exclusion of human souls. It is not supposed that the bodies only corrupted his ways and the souls kept themselves pure. The Psalmist, desiring to see the power and glory of God, saith, "My flesh longeth for thee." It is not rational to suppose that the word flesh in this passage signifies his material, to the exclusion of his spiritual part. There are many other passages in the sacred Scriptures, too numerous to be quoted, in which the word flesh signifies the whole person; and in those passages it is the most natural signification of the word. Consequently, it may signify a complete human person when it is applied to Christ. The Word was made flesh, i. e. he was made in the likeness of men.

There is such a union between the Son of God and the Son of man, that some of the qualities of each are, in the Scriptures, applied to the other. "The second man is the Lord from heaven." In this passage, a divine name is given to the Son of man. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. The divine title, Holy One, was applied to the body of Christ.

So nearly united were the humanity and divinity of Christ, that he sometimes spoke of one nature, sometimes of the other. If there be so intimate a union between Christ and believers, that they are called members of his body, it is not incredible that the Son of God should have a peculiarly intimate union with the Son of man.

A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF

THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

AFTER examining generally the evidences of the sacred scriptures in favor of the existence of God, the divine unity and the divine plurality; and after examining particularly their evidences in favor of the divinity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is suitable to bring these evidences into one view that we may feel their united force. Every source of evidence affords a rich supply of arguments in proof of the subject. But when all the sources are opened, and their united strength is made to bear upon opposing systems, it is hoped they will carry conviction, where a single argument, or a single source of evidence would fail.

The existence of God, is written as with a sunbeam on all the works of nature. "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." The unity of God is argued from the correspondence between the dif ferent parts of the world; from the uniformity of divine government; from the coincidence of the dif ferent parts of the sacred scriptures; and from the sameness of Spirit, which runs through the whole system. The unity of Israel's God was expressly taught by divine authority in contradistinction to the multiplicity of the gods of the heathen. Plurality in

the divine nature is deducible from the divine name of plural number; from the specification of distinctions in the divine nature; and from different and significant names applied to the Deity.

Revelation has not left us with only these general ideas of God. While it exhibits the unity of the divine essence, it exhibits certain distinctions, which constitute a ground of intercourse and of reciprocal compact.

The Father occupies the first place in the work of redemption. He possesses no priority of existence, nor superiority of nature, compared with the Son and Spirit. But according to the methodical arrangement of infinite Wisdom, there is order of offices in the dispensation of grace. By reciprocal consent the Father holds the first office; the first in respect to order and number. The authority which the Father had to send the Son was by mutual consent. The universal authority which the Son had in heaven and in earth, after his resurrection, was also by mutual consent. The terms, Father and God, are often used in the scriptures as synonymous.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not incidentally expressed or alluded to in the scriptures. It is not confined to some solitary passage or page, as if it were interpolated, or casually or casually dropped from the penman of the sacred oracles. It is a prominent doctrine. Divine plurality appears in the first sentence of divine inspiration. It was gradually unfolded in ancient times. After the advent of Christ it was revealed with greater clearness and distinctness. In short, it is a doctrine interwoven through the whole system of revelation.

The divinity of Christ is inferred from a multiplicity of evidences, each of which appears to be conclusive. Divine names are given to him. The most exalted names of God, names, significant of his existence are applied to him. Some divine names, it is true, are given to creatures. But all divine names are not given to any creature. But the highest divine names are given

to Christ. When they are applied to creatures, they are applied with such restrictions and qualifications, and with such evident relation to creatures, that they are not calculated to lead people into the belief that they are divine. When they are applied to Christ, they are applied without limitation. No intimation is given that these names are not literally applied. If Christ had not been divine, there is no doubt that some qualification or restriction would have been added to his titles to prevent people, naturally prone to idolatry, from giving him divine worship. As no such restriction is annexed to the divine titles of Christ, the scriptures are sadly calculated to mislead, if he be not divine. It seems that the frequent application of divine names, even the highest divine names to Jesus Christ, would prevent all objection to his divinity. If there were but one source of evidence to prove his Deity, if but one characteristic feature of divinity were attributed to him, there might be, perhaps, some ground to doubt his divinity. Such explanation might be given by deniers of his divinity, which would seem to take from him his divine claims.

But the divinity of Christ does not rest on one source of evidence. He has more than one divine feature. What is a name, a high name, unless it be appropriately given? What is a divine name, unless it designate divine nature? The same scriptures, which give divine titles to Christ, also ascribe to him divine attributes. Duration, knowledge, wisdom, presence, and power, are attributed to Christ in no less degree than to the Father. Sometimes a single divine attribute is hyperbolically given to a creature, not to designate divine nature, but to express some extraordinary quality. But this bears no proportion to the literal application of the whole assemblage of divine qualities to Jesus Christ. If divine attributes had been given to Christ only in a figurative sense, it would have been necessary that some notice should be given of the figurative allusion. But as no such notice was

given; as no limitations of number or degree were made to those divine attributes, which were ascribed to Christ, it is a natural inference that his nature is divine. If any should not admit that divine titles applied to Christ proved him to be divine, it seems that the additional evidence of divine attributes applied to him, would decide the question.

In addition to these evidences, the same works are attributed to Christ, which are attributed to God. He is the Author of creation. He was in concert with the Father and Spirit, when it was said, "Let us make man." He performed miracles by his own power and authority. He will raise the dead and judge the world. Greater works are not attributed to the Father than those, which are attributed to the Son. If the divinity of the Father is argued from his works, it is equally conclusive, to infer Christ's divinity from his works. If Christ was merely an instrument in the hand of the Father in the work of creation, and in the performance of miracles; and wrought only by the communication of his power, it would not be proper to attribute these works to Christ, excepting under certain restrictions. But as no such restrictions are applied to him, it is a fair conclusión that he wrought by his own power. It is impossible that almighty power should be transferred from God the Father to a creature; and it is also impossible that the operation of almighty power should be the act of a creature. If Christ be properly the Author of the works of creation and of miracles, he of course possesses divine power. If he be not properly the Author of the world and of miracles, the Scriptures are calculated to mislead, and they have misled the human mind.

The sacred Scriptures represent the knowledge and wisdom of the Son in as high degree as they represent the knowledge and wisdom of the Father. By way of eminence, the Son is called wisdom. By his works and dispensations he has proved that this name is