enormous credulity in those who receive it, yet it is now widely received in the Christian world. But it involves contradictions and absurdities almost too great to be adequately expressed. It presents before us, as an article of faith, this assumption, viz.: that the same being can be at once finite and Infinite, weak and yet Almighty, ignorant and yet Omniscient, at once Creator and creature.

66

"The distinctive attributes of God," says James Yates, are eternity, independence, immutability, entire and perpetual exemption from pain and death, omniscience and omnipotence. The distinctive qualities of man are derived existence, dependence, liability to change, to suffering, and to dissolution, comparative weakness and ignorance. To maintain that the same mind is endued with both a Divine and human nature, is to maintain that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them. If it be not certain that such a doctrine as this is false, there is no certainty to be attained upon any subject. It is vain to call it mystery; it is an absurdity, an impossibility. According to my ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting to it, I should culpably abuse those faculties of understanding which have been given me to be employed in distinguishing between right and wrong, truth and error." 10

But the doctrine of Christ's distinctively human nature is involved in much confusion in the popular mind of our day, in consequence of theological controversy, and is not always correctly apprehended, nor its importance acknowledged by many liberal Christians who discard the theory of the double nature. Let us endeavor to understand the terms we use in this discussion. When we speak of the humanity of Christ, we mean, if we have a just conception of the force of language, that he possessed the peculiar nature of man, the nature by which man is distinguished from all other beings; in the language of Buck's Theological Dictionary, that "he possessed a true human body and a true human soul; that he assumed our whole nature, soul and body." These definitions seem so obviously just and Scriptural as

10 Priestley, Corruptions of Christianity, p. 303.

neither to be mistaken nor denied by any rational person. Yet it happens that many, who formally assent to this simple unitarian view of Christ's nature, fail to appreciate its great importance in the Gospel system, and, through excessive anxiety to guard against the imputation of heresy, will compromise the matter with the trinitarian by confessing that though Jesus was a man, he was not a mere man. Now we beg leave to say that this concession, though it may be made with the purpose of honoring Christ, is yet liable to great and serious objection. For if we ascribe to him neither a properly and distinctively divine, nor human, but a mixed and equivocal nature, we simply confuse ourselves with unintelligible propositions, and instead of honoring Christ we dishonor God, our own reason, and the Scriptures. If Jesus is not strictly and truly man, then his history, as given us by the evangelists, is an inexplicable riddle, and there can be no good ground of sympathy and fellowship between him and us; yea, his example of humility, selfdenial, benevolence and devotion to God's will would, in that case, have no relation to us, for these would not be virtues which we are capable of imitating. The assertion so often made by Unitarians that Christ was not a mere man, is unfortunate, to say the least, and unauthorized by the New Testament, and calculated to mislead; for it involves an abandonment of the vantage ground of simple, rational, uncorrupted Christianity.

For let us consider what it is to be a mere man. We, of course, do not mean a common man, but a man distinct from everything else,—a man peculiarly, solely, entirely. That is what we mean by a mere man. And we solemnly affirm our conviction that Christ was such a man. Admitting his miraculous conception, the mould of miracle in which his religion was cast, still we say that every attribute and every natural capacity, properly belonging to humanity, centred in Christ, truly, fully, and entirely. If it be asked whether there was not much that was uncommon and extraordinary in his endowments and character, we answer most emphatically in the affirmative. He was endowed as no other man ever was, with higher powers, appointed to a higher mission, possessed a larger measure of the spirit of God. But we are not aware that that tends to show that he was other than Loes a man lose his human characteristics, and

a man.

cease to be a man, in proportion as he rises in moral excellence and becomes holy, harmless, undefiled, obedient to God's will,-in a word, worthy of his high powers, and worthy of the God who made him a man? It is the distinguishing attribute and glory of Jesus that he was patient under provocation, self-denying, obedient to God even unto death, that though he was rich yet for our sakes he became poor that we through his poverty might be made rich. Is all this inconsistent with the possession of a human nature? Are the moral beauty and harmony of his character proof positive that he was not a man? Then we ask, what ground of propriety or reason can there be in those numerous precepts, which are constantly repeated in the New Testament, that we should be followers and imitators of Christ, if, in order to follow him, we must possess a new and superhuman nature? But in reality every duty which is laid on us involves the idea of a capacity on our part to understand and obey it, and, of course, a similarity of native powers and endowments.

To illustrate our thought. Washington was a great, wise and good man. Was he, therefore, more than man? Were Moses, Abraham, Elijah, and Paul more than mere men, by reason of the miraculous powers superadded to their distinctively human nature? If not, then we do not see how the supernatural powers conferred on Christ authorize us to call in question his proper humanity. It is a difference in degree, but not in kind, of native endowments. There is a diversity of gifts, with the same human nature. There are different degrees of intellectual endowments, of spiritual grace, of office, honor, and dignity, with the same nature.

Adam is called the son of God; all Christians are so called, as well as Christ; and the Revelator is called "St. John, the Divine;" but we do not infer from such a common designation, a level uniformity in all respects, but only a general similarity or resemblance, which is susceptible of many degrees; the same origin, fundamental powers and capacities, which admit of a great diversity of wisdom, knowledge, virtue, and honor. "Let the same mind be in you," says Paul, "which was also in Christ; who humbled himself even unto death," in the path of duty. Certainly, the attainment of similar qualities of character is compatible

with a human nature, for surely vice and depravity are not the essential or distinguishing attributes of a human being. We ought to be cautious of disparaging and belittling human nature, lest we unconsciously cast reproach on him who has given us the only perfect specimen of humanity which the world has ever seen, who alone has afforded the highest example of the Divine capacities and possibilities of virtue inherent in the nature of man.

It is true that Christ, of all the sons of men, has exhibited a spotless, perfect life of holiness and love, and is therefore peculiarly the Son of God, and entitled to call God ресиliarly his Father. Most truly, then, we say he was a Divine man. His mission, doctrine, precepts, works, and character were heavenly and Divine.

But it does not follow from hence that he was the Supreme God, or by nature a super-angelic or superhuman being. The divineness of his human character was his distinguishing glory. For does he not tell us, over and over again, that his doctrine was not his own; that his wisdom and wonderful works were from God, whose agent and messenger he was; and that he did nothing of himself, but only what the Father showed him? Christ foretold future events, healed the sick, and raised the dead to life by a word; but all these miracles had often been wrought before his day, by the same Divine Power, through the agency of the prophets, and were wrought after his death by the apostles. Were the prophets and apostles more than mere men — exalted above our nature?

Our Saviour, it is true, enjoys the grand and preeminent distinction of being absolutely without sin. "It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, that by him he might reconcile all things unto himself." (Col. i. 19.) But this testimony does not appear to militate against the simple, rational doctrine that Christ was truly and entirely man; that he was human in his nature, though for the purposes of his Divine mission endowed with special super-human, i. e., extraordinary, powers. To this conclusion the testimonies of sacred writ point with resistless force. 66 "A man approved of God by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him," says Peter. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of one," (i. e., of one nature, kindred, or lineage,) says

Paul; "for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 66 Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." "For verily He took not on him the nature of angels, but took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." "For we have not a high-priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. i., iv.)

When, in this light, we look at the parallels or antitheses which Paul draws between Adam and Christ, all is consistent. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, . . . much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Rom. v. 12-19.) "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”

Nothing can exceed the clearness of these testimonies; and no amount of metaphysical speculation can obscure the Pauline doctrine of the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was truly Divine in the line of his human development and in the exaltation and grandeur of his human character. Only on this ground are we bound by his example, viz., because he was human in his nature, in his sympathies, his joys, his sorrows, his temptations, trials, triumphs, his subjection to hunger, pain, and death. The virtues and graces of his character were human virtues and graces, by which we mean that he attained to no kind of moral excellence, no depth of humility, no height of piety, no breadth of benevolence, no tenderness of compassion, no power of endurance, no strictness of self-denial, nor degree of spiritual serenity and joy, but what lies within the scope of human nature, and with the blessing of God is attainable. by human endeavor.

As he was obedient to the Divine will, and exemplified and fulfilled the Divine law, which is obligatory on all men,