"The Father loveth the Son, and HATH GIVEN all things into his hand." John iii. 35.

"As the Father hath life in himself, so HATH HE GIVEN to the Son also to have life in himself." John v. 26.

"The works which the Father HATH GIVEN ME TO PERFORM [i. e. hath enabled me to perform] these works which I do, testify of me, that the Father hath SENT me." John v.

36.

"As the living Father sent me, and I LIVE BY THE FATHER, &c. John vi. 57.

"I speak not from myself, but the Father who sent me hath given me commandment what I should enjoin, and what I should teach. * * * Whatsoever therefore I speak, I speak it according to the commandment which the Father hath given me." John xii. 49, 50.

"The doctrine which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." John xiv. 24.

"If I perform not the works of my Father, believe me not."

John x. 37.

"The words which I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John xiv. 10.

"THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but only what he seeth his Father do." John v. 19.

"When ye have set the Son of man on high [i. e. crucified him] then will ye know that I am HE [i. e. the Messiah] and Fathat I do nothing of myself; but speak these things as my ther hath taught me ; and that he who sent me is with me." John viii. 28, 29.

We do not multiply passages, because they must be familiar to every one. From the declarations of our Saviour, it ap pears that he constantly referred the divine power manifested in his miracles, and the divine inspiration by which he spake, to the Father, and not to any other divine person such as Trinitarians suppose. According to their hypothesis, it was the divine power and wisdom of the Son, which were displayed in Jesus; to him therefore should the miracles and doctrine of Jesus have been referred; which they never are. No mention of such a divine person appears in his discourses. But of him. self, as the Son of God, he speaks, as of a being perfectly dis tinct from, and entirely dependent upon bis Father and our Father, his God, and our God. These declarations appear to us decisive of the controversy. We think that every other ar gument might be laid aside.

III. But in the third place, we do not believe the doctrine, that Christ is God, because it is opposed to the whole tenor of scripture, and all the facts in the history of Christ. Though conceived by a miracle, he was born into the world as other men are, and such as other men are. He did not come, as some of the Jews imagined their Messian would come, no man knew whence. He was a helpless infant. Will you, at the present day, shock our feelings and understanding to the uttermost, by telling us, that Almighty God was incarnate in this infant, and wrapped in swaddling clothes?† He grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men. Read over his history in the evangelists, and ask yourselves if you are not reading the history of a man; though of one indeed to whom God had given his spirit without measure, of one whom he had entrusted with miraculous powers, and constituted a messenger of the most important truth. He appears with all the attributes of humanity. He discovers human affections. He is moved even to tears at the grave of his friend Lazarus. He mourns over the calamities about to overwhelm his country. While enduring the agony of crucifixion, he discovers the strength of his filial affection, and consigns his mother to the care of the disciple whom he loved. He was sometimes excited to indignation, and his soul was sometimes troubled by the sufferings which he endured, and which he anticipated. "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause, came I unto this hour." Devotion is the virtue of a created and dependent being. But our Saviour has left us not less an example of piety than of benevolence. His expressions of dependence upon his Father, and upon our Father, are the most absolute and unequivocal. He felt the common wants of our nature, hunger, and thirst and weariness. He was in an agony, and an angel was sent to strengthen him. He suffered death, the common lot of man. He endured the cross, despising the shame, and he did this for THE JOY SET BEFORE HIM. Therefore God, even

HIS

*"We know whence this man is; whereas when the Christ [the Messiah] cometh, no one knoweth whence he is." John vii. 37.

† Dr. Watts in one of his Hymns says:

This infant is the MIGHTY GOD,

Come to be suckled and adored. B. I. h. 13.

The language is almost too horrible to be quoted.-Dr. Watts was a man of piety and of very considerable intellectual powers. Yet to this extreme point could his mind be debased by a belief of the doctrine against which we are contending.

‡ John xii. 27.

Heb. xii. 2.

GOD, hath HIGHLY EXALTED HIM. But it is useless to quote or allude to passes, which prove that Christ was a being distinct from, inferior to, and dependent upon God. You may find them on every page of the New Testament. The proof of this fact is, as we have said, imbedded and ingrained in those very passages, which are brought to support a contrary proposition. But if from your previous associations, or any other cause, it does not clearly appear to you, that those passages themselves have the character which we suppose, you have only to read a little before or a little after, to find the proof of which we speak. It is imagined, for instance, that the third verse of the first chapter of Hebrews proves that Christ is God. Read the next verse. Is it of God that it is said, "he hath been made better than, [become superior to] the angels, having ob tained by inheritance, a more excellent name than they?" And is it in reference to God, that the author goes on to prove and illustrate this assertion?

But it is useless to quote passages in proof of our statements, for another reason. All which we contend for is already con ceded by our opponents, fully and explicitly. They allow that Christ was a being distinct from, inferior to, and altogether dependent upon God; for they allow, and even contend, that he was a man. "If the evidence," we are told by Professor Stuart, "be not overwhelming, that Christ was perfectly man; I cannot conceive it possible, that any point in theology, or morals, is capable of being established." "If this be not a fact, I cannot help believing, that we must forever abandon the hope of acquiring the ideas, which the writers of the New Testament design to convey, in any case whatever." If this be a fact, then the only question which need be examined is, whether it be possible for Christ to have been at once God and man, infinite and finite, omniscient and not omniscient, omnipotent and not omnipotent. To our minds, the propositions here supposed, are of the same character, as if one were to say, that, to be sure, astronomers have cor rectly estimated the size of the earth; but though this is true, it does notwithstanding fill infinite space. apprehensions are so narrow and imperfect, that we cannot with our best efforts perceive, that the latter proposition is more an absurdity in terms than those before implied. And we, at least, have such comfortable views of the justice of God, as not to fear that he will make us suffer for defects purely natural, or for not believing propositions, which, from the very con stitution of our minds, he has rendered it impossible that we

* Prof. Stuart's Letters, p. 132.

Our

† Ib. p. 134.

should believe. But on this subject we refer to what we have before said.

IV. But in the next place, we do not believe the doctrine in question, because it is evident from the Scriptures, that none of those effects were produced, which must necessarily have been produced by its first preaching, and subsequent communication. The apostles and disciples of our Saviour must, at some period, have considered him merely as a man. Such he was to all appearance, and such, therefore, they must have believed him to be. Before he commenced his ministry, his relations and fellow-townsmen certainly regarded him as nothing more than a man. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?"* At some particular period, the communication must have been made by our Saviour to his disciples, that he was not a mere man, but that he was, properly speaking and in the highest sense, God himself. The doctrines with which we are contending, and other doctrines of a similar character, have so obscured and confused the whole of Christianity, that even its historical facts appear to be regarded by many scarcely in the light of real occurrences. But we may carry ourselves back in imagination to the time when Christ was on earth, and place ourselves in the situation of the first believers. Let us then reflect for a moment on what would be the state of our own feelings, if some one with whom we had associated as a man, were to declare to us, that he was really God himself. If his character and works had been such as to command any attention to such an assertion, through what an agony of incredulity, and doubt, and amazement, and consternation, must the mind still pass, before it could settle down into a conviction of the truth of his declaration. And when convinced of its truth, with what unspeakable astonishment should we be overwhelmed. With what extreme awe, and entire prostration of every faculty, should we approach and contemplate such a being; if indeed man, in his present tenement of clay, could endure such intercourse with his maker. With what a strong and unrelaxing grasp would the idea seize upon our minds to the exclusion of almost every other. How continually would it be expressed in the most forcible language whenever we had occasion to speak of him. What a deep and indelible colouring would it give to every thought and sentiment, in the remotest degree connected with an agent BO mysterious and so awful. But we perceive nothing of this

* Mark, vi. 3.

state of mind in the disciples of our Saviour; but a great deal which gives evidence of a very different state of mind. You may read over the three first evangelists, and it must be by a more than ordinary exercise of ingenuity, if you discover what may pass for an argument, that either the writers, or the numerous individuals of whom they speak, regarded our Saviour as their Maker and God; or that he ever assumed this character. The same is true of a majority of the epistles. Can you believe, that if such a most extraordinary communication, as we have supposed, had ever actually been made, no particular record of its circumstances, and immediate effects, would have been preserved? that the evangelists in their accounts of their master would have omitted the most remarkable event in his history? and that three of them at least (for so much must be conceded to us) would have made no direct mention of by far the most astonishing fact in relation to his character? Read over the accounts of the conduct and conversation of his disciples with their master, and put it to your own feelings, whether they ever thought that they were conversing with their God? Read over these accounts attentively, and ask yourselves, if this supposition does not appear to you one of the most incongruous that ever entered the human mind? Take only the facts and conversation, which occurred the night before our Saviour's crucifixion, as related by St. John. Did even Judas believe that he was betraying his God? Their master washed the feet of his apostles. Did the apostles believe-but the question is too shocking to be stated in plain words. Did they then believe their master to be God, when, surprized at his taking notice of an inquiry which they wished to make, but which they had not in fact proposed,* they thus addressed him? "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things, and that there is no need for any man to question thee. By this we believe that thou camest forth from God." Could they imagine, that he, who, throughout his conversation, spoke of himself only as the minister of God, and who in their presence prayed to God, was himself the Almighty? Did they believe that it was the maker of Heaven and Earth whom they were deserting, when they left him upon his apprehension? But there is hardly a fact or conversation recorded in the history of our Saviour's ministry, which may not afford ground for such questions as we have proposed. He who maintains, that the first disciples of our Saviour did

*See John xvi. 17-19.

+ John xvi. 30.