say this in his nearest approaches to God. Paul could not say this, when he was caught up to the third heav en. An angel could not say this, either in heaven or on earth. Nor could Christ say this, unless his hu man nature were personally united with the divine. Any other union, however near and intimate, could not warrant him who was a man, to make himself God.

But here it may be inquired, what is meant by Christ's human nature's being personally united with his divine nature. It is easy to say what is not meant by it. It does not mean, that his human nature was made divine nature. Omnipotence could not transform his humanity into divinity; because that would be the same as to produce divinity, or create a Creator. But supposing his human nature could have been made divine nature; yet that would have prevented his being God and man in two natures, and but one person, which is what he professed to be.

Nor, on the other hand, does his human nature's being personally united with his divine nature, mean, that his divine nature was made human nature. For, there was the same impossibility of degrading his divinity into humanity, as of exalting his humanity into divinity. And could this have been done, it would have equally prevented his being what he professed to be, God and man in one person.

Nor does his human nature's being personally unit ed with his divine nature, mean, that his two natures were mixt or blended together. For, it evidently appears from Scripture, that he personally possessed every divine perfection, and every human quality, except sin. He discovered, in the course of his life, human ignorance and divine knowledge; human wants

1

and divine fulness; human weakness and divine power; human dependence and divine independence.

But, if the personal union of the two natures in Christ does not mean, that his humanity became divinity, nor his divinity became humanity, nor that these were mixt or blended together; then the question still recurs, What is meant by Christ's being one person in two natures? I answer, the man Jesus, who had a true body and a reasonable soul, was united with the second Person in the Trinity, in such a manner, as laid a foundation for him to say, with propriety, that he was man; that he was God; and that he was both God and man; and as also laid a foundation, to ascribe what he did as God, and suffered as man, to one and the self-same person. If any should here ask, How could his two natures be thus personally united? We can only say, It is a mystery. And there is no avoiding a mystery with respect to Christ. His conception was a mystery. And if we admit the mystery of his conception, why should we hesitate to admit the mystery of the personal union between his two natures? If we only admit this, all Christ said concerning himself is easy and intelligible. "Being a man, he might with propriety, make himself God."

I shall now close the subject, with a few serious Remarks.

1. To deny the divinity of Christ, is virtually te impeach his moral character. He knew, that there was a great variety of opinions entertained of him. Many inquired at his own mouth, what manner of person he was. In several instances, he was pleased to answer them in terms sufficiently plain and unequivocal. And though they objected against his answers, as extremely impious; yet he never contradicted or softened them. In this manner, he treated the grand question concerning his divinity for several years. At last, the subject became more serious. The Jews conspired against him, and arraigned him before their highest Ecclesiastical Court, where they accused him of blasphemy for making himself God. The High Priest, in order to come at the truth of the case, laid him under the solemnity of an oath, and commanded him to say in sincerity, whether he had ever professed to be a divine person. In that peculiar situation, while the oath of God was upon him, and death itself before him, he confirmed and repeated his pretensions to divinity, and appealed to the day of judgment to sanction his declarations. There is now no need of further evidence, that he solemnly professed to be a divine person; and therefore we cannot call his divinity in question without joining with the Jews, and impeaching his moral character. His declarations are recorded, and carry the same authority now, that they did when they were uttered, and when they confounded his opposers. It will not save the appearance of modesty to plead, that we do not mean to contradict, but only to explain his expressions. It is now too late to explain Christ's words upon this subject; because he has, in the most plain and solemn manner, explained them himself. Hence there is only this alternative before us, either to believe his divinity, or to deny his veracity. But to deny his veracity, upon this subject, is to blast his whole moral character, and to represent him in as odious a light, as ever the Jews did, when they called him a blasphemer, and said he was mad, and had a devil. To impeach the moral character of Christ is extremely criminal. For, it is not only blaspheming his name, but denying his religion. To say that Christ was a blasphemer, is to say tifat christianity is a falsehood. If there was no truth

1

in Christ, there is no truth in his religion. Hence it seriously concerns those, who deny the divinity of Christ, impeach his character, and subvert his gospel, to prepare to meet him when he shall come in the clouds of heaven, and settle the solemn dispute between them.

2. To deny the divinity of Christ, is virtually to set up human reason against divine revelation. The Bible so plainly represents Christ to be a divine person, that none would hesitate to believe his divinity, if they could only comprehend the mystery of his being God and man in two natures, and yet but one person. This was the stumbling-block to the Jews. They could not comprehend how Christ, being a man, could make himself God; or how he could say, when he was not fifty years old, "before Abraham was, I am." And this is the stumbling-block to those, who now deny the divinity of Christ. The mystery contained in this doctrine, leads them to explain away the plainest passages of Scripture in favor of it; and to bend all their force to prove, that the personal union between the two natures of Christ is a plain and palpable absurdity. A late Writer, when he is reminded, that the Apostles maintained the doctrine of Christ's divinity, scruples not to say, "As it is not pretended that there are any miracles adapted to prove that Christ made and supports the world, I do not see that we are under any obligation to believe it, merely because it was an opinion held by an Apostle." He adds, "It is not, certainly, from a few casual expressions, which so easily admit of other interpretations, and especially in Epistolary writings, that we can be authorized that such was the serious opinion of the Apostles. But if it had been their real opinion, it would not follow that it was true, unless the teaching of it should appear to be included in their general commission

with which, as I have shewn, it has no sort of con

nexion."

But is it safe for men to lean to their own understanding, in opposition to the plainest declarations of Scripture? Let experience speak. Some have made the trial upon this important subject; but greatly to their own disadvantage. For, their attempt to avoid the seeming inconsistency of Christ's divinity, has driven them into a number of most plain and palpable absurdities. By denying him to be God as well as man, they have been obliged to ascribe such things to his humanity, as properly and necessarily belong to his divinity. This will clearly appear in a variety of instances.

The Scripture represents Christ as existing from eternity: but this they are obliged partly to acknowledge and partly to deny; and so maintain, that he neither existed from eternity, nor yet had a beginning of existence; which is a plain absurdity. The Scripture represents Christ as creating the world, which belongs to him as God: but this they are obliged to ascribe to him as man; which is a plain absurdity. The Scripture represents Christ as governing the world, which belongs to him as God: but this they are obliged to ascribe to him as a man; which is a plain absurdity. The Scripture represents Christ as having power to raise the dead, at the general resurrection, which belongs to him as God: but this they are oblig. ed to ascribe to him as man; which is a plain absurdity. The Scripture represents Christ as being able to judge the secrets of all hearts, at the last day, which belongs to him as God: but this they are obliged to ascribe to him as man; which is a plain absurdity. All these absurdities necessarily flow from denying the