See page 31. Professor Storr speaks of Christ's "relinquishing for a season the enjoyment of the dignity of his nature ;—purchasing to himself the right and power to avail himself of his greatness in the salvation of his brethren ;-which salvation was the reward of his obedience, but because in consequence of his original union with the Godhead he was incapable of any increase of personal happiness, it could be conferred on us." See Biblical Theology, 2d vol. pp. 171, 189. Professor Stuart asks, "Why may not he have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour?" And again he remarks, "He who was in the condition of God, and equal with God, made himself of no reputation." Once more he inquires, "Is it still a matter of wonder, that the same person could at one time be called God and have everlasting dominion ascribed to him, who the next moment calls Jehovah his God?"-Letters to Channing, 2d ed. pp. 85 and 97.

To these sentiments we may reasonably object, and the objection can never be removed, that God cannot veil his perfections, in the sense of not fully exercising them. He is as incapable of relinquishing his dignity for a season, as of ceasing, a little while, to be divine. Wherever God is, incarnate or purely spiritual, he must be in the full exercise of all his perfections every moment; for every moment a universe hangs suspended on him, and requires his ceaseless energy to preserve it in being. If God was so united to Jesus as to make one person with him, then was Jesus always possessed of absolute perfection, he could neither need nor receive any thing, and it is idle to talk of his being invested with dominion, put into the office of Governor of the universe, 11*

VOL. I.-NO. III.

purchasing a right and a power to avail himself of his greatness, when, by his very nature and being, he had already entire sovereignty and indefeasible right to the throne of the universe. We may not say,-God divested himself of his attributes;-nor ought we to say,—God was invested with a part or the whole of what those attributes imply. Does any man really believe that the immutable Deity could "humble himself" to a condition lower than divine? It is impossible. And therefore Christ, who did humble himself to the condition of a common and a very poor man, could never have been the same person who has said, "I am the Lord, I change not."

Mr Stuart has remarked that "when necessary, power and authority infinitely above human, were displayed; when otherwise, the human nature, (of Christ,) sympathized and suffered like that of other men.”—p. 49. J. P. Smith, D. D. says that whatever communication of supernatural qualities, powers, or enjoyments was made by the indwelling Divinity to the man Christ Jesus, was made in various degrees, and on successive occasions." Scripture Testimony of the Messiah, vol. 2, p. 340. Now what does this imply, but that there were some intervals when Christ was not divine, that it was only when necessary that he was God, being at all other times like other men. For if it mean that Christ was always God, though he did not always put forth the energy or exhibit the knowledge and wisdom he possessed, we must inquire how long the universe could subsist while its Preserver was thus lying by in a state of partial inactivity? On the other hand, how can a person remain always the same, and yet at intervals have only a part of the power and wisdom he at other times exercises; how

can the same being be God to-day and only man to-morrow? Let not the supposed personal identity of God and Jesus be lost sight of, and then say if the same person can now agonize as a sufferer and a moment hence be incapable of suffering; or if the same person can suffer and not be capable of suffering at one and the same time? Either there is a personal oneness between deity and humanity, or there is not. If there is, then that, which is essential to constitute a person, as consciousness, will, &c. must be common to both, just as all other persons have an individual consciousness, one will, &c. In that case there can nothing happen to the complex person God-man, of which the whole person shall not be alike and at one time conscious. But if the personality of the Mediator be such, that there is a distinct consciousness to the human part, and a distinct consciousness to the divine part of the person, two separate minds and wills, where is the difference between such a person, so constituted, and two different persons, two separate beings? The union is no union where there is no participation, where one part may even die and the other not be conscious of it. There is left us then, no more than what every Unitarian admits, that God dwelt in the man Jesus, in such a manner, as that when necessary, divine power and wisdom were manifested through his agency. A personal oneness without a common consciousness is impossible. But a commor consciousness would imply that the divine part felt what the human endured. This could not be. There remains only the supposition that God and Jesus had two consciousnesses, in other words two minds; and what more would there be wanting to make them two distinct intelligences, two separate beings?

The doctrine of a double nature in Christ, assumes that whatever was done by him properly divine, was done by that part of himself which was divine, in other words, by "God the Son," the second distinction in the Trinity. It is never pretended that the other distinctions were in personal union with a man. The Father did not become incarnate, nor the Holy Spirit. It was the Son, "God the Word," who became man. See Bibl. Theol. 2d vol. p. 154. Now our Lord expressly declares that his mira

cles were done by the Father.

The Son, he also de-
Throughout the New

clares, can do nothing of himself. Testament there is no instance in which Christ's works, or doctrine are attributed to any other than the Father. How is this? Was it necessary, notwithstanding his personal oneness with the second person in the Trinity, that the Father should empower him, teach him, sustain him? Was it necessary that the Spirit should be poured out upon him at his baptism, when the Deity in person was so united to him as to constitute one and the same being with him? Was it necessary for the Father to send him aid and comfort during his agony in the garden, if that God to whom he then prayed, and who, he feared, had forsaken him, was even then part of his own person?

In humble prayer, our blessed Lord once exclaimed “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth!" "Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." And Paul says of himself, "I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Apostles Peter and John in a prayer recorded at length, express themselves thus: "Lord thou art God, who hast made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is;—against thy holy servant Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the

Gentiles and the whole people of Israel, were gathered together." All men are also taught when they pray, to address the Father, being assured that the true worshippers worship the Father. But Trinitarians affirm, that Jesus is Lord of Heaven and Earth. "He is now in heaven,

where he will eternally exercise the privilege of governing all things by divine power." Bibl. Theol. p. 175, 2d Vol. "When Christ is presented as sitting at the right hand of God, the meaning is, that he is participating in divine sovereignty." Morus' Dissert. de Discrim. sensus. But do the Scriptures warrant this? He who sitteth at the right hand of God is one who was raised from the dead, and who hath declared, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcome and am set down with my Father on his throne. To him will I give power, even as I received of my Father." Shall we say that he who ruleth the universe was once a dead man in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea? Shall we say that this dominion is of the nature of a privilege to be won by obedience as was the glory of Christ, and to be shared among several? If the Mediator be the only Potentate, his person includes not the Father or Spirit, and where then are they to have dominion? Are they too subject to the Son?

That dominion which Jesus indeed possesses is of another kind; his throne is not that of the universe. It is a dominion over the spiritual society, the Church, composed of "all things which he hath reconciled unto the Father, whether they be things in heaven, or things on earth, and you who were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works." Colossians i. 20, 21, and context. Compare also chap. ii. 10, 15, and Ephes. i. 10. ii. 5, 6, 10. iii. 9, 10.