the soul and body, and as a part of that nature, the wisdom also of man.

Q. As Christ did not exercise finite and infinite wisdom at the same time in the same way, by which of the two was he guided whilst on earth?

A. To allow that he was guided by either without the other, would be to suppose him either God or man; whereas we argue, that he was God and man. After this caution, we answer; Christ submitted whilst on earth, in all things, to the will and wisdom of his Father". The wisdom by which he acted was given him from on high, in an abundant measure indeed, but still in measure: as appears where he says, speaking of the day of judgment, "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only "." And in St. Mark it is yet more strongly put. "No, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father " Had the wisdom of the Son of man been independent and infinite, he must have known the time when all nations shall be called to judgment.

Q. How could the wisdom which was in Christ as the Son of God ever be shrouded and inoperative?

A. That it was shrouded we allow. We have already shown, there is no difficulty in a somewhat similar case, that of a superior person condescending to execute an inferior commission. Inoperative it could not be, without making Christ a mere man. Inoperative we know it was not; for there are various instances in the Gospel of his exercising the powers of a super-human wisdom, as when he said to Nathaniel, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee"."

Q. If Christ be one with God, the Son one with the Father, as was proved in the last Article, and the same Christ took upon him the nature of man; what impropriety is there in saying, indeed how can we avoid saying, that God the Father took upon him our nature, inasmuch as he is united to and inseparable from the Son?

Q. To answer this query we must look back a little. God the Father has been proved to be the Essence of the divinity, without body, parts or passions. God the Son to be partaker of the same Godhead, derived therefrom and united thereto, we dare not affirm how, but give a faint imperfect description by saying, it is as light from the sun, or a stream from the fountain: distinguishable from the Father by what we call

r John i. 48.

person'. ، There is one person of the Father, another of the Son." The second Person then of the Trinity, thus distinguished, and not the first, assumed our nature, i. e. God the Son, and not God the Father, became man ".

Q. What do you mean by person, when you say the persons of the Father and the Son are distinct ?

A. We might answer with the schoolmen, that by person we understood what is comprehended by the Greek word urosraats (hypostasis ) : es

The Father and the Holy Spirit, saith Damascen, have no communion with the incarnation of the word, otherwise than only by approbation and assent. Notwithstanding, forasmuch as the Word and Deity are one subject, we must beware we exclude not the nature of God from incarnation, and so make the Son of God incarnate not to be very God. For undoubtedly, even the nature of God itself in the only person of the Son is incarnate, and hath taken to itself flesh. Wherefore, incarnation may neither be granted to any person by only one, nor yet denied to that nature which is common to all three. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. § 51. p. 3.

: The Athanasian Creed.

"The divinity, says Barrow, could not be turned into humanity, for how could God (the eternal, self-subsistent, most simple and immutable Jehovah) as such, be any wise changed or made, become infirm and passible, consist of body and soul, suffer and die? Nor could the humanity be turned into divinity; for how could that which did not subsist at all before the Incarnation, be therein converted into another thing. Vol. ii. Serm, xxiii. p. 338.

X

Subsistentia, res reverà et naturâ subsistens.

sence with a certain manner of subsistence, or substance with its properties. According to which Christ is called Χαρακτηρ της υποστάσεως avrov, the character of the subsistence of the Father, or "the express image of his person"." Agreeably to which explanation, when it is said that the persons of the Father and the Son are distinct, it is meant, that this essence with its subsistence, this substance with its properties, which unite to form an intelligent agent, are distinct. At the same time carefully bearing in mind, that the essence and substance simply are one and the same in both Father and Son.

But as this answer would only lead to another question, "What is meant by essence with its subsistence or substance with its properties," we would rather acknowledge in the first instance our inability to give any satisfactory explanation of the word person in this its metaphysical sense, agreeing so far with Dr. Clarke, "that the Scripture has no where at all declared what the proper metaphysical nature, essence, or substance of any of the divine persons is ":" and we cannot with safety advance in our en

y Hebrews i. 3.

2 Vid. Clarke on the Trinity, part ii. sect. iv. Where it is also stated, that "All reasoning deduced from the supposed metaphysical nature, essence, or substance of the persons in the Trinity, are but philosophical and probable hypotheses."

quiry into such a sublime mystery one step beyond the letter of inspiration. Though unable, however, to enter into any such metaphysical disquisition, we are far from allowing that our Church has adopted into her Creeds a word which is unintelligible; for person is used by us with reference to the personal attributes or offices of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in that sense the word is perfectly intelligible. On the whole however we think it would have been well for the peace and harmony of the Church, had the necessity never arisen of entering into the mysterious depths of the sublime and wonderful union of the Father and the Son. But the heresy of the Patripassians and other schismatics required confutation, and thus it became necessary.

Q. Is there the same difficulty in explaining the word person with reference to Christ, where it is said that his divine and human natures are united in one person?

A. Person here is used quite in a different sense from that in which we have just considered it. For in this instance it is the union of two natures in one person, whereas in the former

* The natures, observes the learned Barrow, were united first, aovyxvrws, i. e. without any confusion or commixtion. Secondly, The Incarnation was performed arperrwg, i, e. with

M