"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that [a man] also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

"God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world.

"Perfect God and perfect man; of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.

"Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ.

5 One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

"One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but unity of person.

"For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ."

Such is the doctrine of two natures in the one person of Christ the Mediator, which I propose to subject to a brief scrutiny.

The regular and orderly mode of considering a question of this kind, is to settle, first, the meaning of the terms. I assume, then, as the signification of the word person a definition given by high authority: "A thinking, intelligent being; an individual being that can consider itself as itself." And I farther assume, that, when we speak of the nature of a thing, we mean its properties, qualities, or attributes, considered collectively.

The nature of God, therefore, or the divine nature, means the same as the aggregate of the qualities of God; that is, all the qualities of God, taken together: and, in like manner, the human nature, or the nature of man, denotes that union of qualities, properties, or attributes, which are found in man. The doctrine of two natures in one person means, that the qualities, properties, or attributes of man, are united with those of God, in the same individual, thinking, intelli. gent being.

Now, it is the nature or property of God, to be Eternal in duration, Infinite in power, Infinite in wisdom, Infinite in goodness. And in like manner it is the quality or the nature of man, to be originated in time, limited in power, limited in wisdom, and limited in goodness.

When we say, therefore, that the two natures—the divine and the human-are united in one person, we affirm, that the same individual is eternal in duration, yet had his origin in time; that he is infinite in wisdom, and yet limited in wisdom; that he is infinite in power, yet limited in power; and that he is infinite in goodness, yet limited in goodness. Now, if this be not a contradiction-a series of contradictions, I confess, I think it comes as near to it as can well be conceived. If it be really a contradiction in terms, it cannot possibly be true. This is one of the maxims of that logical art, of which Mr. Bagot talks so much and shows so little.

I pass over this argument, however, and come to consider the testimony of Scripture on the subject, with as much impartiality as if no such objection could be urged against the doctrine in limine It will however, I hope, be granted to me, by all candid Trinitarians, -and, I am persuaded, there are many such among those who hear me, that the testimony of Scripture, adduced in favour of an opinion

such as this, ought to be plain, precise, and definite. What are the proofs usually adduced? Mr. Bagot has not favoured us with any distinct argument on the point. Others, however, have adduced such texts as I TIM. iii. 16: "God was manifest in the flesh." But this reading is rejected as spurious by GRIESBACH, who, as I stated on the first day of this discussion, was an avowed believer in the Trinity, and whose integrity I never before heard called in question; as well as by Dr. WARDLAW of Glasgow, Mr. CARLILE of Dublin, and a whole host of orthodox authorities besides: while others among them, including Professor MOSES STUART of Andover, and the Eclec tic and Quarterly Reviewers, consider it as a reading so extremely doubtful and uncertain, that no argument can be built upon it. I need not, therefore, examine the authenticity of this reading in detail. The judgment of the critics whom I have named, is, I humbly submit, more than sufficient to outweigh the opinion of my reverend opponent. And with respect to the parenthesis, which he contends ought to be inserted, if GRIESBACH's reading be followed, I can only say, that I can see no proof of its necessity, and respectfully refuse to admit it upon his authority. I may be allowed, however, to state, as Mr. Bagot has referred to the Alexandrian M.S. in support of the reading "God" in this text, that my attention being turned to the subject during my residence in London, by a pamphlet of Dr. HENDERSON'S, I had the curiosity to go to the British Museum to inspect that celebrated M.S. which is there preserved; and, unquestionably, the word OC (d) "God" is found in this passage; but, equally beyond question, the strokes which make the difference between this reading and OC, (ös,) “he who," (the reading preferred by GRIESBACH,) are a modern addition, differing entirely in colour of ink, and in style of execution, from the rest of the M.S. The corresponding strokes in other parts of the M.S. are beautifully finished, and appear as sharp and as well defined as if they had been traced with the point of a needle; whereas, those which are found in this place are rough blotches, rather than lines; and the ink in them is black and fresh, while that of the adjacent letters is pale and faded by the lapse of many centuries.

Another passage which has been brought forward to prove this doctrine occurs in Rom. ix. 3-5, which I shall read from the Com.. mon Version.

For I could wish (says the Apostle) that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh; who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

Mr. Bagot, by his over eagerness to prejudice your minds against such a mode of translating this passage, has already apprised you that the last clause may be thus rendered :

Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. GOD [be] BLESSED FOR EVER!

The passage therefore only declares, that Christ, who, according to the flesh, was born of the lineage of David, was the greatest of all

the instances of God's kindness to his people; and concludes with a devout thanksgiving to God for his mission. It is, indeed, hard to conceive how an argument for this extraordinary doctrine can be deduced from such a text as this. I observe, moreover, that Mr. Bagot, more than once, in quoting this text, misplaced two of the members of the last clause, in a way which is very frequently practised by orthodox preachers and advocates; so that, instead of "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," he converted it into a form which not even King James' Trinitarian translators thought proper to adopt : "Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever." If it be asked, wherein the difference between the two renderings consists, I answer, It consists in this: that the latter mode, by dislocating the members of the sentence, makes the suggested rendering (God [be] blessed for ever) appear, forced, strange, and unnatural; whereas, if the words were left in their proper order, a very different impression would be made on the mind of any intelligent and inquiring person, though unacquainted with Greek.

An argument has been built on the declaration in COL. ii. 9, which affirms, that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." But this fulness of the Divinity is stated, in the 19th verse of the preceding chapter,—the same to which I have adverted before, -to be the gift of THE FATHER: "For it pleased" (the Father, as the context shows) "that in him all fulness should dwell." In EPH. iii. 19, you will find the Apostle fervently praying that the members of that church might be "filled unto all the fulness of God." Will it be contended, that Paul prayed that the divine and human natures might be united in the persons of his converts? Indeed, this text alone-on Mr. Bagot's application of the scholastic maxim, Quicquid accipitur, ad modum accipientis accipitur, the thing received, must be proportioned to the capacity of the receiver; or, in his elegant phraseology, "a pint bottle will not hold a quart"-would be sufficient to establish the proper Deity of the Ephesian Christians; for if they were capable of receiving the fulness of the infinite God, they must, on his principle, be infinite themselves. But if no such consequence follows from it in truth, then all the aid lent to the doctrine of the two natures by COL. ii. 9, is proved to amount exactly to nothing, unless we are prepared to follow different rules in the interpretation of similar passages.

I have not found any other texts quoted by Trinitarian writers, in support of the doctrine of two natures. But among them, as with Mr. Bagot, there is no lack of "inferences" and "deductions," to support the doctrine. They amount to this, as you have seen and heard in this discussion, usque ad nauseam,-That in some texts Christ is called God (as we admit, that in two, or at most in three passages, he is though in an inferior sense of the word, as the context shows); while in other places he is called a man, and described as inferior to the Father. And, in order to reconcile the two sets of passages, it is deemed necessary to have recourse to this supposition. Of course, it is presumed that the doctrine of the two natures will remove the contradiction between the different passages, and get rid of all the difficulty. Let us simply try the validity of this supposi

Y

tion, by applying the doctrine of the two natures to the solution of one or two passages. And, first, I shall take one which I have already quoted in this discussion, and to which therefore Mr. Bagot's attention has been turned; so that he will have his arguments and objections ready, if he thinks proper to reply to my reasoning.

In MATT. xx. 20-23, we read, that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to our Lord, and besought him, saying, "Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy kingdom." And after some farther conversation, he thus replied to her supplication: "To sit on my right hand, and on my left is not mine to give,-except-to those for whom it has been prepared of my Father."

Now admitting, for a moment, and for the sake of the argument, that our Lord Jesus Christ was, as the Athanasian Creed declares, perfect God and perfect man,-this petition was most manifestly presented to him in his whole, full, and entire nature. The mother of the sons of Zebedee, did not address herself to our Lord's humanity, to the exclusion of his Godhead; any more, than she made application to his Godhead, as distinguished from his humanity. What she wanted was, to obtain the boon which she sought; and this she was desirous of receiving from him in any capacity in which he might be competent to grant it. It was matter of indifference to her and to her sons, whether the solicited favour was to come to them, through our Lord's human nature, or through his divine nature; or if it were not perfectly indifferent, the latter would certainly have been the more acceptable channel. They seem never to have doubted our Saviour's ability to bestow the gift which they sought; and they took the present means of ascertaining whether or not he was disposed to do so. For this purpose, the mother, on behalf of her sons, proposed to him the direct petition which has been stated.

And what was our Lord's reply ?-it is couched in the most unqualified terms. He makes no allusion to any supposed distinction of natures subsisting in himself, nor to any distinction of the powers and prerogatives appertaining to them respectively. He does not intimate, that he wants the desire to oblige them by gratifying their wish; he declares-he most expressly declares, that he wants the power to do as they besought him. He declares this, without qualification or restriction: "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is NOT MINE to grant !" And he points to another person as alone able to fulfil their request, by intimating, that the dignity which they sought must be reserved for "those for whom it was prepared of his Father."-And, I would ask, are we to suppose that our Lord, though thus speaking of himself, meant only a part of himself? When he said, "The favour sought is not mine to grant," must not the sons of Zebedee have understood him as speaking in his whole and entire character? And would he be so disingenuous, as to affirm concerning the whole of his character, that which could only be affirmed, with truth, of a petty and insignificant fragment of his nature? Yet strange as it may appear, notwithstanding this explicit disavowal on the part of our Saviour, Trinitarians persist in maintaining, that he had at that very moment full power to grant to these petitioners their

request ! And had our Saviour repeated his disclaimer ever so frequently, and ever so earnestly, they would not have hesitated to affirm, that the matter sought was perfectly within the compass of his prerogative. Now, I beg to ask, is not this imputing to our Lord, the hypocritical practice of mental reservation? Is it not representing him as meanly eluding the application of his followers, by assuring them that he was not competent to do what he could have done in one instant by a single word?

I shall endeavour to make my meaning more clear by a parallel case:-A Right Reverend Father in God is solicited to nominate to a vacant benefice some clergyman, who is supposed to have claims on his consideration. In reply to the application, his Lordship declares, "The living in question is not in my gift: it must be bestowed on the person who may be appointed by the Lord Primate, whose suf. fragan I am." It afterwards appears, however, that his Lordship could have disposed of the living exactly as it might have pleased him. We will suppose him taxed with want of candour; and what is his defence?-"Oh! certainly, I had full power to present to the benefice, in my capacity as Bishop of the Diocese; but I had no such authority in my other capacity, as A. B. Doctor in Divinity!" Now, I put it to any man of honourable feeling, whether this would be deemed a proper vindication of his Lordship's character for sincerity and veracity. Would it satisfy the applicants that they had been fairly dealt with? Would not the disappointed party consider the defence put forth, as an insult superadded to the original deception, ? Yet precisely similar to this is the conduct of which the Orthodox, as they are called, make no scruple of ascribing to our blessed Lord, in the case which we have been considering. Whether such conduct is worthy of the immaculate Jesus, let any sincere Christian-let any honest man, lay his hand upon his bosom, and say. I ask, again, for Mr. Bagot's interpretation of the passage!

I had intended to comment on several other passages in our Lord's life and conversation, with reference to the doctrine of two natures; but I perceive I have not time. However, I would briefly advert to a few of the absurdities which would follow from this mode of interpreting Scripture. According to this principle of interpretation, any of the ancient prophets might have declared himself totally ignorant of the very subjects on which he had been supernaturally inspired, and of the very facts which he had been expressly commis-. sioned to reveal; and if called for an explanation, he might have replied, with perfect safety, that, as a mere man, they did not come within the compass of his knowledge, although, as a prophet, he was acquainted with them. Our Lord himself might have truly affirmed, on one occasion, what he might, with equal truth, have denied upon another. He might this moment have declared, that he was informed respecting his approaching death; and the next, he might have protested that he was perfectly ignorant of all that was to befal him. He might, when conversing with his disciples in private, have confessed that he was altogether uninstructed in the councils of heaven, and the sublime truths of religion; while to the Jews in general, he announced himself as a teacher sent from God, and able