express a more complete contradiction? We know not what we can reject after admitting this. With what consistency deny that God has hands, eyes, feet, while you believe that he who had them all was God? Did Storr want discernment to perceive that the moment when the man Jesus should begin to partake divine perfections he must cease to be human, and so it was no more the man Jesus who thus partook? If the infinite be human, the human is infinite, that is, not human at all, for human is known to be finite. Surely one ought to weigh well the difficulties to be removed by such means, before he gives them up. We are not ready to discredit the sacred books by contradictions, for the sake of aiding our ignorance in the explication of a few passages contained in them. And we could not produce an argument for Unitarianism more strong than these very citations afford. For if, in order to keep clear of Unitarianism, we must adopt such statements as our creed, we can do no worse by rejecting them, and adopting Unitarianism.

Let it not be said that we misrepresent our authors. We cannot read their writings otherwise than they are written. Similar eitations may be multiplied from all Trinitarian books. We have many more to produce from that before us. Remarking on the phrase, "it pleased the Father," in Colossians i. 19, the author says: "it expresses the free purpose of God to bestow all divine perfections on the man Jesus." And in another place he speaks of "the divine nature of the man Jesus." See pages 158, 165, 2d vol. The plain import in each case is, not merely that Jesus was united to God, but that the man was made to become God. And who can believe

that? It is an impossibility. We charge the doctrine of two natures in Christ with the impossibility, and reject it accordingly. If any one pretend that a proper statement of that doctrine would leave the two natures wholly distinct although in union, we have never seen such a statement. To confound the two natures, is the natural and necessary consequence of the doctrine, state it how you will. The very purpose for which the doctrine is adopted compels to such an amalgamation. That purpose is thus expressed by Storr. "The just Governor of the Universe, before his entrance on the government of the world, made provision that the honor of the law, according to which he dispensed rewards and punishments, should not be violated, but on the other hand rather promoted by the work of redemption, and by the mercy which, for special reasons, he extended to the family of man. This he accomplished by his own personal obedience, and by voluntarily suffering the punishment of our sins," page 241, 2d vol. A creature's sufferings would not be adequate to the atonement here intended. He can do but his own duty. Therefore the sacrifice must be divine: " the just Governor himself." What upheld the universe when its Creator and Governor was dying?

Without dwelling upon the contradictions involved in the doctrine of a divine and human nature in our Lord, we would ask our readers to run over the New Testament with a view to substitute for the name Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ, the proper corresponding phraseology, if this doctrine be correct. It is often said that the reader may always decide which nature is spoken of by the things spoken, but it is not the case.

And we are left

66

to conjecture, darkness, and confusion. Besides, there are instances in which inferiority to God is predicated of Christ, and yet which demand that he should be regarded in his highest character. Take the following. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only." First this knowledge is denied of all men, and the man Jesus is included by necessity. Next the same knowledge is denied of the angels, intelligences above men, but inferior to the Christ who had obtained by divine gift a more excellent name than they." Lastly, this denial is extended to include the Son also. Jesus in his highest character, that to which he is exalted by God, who sanctified and sent him into the world. Tos ay that the Son means the human nature of the complex person who was God and man also, is to make our Lord speak thus:-' of that day knoweth no man, nor the angels, nor the man joined to myself-but myself to whom he is so united.' I know it. And yet I do not know it. What title is given to Christ which indicates his dignity more strikingly than "the Son?" That title Trinitarians themselves employ as the highest. Yet it is here clearly shown to be not equivalent to God.

In confirmation of the view we have given of this passage, we may quote again from Storr. Among the proofs he produces in favor of a double nature in our Lord, is Galatians, i. 1. "An apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Jesus is here distinguished from men, hence he must have another nature besides his huBut we do not thus argue. He is as clearly distinguished from God the Father, as from men. Yet we

man.

have a right to ask, if being so distinguished from men here proves that Christ in his higher nature is meant, does not the same distinction prove that his highest character is intended in Mark xiii. 32? We think Paul's design was simply to assert that his apostleship was derived from the highest authority, Christ "the head of the church," and God "the head of Christ." (To be continued.)

UNIFORMITY OF OPINION NOT ESSENTIAL.

THE founder of our religion evidently intended it should have a controlling influence over the affections, feelings, and passions, especially those brought into exercise in the intercourse of men with each other. It was a wish which he cherished with great fondness, that he might see his followers living together in peace and harmony; keeping themselves free from jars and contentions; suppressing every form of malevolent disposition; exercising mutual forbearance, candor and charity, and bound together in love by their attachment and regard for him. For this temper of mind in them he prayed most earnestly when, just before his death, he commended them to his Father and their Father. To this temper he continually exhorted them while he lived; and his apostles afterwards repeated and urged the same upon their converts. To "keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," must therefore be regarded as a thing of vital importance to the interests of christianity.

It is an interesting question which meets us at our entrance upon this subject, how far unanimity of views on

religious subjects is essential to preserving a unity of spirit among christians.

There is no idea which seems to have been more generally, or with less reason, admitted in the christian community than that, in order to be of one mind, men must necessarily be of the same opinion; and that differences of religious thinking are the worst evils that can befall the church; whereas, in our apprehension, this very notion, of the necessity of entire agreement in religious belief, has been productive, if of no other evils, of the most fearful schisms which have ever been witnessed among the followers of Christ. This opinion of perfect uniformity of belief being essential on religious subjects, had its origin in the Romish church. It was the direct consequence of the Pope's infallibility, which itself rested in people's minds on another idea, equally unfounded ;that was the supposed absolute necessity of keeping the church free from the slightest tinge of error. For, if perfect freedom from mistake were not deemed essential, where could be the need of an infallible decider of controversies? And, if there be in that church an infallible spiritual guide, it is certainly right that every body should acquiesce in its decisions,-when there would of course be an entire uniformity of sentiment on religious subjects. Thus this idea of the necessity of a perfect agreement in religious belief is the natural attendant on the conviction of our having a tribunal that cannot be mistaken, to which we may carry our differences of opinion; and it must stand or fall with our belief in such a tribunal. For though it will be admitted that truth is but one, and cannot declare itself on both sides of a question, yet, unless we have such an infallible