conveyed, a divine Person. Especially, if we consid

er once more,

That he justified himself in professing to be a divine person; and persisted in that profession, in the full view of death. When the Jews charged him with blasphemy, for making himself God, he boldly justified his conduct. "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." Indeed, he was so willing to justify his pretensions to divinity, that he once proposed the question himself, on purpose to confound and silence the Pharisees, upon this subject. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them saying, what think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he? They say unto him, the Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. If David then call him Lord, how is he is Son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." Nor did he barely justify his claim. to divinity, but even persisted in the claim, when he knew it would cost him his life. After he was apprehended and brought before the High Priest, the capital charge laid against him was his professing to be a divine person. It is true, they accused him, before Pilate, of professing to be a King. But before the High Priest and Ecclesiastical Court, they charged him with no other crime than that of blasphemy, in making himself God. Accordingly, "the High

Priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou sayest it. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, Then the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy, what think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death." Thus Christ professed to be a divine Person while he lived; and when he died, he sealed his testimony with his own blood. It is as cer tain, therefore, that he possessed divinity, as that he possessed the least degree of truth or moral sincerity. It only remains to consider,

III. Upon what grounds Christ asserted both his humanity and divinity.

And here, in the first place, let us inquire upon what foundation he asserted his humanity. Was it simply because he was born of a woman, and had a body of human shape and size? This is what some suppose. But is this supposition credible? Does a mere human body, born of a woman, though destitute of a human soul, constitute a human person? Adam was a man, though he never was born. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are men, though their bodies have been long since separated from their souls. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that Christ would assert his humanity, upon the slender ground of being born of a woman, and having only a human body. A human soul without a human body might have constituted him a man. But a human body without a human soul, could not have given him the essence of humanity. This leads us to conclude, that he asserted his humanity, upon the just

foundation of having "a true body and a reasonable soul," united in the same manner, as the soul and body are united in other men. And if he had a human soul united with a human body, then he may be as properly denominated a man, as any of his progeni tors, whose names are mentioned in the first chapter of Matthew.

Let us next consider the ground upon which he asserted his divinity.

He could not pretend to be a divine person, upon Socinian ground, which is that of Divine Inspiration. A divine person has no occasion of being divinely inspired. This the Socinians allow, and, therefore, do not consider Christ as a divine person, because he had the gift of inspiration; but place him upon a level with other inspired men.

Nor could he assert his divinity upon Arian ground; which is, that he possessed all divine excellencies, except self-existence and independence. For, however great the powers and capacities of a dependent being may be; yet he cannot possess a single attribute, which may be properly called divine. The Arians run into a plain absurdity, which the Socinians avoid. The Socinians deny, that any being is divine, who is destitute of self-existence and independence; but the Arians maintain, that a being may be divine, who wants both these incommunicable attributes of the Deity. They plead that Christ possessed divine power, wisdom, and goodness; though he was absolutely dependent, and derived his being and all his powers from the Supreme God and Father of all. But it is totally inconceivable, that a derived, dependent Nature, should really possess any of those divine perfections, which essentially belong to an underived, independent, self-existent Being. No communications from

God to Christ could make him a divine person. Nor could any intercourse with the Deity, however near and intimate, make him a Deity. So that no excelJencies or perfections of his nature, short of self-existence and independence, could justify him in asserting his divinity.

Nor could he pretend to be a divine person, upon Unitarian ground; which is, that he was only a superangelic Nature united with a human body, and sent by the one only true God, to perform the work of redemption. Upon this hypothesis he could assert neither his humanity, nor divinity; for he was neither a man, nor an angel, nor a Deity; but a being (sui generis) of a peculiar kind. Accordingly, the Unitarians do not pretend he was a Deity, or possessed of any truly divine attributes. And we cannot suppose, that he would assert his divinity, upon a ground which was not just, and which the Unitarians themselves. suppose was not sufficient to support such an assertion.

There remains no other ground, therefore, upon which he could assert his divinity, but that of his being God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person. A personal union between his divine and human nature would properly constitute him a divine person. And it appears from his own expressions, that he did assert his divinity upon this ground. He says, John iii, 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven." Here he represents his own individual person as being both in heaven and on earth, at one and the same time. And upon the supposition of his human and divine natures being personally united, he might properly say this; but upon no other supposition. A prophet could not

say this in his nearest approaches to God. Paul could not say this, when he was caught up to the third heav en. An angel could not say this, either in heaven or on earth. Nor could Christ say this, unless his hu man nature were personally united with the divine. Any other union, however near and intimate, could not warrant him who was a man, to make himself God.

But here it may be inquired, what is meant by Christ's human nature's being personally united with his divine nature. It is easy to say what is not meant by it. It does not mean, that his human nature was made divine nature. Omnipotence could not transform his humanity into divinity; because that would be the same as to produce divinity, or create a Creator. But supposing his human nature could have been made divine nature; yet that would have prevented his being God and man in two natures, and but one person, which is what he professed to be.

Nor, on the other hand, does his human nature's being personally united with his divine nature, mean, that his divine nature was made human nature. For, there was the same impossibility of degrading his divinity into humanity, as of exalting his humanity into divinity. And could this have been done, it would have equally prevented his being what he professed to be, God and man in one person.

Nor does his human nature's being personally unit ed with his divine nature, mean, that his two natures were mixt or blended together. For, it evidently appears from Scripture, that he personally possessed every divine perfection, and every human quality, except sin. He discovered, in the course of his life, human ignorance and divine knowledge; human wants