to describe fully and definitely the incarnation of the Son of God, or his distinction from, or connection with the Father? It is all merely the language of approximation toward a complete description. It is merely this of course, and necessarily nothing more, as it regards 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, moreover, may well be supposed incapable of forming it so as to be adequate to the full and definite description of all that pertains to the divinity. It may nevertheless express enough to excite our highest interest, and to command our best obedience. And this undoubtedly is done, in the case which has just been mentioned. The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been early acknowledged, and generally practised upon, would have saved the world a great deal of dispute, and two parties of men 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, as I have said, 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 language of the like nature; and something too of the highest interest and 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 to increase my happiness. I certainly have no good reason to suppose, that in my present state, I am capable of understanding such subjects beyond what is already revealed respecting them.

With the observations before us that have now been made, I will next proceed to make some remarks on such New Test. representations of Christ, as have been supposed to present serious difficulties in regard to the views of Trinitarians.

Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, I take to be a complex person, who may be spoken of as either human or divine; in like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or we are immortal. As Mediator, then, one may truly say 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. 2: 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. 28: 18). Acting as such a head, "all enemies are put under his feet.” (1 Cor. 15: 25 -27). And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a mediator is completed, will be resigned at the final judgment, 1 Cor. 15: 28.

Of the same tenor are many passages. When God is said to be the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11: 3), I understand it of that nature in Christ of which this can be predicated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image (xagazτýo) 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, etc.; I understand all this phraseology as descriptive 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 ap

prehension, however, this has been done injudiciously, and

without any solid reason. Matt. 17: 5. John 1: 14. Heb. 1: 5. Rom. 8: 29, 32.

.

Texts of this class may be found.

10: 36. 14: 10. 3: 35. Col. 1: 13.

In Heb. 5: 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 were really human, 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 14: 28: "My Father is greater (usov) than I." From the context of this passage it appears not to have been the object of Jesus, on this occasion, 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 the bliss and glory of the Father. In Hebrew, (great) is used to indicate a state of prosperity, a happy state, Gen. 26: 13.

It is obvious here, that these two texts (both uttered on the same occasion), cannot be consistently explained, without the supposition of two natures; the one, which is in a suffering and depressed state, and the other that which was in a state of glory with the Father before the world was, i. e. from eternity. I cannot accede to the opinion of those interpreters,

who suppose that the glory 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; for the glory spoken of is not one that results from what is to be done, it is a glory which Christ had with the Father (noòs zov náτeqa) 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) is here spoken of; and only in reference to his humiliation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, ἑαυ Tòv izanɛívwσe), that his return to glory can be prayed for. A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many difficulties suggested; but they all spring from interpreting the language literally, and not in such a way as the nature of the case requires.

"Of that day and

Mark 13: 32 offers serious difficulties. 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 upon the Jews is meant. To solve the difficulty presented, some have objected to the reading oude ó viós (neither the Son); but for this objection there are no adequate authorities. Others, with Hilary (de Trinitate 9.) say, that not to know means 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 yuvoxa may sometimes have the sense of making known; but a derivative of the verb sido is used here, which does not bear such a sense, nor will the tenor of the verse admit it. Το 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 to have increased in wisdom? Luke 2: 52. If he did possess a nature really human, that nature was capable, of course, of progressive improvement and knowledge. As it appears to me, there is no proper method of solving the difficulty, as the text stands, but by appropriating the expression, as in other like cases, to that nature of which the assertion made can be predicated.

John 17: 3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The true God here seems to me plainly not to be opposed to, or contrasted with, Christ, but, as everywhere else in case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the verse preceding, Christ says : "Thou hast given me the power over all flesh, that thou mightest bestow eternal life upon all whom thou hast given me," i. e. both Gentiles and Jews. He proceeds: This is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God, i. e. the only God and true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now what is there here, different from that which we preach and inculcate every Sabbath? Do we not teach that there is one only living and true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners? And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with the reception of these truths? I really see no more difficulty here, than in the text: "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Besides, it is Christ himself, who is addressing the Father, that utters the words in question. Could he otherwise express the sentiment, that the same Father is the only true God, in distinction from all false or pretended gods? That he should join with this his own name, inasmuch as he was the only mediator and Saviour, was necessary in order to the full expression of the great gospel truth which he uttered.

1 Cor. 8: 4-6, "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none