reason be man; the human exclude the divine properties. The same being at the same time cannot know all things, and not know all things-be omnipresent, and yet circumscribed within the narrow outline of a human form; be almighty, and not almighty; a suffering being, and not a suffering being; incapable of death, and yet not incapable of death; human, and not human; divine, and not divine.

It is possible, that the fallacy we speak of may gain some attention, from the circumstance that the terms mortal and "immortal" are, in the supposed propositions, applied to the soul and to the body separately. But we ask, whether that which "mortal" implies here, does not respect the soul and body together? A man is mortal. His present constitution or life, which implies both soul and body in union, shall cease. The soul shall quit the body, not less than the body the soul. And so the term immortal does not, in this use of it, concern the soul alone, but the whole man, the whole nature. "This mortal shall put on immortality." Not this spiritual shall be immortal. So that the terms do not apply, as the Trinitarian is wont to apply his language, the one to one nature, to one part of the complex being, and the other to another part of the same being. Man is mortal. This proposition implies something which concerns both parts of our constitution. In the mortal struggle, not only does the dust return to dust, but the spirit returns to God.. The mortality affects the soul, as well as the body; for mortality is not corporeal decay, but a dissolution of the whole frame, a separation of one part from the other; of the soul from the body, not less than of the body from the soul. Man is mortal, not man's body. The present life

it is that ends. And as soul and body are conjoined in that life, they are both concerned in the event that terminates it, although not in the decay which succeeds the mortal struggle. The mortal stroke does not fall on the body without the soul, not one part of us, one nature alone, but on both; and it changes the relations of both, passing on the soul a change not less momentous than on the body, though of another kind.

Thus it appears that the analogy supposed by the Trinitarian is even less than has been granted. The propo sitions, man is mortal, man is immortal, both respect the whole being, and are used here, not in opposition, but in harmony; in reference to the whole man; implying only that his present life shall cease, and that afterward he shall have a life which will not cease, but be perpetual. Now will the advocates of the double nature in Christ pretend that the terms he uses are not differently applied? He can apply them in no other way than he would if there were no personal oneness at all, but the two natures were two distinct beings altogether. He cannot say of Christ, he is God and man also, as we say of man, he is mortal and immortal also. It is one part only of the complex being, which he intends by each term, whereas the other terms respect man, the whole complex being or nature.

But in truth, there can be but one nature to one being; for the nature of any being includes all which makes that being what it is. The soul alone is not the human being's nature, but the soul and body in union, make man what he is. So Christ's nature is all that which makes him what he is. Now if he be God, his nature, his whole nature, all that constitutes his being, is divine. But in

that case, he cannot also be human, for no part of what he is, is human; he is all divine. He cannot be divine and not divine, any more than we can be human and not human.

We can say of man, the whole complex being, he is mortal, and immortal; because here "immortal" does not signify "not mortal," does not imply the contrary fact, but an additional and subsequent one. But we cannot say of Christ, he is God and not God, he is man and not man, for these are contradictory, as it would be to say of ourselves, our present life ends, and our present life ends not, or of a dead body, it is dead, and it is not dead. Infinite excludes finite. Immortal does not exclude mortal. Christ could be called both mortal and immortal, as he was both; but he cannot be called finite and infinite, for both at once he could not be. These last terms, and all which the word "God suggests and includes, have no signification compatible with each other. To the same individual, of whatever parts his nature may consist, they cannot each apply.

[For the Unitarian Advocate.]

"For in death there is no remembrance of Thee—in the grave, who shall give Thee thanks?-PSALMS VI. 5.

WHEN in its last dark home is laid

This frame, of life bereft

When, with this busy heart and head,
No throbbing pulse is left-

Will then, my God! no voice of praise

The chilly silence break?

No humble prayer contrition raise

No grateful song awake?

1

Shall then the creatures of Thy care,
Who in Thy smiles were blest-
Forget Thy guardian goodness there,
Within that silent rest?

Oh, teach this heart to fear Thee more,

While with it life remains,
Father! Thy spirit I implore,

To purify its stains.

Oh, warm this bosom with Thy love,
My darken'd mind illume-
That I may join that praise above,
Neglected in the tomb!

23

"

THE DISOBEDIENT INEXCUSABLE.

CAN those who intentionally neglect religion, who ha bitually disobey the christian commands, offer any satisfactory excuse for their neglect and disobedience, any excuse satisfactory to their conscience and their God?

Are not the christian commands reasonable in their requirements? They require us to love Jesus Christ in sincerity, to love our fellow men as ourselves, to love God with our whole heart. God is the perfect creator of the universe, the father of all creatures, the ruler of all worlds. His nature is essentially Love. He is our Father in heaven. He has brought us into existence, preserved us in being, and crowned our lives with his goodness. We always have been, now are, and ever shall be, dependent on him for all we are, all we possess, all we enjoy, and all we hope for. And is it not reasonable that we should love supremely such an almighty, infinitely merciful, ever present Father? And if we love him with

our whole heart, shall we not repent of all our deviations from his holy laws; and thoroughly reform our erroneous religious opinions, our sinful dispositions, and our wicked practices? Shall we not habitually worship him in sincerity, in spirit and in truth; constantly cultivate feelings of gratitude for his manifold favors, and cheerfully submit to the various dispensations of his unerring providence ? Shall we not repose unlimited confidence in his wisdom and love; and earnestly strive to know more of his character, perfections, and government? Shall we not continually aim to render unreserved obedience to his holy will, and sincerely endeavor to become perfect even as he is perfect? Is it not reasonable that we should cultivate and possess this supreme love for God, and that our affection should yield these fruits of christian piety? Nothing can be more reasonable.

Our fellow men are our brethren; children of the same parent, possessed of the same nature, entitled to the same rights, and indulging the same hopes, with ourselves. They are also partakers in our infirmities, our trials, and our afflictions. They are necessary to our present support and comfort, and equally probationers for a future state of blessedness. Christ has died for their salvation, as well as for ours; and they are equally dear to our common Father? Is it not reasonable, then, that we should love those whom God and Christ love? And if we love them as ourselves, shall we not invariably seek the promotion of their happiness, as opportunity, condition and circumstances permit? Shall we not assist, with our property, our counsel, and our sympathy, the poor, the ignorant, and the afflicted? Shall we not deal justly, love mercy, and walk humbly?

Shall we not bless those