It would truly seem that no truth in the Bible was taught more clearly, expressly and repeatedly than this of the derived and subordinate nature of Jesus Christ. Once it formed the express topic of conversation between him and his disciples. "When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them; But whom say ye that I am?" Here then the very question of our present inquiry is put; and here, if any where, might we expect the true nature of the Lord to be revealed. How then do the apostles answer? Do they say "Thou art the Lord God Almighty," "Thou art the living God"? They would have said so, if the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus were true, and if they had known it. But no, nothing of this kind. "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." Son of God, this is the name chosen by the apostles to designate and magnify him; and Christ answered with marked approval, 66 Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Yet if he were the Supreme himself, how utterly insufficient and unworthy (not to say false) was Peter's reply! Son of God then is his legitimate title of honor.

Now the very name, Son, implies a derived existence. So do, still more strongly, all the names by which he is called; and the positive declarations of his inferiority are so numerous that I am obliged to abstain from quoting them. There are three hundred texts in which it is taught either directly or by clearest implication.

Suppose it possible, however, that Jesus for some rea son unknown to us, concealed from his followers the knowledge of his true nature, until after his death. Did the day of Pentecost make any alteration in the testimony of his ministers? Listen to Peter on that very day, when the people, of all nations, crowd around him for satisfaction. Would you not then expect to find the fundamental truth of the Religion discovered? "Ye men of Israel," he says, "hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you," &c. Does not this make it evident that the apostles then regarded him as a being instrumental and inferior to the Supreme?

We may then, without any remnant of doubt, rely on the express, distinct, emphatic and repeated declarations of that truth, which was from the beginning the most natural to believe, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messenger of God, created, sanctified and sent by him.

II. Now since this is so, it is impossible that he was God. He could not be at once the sender and the sent. The texts which I have quoted, and to which I have referred, prove that Jesus was a created finite being, sent by God. He could not therefore have been the uncreated, infinite Being, who sent him.

In order to escape this inference, so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to state it, the theory of the Double nature is invented. But I think it will be apparent to you that this hypothesis affords here no relief whatever. For what we have proved, we have proved, not of one nature of Christ or of another, but of his mind itself; and the advocates of the Double Nature even, do not sup

Now it has abun

pose that he had more than one mind. dantly appeared that this one mind, this one spiritual existence, this self of Jesus (if we may so speak) was the inferior, and instrument of the Supreme Being. That self could not therefore have been the same with the Supreme Being.

But as this has been called, and perhaps is, the turning point of the discussion, it may be well to give it more attention. And since the hypothesis regards the very internal construction of the Saviour's soul, it can be examined only by a process somewhat abstract, by the reasoning of metaphysics.

Do you not perceive that the essence of Mind consists in its different faculties being connected together by one consciousness, which gives to it the conviction that it is the same person in all its acts, and in all the different epochs of its life, which furnishes the idea of self, and which makes one know that there cannot be two selves to the same person, which enables one to consider his whole being as single under the name of "1" or "Me"? It is to this single Mind or Self, that all influences, sensations, communications, are addressed, through whatever part of our constitution (or through whatever "nature," if you prefer that phraseology,) they may be received. Thus, if my body is wounded, it is I that feel it; if the affections of the heart are anguished, it is I that experience the pain; if my understanding is revolted by an absurdity, or my hopes are blighted by disaster, it is I that am disgusted or despond. It is always the same I, or one Mind, that experiences whatever is experienced. It is not the body that suffers, when wounded, although we use that license of language; for when my mind

separates itself from the body, or lies dormant, as in a swoon, or at death, you may torture the nerves as much as you please without causing me the slightest uneasiness. Unless the mind is pained there is no pain. If my heart is wounded by affliction, it is I that suffer through my affections; and the terms " "heart," affections," are only names which we give to different sensibilities, capacities, or modes of action of the Soul, and do not at all detract from the strict unity of the Single Mind. I beg you, if you are a believer in Orthodoxy, to weigh this until you rightly estimate it. For is it not entirely within every one's power of comprehension ?

Now, whatever we have shown with regard to Jesus, we have shown of this one Mind, not of any supposed part of his constitution, nor of one or another character which he assumed. Whatever we have shown, therefore, must necessarily be to the exclusion of any thing inconsistent with it. If the one Mind of Jesus was a derived existence, it could not be the Underived Existence. The advocates of the Double Nature cannot, and do not, maintain, that he had more than one Mind; for where there are two or more minds, there are two or more beings. If Jesus therefore was, himself,( that is, by his one mind,) a finite being, he was not, himself, the Infinite Being.

I maintain, therefore, in these pages, not only the unity of God, but the unity of his Son. Jesus Christ is one. The contrary doctrine is, that in him were united the nature of a man, and the nature of God, without any commixture or confusion, perfect God and perfect Man, yet so as to form one Mind, and so that he could speak of himself by the word I, sometimes meaning only his human nature, and sometimes meaning only his divine.

This is in itself (is it not?) manifestly impossible. For whenever we use the word I, we must refer to the whole Being, to that Self which gives us our identity, and holds together all the faculties and parts of our constitution; and which would, in any conscious being different from Man, hold together and personify all the different parts of which he might be composed, or which might be called his natures. This law of Mind is universal. Every Intelligence, using the word "I," must of necessity mean his whole, his single, being.

What support, then, my friend, is proposed to us for this doctrine, which seems to me so absurd and monstrous, and which cannot but seem to you, at least strange and incomprehensible. The proof must needs be sought in scripture. But it is not pretended (although it may astonish those to know it who, coinciding in the popular belief, have never investigated its proof,) it is not pretended that the doctrine of the Double Nature is taught there. It is supposed to be a matter of inference merely, from certain texts which are alleged to be irreconcilable with each other on any other hypothesis.

Thus confessedly devoid of all direct proof, this celebrated corner-stone of creeds is, on the contrary, fatally inconsistent with certain particular texts, and with the whole tenor of the New Testament. But that we may not lose ourselves in vague declarations, let us restrict ourselves to one example.

In reference, as some think, to the day of judgment, but, as I believe, to the destruction of Jerusalem and overthrow of Judaism, (of which the disciples had earnestly inquired the epoch, saying "when shall these things. be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the