man, who sat at the side of the sepulchre, and the two men, who were seen at the ascension, were superior beings in a human form. None of these were ever supposed to be animated by a human soul, and thus to have two souls.

This doctrine is plain and intelligible, and answers much better than any other to the texts, which assert that Christ "took on him the seed of Abraham;" ""came in the flesh;" "in the likeness of sinful flesh;" "and the word was made flesh." It makes the very same person suffer and die, who came down from heaven. The Scrip.. tures and earliest antiquity never affirm, that Christ took a human rational soul, nor a whole human nature; never say, he was, in that sense, a true and perfect man: but that "he had a body prepared for him;" "was made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man."

The instances, in which the title, God, is applied to Christ, are very rare; and are attended with no greater difficulty, than those, in which he is styled a Man. In the Hebrew tongue there are several terms, denoting, some, the Supreme Being; and others, subordinate spirits, invested with authority and power. From the poverty of our language in this respect, we are obliged to translate them all by the word God. The same deficiency exists in Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Hence arise the use of the word, God, in different senses, and the common

strict sense.
god to Pharoah.

opinion, that this term always signifies the Su-\ preme Being. But without any further reference to other languages, it will be easy to show, that in Scripture this term is not always taken in that In Exodus, Moses is appointed a "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoah, and Aaron shall be thy prophet: and thou shalt be to him instead of God." The same designation is applied to magistrates. "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." In Deuteronomy we are told, that "the Lord is God of gods, and Lord of lords;" implying that other beings are called by that name. In the original of this text, the Lord is expressed by Jehovah, and God by an inferior appellation, and the second Lord by one of still lower signification. The same expression, "God of gods," occurs in other books of Scripture. In the book of Psalms, where, in the English Bible, it is said that, "God made man a little lower than the Angels," it is in the Hebrew, "than the gods." Again, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O God." "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he judgeth among the gods;" that is, "the Judges;" and immediately after, "I have said, Ye are gods, but ye shall die like men." Again, "All the gods of the Heathens are idols." "Our Lord is above all gods." St. Paul says, "there be that are called gods, both in Heaven and in Earth, as there be gods

many and lords many." In another place, he calls Satan "the god of this world." The author of Hebrews says: "Unto the Son he saith; thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even THY GOD, hath annointed thee above thy fellows."* Though the Son is here called God, as the head of that spiritual kingdom, which is to endure "for ever and ever," he is still a Son, and subordinate to him, who is his Father and his God, who has rewarded him for his merits, and exalted him above the Angels, who, before his elevation were his fellows: but according to the popular doctrine, they never were his fellows: his only associates and equals were the Father and the Spirit: neither were they ever his fellows, on the Socinian scheme. This, I think, is sufficient to account for many phrases, that may seem to ascribe supreme divinity to Christ; since the appellation of god is so often attributed to beings of very inferior station, implying only authority and dominion.

Understanding the words in these senses, we avoid both extremes, and take the middle path pointed out by our Lord; neither degrading him to the condition of a mortal man, which is inconsistent with his own declarations; nor exalting him to that equality with his Father, which he

* Heb. i. 8, 9.

so positively disclaims. We, therefore, feel no difficulty in applying the introduction of John's Gospel to our Lord.

The institution of Baptism has been thought to countenance a combination, or partnership in the Godhead; but, in fact, the agents in the revelation of the Gospel, are here expressly spoken of as three distinct parties, and there is no allusion to their co-equality. The disciple is to be baptised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;" into that religion, which proceeded from the Grace of God Almighty; was published and taught by the Messiah, his well beloved Son; and afterwards propagated by the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable, that this form of words is not employed on any occasion, that occurs in the New Testament.* The Israelites were baptized unto Moses, or initiated into his law: but no one conceives, that he was a constituent part of the Godhead. It is also very remarkable, that the Holy Ghost is omitted in all the salutations at the commencement of the Epistles, and the benedictions, and doxologies, at the close of them: except where Paul prays for the communion of the Holy: Ghost;" that is, a participation of the gifts of the Spirit.t

This apostolic benediction, "the grace of our

* Acts. ii. 38. viii. 37. † 1 Cor. x. 2.-Newcome.

Y

Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all;"'* and those texts, in which glory is ascribed to Christ, are also thought by many to be in opposition to our sentiments; but none of these speak of identity or unity of essence in the Father and the Son: they mention them as distinct beings, to whom we owe gratitude and honour, for the blessings we enjoy by the Gospel; and Paul's expression is," to God, only wise, be glory, through Jesus Christ, for ever." Beside these, there are many passages, particularly in the Revelation, which speak of the Father and the Son, after the ascension, as distinct beings, of different degrees of dignity, and exercising separate offices, which cannot be accounted for by the human nature of Christ.

Connected with these texts is another expression, that may puzzle the unlearned. It is often said in the Gospels, that persons worshipped Christ or even fell down and worshipped him. The original word, however, implies only, that they saluted him, and did him reverence or obeisance; which in those countries was then, and is still, done by bowing, kneeling, and even prostration. Nor did our translators mean to convey any other idea; for the English word worship bore the same signification in their days. Thus,

* 2 Cor. iii. 14.