger to be apprehended from the admission of gratuitous assumptions into the interpretation of Scripture. With such a liberty, men might prove almost any thing from the sacred volume, and find means to evade the force of any argument, however cogent and precise. Let us illustrate by an example. Christianity is universally held to be a religion of peace ; our Saviour inculcated peaceful principles ; his own life corresponded with his procejtts, — it was eminently peaceful ; "peace on earth" was (he strain which ush- ered him intt> the world, and " peace" was the legacy he bequeathed to his disciples on his departure from it. But suppose a sect should arise, claiming to be his followers, who should assert that Christianity was a warfarhig religion ; that, in fact, it was a Christian duty to prosecute war far and wide ; and this, not merely defensive war, but aggressive war, — a war which should load them to invade unoflF^nd- ing and defenceless foreign nations, murder their people, destroy their property, .nnd desolate their homes. Suppose we were to enter on an argument with such persons, in order to shew them how utterly opposite their views of Christianity were to the whole teach- ing and spirit of the religion as represented in the New Testament, and; in doing so, we should cite passage after passage aifording the '■' i - ' jmu 'iti 26 okiu'est pre«f that Christ was a teacher of peaoe. Sanpose all thU dope ; And our warfariog ChrUtiaos abould reply.—." All yoa have «rsed we fullj adrnit; but it does not affect the question at iaaue. The pusaiJ'ges you cite have reference merely to Chrii>t in his charac- ter as apMcemakot't but do not bear against his character as a loar- finr«r, Uemember how he said, ' I came not to send peace but a sword.* and again, 'He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.* You do not seem to understand that he is to be viewed in two distinct lights; you do not seem to apprehend that he was both a peacemaker and a warfarer." To this very strange reply we should naturally answer, — " Your distinction of two characters in Christ is a pure assumption, — it has no proper foundation ; and we put it to you» as candid and conscientious people, will you avail yourselves of such an artifice to maintain your position, and to evade the prevalent teaching of the Scripture against you." We are then met by the rejoinder, that it is necessary to make the assumption of the two- fold character of our Lord, in order to interpret such a passage as that wherein ho says he " came to send a sword," in harmony with that other teachings of the Scriptures concerning him. Now the analogy is obvious between this case and that which is more particularly under review. In both cases, the general teaching of Scripture is plain, powerful, precise, and not to be misunderstood ; but, in both cases, there are a few texts to be found which clash, apparently, with the general teaching. Rightly understood, they will be found to involve no contradiction. It is our business, then to endeavour to understand them, and to discover how they may be interpreted in harmony with tlie current language and general tenor of Scripture. We are not at liberty to make gratuitous assumptiona to suit our own purposes, and to save some favorite doctrinal tneory from being overthrown. Common sense revolts at the assumption, which would unitu two characters in Christ so entirely incompatible as those of a perfect peacemaker and a bloody warfarer. And surely the a^umption is not less unreasonable and impossible, which would combine in one and the same person the attributes of tho Supreme God and the qualities of a mortal man. It is to assume that the mind of that person is at once created and uncreated, finite and infinite,— than which no greater contradiction can be supposed or asserted. But even this assumption of two naturen in our Lord cannot be made to cover all the circumstances of the case, and protect the thecry of Christ's Supreme Deity from the difficulties which press upon it from the plain statements of Scripture. Those statements not only deny the supremacy of the Son, but they affirm the sole supremacy of the Fatlicr. In thus making cxpre s affirmation of tho Supreme Deity of the Father only, tiiey obviously exclude the Sijprerae Deity of the Son in any and every sense. Let us advert to what Christ says of the time of his coming to judgment : — " Of that day and hour knowcth no man, no, not tho angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matth. xxiv. 30.) In the parallel passage m Mark ^xiii. 32), it is thus written : ~"Of that day and that hour knowcth no man, no, nut the angels who arc in heavon,neither the Son, but the Father." In these passages it is evident that our Saviour disavows knowledge of the event referred to, in every s-arge against the theory under notice. But no such intr> mation ever w.ts given. We feel bound, therefore, in vindication of the integrity and consistency of our Lord Jesus Christ, to bear solemn testimony against so dangerous and so groundless an assump- tion. What ! shall be said of him ** in whose mouth guile was never found," that he explicitly disowned knowledge of the time of aa event, when in reality he was in full possession of that knowledge T Remember the answer he gave to the mother, who came to him re- questing for her sons certam places of dignity in his kingdom. His reply was, — " To sit on my right hand and on my left t« not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." (Matt. xx. 23.) Shall it be said, we ask again, of him who knew no deceit, that he positively disclaimed all power to confer a certain privilege, when in reality that power was fully his ? Sup- pose any of us were to go to a coventor or this Province, and apply to him for a certain office ; and suppose he were to say plainly, and without any explanation, that that office was not in his power to frant, — that the sovereign of Britain kept its bestowal in his own ands. What would be our inference ? Surely it would be that the governor had it not in his power to bestow the office. And if any one claiming to be tho go vei*nor's especial friend, should afterwards seek to draw a line of distinction between his personal and his official capacity, and say that he really had the power, and that his denial of it was only to be understood in reference to one of his two capa- cities, — in such a case, would not every right-minded man regard the denial in the light of a wretched equivocation ? Now, shidl we be bold enough to place our Saviour in a similar position, by saying that he really bad the power to confer the dignity on Zeoedee's sons, while be positively and unqualifiedly disclaimed it? We honour Christ too well to impute any such equivocation to him. We rever- ence him too hi<;hly to suppose that he would employ language so calculated to mislead those whom he immediately addressed, and so calculated to mislead every simple-minded reader of the Bible. Our opinion of the Saviour is this : — that whenever he spoke, he meant just what he said, — without the slightest approach to equivocation,— without any mental reservation whatsoever. It is of great importance that we should look closely to this theory of the two natures in Christ. It mak(s our Lord a shifting image, instead of a distinct reality. It throws a cloud of obscurity about him, who was the brightness of the Father's glory. According to it, he is now one thing, and then another ; and thus we are prevented from gaining any clear and definite perceptions of his person or his character. Nothing has ever surprised us more, than to mark with what unsuspecting confidence the Trinitarian controverualist glidek from the one " nature" of Christ to the other, just as he finds it con- venient for his argument. It is but seldom he thinks it necessary to attempt any proof of the " two natures." Yet, without its aid, ho could not even pretend to withstand the Scriptural arguments brought \i '^ VI \- 'i'^T k 2» (ffat^, Pa^ 17.) TABLE EXHIBITING AT ONE VIEW THE NUMBER 0» INSTANCES IN THE SEVERAL ROOKS OF TffS KRW. TESTAMENT, IN WHlCH THE APPELLATION QOD. IS APPLIED TO TUE ALMIGHTY, AND TO BJS SON JESUS CHRIST. AOOOBDINO TO THS ADTHOBIZBD VERSIOIf, THB WOBD flrOU IS AFPLIBD. In the following Books. To a Being distinct from Chrbt. To Chrbt himself. • To Divino Messengersor toMagbtrates As an epithet of strength or excellence. . In the singu- lar or plur. to Idob or Hea- then Deities. Itfatthew... Times. 65 Times. 1 Times. Times. Times. Mark 62 Luke 124 & 1».... 1 or.. John ........ 81 St Is.... 166 & 2s.... 160 &; 1«.... 100 & 1».... lal...) 1 2 pr.. J 1 «.... ) 2 * /" Acts 8 Ronans..... 1 1 Corin 3...... 2 2 Corin 74 1 Galatians ... 31 1 Ephes Philipp Coloss 32 22 1 22 1 Thess 37 & 1».... 1 2 Thess 18 1 1 Tim 21 1 ah .••# 2 Tim 14 & 1».... Titus 12 or 13... 2 Philemon... Hebrews... 70 & 1«.... 17 1 James 1 Peter 39 St Is.... 2 Peter 6 or 7 62 or 63... 4 1 John ( 1 «.... \ 1 at... ) 2 John 3 John 2 1 Jude ... .. 6 i Re vela 98 1 Total 1326 13* 3t 1 6t 1311 .■« ]E3* Marks. — «. denotes supplied ; pr. probably ; al, alleged ; am. ambiguoualy. •Matt. i. 23. John i. I ; X. 33; XX. 28. Acts vii. 59; xx. 38. Rom. ix.'l. I Tim. ui. 16. Titu8 ii. 13. Heb. i. 8. 2 Peter i. 1. 1 John iii. 10; v. SO. f John x. 34 35. 2 Thus. ii. 4. I Luke ii. 40. Rom. i. 16. 1 Cor. i. 18. 24.2. I Thess. ir. 16.— There are probably several other instances in which the word God is used in the Chris- tian Scriptures as an epithet denoting intensity, power, or excellence. I Acts vii. 40 43 ; xii. 22; siv. II ; xvii. I8,2>: xix,26; xxviii. 6. 1. Cor. vili. fti. SCor.iv.,4. Oal. iv,8. PhU.U;. 1». ■■>'.'^^p?!7 ,.'^': ■::■ '■*"• r-,' . ' V „ . ■,'.;, .r-, :'vy:('^ ,;f_.^.^ feS^- 'I'.'f*? ^t :a* ■''*"r4';i ^^^^■' m f^'':$i .•fi' WORKS BY UNITARIAN WRITERS, X-ff^COli^ L^J^lXaUti^ ,11' iiii; ii(j()Ksr()iti;.s or JOHN McrOY.Iimil Suiiil JiiiiU's Slnrl.aiid (MiKYSON, N(». 21. S:iiii! Fnmi'ois Xmicr Sliret. t'lianiiiiiu's (.•oiiiiilctc Works, - vols. Clwuiiiin^'s Mniioir, •_• vols., /■. Ikm]) oditioii.) •'Such a iiinii us Dr. ' ■||al^liIl!.^■■ Sii.ys I jo Motlimlist <2ii;irtorl.v Uoviow, "must liiiM' sttiml ii'.iiifstii'iillv in aihiiiKM," ut' Iiis a,n<', wlitMii'Vor iiiiil wliiTcvcr lie liail livi'd. He lived iiccdr'Hnu,' tu tliu soiisi; tit' tl. .' prcsont pciicratinii, iit l(■a^l, ill (lie best ii<;e of tlic world, ami vet lio was far in front of it: if it reaches liis radi.iiit position in two ceiitnrifs, the sii,ni.s of Ihe times are ct;rtaiiilv iriiite iiiusivi;." Dewey's eoiiij)lete Works and Illustrations of Unitarianisni Wil.sou's Scripture Vic Kniilisli edition, in nuislin. Wilson's Sefii)tur(j Pruot's, &c. — 1st part, American editi in paper eovor. Feabody's (A. P.) Lertiiivs on Christian Doctrine. J. tScott Porter's Lectures on I'liitarianisiu. liartol's Discoui'ses on ilio ClnLstian Spii'it and LIf'H Bullinch's Connnunion Thou^^Iits. Furness' Domestic Wovsitip. Brooks" Family Prayers. EVabody's (W. B. <).) Mt^moir and Sermons \Varo ou tlio Christian (Jliaractor. GiiFord's Remonstrance. Worcester on the Atonement. liivermoru's ComnnMitary on the Four (iospels. — .\LS0, — on. An assortment of the Tracts of the Americna T^niravian Association, includliio-. '• Jolin Milton's Last Tlimmhts on thu Ti'lnitv," ••' C'liannin!j;'s IJalti more sermon on the distinonisl ing opinions of Fuitavians." &c. &c. : all calculated to i lus- frato the Doctrines and Spirit of L'nitarian Christianitv