his disclaimer by adding, 'this I speak as a man,' but expressing himself in such terms as he must have employed, had he designed to make his denial positive and universal. All things whatsoever thou hast given me, are of thee." "My Father is greater than all;-is greater than I." Can language be more decided?

We proceed now with the course of remarks begun in our last number. We there stated that numerous instances occur, of passages in which Christ speaks, or is spoken of, in his highest character, and in his whole person, yet so as to denote his subjection to a higher power, and dependence on another's will. The two first which we select are put together, though not uttered at the same time, because they are both alike in their bearing upon the present question, and both strikingly shew the fallacy of the theory of a double nature.

On a certain occasion, James and John with their mother came to Jesus "worshipping him," and desiring that he would grant them "to sit, one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom." He replied “To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." Again, when the disciples were assembled in the place from whence he ascended, they asked him, saying, "Lord wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He answered, "It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power." These answers are precisely such as Christ must have made, were he only what we believe him to have been. But if he were indeed God, they are irreconcileable with his character, and without any explanation which can make them consistent with truth and propriety,

as far as we can see. Is it said that Jesus spoke only as a man on these occasions? We rejoin, by observing that it was not to him as a human being, their friend and associate, but to him as the Christ, that the questions were addressed. He knew this. They had no expectations from him of the kind implied here, but as they believed him to be the Messiah. They would apply his answer to his official character. They must have understood him to say, that as the Christ even, he had no power of himself to confer dignities on his adherents, and that the Father only knew the time when the kingdom should be restored to Israel. His answers, then, left them in a very important mistake about his power and authority as their Lord and Saviour, if he were equal to the Father. Certainly there was no reason why he should, a few moments only before his ascension, use such language as naturally led those he addressed, the whole company of Apostles, to conceive of his knowledge and power as limited and inferior to the divine, in case he was divine. It was immediately to become their duty, if it was not then, to adore him as God. But his last words to them, if they have any meaning, tend to impress the idea that his Father was alone acquainted with the period of an event, to them unspeakably interesting. Suppose their curiosity to have merited a rebuke, or needed to be checked. Yet could Jesus not have done this without also deceiving them, leaving them not only ignorant, but very seriously mistaken; and that on a point so essential as his own power and divinity? It must not be pretended that by "the Father" here, our Lord designs God, without the Trinitarian distinctions. He had uniformly employed that term to denote God as distinguished from "the Son."

A little while before he had said "I ascend unto my Father and your Father,—my God and your God." His actual ascension at that moment would remind them of these words, and we think the Apostles must necessarily have understood the same being and person, by the Father, in each instance.

In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 15th chapter, at the 24th verse, we read as follows: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he hath put all things under his feet; but-it is manifest he is excepted, which did put all things under him: and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." It is plain that Christ is here spoken of in his highest character, that which he retains while seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Compare Ephesians i. 15-23, and Philippians ii. 8-11. But he is also as clearly distinguished from God who gave him his dominion as a reward for his obedience unto death, and is represented as even in his kingdom a subject to his Father; to whom at last he shall deliver up his own sceptre; precisely as a vicegerent under a human sovereign, returns to his subjection, when his appointed term of dominion has expired.

How are such passages as those just cited, explained by Trinitarians? The Rev. Mr Cornelius observes, in his sermon on the Trinity, that "Christ in his complex character of God and man, is invested by his Father with the office of Mediator, and is said to receive from him a kingdom and authority to govern the universe."

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