not a man! Equally inconclusive is the reasoning which would go to prove, that because he speaks of him emphatically in the text as possessing human nature, that, therefore, he cannot be God.

Now, what was that life? Or take the precise phrase "Who gave himself a ran

But the reason why the Apostle mentions the humanity of our Lord, so emphatically, in the text, is obvious from the remarks which I have already offered at the opening of this discourse. He is speaking of him in the character of "Mediator," and declaring that he "gave his life a ransom for the world." Was it not his human life? which the Apostle employs, som for all." It is obvious that the only nature in which he could make such an offering, or pay such a ransom, was his human nature. It was, therefore, emphatically, "the MAN Christ Jesus" who suffered in our stead, "the just for the unjust, to bring us to God."

It is true that the ransom would have proved inadequate and unavailing, had not the suffering human nature of our Lord been united to a nature that was divine; and most true, that, our rescue from the dominion and punishment of sin, required sufferings infinitely meritorious,— yet still, the nature in which alone those meritorious sufferings could be endured, was that of humanity. If without the Divinity, the ransom would have been ineffectual, -without the humanity, no ransom at all could have been paid. It was man's life that was forfeited; and by the life only of man could it be ransomed from destruction. Well, therefore, might the Apostle exclaim, with emphasis, and well may every one of us gratefully re-echo the sound, "There is one Mediator between God and man,-the MAN Christ Jesus."

In bringing my Sermon, at length, to a close, I cannot but express my heartfelt desire that it may not have been

delivered in vain. If it be overruled, by God's grace, to the correction of error on this momentous subject in one individual,—or if it only tend, by the divine blessing, to establish the faith of those who already believe and know the truth, my object will have been gained.

But oh! let me assure my Unitarian hearers, if there be such in this assembly, that "this also I wish, even their salvation." And if I have dwelt strongly upon the importance of forming right notions of the person of our Lord, it is because "there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we may be saved, but the name of Jesus." It is because, in him, and in him alone, "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." It is because he is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."* It is because we are required to "honour the Son, even as we honour the Father."+

It is no light matter, on either side, to err on a point like this on the contrary, a mistake may be dangerous and fatal in the extreme. If Christ be merely a man-if he be not "God manifest in the flesh"-then are Trinitarians guilty of worshipping a creature, instead of, or in conjunction with, the Creator. And who are they who are thus deeply implicated? Not the members of the Church of England only, but of the Universal Church. For whom could we except? Go through the length and breadth of Christendom-visit the churches in every quarter of the globe-compare them one with another, and note the points on which they differ. “They are many," you will say, "and great." True: but they all agree on the point which we have this evening been discussing. They all regard Jesus as a divine, no less than a human being as the everlasting Son of the Father, no less than

the Son of Man. They all worship him, and put their trust in him. They all confide in his atonement, and depend upon his intercession. Romanists and Protestants, Churchmen and Dissenters, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Moravians and Methodists, differ as they may on important, but not absolutely essential points, they all agree in regarding the union of the two natures in Christ as the corner-stone of their system.

Surely, it becomes men who presume to differ thus essentially from the whole Christian world, to weigh well their reasons, and to be quite sure that they make no mistake. To follow any other guide than that of Scripture in coming to a conclusion on the subject is virtual infidelity. And, in appealing to the Scriptures, the reference must, of course, be ultimately made to the languages in which they were originally written. Now, it is notorious, that all the best scholars throughout the world, are unanimously of opinion, that the distinctive interpretations of Unitarian writers are untenable, and that, whether the doctrines they maintain be true or false, they are not the doctrines of Scripture. In maintaining then, your peculiar creed, you maintain it in opposition to the plain meaning of God's Holy Word, as established by the testimony of the best and most erudite scholars of every age and nation.

Let me earnestly intreat you, then, to ponder seriously what I have advanced. I do not pretend to know any thing more on the subject than other men, or to put forth any new arguments in favour of orthodox views. My object has been simply to set before you, old and wellestablished truths, and to beseech you, in the name of the Most High God, not to trifle with, nor reject them!

If there be one thing rather than another at which I have aimed throughout this discourse, it has been to avoid

exaggeration, and to act fairly and honestly towards what you profess, for the most part, to believe. Let me request from you similar candour and fairness in return, towards those sentiments of ours from which you dissent. Do not misrepresent nor caricature our doctrine: do not take the ignorant statements which some Trinitarians have been guilty of making, as a fair representation of our creed. Do not raise a phantom of heterodoxy, under the name of orthodoxy, and then justify yourselves to your own breasts in scorning and deriding it; but act fairly, and judge righteous judgment.

My controversy, you will remember, is not with you, nor with your ministers, but with what I believe to be your baneful and dangerous errors. I would not, willingly, give you or them the least unnecessary offence; nor have I any personal feelings of ill-will to any one of you: on the contrary, nothing would gratify me more than to prove instrumental in doing you good.

Receive, then, in good part, that which I have now ventured to address to you; and suffer neither prejudice nor pride to stand in the way of your profiting, or prevent you from "receiving, with meekness, that ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls!"

END OF THE FOURTH LECTURE.