son.

qualification, or limitation of sense in either. One class of texts ascribes human qualities to Jesus, therefore he is man; another, ascribes divine works and offices, therefore, he is God, and we dare not explain them into what we might imagine to be a consistency with each other, as we should any other history, concerning any other perWe receive the contrasted portions of this history just as they stand; holding it to be not our business to explain, but only to believe."-Here, then, is a principle of interpretation, and, as I think, a most unnatural, and unwarrantable principle. But the theory does not stop here,-For when we very naturally object to the Trinitarian hypothesis-the hypothesis that Jesus is God, and point to innumerable passages which teach his inferiority, it is replied that these are spoken of him only in a part of his nature. In short, the theory of the double nature of Christ is urged upon us; a theory, of which it must be admitted, that not one word is expressly said; a principle, of which not one hint is directly given in the New Testament; and a principle, I must say, which to my mind is as truly and purely a device, and a presumption, as ever was stated. And a device how amazing!-that Jesus, in his singlo, undivided, individual peisvu, was a Itevie Mai, ant te Infinite God; that the same soul-for there are not two souls according to the theory, not two distinct agents-that the same conscious soul possessed and perceived in itself, qualities, at once finite and infinite; that thought in him was at the same moment, omniscient and ignorant! This is the theory of the double nature of Jesus Christ. Its advocates, I know, refer for an analogy to the union, in man, of body and spirit. But the analogy fails altogether. That mental and bod

ง

ily qualities are united in one individual, involves no perceivable contradiction. But that the same conscious mind should know everything, and not know everything at the same moment; that it should embrace infinite perfection and human frailty in every single conscious affection, is a statement, not only humanly devised, but most strangely devised, I must think, to relieve difficulties.

Such is the Trinitarian theory of interpretation. And in this, they profess to proceed on remarkably philosophical principles. They please themselves with an apparent analogy in their method of arguing to the inductive method in philosophy. They say, "we inquire for nothing but facts, and finding these, we inquire no farther." That is to say, they resolve the declarations of a book, into the same species of proof as the facts of nature. But let us look a moment into this analogy, and this assumption of philosophic argument. In the Bible there are two classes of passages concerning God: the one, represents him as a spirit; the other, as seeing, hearing, walking upon the earth, as having hands, &c., in short, as outwardly a human being. Do we take these passages just as they stand, without any qualification, and, therefore, believe that the supreme being has a human body? Or, to take another instan... God is

ed as immutable; and yet he is said to repent. Do we receive these declarations literally as they read, without any modification of either? Again, Christians are constantly spoken of as men; and yet, it is said, that they are "partakers of the divine nature," and that they "know all things." Do we, therefore, conclude that Christians are literally omniscient and divine? Let not this illustration lose its proper weight through its appa

rent extravagance; an extravagance for which we are not answerable, since we contend against a theory, in our apprehension, as truly extravagant, as it would be to argue from the above declarations, that Christians are omniscient and divine. And the illustration, too, is altogether in point. For who does not know, that if it had, any where in the New Testament, been declared concerning Jesus, that he was a "partaker of the divine nature," this language would be continually quoted in proof of his divinity? And if the declarations of scripture are to be taken for just what they express by themselves considered, it ought as much to be inferred that Christians are supremely divine, as that their Master is so.

But, say our opponents, the received and well known principles of interpretation forbid the inference, that Christians are divine. It is very true, and this leads me to introduce the Unitarian method of exposition. It is, as I maintain, the received and well known principle that the scriptures are to be interpreted as other books are interpreted, that the declarations of the Bible, as of every reasonable book, are to be explained by each other, that the occasional expression is to be interpreted in consistency with the general sense. Nay, and if I were to adopt the Orthodox, the commonly allowed latitude of exposition, I should say,-they are to be interpreted in consistency with the principles of reason and common sense. Why do not Orthodox Protestants believe that the elements in the Lord's supper, are the very body and blood of Christ? There are express words for it. Because, they say, the doctrine is absurd and incredible; and the language must be figurative. Why do they not believe, according to the express representations of scripture,

that God the Father is incarnate, since he is spoken of as having the face, form, &c, of a human body? Because, the supposition is irrational and dangerous; and they conclude that the sacred writers could not have intended to be understood literally.

But we do not, or need not, go so far in regard to the Trinity. We say that the whole strain and current of the scriptures are against it; and that the comparatively few expressions of a contrary character, if explained reasonably, if explained on the principles of all reasona ble interpretation, will give that doctrine no support. In short, we adopt as a rule of exposition, and we proceed on the rule, that we are to interpret the Bible just as we do other books. This, surely, is a plain rule. And it is no less sound and satisfactory. It is a principle in which the highest authorities on both sides agree. What other conceivable maxim can there be ? When it pleases God to speak to men, if he does not speak to them in their own language, and according to the laws of that language, how is it possible to understand him! Or, rather, how is it possible for us to avoid continual mistake! If an inspired writer adopts human language as the instrument for conveying his message, and then does not conform to the laws of that instrument, he becomes, instead of a revealer of truth, a propounder of riddles. An inspired writer, therefore, when he uses words, intends that they shall mean just as much and no more, than another writer. That is to say, however wide a difference his being inspired makes in the value and certainty of his doctrine, it makes none in his method of teaching it. That is natural, simple, and agreeable to the principles of human language.

For the application of this principle of interpretation, to the subject before us, we have the authority of Jesus Christ himself; and the application is as clear and decisive, as the appeal, with every Christian, must be final and ultimate. I allude to that most extraordinary passage, in the 10th chapter of John, 33d to the 36th verses,most extraordinary I mean in reference to this controversy and I propose to make it the subject of considerable comment and argument.

What is the question, in the passage here referred to? I answer, the very question, which is now virtually before us,-did Jesus claim to be God? What was the accusation of the Jews? "Thou blasphemest-and, being a man makest thyself God:"-the very allegation on which Trinitarianism is founded. It was once a cavil: it is now a creed. And now I ask, in the name of reason and truth and scripture, I ask, how does our Saviour treat it? His answer, be it for ever remembered, is a solemn and absolute denial of the allegation, that he had made himself God! "Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?" Our Saviour had used strong language concerning himself. He had said, "as the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;" referring however, as I suppose, not to the extent, but to the certainty of the knowledge. He had said, "I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones to cast at him; " they accused him of blasphemy; they said "thou makest thy elf God."