in that one person so conjoined, offered himself up for the sins of the world.

It will not do to say, as I have heard some allege, in vindication of the doctrine against which I contend, that the human nature which the Son of God took upon him was originally sinful flesh, but that it was purified from its sinfulness before it became a part of Christ Jesus, as God and man in one person. For not to repeat what has been already said about the peculiar mode in which the Scripture tells us that his flesh received its primary existence, it is clear that by introducing such an element into the case, the ground of difference between us and our opponents is removed, and their doctrine dwindles away into a mere useless theory. For if the human nature of Christ was at first fallen or sinful, but purified from sin before it became a constituent part of his person as Godman, then from the moment that he became the person who was to take away our guilt by the sacrifice of himself, his human nature was not fallen or sinful, but totally free from all the moral evil introduced by the fall, and so there is no room left for the dispute which has been engendered. And why in this case should we depart from the proposition which we are all agreed in maintaining, and go into the region of mere theory, where it is of no consequence whether we hold the one opinion or the other, as far as the union of the Divine and human nature in the person of our atoning sacrifice is concerned?

Without going through all the wild and fanciful notions of those with whom we are contending, I may only mention one, which amounts to this, that the Son of God dwelt in the human nature, "all evil," "sinful," "fallen," and exerted this power to accomplish its purification, operating mightily for that end, and finally succeeding in his purpose. This is altogether inconsistent with the doctrine contained in those church formularies which some of these gentlemen have discovered of late to be so sound and essential, that no parent is a real Christian who does not inculcate them on his children. For what says "The Shorter Catechism" of the Church of Scotland? "The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.” And what says the "Confession of Faith" of the same Church? The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance,

power

and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion: which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man." How does all this square with the idea of the divine nature of Christ dwelling within the human nature of Christ, as the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer? If the Son of God inhabited the man Christ Jesus according to the representation given above, we could no more call the two natures one person, than we could identify the mine in which a labourer is digging with the labourer himself, or the house which a man abides and works in, and whitewashes, with the man himself who is thus employed. The representation, in short, is utterly absurd.

The metaphysics of our antagonists are as bad as their theology. But what can be expected of those who are bold to maintain, that when Christ prayed in the garden, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me;" he was in his human nature, in his sinful flesh, rebelling against God; and who are ingenious enough to discover, that as a spiritual being could not properly create the material universe, therefore the work was assigned to Christ, who had a body as well as a spirit,—as if there was no power of common sense to put the question, Who, or what then, created Christ's body, which was itself material, and was not eternal ?

It appears to me, that while, from the very nature of the case, and the very purpose to be answered by Christ's incarnation, it is impossible that his flesh could be considered as at any period "sinful" or "fallen" or "evil," so the Divine Spirit has been particularly careful to impress our minds through the medium of Scripture, with the doctrine of his perfect freedom from any thing approaching to moral pravity, or weakness, or perversity, or to a capacity of disobeying God. The whole account given us of Christ seems intended to satisfy us to the full, that in all respects in which he can be viewed, he was completely "separated from sinners." When the Angel Gabriel conversed with the Virgin Mary, he "said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the

power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Christ himself said, "the Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." And we are told that he was "without sin," -that he "did no sin"—and that he "knew no sin." Could all this have been the case, if, at the same time it could be affirmed of him, that he was "in sinful flesh,"-that he "took human nature in the fallen and not in the unfallen state?"-that his "flesh was all evil, even as this fallen world was all evil?"

How deeply is it to be regretted that such a tenet is maintained by any influential divines-by those who are reputed and followed as "Masters in Israel!" And how distressing that it should be mentioned with a dogmatism which sets all argument, and, as I think, all Scripture at defiance! And how intolerable that we who stand up for the absolute sinlessness of the flesh of him who is "the Lord our righteousness, and the propitiation for our sins," should be talked of as on that account filling them "with horror and amazement," and denounced, moreover, as theological babes of the religious world!" For my own part, I shall be content to stand and suffer this reproach for "the most catholic and orthodox doctrine" of the immaculate purity of Christ's human nature, and glory in being called a "theological babe," since that denomination is affixed to me because, for the honour of my Redeemer, and the salvation of my own soul, I consider Christ as, in the strictest sense of the terms, and in every department of his person, and in all stages of his existence, God's holy child Jesus.”

Note D. page 470.

I cannot bring myself to adopt the opinion which has of late been so strenuously maintained respecting the mellennial advent and reign of Christ. In vain have I sought for any solid and scriptural grounds on which it can be made to rest. Much, indeed, has been said for it; and were mere assertions and fancies sufficient to convince me of the truth of any position, the position referred to would be the object of a conviction stronger than any that I ever entertained. But really mere assertions, however positive, and

mere fancies, however glowing, appear to me not only altogether inadmissible in theological matters, but pregnant with danger both to the faith and the practice of Christians. And I cannot help expressing the deep regret that I feel in seeing so many persons, otherwise worthy of all esteem, and walking in the paths of truth and righteousness, led away with the crude and visionary speculations which have been put forth on this engrossing theme.

It would require many a volume to expose the errors which are now afloat respecting the coming of our Lord; and it will not be expected that within the compass of a note I should be able to do any thing satisfactory in refuting them. Yet I cannot refrain from offering a very few remarks, rather in the way of warning and protest than in that of investigation or of argument.

1. In the first place, I feel it impossible to have recourse to the mode of interpreting Scripture which has been employed. Rational and consistent rules of interpretation are neither laid down nor followed. Imagination is allowed to take the most unbounded licence. Objections are made and obviated by some ingenious device, or by a more daring flight of fancy. And when conjecture and subtilty seem to fail, the most haughty dogmatism bears us down with its dicta, and our inability to perceive the truth of what is wholly gratuitous in assertion, or utterly extravagant in hypothesis, is compassionately accounted for by our being only babes in spiritual discernment. On these grounds we must believe that the simplest historical fact is a prediction of some grand future event connected with the millennium,-that the whole of the Bible, even the minutest portion of it, is prophetical-that the destruction of the world by water was a type of the destruction of the world by fire,-that even an Apocryphal passage must be considered as a stray leaf of inspiration," and a hundred such absurdities. And then to prevent all rebellion against such an arbitrary method of discovering and establishing the meaning of divine revelation, one tells us, and another tells us, and a third tells us, that until they got these views of prophecy the Scriptures were all dark to them, but that now they find them perfectly clear and intelligible, and that lively is the faith, and great is the comfort, and settled is the peace, and sublime are the hopes, with which they are thereby inspired. And so it may be said of the disciples of Jacob Boehmen and of Emmanuel Swedenborg, whose plan of interpretation is not more arbitrary nor more fanciful than that of the modern millenarians, though their views of divine

66

things, we apprehend, have occasionally the advantage of being somewhat more spiritual and refined. Had the ancient Jews understood their Scriptures to refer to a Messiah, whose grand purpose was the redemption of the soul, they would have been greatly puzzled, and would have experienced many difficulties, and seen much obscurity in the communications on the subject which they received from Heaven. Nay, they did feel these disadvantages; and, on this account, I doubt not, they took refuge in a literal and carnal interpretation of the language in which Christ's work was foretold; and so firm was their belief in this theory, and so useful did they find it in solving all their doubts, and so happy did it make them in the prospect which it revealed to their anticipations,—that when Christ actually came they did not know that it was he,—he came unto his own but his own did not receive him,—and their earthly, gratuitous, self-sufficient, unwarrantable way of construing those things which were spoken in their lively oracles respecting him who was to come, proved their reproach and their ruin.

2. The terms in which our Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of in reference to his own second coming, are not calculated to make the doctrine very acceptable to us, especially when we consider them as employed in defence of that doctrine, and made an essential part of its defence. One of its great advocates tells us, that Christ was in a mistake as to the length of time during which he was to be absent from his disciples, mentioned in John xvi. 17. The words are these, " a little time" he (Christ) thought it was to be, and a little time his disciples expected it to be, and a little time it is twice called in the Apocalypse, but for our faithfulness have we been kept so long wandering in this wilderness, and because of the long-suffering of God; not willing that any should perish, but that all should come unto him and live!" And so Christ had a mere opinion, a simple conjecture on the subject of which he was thus speaking! And he was even wrong therein, as far wrong as his disciples were!! And he was not only destitute of accurate knowledge as to the point in question, but he committed himself by hazarding a "thought" concerning it, which has proved to be incorrect, and which has been made so by our want of faithfulness!!! And he blundered on a question respecting which, men of the present age, who owe all the little gifts and endowments they possess to his Divine bounty, can dogmatize with infallible certainty, even to the year-the month-the day!!!!