166

was with God, and the word was God." "And the word wous made flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."* He never struck neither on the words of our blessed Saviour, "I and the Father are one;" nor on the peremptory passage of St. Paul to the Philip. ii. c. 7, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it no robbery himself to be equal to God, but debased himself, taking the form of a servant, being made to the likeness of men, and in shape found as man." Do these passages not irresistibly imply, or rather proclaim, the two natures in Christ? Does not St. John positively say, that "the word was God," and that the "same word was made flesh," and that, of course, he had both the divine and human natures? Does not Christ say that "He and the Father are one”—one, not only in the perfect agreement of their wills, but one in power, omnipotence, and, of course, in the divine nature, as manifestly appears from the context, and, of course, must he not have united in his person the divine and human patures? What did the Apostle mean by the form of God, and the form of a servant? What else, according to all expositors, but by the form of a servant, the nature of man? and, of course, by the form of God, he cannot have understood but the nature of God. Jesus Christ, therefore, must have possessed the nature of God and the nature of man. Mr. J. S. I know, will oppose to us here, a whole phalanx of Socinian, or, what is the same, of Unitarian doctors, who are far from understanding the above passages in the meaning we christians affix to them. To this I reply, that were their number ten times greater, and, their learning incomparably more extensive than it is in fact, still they have no right whatever to be listened to against the overwhelming weight of the uniform belief of the christian world for eighteen hundred years, the less so, because we have proved, to a demonstration, in the course of this work, that the christians have most certainly the true, genuine, and divine meaning of the scriptures, respecting our controverted

* John, i. 1, 14.

doctrines, and that, of course, the Unitarian exposition must be a false and anti-christian construction of the text.

Lastly, does Mr. J. S. and his associates imagine, that christians will ever be so lost to all good sense, to all principles of sound philosophy and decorum, as to allow any comparison to be instituted between that long succession of the most illustrious writers, who, for the long space of eighteen centuries, have adorned the church of God, with their immense literary labours, as well as with the lustre of their sanctified liveswriters, I say, who have grown grey in the profound study of the sacred volumes, whose proximity to the Apostolic age, so well qualified them for obtaining a correct knowledge of what Christ and his Apostles have taught the world—who, in fine, for the most part, sealed with their own blood the faith which they have transmitted to us, both by their preaching and their immortal writings, and those few Socinian, or Unitarian writers of to day, who are far from being in any respect equal in learning, and especially, in the knowledge of the oriental languages, to the Fathers of the church; and who, I am sure, are still further from laying any claim to canonization for their superior virtues: Unitarian writers, the generality of whom have preserved so little regard for that same revelation, which they seemingly profess to revere, as openly to dare to call in question, or roundly to deny the inspiration of the sacred penmen, to reject, as spurious and unauthentic, books which the veneration of eighteen ages has placed beyond all suspicion of interpolation or supposition, who, in fine, so shockingly torture, maim, and alter, these very sacred books, which have escaped the havock of their profane and lawless criticism, as to leave no manner of doubt, that they do not believe a syllable of it to be the true Word of God. That I have not wronged the Unitarian writers, by giving them the above character, shall be proved in the course of this work, by undeniable facts.

"In all the discourses of Jesus to his disciples and to the people, he never intimated that he was two beings."

It would be strange, indeed, if he had; since beings are then only multiplied when not only natures, but also the persons,

in which those natures subsist, are multiplied; as, therefore, there were, indeed two natures in Christ, but one person only, it was obvious that he was but one being. There was no necessity for Christ, when speaking to the people, to declare to them in what character he spoke, whether in that of God, or that of man. For that was deducible enough from the subject matter of his discourses, and the nature of his works. When

66

he hushed the sea into silence, commanded the winds and the elements, raised the dead to life, and said to the high priest, "I am the Son of the blessed God," he acted as God,-when he said: "My soul is sorrowful unto death,"-" not as I will, but as thou," and when he bowed his head and gave up his spirit, he spoke and acted as man.

Page 166. "They, (the Trinitarians,) do not recollect, that this is making two wills in him, and one opposed to the other."

We well recollect, that we are making two wills in Christ, as we are believing two natures in him, but we do not recollect that the human will in Christ is opposed to his divine will, but, on the contrary, we are assured, that it is perfectly subject to it. "Not as I will, but as thou will." But, suppose, for a moment, those wills were actually opposed to each other, would it logically follow, that they cannot be in one and the same Christ? As little as it follows, that because the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the law of God and the law of the members,* are opposite to each other, they cannot exist in one and the same man, without making two beings of him.

"What more clearly designates a distinct being, than a distinct will?"

I answer it is not only a distinct will or nature, but moreover a distinct person. If you give the being in question not only distinct wills, but distinct persons, then you will have two distinct beings, but if you give to those distinct wills but one person, as is the case in Jesus Christ, then you will have but one being. For, as we just now observed, beings are multiplied, only by multiplying both natures and per

sons.

* Galatians, v. 17.

PHILOSOPHICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY EXAMINED.

NO. XI.

Continuation of a Review of Rev. J. Sparks' Fifth Letter.

6

"LET those, (No. 3, fifth letter, p. 166,) who believe in this double character of Christ, answer the questions, To which of these beings St. Paul alludes in the phrase, 'Our Lord Jesus Christ? Are we to understand, here, the very God,' or ' very man? Does it require two distinct beings for the one Lord Jesus Christ?' Every one should be able to give rational answers to these questions, before he gives this doctrine his assent."

6

Would it not appear, from the tone of assurance, and the triumphant air, with which these questions are proposed, as though Mr. S. had been under the impression that they are unanswerable? But these questions are answered by christian children in their catechetical instructions; they, therefore, are not unanswerable. Suppose, in the first place, a child were to answer, Mr. J. S. "I know not to which of these two (not beings, but natures,) the Apostle is alluding in the text objected," what conclusion would Mr. J. S. draw from such an answer? That, therefore, there are not two natures in Christ? But, Mr. J. S. is assuredly not so bad a logician, as not to see that such inference would be altogether illogical. For, because it does not appear to me, distinctly, to which of the two natures the Apostle alludes, in some particular passage, it certainly does not follow, that these two natures do not exist in Christ; especially, if the scheme of the same two natures, is irresistibly evinced from a number of other clear passages. Suppose, next, the child reply, that the Apostle does not allude Vol. II.-No. XI.

22

son.

either to the one, nor to the other nature, explicitly, but that he is considering Christ as one whole, one suppositum, one perWhat will he conclude from this? That Christ has neither the one nor the other nature? But, this inference would be as illogical as the former; as, from the Apostle's explicitly alluding neither to the one nor the other, it would be folly to infer that they do not exist in him; the more so, as the contrary is proved from other evident passages. Finally, let the child give a direct answer, and maintain to Mr. J. S. that the Apostle, at least, implicitly and indirectly, alludes to both natures in Christ, the divine and the human, and that these two natures are absolutely required, for the "one Lord Jesus Christ," the one Mediator between God and man. Because, for a complete and perfect mediation between God and man, it was necessary that Christ should be both God and man ;-man, in order to be able to atone and suffer for men; and God, in order to give an infinite dignity to his sufferings, and thus render the satisfaction equal to the greatness of the offence, which, at least, as to the being offended, was infinite. Again, God, as none but a God, in the nature of man, could give infinite satisfaction; and man, as otherwise he could not have given to men that example, which a perfect and complete redemption required.* What will Mr. J. S. reply to such an answer?

If Christ be a mere man-if he be nothing more than the Son of David and Abraham, I wish Mr. J. S. would explain in what sense he can be called " our Lord." He may think the argument of an easy solution, but Christ our Lord did not think so when he proposed it to his enemies,† from the 109th Psalm, saying: "What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: how then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: the Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David, then, call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word.” Matth. xxii. 42, et seq. Will Mr. J. S. be able to do, what no man

*S. Seo. Mag. St. Matthew, xxii. 42, and following verses.