the sufferings of the Mediator can be of infinite avail, as being the sufferings of God. But Christ's sufferings are esteemed the sufferings of God: And his blood is esteemed of infinite avail, as the blood of God. Therefore real Deity did dwell in the man Jesus, in such a sense, as to constitute them One, the Person of the Mediator. This connection of the two natures is a mystery; but it is no contradiction, nor absurdity; it is not above the power of God to effect.

God

No doubt many plausible things may be said, (if men are disposed,) against the divine economy of constituting such a connexion between a Person really divine, and a created nature, as that the sufferings of the latter shall be esteemed as the sufferings of God. The objector, if he be hardy enough! may say, It is all a mere pretence. did not suffer at all. 66 He only substituted a creature to suffer in his stead; like the king, who engaged to die, and who fulfilled his promise by marrying a poor woman, thus becoming one with her, and causing her to die; which conduct would not be very honorable!" But let me ask, what point in Divinity is not capable of being cavilled at? What point of divine truth has not been attacked, and presented in a base light! Things seemingly plausible may be said in opposition to every cardinal doctrine in theology. But in view of the above objections, let me inquire; do not the same difficulties attend the scheme of our opponents, so far as they rely on the constituted indwelling of the fulness of God, to give an infinite dignity to the derived Son of God, and an infinite merit to his atonement? But their great reliance is on the dignity and fulness of God the Father, to furnish their Mediator for his work. The relief is too small to be noted, to say, that the derived Person

of their Mediator, in whom the Father dwells, is very far greater than human; being formed of the Father's essence! For to what does all the difference between derived natures amount, when compared with the infinite God? Before him all dependent beings sink to nothing! The reliance of our opponents, who hold to a literally derived Son of God, is in fact solely on the Father, exclusively of any other truly divine Person in the Godhead (for they believe in no other) for both the existence, and all the ability of the Son of God to atone for Sin, or to officiate in any of the duties of the mediatorial office. There can be no adequate merit or dignity attending them, but what comes from God the Father. Yet some of our opponents represent the Son as having made the atonement, and as doing all the work of the Mediator. And some of them will admit of it as an infinite atonement; a mediation of infinite efficacy; while to render it thus, their reliance must be on the indwelling, and the infinite fulness of the Father. Do not the same objections then, stated above, apply with as great force to their own scheme? Most certainly! for, did God the Father suffer, in the sufferings of Christ? And if not, how could his infinite fulness and dignity add any weight to the sufferings of the finite Son? But if the opponent can imagine, that the infinite fulness and dignity of the Father can add an infinite weight to the atonement made by the derived and finite Son of God; why can it not as well be admitted, that the constituted union of real Deity (the second Person in the Trinity) with the man Jesus Christ, may give an infinite dignity to the atonement made by him? Why shall the latter scheme, any more than the former, be represented as a mere pretence? But, may not God constitute

a connection between one of the infinite Persons in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, so that they shall properly be called and viewed one? Is not God able to do this? And has he not a right to do it, whatever difficulties or objections may arise concerning it in the minds of fallen man? All connections in creation depend on the sovereign will of God. Suppose God could previously have consulted man, relative to many of these connections; as, that between man's soul and body; that between God's own sovereign, universal agency in the government of the world, (making all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil; Prov. xvi. 4,) and the free agency and accountability of man; what would the wisdom of man have replied? Could he have been God's counsellor? Inexplicable difficulties would have appeared. But God has established these, and all other created connections in the universe. The laws of nature are of his ordaining: and it is in vain for man to object. And no less vain or impious is it, to object to the constituted connexion between the real Deity and humanity of Christ, which unitedly constitute his Person. The union is constituted. It is not essential to either nature. But it was constituted by the sovereign will of Him, who constituted all the created connexions in the universe. Man may repeat the question of Nicodemus in another case, "How can these things be?" This question may be asked concerning some part of every work of God, not excepting the smallest atom; and no man can answer it. Man is of yesterday, and knows nothing! He is surrounded with an universe of wonders! Is it incredible then, that the infinite Creator of this universe should have unfathomable depths in his name, and the mode of

his existence? Is it incredible, that He, whose name is Wonderful, and whom no man knoweth, but the Father, has things relative to his Person, which exceed the philosophy of vain man? "Canst thou by searching find out God?" Who shall object, or why, if God please to say, that the humanity of Christ shall be taken into such an union with one in the Godhead, that the blood of the human nature, shed for sin, shall be called and esteemed the blood of God, to make an infinite atonement; and the infinite glory of underived Deity shall be possessed by this wonderful Person of two natures? Shall man say, that such inexplicable things attend the consideration of such a Person, that they cannot believe in him? This, alas, would be nothing new! "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.' Christ has long since been to some a stumbling block; and to some foolishBut to others he is "the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Would such a connexion, as has been stated, between the two natures, human and divine, (supposing God had revealed the certainty of it, in language, which could admit of no doubt) amount to an absurdity? Would it evidently degrade the divine character? If not; who can say, that such a connexion does not in fact exist? For the Word of God does read, as though this were the case. And thus it has been understood, by the body of the Church of Christ, for many centuries.

ness.

Relative to Christ's being of underived Divinity, let it be further noted; if he were not underived, would God the Father have ascribed to him the work of creation? and would he have ascribed to him immutability? Unto the Son, God saith, Heb. i. 10,- Thou Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are

66

1

the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the sane, and thy years shall not fail." Here immutability, as well as creation, is ascribed by God the Father to Christ ;-" Thou shalt endure-thou art the same."-As in the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 8. "Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, to day, and forever." Can such repeated divine ascriptions of immutability be applied to a derived, dependent being?

66

And could such a being create the world? Would the infinite God repeatedly ascribe the work of creation to a finite dependent being; and say to him, "Thou Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hand?" Are not here two persons; and the second, as well as the first, really God? The earth and the heavens are the work of Christ's hands. Yet we read, "He, that made all things, is God." "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy works." Is not Christ then, God? We are taught Heb. i. 2, that God made the worlds by his Son; or by this second Person, now known as his Son. Does this import, that Christ created the worlds only by a delegated agency? Or that his agency in creation was only such as that, by which holy men wrought miracles? Some pretend this. But the Jehovah of hosts, abundantly in the prophet Isaiah, assumed creation to himself, as one of his essential distinctions from false gods. Did this Jehovah of hosts hold this distinction only by a delegated power or privilege? If this were all, his thus creating the world was no evidence of his real Divinity; any more than