because that would involve both the difficulties just stated; and render the passage more unintelligible and contradictory than either of the other expositions. Thus, by apply ing the hypothesis of the Two Natures, this perfectly clear and easy text becomes totally unintelligible.

Take another example: St. Paul says, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.'-Rom. xiv. 10. Then Christ must be God omniscient, says the Trinitarian; and, to support his position, reasons thus: "Is it possible for any being, not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, be present everywhere, and know what is transacted, and penetrate the recesses of the human heart, and remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and not be omnipresent and omniscient?-Can omniscience be imparted?" This argument may be abridged, thus: "He, by whom the world is to be judged, must be omniscient. But omniscience cannot be imparted; therefore Christ must be omniscient, And he who is omniscient is God; therefore Christ is God." Before a man can reason in this manner, it seems to me, that he must have closed his eyes upon the account which the Scriptures give of the judgment. Whatever men may imagine, St. Paul assures us that

God will judge the world by a MAN (not a GoD) whom HE hath APPOINTED." Jesus assures us that the "FATHER hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SoN." St. Peter assures us that "Jesus Christ was ORDAINED of God to be the judge of quick and dead." God cannot be judge by appointment, or ordination; neither can all judgment be committed to him. "He (Jesus) does indeed act as judge by delegated authority," says the Trinitarian, "but to act as judge is one thing, to be qualified for the office is another. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge, omni

presence and omniscience only can qualify him for that station." Jesus explains the subject quite differently. He assures us that God qualified him "for that station," as well as constituted him judge. After speaking of the office of raising the dead and judging the world, by virtue of his commission received from the Father, Jesus says, "the Father hath given him AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is the SON OF MAN"-(not because he is God.) And to make his meaning still plainer, immediately after speaking of the resurrection, he adds, “I can of mine own self do nothing: AS I HEAR, I judge." Now if this account of the judgment be admitted as correct—and it must be, I think, unless the testimony of him who is the faithful and true witness can be impeached—what difficulty does the subject involve to require the hypothesis of the Two Natures? If the judge is guided in all his decisions by the Father, who has given him a commandment what he should say and what he should speak; and if he JUDGES only as he HEARS, where is the necessity of omnipresence and omniscience, to qualify him for that station? Again, if the judge is God omnipresent and omniscient, how can he say,

of mine own self I can do nothing: AS I HEAR, I judge." Can God do nothing without the Father's assistance? Must God hear, before he can judge? Once more: The Father hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SON. To which nature, I would ask the Trinitarian, is the judgment committed? If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the divine nature, then Jesus, AS GOD, is dependent on the Father for his commission. This probably, will not be admitted. If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the human nature, then Jesus exercises the highest functions of judge, as MAN ONLY; and the omnipresent, omniscient judge, entirely disappears. This, probably, will hardly be admitted. I see no possibility of freeing the subject from

G

these difficulties, but by abandoning the supposition of the Two Natures. Thus the doctrine of the Two Natures creates difficulties where there were none, and then fails to remove them.

We object to the doctrine of the Two Natures, because it would, if admitted, deprive us of the comforts and advantages arising from the example of Christ's prayers and sufferings. In commenting on the secret morning prayer of Jesus, (Mark i. 35) Dr. Adam Clark, in his great zeal for the doctrine of the Two Natures, says "Not that he needed any thing, for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; but that he might be a pattern to us." If the learned Doctor be correct, Jesus must have asked his heavenly Father for innumerable blessings which he did not need, that he might be a pattern to us. But how can we imitate such a pattern without praying for such things as we do not need? If Jesus is God, he must have prayed to himself. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? What comfort or instruction can be derived from contemplating the prayers of Jesus, if every prayer he offered was addressed to himself, and he was so independent that he needed nothing? 'Being in agony he prayed more ear nestly and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Was all this only to set us an example? What sympathy can we feel with the sufferer if he needed nothing he prayed for? Prayer is an expres sion of dependence and want. If a person who needs nothing prays, is it not mere pretence ?-is it not hypocrisy ?

Finally, the doctrine of the Two Natures defeats its own end. To illustrate this, let us consider it in connection with the doctrine of the atonement as held by Trinitarians. It is argued that sin is an infinite evil; that it deserves an infinite punishment; and, consequently, the atonement must be infinite. But no finite being can make an infinite atone

ment.

the cross.

But Jesus, being both God and man, is qualified to make an infinite atonement by the sacrifice of himself upon But all Trinitarians, so far as my knowledge extends, hold that Jesus died as man, not as God. Nothing bled and died but the human nature. The victim, the offering, the sacrifice, was not the divine, but the human nature of Christ, the mere man. This was presented or offered, not to the human, but to the divine nature of Christ, the Supreme God. Thus the infinite atonement entirely disappears. A mere man endures the cross, sheds his blood, and dies an atoning sacrifice to the infinite God. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, a belief in the proper Deity of Christ has not the least advantage over a belief in his simple humanity.

See Lamson's Tract on the doctrine of Two Natures in Jesus Christ. Ware's Address, delivered at Kennebunk, Oct. 1327. Emlyn's Works, Vol. i. p. 97-105. Vindication, &c. by Yates, p. 175-6. Wright's Essays, p. 145-165.

SECTION X.

OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES.

1 JOHN V. 7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This passage, if genuine, would furnish no evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the three are equal; or that they are one God, one nature, or one essence. It only asserts that the three are one in the record they bear; one in testimony. The point to be established by these witnesses does not relate to the Trinity at all. It is simply this that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is not necessary that witnesses should be equal to each other, in order to a oneness of testimony. If the three are but one Being, and that Being is God, there is but one witness; whereas the text says there are three. The celebrated Reformer, Jolin Calvin, speaking of this passage, saysThe expression, 'these three are one,' does not relate to the essence, but to the agreement of the persons spoken of. The meaning is, the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit, harmoniously bear testimony to Christ. Some copies, accordingly, read agree in one thing.' But although you read 'are one,' as it is in other copies, still there is no doubt that the Father, Word, and Spirit, are said to be one, in the same sense as the blood, and water, and spirit, in the verse immediately succeeding."*

66

* Christ. Disc. ubi supra.