lies with equal weight against those, who maintain that divine fulness, or the immeasurable gift of the Spirit dwelt in Christ. The fulness of the Godhead, or divinity embraces all the divine perfections. If all divine perfections dwelt in Christ when he was upon earth, we retort the question upon the objector, where is the fulness of perfection of the Father? If the Father, in the plenitude of his perfections, dwelt in the man Christ Jesus on earth, how could he be, at the same time, in heaven without a division of his essence? If all the fulness of the Godhead was united with the human nature of Jesus, it follows, according to the argument of the objector, that the person of divinity is united to the person of humanity; and of course, "the Lord Jesus Christ consists of two persons, or else two persons are one person, or united in one."

To obviate this conclusion, recourse has been had to the apostle's prayer for the Ephesians, in which he requests that they "might be filled with all the fuiness of God;" Eph. 3:19. From this it is inferred that the fulness of the Godhead, which dwelt in Christ, does not differ in its nature from that divine fulness, which is communicated to saints; that it means no more than that divine blessings or influences were abundantly bestowed upon him. But these passages do not appear to be parallel. John testifies that "of his (i. e. Christ's) fulness, have all we received." From this it appears that it was the same thing to receive the fulness of Christ, and the fulness of God. But what saint, prophet, or apostle had a divine fulness, which they could impart to others? The primitive Christians occasionally received those extraordinary influences of the Spirit, which were called the fulness of Christ or God. But it is not said, and it does not appear this fulness was permanent in them. There is evidence to the contrary. The fulness of God, of which they were partakers, was, therefore, occasional and temporary. But in Christ all the fulness of the God

that

head (divinity) dwelleth, naroíntí. The preposition connected with this verb adds force to its meaning. It therefore signifies, not to occupy occasionally, but to dwell permanently. This divine fulness not only dwelt permanently in Christ, but it dwelt in him bodily; i. e. truly and substantially. We find that holy men have resembled, in a degree, almost all the features of Christ's character. But in every trait of his character there is a visible superiority, which distinguishes divinity from humanity. Another consequence, which has been drawn from the doctrine of the union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ is, "It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, suffering and death." This consequence does not appear to follow from the doctrine. It is not admitted that the sufferings of the humanity of Christ wholly constituted the atonement. It is maintained that the divine Son, if he did not suffer pain, suffered ignominy. He suffered a state of humiliation. He suffered the condition of a servant, the reproach of the cross. It is maintained that this suffering gave value, gave efficacy to the sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross. The Son of God could suffer this without sustaining any change in his nature. The perfections of divinity were not diminished by union with humanity. The Son of God was no less entitled to divine honors, when he was reviled upon the cross, than when he was seated on the right hand of the Father. We do not hold that merely the human nature of Christ mediates between God and man. We maintain that in both natures he acts in the office of Mediator, This does not involve the inconsistency of mediating between himself and the human race; because he mediates between the Father and them, and the Father is not the Son.

To the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity it is objected, "He would not say, himself could not

do, or did not know the things which all this while himself could do and did know very well; as to be sure, if he was the supreme God, he could and did. For this were to make him say what is most false, and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner." (See Emlyn.) This position is not correct. Christ could, with truth and agreeably to the common usage of language, deny that of one nature, which belongs to the other. He could, as Son of man, truly say, he knew not the day of the dissolution of the world, while, as Son of God, he knew the time. The Scriptures represent man as mortal. Job calls him "mortal man." The same volume of inspiration represents man to be immortal. Christ hath brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel. Must the Scriptures be charged with deceit, equivocation and falsehood, because, at one time, they call man mortal; and at other times represent him to be immortal; because, at those particular times, they do not express any limitation? This accusation lies with as much force against the word of God in its representation of man, as against Jesus Christ in speaking of himself, sometimes in one nature, sometimes in the other. It is a usual manner of speaking among people to say, I am mortal; and at other times to say, I am immortal; and at the time to express no limitation. They are understood. They are not charged with falsehood, because it is known and admitted that they are composed of a material and mortal nature; and also of an immaterial and immortal nature. If we admit that human and divine nature were united in Jesus Christ, we perceive that he might, without equivocation, sometimes speak of himself as human, and at other times as divine; that the apostle might, at one time, call him "the man Christ Jesus;" and, at another time, call him "the Lord from heaven." If Christ and his apostles had always spoken of him as a man, the conclusion would be fair, that he was only a man. If they had always spoken of him as God, it would be a fair con

elusion that he was only divine. But as they sometimes speak of him possessing human qualities, and at other times possessing divine perfections, the conclusion is equally fair that he is both human and divine. The Jews understood Christ to make himself equal with God and to make himself God; and they charged him with blasphemy. If he had been merely a man, it is presumed he would have repelled the charge in direct terms. But instead of this, he took them on their own ground, and refuted them on their own principles. He neither denied nor acknowledged his divinity; but shewed his accusers that upon their own principles he was justly exempt from the charge of blasphemy. This was all he needed to do, and this he did do. There were times, in which Christ expressed his meaning in ambiguous language. When people were speaking of the temple, he said, "destroy this temple, and in three days I will rear it up.' They understood him to speak of the temple of the Jews. He often spoke in parables, which the multitude did not understand. Jesus said, "verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." The Jews understood him to speak of natural death; and he did not correct their mistake. But who dares accuse him with deception, prevarication, and falsehood?

ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THE same sacred Scriptures, which disclose the unity of God, disclose also certain distinctions, or a plurality in the divine nature. Immediately after it is related that God created the heaven and the earth, it is related that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This difference of phraseology used to express divine operations, affords evidence that there is in the divine nature ground for certain distinctions. If the Spirit of God were in no respect different from God, it is hard to conceive why the inspired historian should make so sudden change of the divine name; that he should first use a noun of plural number and then a noun singular, which was embraced in that plurality. When such distinctions are made in the inspired writings they are worthy of notice and investigation. The Spirit, under various names, is a prominent character in the Bible. From his works, his names, his attributes, and his connexion with the Father and the Son, may be inferred his nature and

character.

The works of the Spirit are an evidence of his particular agency, and of his divinity. When the heaven and earth were created, "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." At this time, when matter was in a chaotic state, and there was no vitality in the shapeless mass, "The Spirit of God moved upon" (or hovered over