make heaven like earth, and God like themselves; or ignorant men, whose thoughts are chained down to objects of sense, as to be incapable of elevation above them, are embarrassed by such expressions, or substantially misapprehend them.

Are we not now prepared to advance one step farther? May we not say, when the Scripture speaks of the Logos, as becoming flesh and dwelling among us-of his dwelling in the bosom of the Father—of his coming from God and being sent of him-of his humbling himself, and taking upon himself the condition of a servant, and other things of a like nature,-that we are not to suppose this language is adequate to describe, fully and definitely, the incarnation of the Logos, or his distinction from, or connexion with, the Father? If I may be allowed so to express myself, It is all language of approximation. It is so of course, and necessarily, as it regards any description of the manner of these things. Language, from its very nature, must be inadequate to such description. It was not formed with such facts in view; and finite beings, with knowledge so limited as ours, may well be supposed incapable of forming it, so as to be adequate to the full and definite description of what pertains to the Divinity. It may, nevertheless, express enough to excite our highest interest, and to command our best obedience, if we feel and act as rational beings. And so much is undoubtedly accomplished in the case which has just been stated.

The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been early acknowledged, and generally regarded in practice, would have saved the world much dispute, and two classes of men, in particular, much trouble. The one of these are men who, while admitting the inadequacy of language, in other respects, fully and definitely to describe the Divinity, have taken it for granted here, that no such inadequateness was to be found, and have sought to define and distinguish, until they have overwhelmed themselves and their readers with subtilties too tenuous for comprehension. The other, hostile to the doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead, have forced upon the expressions in question a sense that was far-fetched, and which violence only could make them to speak. It seems to me, that the path of

sound reason and common sense is the medium between these two extremes. I would not do violence to the expressions in question, nor would I understand them as fully and definitely describing what does exist in God, or is done by him. I believe they are the language of approximation; that they signify something which is in God, or something that has been done by him, that corresponds to those things among men, which would be described by similar language-something of the highest interest, of the deepest moment to the welfare of the human race. And though it might gratify my curiosity, and perhaps my pride, to know something more of the divine constitution, or mode of existing and acting, yet I can have no assurance, no good reason to believe, that it would contribute at present to facilitate my duties, or increase my happiness. I certainly have no good reason to suppose, that, in the present state, I am capable of understanding such subjects, beyond what is already revealed respecting them.

Fourthly, The attentive observer cannot but notice, that whether we contemplate God in his works or in his word, we cannot fail of finding things which are beyond our comprehension or power of explanation. The book of nature and of revelation, so far as they bring to view the being, character, and designs of the self-existent and infinite God, who created and governs the world, must contain many passages of the meaning of which we can never obtain more than a general and imperfect knowledge. "We know but in part."

In offering, then, to the mind, a view of what God is. and what he has done, we do not expect (at least we cannot reasonably expect) that this view should be all light, without any shade. Admitting that the Scriptures are of divine origin and authority, the question between us and Unitarians, in respect to what is revealed about the divine Being, is not whether the view which we suppose the Bible gives, is embarrassed by no obscurities-is without a shade or whether theirs is such. The proper question is, Taking it for granted that what the Scriptures declare is true, which view, on the whole, comports best with the language of the sacred writings?—which is attended with the least embarrassment, all things considered? I well

know, that a moderate portion of sagacity will suffice to enable any one to press many questions upon Trinitarians, that are of difficult solution-many which are, in our present state, incapable of any solution. But I believe that the same degree of sagacity would enable one to raise more formidable difficulties still in the way of Unitarian senti

ments.

In expounding texts of Scripture, therefore, which relate to the present subject in dispute, I am not very solicitous to give an interpretation which shall be above all question or embarrassment, whenever it appears to me that a different or contrary exposition will be attended with still greater embarrassments.

With the preceding observations before us, let me proceed to remark on some of the New Testament representations of Christ, which have been supposed to present difficulties in regard to the views that Trinitarians defend.

Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, is, as I apprehend, ever to be regarded as that complex person who may be described as human or divine,-in like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or immortal. As Mediator, then, it may be truly said, that by his obedience he merited and obtained a high reward,-i. e. this is predicated of that nature which was capable of obeying, and of being rewarded. So God is said to have " highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name." (Phil. ii. 9— 11.) In a similar way, all power is given him in heaven, and in earth,—i. e. he is constituted "head over all things to his Church." (Matt. xxviii. 18.) Acting as such a head, "all enemies are put under his feet." (1 Cor. xv, 25-27.) And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a mediator is completed, will be resigned at the final judgment. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)

When

Of the same tenour are many passages. When God is said to be the head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), I understand it of that nature, of which this can be predicated. Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image (xagaxτng) of his person,-i. e. of him; or the only begotten of the Father, the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, &c. ;-I understand all these as de

scriptions of his mediatorial nature and station. I know, indeed, that many of these texts have been appropriated by some Trinitarians, to prove the divine nature of Christ -in my apprehension, however, injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found,— Matt. xvii. 5; John i. 14, x. 36, xiv. 10, iii. 35; Col. i. 13; Heb. i. 5; Rom. viii. 29, 32.

In Heb. v. 7—10, is a passage which has occasioned much speculation :-" Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered: And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him : Called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchisedec."

If Christ had really a human nature, what is more perfectly consonant with reason and piety, than that he should act in the manner here described; or than that he should be exalted to glory, as the reward of these actions, and be constituted the Saviour of his people?

It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in regard to John xiv. 28,-" My Father is greater (w) than I.” On examination, however, it appears not to be the object of Christ to compare his own nature with that of the Father, but his condition. "If ye loved me," said he to his weeping disciples, "ye would rejoice that I said, I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I,”—i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that "glory which I had with the Father before the world was.' You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father. So, in Hebrew, great is used for a state of prosperity, a happy state. Gen. xxvi. 13.

It is obvious here, that the whole text cannot be consistently explained, without the supposition of two natures, -the one which suffers and is depressed, in which, too, that other nature acts, that was in a state of glory with the Father before the world was,-i. e. from eternity. I cannot at all accede to the opinion of those interpreters who suppose that the glory here spoken of is only that

which the Father had decreed from eternity that Christ should have, in consequence of the promulgation of the gospel by him. The glory spoken of is not one that will result from what is to be done-it is a glory, i. e. a happiness or blessedness, which Christ had with the Father (προς τον Taτiga) before the world was. On this passage the commentary of Kuinoel may be consulted, who has defended this exposition, as it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswerable.

After all, it can be only in consequence of the peculiar union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to the Father (so far as the Logos can be said, to return) can be spoken of; and only in reference to his humiliation* that his return to glory can be expected. A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many difficulties suggested; but they all spring from construing the language literally, and not merely as language which must, from the nature of the case, be that of approximation.

Mark xiii. 32, offers serious difficulties :--" Of that day and hour knoweth no man-no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The day and hour are, according to some, the day of judgment; but, as I apprehend (from comparing the context), the day of vengeance to the Jews is meant. To solve the difficulty presented, some have objected to the reading ovde å Vos (neither the Son); but, to support this objection, there are no adequate authorities. Others, with Hilary (de Trinitate ix.), say that not to know is not to publish or declare. "Ea nescit, quæ aut in tempore non sunt confitenda, aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum.” There is no doubt that the verb yvwox (to know) sometimes has the sense of making known; but a derivative of the verb da (video, to see) is used here, which does not bear such a sense; nor will the tenour of the verse admit it. To say, "That day and hour no man maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father," would be the same as saying that the Father does make it known. But where has he revealed it? After all, what more real difficulty presents itself in this case than in that where Jesus is said

* Εαυτον ἐκενωσε, ἑαυτον ἐταπεινωσε, “ He made himself void, he humbled himself.”