Isaac, and of Jacob, then he is the Son of himself, and has glorified himself by giving power to his own name. Why then did not the Apostles say plainly to the Jews, "Jesus Christ, whom ye crucified, is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and hath impowered us to work this miracle ?" Did the Apostles prudently conceal this fact, knowing that they were unable to receive it? How could this be, if, as some erroneously allege, the Jews expected the God of heaven for their Messiah? The truth is, the Apostles did not believe in any such doctrine. They knew, that Christ, instead of being the God of their Fathers, was merely his Son. They knew, also, that they wrought miracles in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, as in the name of one, whom the God of their fathers had glorified with exalted powers, and made head over all things to the church. This is the explanation, which they give. It is the true doctrine on the subject. Jesus Christ, therefore, was not that personage, who appeared to the patriarchs, under the style of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.

SECTION XIV.

A CONSIDERATION of two very popular objections shall close this part of our work.

1. Is it not said Cursed be man, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm?* If Christ be not the supreme God, how is it that, in putting our trust in him, we do not come under the curse?

THE passage, quoted above, designates those only, who make not the Lord Jehovah their supreme trust, but place it entirely on their fellow creatures. Hence the

passage adds, by way of explanation, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. But, trusting in Christ, our heart departeth not from the Lord, but obeyeth the voice of the Lord, who has said, Behold MY SERVANT whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth, he shall shew forth judgment unto victory, and IN HIS NAME SHALL THE GENTILES TRUST, You will observe that we are commanded to behold and to trust in Christ, as God's servant. We cannot discharge our duty, without paying attention to the divine injunction, God hath set forth Christ to be the propitiation of our sins. He has appointed him to be the Saviour and Redeemer, the means through whom he effects our de-` liverance from death. Shall we refuse to trust in the means, which God has prescribed? Or shall we plead that the above curse exempts from the duty, in him shall the Gentiles trust?

The Israelites trusted in Moses to deliver them from Egyptian bondage; which was typical of our deliverance from sin by the Prophet, who, though like unto Moses, was far greater than he. But did the Israelites come within the curse for so doing? Or was it considered that their heart departed from the Lord? On the

• Jerem, xvii. 5.

contrary, did not their heart depart from the Lord, and were they not cursed, when they refused to acknowledge the standing of Moses, and would not put that confidence in him, as their Saviour and Redeemer, which the Lord had enjoined? He that receiveth you, says Christ to his apostles, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.* And he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.† To trust in him, whom God has appointed, is the same as to trust in God himself. Such an one is trusted in upon no other principle than his being divinely commissioned, and, therefore, the trust is ultimately in that God who commissioned him.

2. WHAT atonement can there be, if Christ be not verily the Supreme God? Is not sin an infinite evil? And who, besides an infinite Being, can expiate sin?

Sin, Paul observes, appears by the commandment to be exceedingly sinful. But where do the scriptures say, that it requires an infinite Being to declare the righteousness of God, that he might be just and the justifier of the ungodly, who believeth? It is not good to be wise above what is written. Though it be common to hear it said by our divines, that none but an infinite Being can make atonement for sin, yet you will find no declaration of this kind in the scriptures, if you search your bible throughout. It is possible, that the scheme of atonement deemed inseparably connected with the Deity of Christ, is as erroneous as their doctrine concerning his person. have no doubt but it is really the case. Be this however as it may, though we were not able to ascertain in what the ground of atonement consists, and though we could not see how what Christ has done becomes efficacious, it is nothing essential one way or the other. Sufficient, that we know there is that done by Christ, which lays a foundation for the pardon of those, who trust in the mercy of God through his name. Shall we limit the power and wisdom of the Almighty? Is it not easy for Him to save by few as by many? Where is the man, who

*Matt. x. 40.-—† Luke x. 16.

We

can look through all the reasons of divine appointments? Or calculate with exactness, their extensive influence in the moral system? These reasons are not always seen by his short sighted creatures.

Respecting the ground of atonement by Christ, the greatest and best divines very much differ. With multi, tudes it is entirely a matter of doubt; a subject by no means settled in their minds. It cannot therefore be essential, that it be fully understood. Nor is it modest in any man to say, that there could be no ground of atonement, unless Christ were the infinite God; seeing the scripture makes no such declaration.

Did the supposed divine nature become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? Did divinity itself suffer? Our opponents do not pretend it. This is true on ly of the man Christ Jesus. Whatever virtue in his obedience unto death, must therefore be the virtue of the man Christ Jesus only.

BUT, say our opponents, the union of divinity to the humanity conferred an infinite dignity upon the sufferings of the human nature, and rendered them infinitely precious, so as to amount, in effect, to the eternal sufferings of the whole human race. Thus Christ satisfied the demands of justice, in the room and stead of our apostate

world.

THE doctrine that the union of the divinity to humanity conferred an infinite dignity upon the sufferings of the human nature, is only an imagination of their own brain; for the scriptures say nothing of this absurdity. They say nothing of the virtue of his sufferings being enhanced by any such connexion. If the union of Deity to humanity rendered the humanity any thing different from mere humanity; if it raised it beyond its natural dignity to the dignity of God; why may we not conclude, that it rendered it impossible, incapable of suffering? This, in the days of the apostles, was the conclusion of certain metaphysical reasoners. And it may be as well inferred, from the consideration of the union of Deity to humanity,

that Christ must have been impassible, as that the sufferings of the man Christ Jesus were infinitely more than human sufferings.

But was the humanity of Christ really any thing more than bare humanity? Did it become converted into any angelic or divine nature? Something different from what it is declared and supposed to be? It will not be pretended. Its dignity, therefore, was human dignity only, and not divine dignity. Its sufferings were human sufferings only, and not divine sufferings. What then becomes of the doctrine, that Christ suffered, in the room and stead of sinners, that, which was equivalent to the eternal damnation of the whole human race!

It was, say our opponents, a divine person, who suffered; and therefore these sufferings were precious, in proportion to the dignity of the personage suffering.They will have it that it was GOD, who died on the

cross.

That Christ was really the infinite God, is a doctrine not known in the scriptures. Besides, may we not turn the tables and say, that God's hungering and thirsting, in the human nature, after earthly food, was infinitely derogatory from the dignity of the divine nature, as to affirm, that God's suffering on the cross, in the human nature, conferred an infinite dignity upon that, and rendered its sufferings inconceivably more precious, than merely human sufferings? Sufferings surely denote great weakness, want of strength, and dignity of nature. And, since the infinite God suffered, he must be very weak, impotent, and devoid of dignity.

Do our opponents dislike this representation? Will they say that these things are true only of the human nature, the man Christ Jesus? Then let them not confound things, which they themselves distinguish. Let them acknowledge, that the sufferings of the man Christ Jesus were clothed with no other than merely human dignity; and were no more precious than merely human sufferings. Let them look out for some more scriptural and rational doctrine of atonement: For there is, clearly, no more