mentioned, and he affirmed that it was the Father in him that did the work.

2. Had the Son of God become man in no othe sense than "by taking to himself a true body and reasonable soul," and had he been, as you suppose, personally the independent God, he could not with any propriety have asserted his personal dependence. For however dependent his human nature might be, as a person he would have been independent and selfsufficient. Yet, it is believed, we have no account of any of her person in the Scriptures, who said so much of his personal dependence as did Jesus Christ the Son of God. In the most personal and most emphatical manner he declared, "I can of mine own self do nothing." It is remarkable, that any of the friends of Christ should think it dishonorary to him to say that he was dependent, while he himself se constantly affirmed his dependence on the Father. Not only did Christ abundantly assert his personal dependence on the Father, but, as a PERSON, and as a Son, he prayed to the Father for himself as the Son of God. See his solemn prayer, John xvii.

3. When angels have appeared "in the likenessof men," they have been denominated either angels or men, just as the Lord Jesus is sometimes called the SON OF GOD, and sometimes the Son of Man. The angels who appeared to Lot, in Sodom, are, in the same narrative, several times called angels, and several times called men. The prophet Daniel, in speaking of the angel who appeared to him, says, "The MAN GABRIEL whom I had seen in the vision."

Shall we, sir, accuse Moses and Daniel of great impropriety, in speaking of those personages sometimes as angels, and sometimes as men? They were

called men, because they appeared "in the likeness of men," that is, in an embodied state. If a transient or an occasional residence in bodies of human form might be sufficient ground on which to dénominate angels men, a permanent residence in a human body might be sufficient ground on which to denominate the SON OF GOD the Son of Man.

4. The scripture accounts of the incarnation of the Son of God contain no intimation that he took "to himself a true body and a reasonable soul;" but the contrary is plainly suggested.-"The Word was made flesh." John i. 14. "God had sworn to David, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne." Acts ii. 30.—“ Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh." Rom. i. 3. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came." Rom. ix. 5.

Why were these phrases inserted, according to the flesh, or concerning the flesh, but to teach us that our Lord is of the seed of Abraham and David ONLY according to the flesh, or in respect to the flesh?

In the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, the writer gives us a most exalted character of the Son of God; and in the second, he represents his incarnation. "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."-Again, "Wherefore, in all things, it behoved 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 in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted."

How, sir, are the children partakers of flesh and blood? Is it by taking to themselves true bodies and reasonable souls? Is it not rather by being reasonable souls of human bodies? Or by being in an embodied state, in union with flesh and blood? If so, then for CHRIST to become like his brethren, a partaker of flesh and blood, he must become in an embodied state, or become the soul of a human body. Before his incarnation, he was not like to the seed of Abraham in respect to partaking of flesh and blood; but it behoved him so to be, that he might be a merciful High Priest; and that by being himself subject to those temptations which result from a union with flesh and blood, he might know how to sympathize with us, and to succor those who are tempted. But if his incarnation implied no more than his becoming united to a man, how was he prepared by this to be "touched with the feelings of our infirmities ?”

In the tenth chapter of the same epistle, it is represented, that when the Son was about to come into the world, he said to his Father, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a BODY hast thou prepared me." The Son did not say, "a true body and reasonable soul" hast thou prepared me ; nor, a Man hast thou prepared me ; but "a BODY hast thou prepared me." And does not his language plainly suggest, that he himself was to be the Soul of that Body which God had prepared? Let common sense decide the question.

5. There is abundant evidence, that the Person, who called himself the Son of Man, had pre-existence; but there is no evidence that he pre-existed otherwise than as the Son of God, or the Angel of God.

That the Son of God had pre-existence, is not doubted by you; and it is amazing, that it should be

denied by any man who professes a respect for the oracles of God. In addition to all that is said of the Son of God as the Creator, or the one by whom God created all things; and all that is said of him as the Angel of God; and all that is said of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was; and all that is said of his incarnation; there are a multitude of texts which naturally import his pre-existence.

His pre-existence is naturally implied in the numerous passages which speak of God's sending his Son into the world, and of God's giving his Son. The same idea is implied in all that Christ said of his coming forth from the Father, and coming down from heaven, and coming forth from God. Such representations naturally import that he had existed with the Father, with God, and in heaven, before he was sent, or before he came into the world.

To the unbelieving Jews Christ said, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." To his disciples he said, "For the Father himself, loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God: I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father."

These passages Christ spake as the SON OF GOD; and they plainly import two things

1. That the Son is a being distinct from God, so distinct that he could proceed forth and come from God.

2. That the Son existed with God before he came into the world.

Similar things Christ spake of himself as the SON OF MAN. On another occasion he said much of his

being the bread of God which cometh down from heaven. John vi. In this discourse he styled himself the Son of Man. Some of his disciples were displeased with what he said on this occasion. "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What, and if ye shall see the SON OF MAN ascend up where HE was before?”

These several passages, compared together, plainly import not only the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, but the identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man.

6. The personal identity of the Son of GoD and the. SON of MAN is plainly implied in the declaration of St. Paul, Eph. iv. 10. Speaking of the ascension of

Christ, he says, "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." You will, sir, it is believed, admit that it was the Son of GOD who descended, and the SON of MAN who ascended. And if he that descended is the same who ascended, then the Son of God and the Son of Man are the same. Of course, the Son of God became the Son of Man by becoming the soul of a human body.

7. You will grant that it was the Son of Man, or the Man Christ Jesus, who died on the cross, who was raised from the dead, and exalted at the right hand of God. But all these things are distinctly and abundantly affirmed of Christ as the Son of God, or as our Lord and Savior. I have no occasion to produce any passages of Scripture to prove that these things are said of Christ as the Son of Man, but I may produce some passages to show that these same things are affirmed of God's own Sou, by whom he made the worlds, and the one who is now our Lord and Savior.