tion: "the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."* The strictest assertors of the divinity of Christ, acknowledge him to be a derived being. Now, the primary and fundamental idea, which we annex to the word God, is, that he is himself underived, and the cause of every thing that exists. How then can that person be the Supreme God, who is the Son of God; who has derived his existence from him; who confesses, that to him he owes the power and wisdom, with which he was endued; and who did not think it inconsistent with his dignity, to pray to his Father and his God, with the humblest supplication! This alone seems to be a sufficient acknowledgment of inferiority and dependance: for how great soever may have been his power and wisdom, yet, as they were derived, he could not be the underived and self-existent cause of all.

If the Son and Holy Spirit be generated, or proceed, or be in any way derived from the Father, as is admitted, they cannot be self-existent, eternal or independent: yet these are essential attributes of the Supreme God. If they be defective in any of the perfections essential to the Almighty, they cannot be joint partakers with him of the Divine essence. If, as is allowed, they be,

* Luke i. 35.

in any respect, inferior to the Father, and these three persons form but one, indivisible God, God must be inferior to himself.

Those passages, which seem to speak of an union of essence between the Father and the Son, are, in my opinion, sufficiently explained by our Lord himself to mean only harmony of design, and co-operation. When two are said to be one, the unity and duality must be understood in different respects; as unity in affection, concord or design, and duality in number and essence; for considered as referring to number only, the proposition is contradictory. Paul says, "I have planted; Apollos watereth: now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one:" but no one conceives, that Paul and Apollos constituted but one man. One would think, that men might be glad to acquiesce in these explanations, were it only to escape the alternative of supposing, either that the Father Almighty suffered on the cross; or that no Being superior to man, suffered at all: for, if the divine nature of Christ suffered, the undivided Trinity must have suffered, and consequently the Almighty: and this shocking heresy was actually maintained by some; though now, I trust, universally exploded and disclaimed. If, on the other hand, the Divine nature did not suffer then, the Messiah, being an undivided and indivisible portion of the godhead, did not suffer, except in a human capacity. Accordingly Trini

tarians and Humanitarians, apparently so opposite, agree in this, that it was only a man, or the human nature of Christ, that was subjected to the indignities and pains, which he endured. How this extraordinary co-incidence between hostile sects, on such important points, including the merits, satisfaction and atonement of Christ, can be accounted for, and reconciled with Scripture, it is not my province, nor within my ability, to explain.*

The intermediate scheme, commonly called the Arian, appears to me, to avoid all these difficulties, and to have none of its own, except such as must attach to any supernatural interposition. It accords with the highest descriptions given of the Messiah, without confounding him with the Almighty; and there is no perplexity about three persons in one indivisible God; two natures, two wills and two intelligent principles in one person, nor any inconsistency with those parts of the Divine word, which assign an exalted, preexistent dignity to our Saviour.

It is easy, on this supposition, to understand, that Christ came down from heaven; but the Almighty could not come down from heaven, because he is omnipresent: nor could a mere man come down from heaven, because he was never there. It is also very intelligible, that Christ divested himself of certain properties or privileges, incompatible with his new undertaking;

and, "though he was rich, became poor:" but the Almighty can not become poor, or divest himself of any attribute, because he is immutable; nor a mortal man, because he was not in possession of any prior dignity or riches.

The soul of Christ, if we may so speak, animated the body of Jesus. In this there is no. thing to stagger our belief. We believe, that our bodies are inhabited by a spiritual being, called the soul; but of the origin of this animating principle, we know no more than we do of the spirit of Christ; not even whether it was pre-existent or not. Although we conceive, that all human souls are of the same species, yet they surely are endowed with very different qualities and powers. A spirit, therefore, of superior excellence, may, if it be the will of God, occupy a human body; as we are assured, that Angels have done. In this case, although his nature would be as simple as that of any human creature, he might be considered in two lights, and spoken of by two appellations. With reference to his spiritual nature and former state, he might be styled an Angel; with respect to his human form, he might be called a Man. Christ may, accordingly, be denominated both God and Man; as we may say, that a Man is mortal, or immortal, with reference to his body or his soul.

It is easy to see, that he may be occasionally entitled a Man: for what do we mean by the

term man?

We mean only a human body, inhabited by a rational soul. The origin, or peculiar properties of that soul, excepting reason, does not come within our consideration. Jesus, therefore, conformed in every thing to the definition. By what other name could he be distinguished? When Paul preached to the Areopa gites, by what other title could he describe our Lord, than that of a man? How would he have distracted the minds of the Stoics and Epicureans, and diverted them from the main purport of his discourse, had he entered upon such a discussion, as occupies us at present? The same observation will apply to every other case, in which the term is used; and, accordingly, the translators of the Bible, though they believed in the Deity of Christ, make no scruple of introducing the word man, even when it is not to be found in the ori ginal. This is always the case, when a word is printed in italic characters. Agreeably to what I have said, the use of the term Man is not confined to our Lord; but is applied, in Scriptural language, to other supernatural beings, who appeared in a human form: thus the Angel, who wrestled with Jacob, is called a Man; as are also the three Angels, that appeared to Abraham; the Angel whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace, and those, who were seen by Joshua and Manoah. Daniel also calls Gabriel a Man. In like manner, in the New Testament, the young