Redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God." "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God! I know not any."

Now Arians assert that Christ existed before the world began, and that the works of Creation, Providence and Redemption, were delegated to him. Of course then he existed at the time the above texts were written If then he is a distinct God from the Father, though in a subordinate sense, how can these texts be true? God here declares that there was no other God, nor ever should be; and yet Arianism affirms that there was at that time another and a distinct God, and has been ever since! It is painful to see how small matters are strained to support this feature of Arianism-small as it respects their weight in the argument, though involving an amount of guilt that few would be willing to incur. We allude to altering of the Holy Scriptures by substituting one letter for another, a practice quite common among Arian writers. To justify the notion of two real Gods, it is alleged that Moses, the Judges of Israel, idols, &c. were Gods. Moses and the Judges were the representatives of God, as his executive officers under the theocracy-Moses being in a certain sense 66 as God" to Pharaoh, and the Judges as God to the Israelites. Of course they possessed no Divinity whatever. But to elevate them as far as possible, to keep company with the subordinate and finite God of the Arians, they take avay all the small g's in those passages where they are mentioned, and put capitals in their place; so that instead of reading "I said ye are gods-God of gods-among the gods," &c., as it is in the Bible, it reads "I said ye are Gods-God of Gods-among the Gods," &c., as quoted by Arian writers. This,

in our view, is effectually altering the Scriptures; and in principle is no better than to change words or verses, or even whole chapters. We shall consider this subject more fully when we come to speak of the Deity of Christ. Let it be distinctly understood, however, that we hold to the unity of God in a sense that allows of but one God, while those who for other reasons are called Unitarians, openly avow their belief in two distinct Gods-a supreme and a subordinate--both of which they love and worship. By this theory the proper unity of God is effectually denied, and it matters little whether we have two Gods or two thousands.

CHAPTER IV.

TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.

We

Ir is a prominent point in the doctrine of tae Trinity, that Jesus Christ has two natures. affirm that the pre-existent Word, or Divinity, took man's nature, so that in the person of Christ were united two whole and perfect natures, humanity and Divinity. This Arians deny. They tell us that he has but one nature; that the whole of that nature died and was buried; and that strictly speaking, he is neither man nor God. Making him equal with Moses and pagan gods, does not affect the truth of this assertion. These were finite gods, which, to us, were no Gods at all. The doctrine of the incarnation, or two natures of Christ, is a very important part of the general doctrine of the Trinity. Arians are aware of this; and by them

In

nothing is more violently opposed than what they are pleased to call "the two nature scheme." deed, both parties agree that the determination of this single question turns the scale. If Christ has but one nature, the doctrine of the Trinity is false; but if he has two natures, it is true, Arians themselves being judges. This point, then, should receive special attention. We shall first adduce those Scriptures in which both natures are mentioned in connection, or implied, after which we shall consider his humanity and Divinity in two distinct chapters.

I. Isa. ix. 6" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." In this text both natures are distinctly brought to view. We have, first, the humanity-the child born, &c.; and, secondly, the Divinity-the MIGHTY GOD-the EVERLASTING FATHER. Both these characters could not be united in one nature. То say that the son born is the everlasting Father, or, that the mighty God was born, is a perfect outrage to common sense, and little less than blasphemy; but, to say that Christ had two natures, in one of which he was a child," " and in the other "the mighty God," is perfectly rational and consistent.

66

The Arian exposition of this text is in perfect keeping with their system in general. Kinkade takes it for granted, that there is but one nature, and hence that the "mighty God" was born, and given. He then infers that Christ is inferior and subordinate, because he was born, &c. Now, the truth is, his higher nature never was born; and the subordination indicated by birth and childhood,

belongs mainly, if not exclusively, to his humanity, which alone could be born. In his higher nature he was 66 the mighty God," unborn and un

originated.

II. Micah v. 2-" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," or, according to the marginal reading, "from the days of eternity." This is a prediction relative to the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. See Matt. ii., 4th to 12th verses. But, while the birth-place of his humanity is so carefully predicted, we are guarded against the impression that this was his only nature. He was to come forth from Bethlehem, as it respected his humanity, being born in this city of David; but, in his higher nature, he had no birth-his goings forth having been from of old, from the days of eternity.

III. Heb. x. 5-"Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." Here we have the person that came into the world, which was a perfect nature before it came, and the body prepared for the Divinity, which was another

nature.

IV. 1 Pet. iii. 18-" For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." The "flesh," or humanity, is here clearly distinguished from the "Spirit," or Divinity.

V. Rom. ix. 5-"Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The flesh, or hu

manity, was of the fathers, that is, of the seed of Abraham; but this was true only "as concerning the flesh; for in his higher nature he is "God blessed forever."

VI. Philip. ii. 5, 6, 7-" Let this mind be in. you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. On this text, we observe,

1. That in one nature Christ was in the "form of God." This form cannot mean bodily shape, for God is a Spirit, and, therefore, has no body, or bodily form. Again-If the form of God was the form of his body, as Arians tell us, which form is that of a man, then the "form of God" and the "form of a servant," would be exactly the same thing; and Christ, by taking on him the form of a servant, would be only taking the form of God, the same which he already had. On this supposition the text would be utterly unmeaning. The form of God must therefore mean his nature-a nature not assumed, but inherent, as is clear from the

text.

2. In view of this "form of God," it is said he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God," that is, with the Father. This could not be true of any nature short of supreme Divinity. For a

creature to assume to be equal with the great Jehovah, would be downright robbery and treason; hence, by the "form of God," we must understand absolute Divinity.

3. This person, in the form of God, took upon him another "form," which must of course differ from the first, namely, the form or nature of a ser