What does this make short of two persons? contrary to their hypothesis.*

In a late publication on the subject, we have seen the following extraordinary passage; which, however, we should not have noticed, did it not contain a doctrine, advocated by certain divines in this vicinity.

"Christ is properly a complex person. He has a distinct human personality-and a distinct divine personality—and yet so united as to make a complex person.'

This is indeed an improvement in theology. All the orthodox divines in Europe we have ever read, or whose sentiment on this point we have seen stated, have uniformly denied Christ to be a human personality. Shy of falling into an obvious contradiction in terms, they have contented themselves with saying, "Two distinct natures in one person only, and that person in the divine nature." It may not indeed be the case, but we very much question whether it be not, in fact, a doctrine entirely new. We certainly never heard of the doctrine before.

A distinct human person, and a distinct divine person, making, when added together, a complex person, in the singular number! Two infinitely diverse persons make but one person, though each is distinct from the other!-That two distinct things should be confounded into one, even while they are distinct, is carrying mystery into the superlative degree !!! Why may we not still improve, and say, that a distinct human nature, and a distinct divine nature make, when added, one complex nature? Who can deny this logic upon the premises above?

But is not a distinct human personality with a distinct human nature, a distinct human being? And is not a distinct divine personality with a distinct divine nature, a distinct divine Being! It cannot be gainsayed. Here then, we have two distinct and infinitely diverfe beings, constituting ONE AND THE SAME BEING; to wit, THE INFINITE GOD!!!

* Alexander p. 57.

SECTION II.

THE scriptures represent Christ SOME OTHER than the Supreme God, and INFERIOR to him, in the same terms and manner that they do prophets, apostles and others; and this without suggesting, that he possesses, at the same time, a superior divine nature.

1. He is styled the SON of God. This title is so generally applied to him, that, it is unnecessary to produce any particular instances. And whatever be the meaning of the phrase, only begotten, sometimes used in connexion, it is plain, that it does not intend to deny him to be a Son. The term, Son, implies derivation of existence. This idea is inseparable from the prime meaning of the word. It is the very first thought, which strikes the mind when the term is mentioned.

The term, Son, implies also, that the being, thus denominaied, began to exist, and is not so old as the Father, who begat him. It is impossible for the human mind to think of a SON ETERNAL; or that, as is the age of him who begat, so is the age of him who is begotten by him.

The term Son implies, further, that the being, who is thus styled, is dependent for his existence upon the Father who begat. It is not in the ability of any one to consider, that the Son is, in the matter of existence, as independent of the Father, as the Father is independent, in this respect, of the Son.

Moreover, the term, Son, denotes distinction of being from the Father. No one can think of a Father and a Son, and yet imagine, that there is but one individual being, any more than that the cause is the effect, and the effect is the cause.

These considerations, to wit, derivation, beginning of existence, inferiority of age, dependence upon the Father, and distinction of being from him, go into the very idea of

Son. And this term, being applied to Christ in its literal sense, declares him not the supreme, eternal, underived, and independent God.

But, say our opponents, the term, Son, plainly implies, that he is of the SAME NATURE with the Father; and, as the nature of the Father is divine, this must also be the nature of the Son.

We know indeed, that whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh. But the Son of Power, is only the effect of a cause, and may be inferior in its nature. Will our opponents pretend, that the Son of God, as such, was begotten or generated after the manner of the flesh! Let us, therefore, go away from human generation, when we speak of an entirely different affair. Did God beget after the manner of men, it would indeed follow, that the Son is of similar nature, that is, divine. This however, is not the case. Still, That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It has the powers and properties of rational intelligence, but not to the same degree, as the spirit which begets. Angels, who are styled the Sons of God, are intelligent, moral, and spiritual beings, like their eternal Father. But, though not Sons after the manner of the flesh, yet, all the considerations we have mentioned, to wit, derivation, beginning of existence, inferiority of age, dependence upon the Father, distinction of being from him, go into the idea of their being the Sons of God. Adam was the Son of God, strictly and literally so. Was he of the same nature with the Father, who begat him? He was of the same nature only in the sense, which has been suggested concerning the Angels; and all the considerations, above mentioned, go into the idea of his being the Son of God. Christ is the Son of God, in every sense in which man, or angel is so. To consider him a Son, not in this sense, but in a sense wholly different, is to charge divine inspiration with having represented him under a term, calculated to impose upon our understandings. For, leave out the idea of derivation, inferiority of age, dependence upon the Father, beginning of existence, distinction of being from him, and what meaning have we to the word Son of God? We know, that, unless taken

in a moral and figurative sense, or as a name for the Messiah, no meaning whatever would remain. Since, therefore, divine wisdom does not use "words without knowledge," we conclude with assurance, that the Son of God is not the underived, eternal, independent Being.

We might further add, seeing some consider the phrase, Son of God, to designate him the supreme and independent God, that, were it implied in the term Son, that he is of the same nature, it would not follow that he is numerically the same being. The Son after the flesh, though of similar or like nature, is never the identical being that begat him. In number, the Father and the Son are always two beings. If each be a supreme and independent God, then there are two supreme and independent Gods.

2. Christ is styled MAN, in innumerable instances. Yea, he is thus styled in connexion with the one only living and true God. To us there is but one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.* The term, man, invariably denotes, when used for an individual, a finite dependent being, limited in all his capacities, and subject to mortality. It is a term, by which every one, to whom it is applied, is supposed to be a distinct being from God, and dependent upon him for all things. A term therefore which declares the dependence of Christ in the same manner, as, the dependence of every individual of the human race is declared.

But was he not incarnate by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost? Born of a Virgin without an earthly father? And does not his miraculous conception afford evidence, that he was not a man as other men are ?

The miraculous conception was only a mode of his becoming a man; and does not render him a different order of being. It matters not how any one becomes a man, if he really be a man. This simple idea of man takes into consideration only the qualities and properties of mankind, as a peculiar order of existence. It has nothing to do with the manner of their formation, or introduction to their present state. It by no means implies,

*I Tim. ii. 5.

that the person, styled man, was born in the common way of generation. Adam was as completely a man, as any of his posterity: Yet he was not conceived in the common mode. The proper definition of a man is, a distinct personal being, constituted by a rational spirit, so united to a human body that they mutually influence each other. Wherever we see such a being, we see a man. It matters not how he became such. This is what he actually is at present. Whether he were conceived miraculously; or in the ordinary method; or formed without any conception at all; still he is a man. He is a distinct personal being, constituted by an intelligent spir, it, so united to a human body, that they mutually influ ence each other. Nor does it matter any thing, as to what he now is, whether his body were formed before his spirit, or his spirit before his body; whether he were once a mere animal nature; or whether merely an intelligent spirit. The question is, not what he once was, or how he came to be in the present situation; but What is he now? And this question is answered, by a consid. eration of his properties, qualities, or description. If his qualities, properties, or description be those of a man, then he is a man, whatever he may have been formerly, or however he became what he is at present. The present properties only are to be considered, in determining what any thing now is. In order to determine one to be a man, we no more take into consideration any thing previous to what is now seen, than we do any thing subsequent. Mankind, we are informed, are to live hereafter, with souls and bodies united. This is in the creed of every christian. But suppose revelation should inform us, that President Jefferson, who is now unques. tionably a man, will, hereafter, be a pure, etherial, disembodied spirit, and be exalted into the rank and order of Cherubim or Seraphim; would this distant circumstance render him a Cherubim or a Seraphim now? Would any philosophical connoisseur in the distinct orders and grades of being, when he comes to analyze our President, bring in his verdict, that he is a nondescript upon the earth? Would he not rather decide, that he is

U