the testimony of those qualified to give it, in whose word we may

confide.

In the question before us we must rest solely upon testimony, while there are but two beings qualified to give that testimony. The one witness is the compound being who thus mysteriously exists, and who is certainly qualified to testify to the fact of this union of natures. The other witness is the Being by whom this union was effected-God himself. Our reliance upon the testimony of this compound being, if alone, might be weak; but if to the truth of his assertion we had the testimony of God, who could doubt?

Testimony may either be given by the living voice, or by the signature appended to another's statement. The being of whom we speak had both the voice of God testifying to his words and character, and also the signature of God, which cannot be counterfeited. God's voice, as Christ went forth to his work, commanded belief in his word: "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." And at every step he appealed to the signature of God-the power given him to set aside the physical laws. This was the understood sign of God's presence. It was the signet ring which prophets always presented, and to which they appealed when they spoke in God's name. Christ appealed to this, and demanded a belief that he was of God and his words were true. "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." Here is God's signature; believe that, though you do not my words.

So long, therefore, as God permitted him to put forth this power to work miracles, so long he was responsible for the words of his messenger. His last act of raising him from the dead, was God's seal to the whole life and all the words of Christ. We have, then, but to ask, what does Christ say of himself? For to all of his words is the seal affixed. To question his testimony is to impeach God. His pre-existence Christ often asserted in clear language. Once he told the Jews that he lived before Abraham: "Before Abraham was, I am." The assertion was so plain, that his hearers would have slain him had he not escaped; while, by escaping without offering an explanation, he countenanced their construction of his words.

Also, in that last prayer he declared unto God that he had lived with him before the world was. 66 'Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."

In Philippians, also, it is asserted that he took upon himself a human form. "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Could such language be applied to a mere man? How strangely it would sound from the lips of Paul or Peter!

Also, it is said that through him God made all worlds, and all created beings. "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom, also, he made the worlds." "For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him and for him." And again, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." How could language be more carefully worded to assert Christ's pre-existence? Who could apply such language to a mere man? From this language common sense mind could derive no other meaning than that He who was thus strangely united to a human soul was a superior pre-existent being of vast power, who was, indeed, before all things, and in some sense, at least, was the author of all created mind and matter. These passages may be tortured to speak otherwise, but they cannot speak aught else that is reasonable.

We may now regard the two points upon which we have reasoned as proved-that, united to that human form there was both a human mind and a pre-existent being-that these two minds, though using the same human organs, were as distinct in their mental action as in their natures. When mind and body are united, the nature of either is not changed. Mind does not thereby possess color, weight, or form, nor does matter think, feel, or will. Though united, the attributes of neither are intermingled or confounded-but each in harmony with the other moves forward in obedience to its respective mental or physical law. The fact that mind and matter are so united we believe, but the how the union is effected we know not, and of that we believe nothing. The fact that these two minds were united in one body we believe, but the how the union was effected we are not informed, and we believe nothing about the how. Nor is this union of minds, though an anomalous fact, a fact any more strange than the union of mind and matter which we know in our own experience.

While these two minds were so united in one person, who was sometimes called the Son of God and sometimes the Son of Man, each mind was distinct in its own existence, with its own thoughts, its own purposes. The attributes of neither were in the least commingled or confounded with the other. This union accounts for the strange language that this being used in reference to himself. Sometimes he spoke of himself as a man-sometimes as a superior being. Now he claimed kindred to heaven, and then to earth. It was no more contradictory than that which we daily "I am mortal"-"I am immortal." Who misunderstands

use.

it? "I am thirty years of age." "Before Abraham was, I am." Is that language more doubtful in its meaning?

A belief in the two natures of Christ united in one person re

conciles perfectly the Scripture facts, and makes harmony of those many passages which would otherwise be contradictory; and no other supposition can harmonize Scripture. If Christ was a mere man, how strange is the Scripture language concerning him? Is not its language intended to be understood in its plain and natural sense? Could any other construction be put upon these passages I have quoted, than that before the world was he dwelt in heaven with God, and by him and for him all that is visible of matter, and all invisible, that is, mind, was created? How this plain language must be tortured to make it speak aught else than that he was pre-existent !

Having, then, as I think, showed clearly from revelation the truth of the first two points: That Christ was truly a man like ourselves, with a human soul and a human body, connected with a super-human being, we come now to our third point.

III. And under this third head we propose to show that this preexistent being, so united to the man, was divine; and that in this union of the human and divine nature consisted his superiority to a mere man.

There are not many who will insist, in the face of so much Scripture, that Christ was a mere man. Such belief requires such a torture of language, or such a bold denial of the book as God's revelation, that few will take and defend the ground that he was only a good man. Most will admit that with that human body there must have been associated a superior intelligence. Some admit that this intelligence was most exalted in his nature, higher than all the angels, principalities, and powers of heaven, for he was their Creator. To him such even ascribe the titles of God, and crown him with transcendent majesty and glory, while still they deny that he possesses divinity and is really God. They affirm that though so exalted, yet that he is a created being, and the creator of all worlds only as the instrument by whom Deity acted; that he was only the vice-gerent of Deity; that kingly and divine names are ascribed to him only as a compliment to his station as God's representative. Such deny his claim to be worshipped as God. Such admit that this exalted being assumed our nature, and that this union of the exalted and human nature accounts for the strange language which he uses when speaking of himself. Such admit and believe the fact of this mysterious union of natures, though they believe nothing and are able to tell us nothing about the manner of this union.

But it is the union of two natures, a superior and human, that involves all the difficulty. It is not increased by supposing that superior nature to be divine. If God could create such an exalted being, and unite him to a human soul, could he not unite that human soul to his own nature? And if He can unite himself to a human form, as He did of old, why may He not to a

human soul? Who can say that such a union of the Divine and human nature involves contradiction which Deity cannot overpass? It would involve a contradiction to suppose God endowed humanity with Divine attributes, and gave to the human soul Eternity, Omniscience, and Omnipotence-raising the creature to the throne of Divinity, making him a co-equal God! It would involve a like contradiction to suppose that the Eternal God made himself a creature of yesterday, and then increased in wisdom and holiness, as is said of the infant Jesus. To believe that the Infinite God became a man in this sense; or that the man was God; or that the same intelligence was both man and God; or that the Divine and human attributes were commingled, or belonged to the same mind-to believe these things would be to credit contradictions and absurdities. Such belief would confound all thought, and we may be sure God never asked it of his intelligent creatures. It is possible that some have supposed that such a mass of contradictions was the belief of those who held to the Divinity of Christ. It is certain that we are so charged. And it is against such supposed contradictions that the arguments and ridicule of those who deny Christ are aimed.

But we do believe that this was a union of the divine and human nature; not a change of either, nor a confounding of the two. The thoughts, feelings, and will of each were as distinct after as before the union, and the knowledge of the divine became that of the human mind only as it was voluntarily imparted. While the divine nature and the human soul acted separately in their distinct and appropriate spheres, they used in common the same bodily organs, and manifested themselves through the same form; so that at one time humanity speaks of its feeble. ness, inferiority, and ignorance; at other times, with the same mouth, the mighty God speaks as He did through bodily organs to Abraham and Joshua, and says unto the dead, "I say unto thee, arise;" "Lazarus, come forth!" declares that all hearts are known unto Him, and lays his hand as upon his own upon the sceptre of Jehovah.

The New Testament abounds in expressions that predicate weakness and strength, knowledge and ignorance, human and divine attributes of this compound being. Why should we not understand the language, and apply it to the man or the veiled God, as it is applicable to the one or the other?

We do not then believe contradictions when we acknowledge Christ's Divinity. When we worship him we do not worship the man Jesus Christ-but, as did Abraham and Joshua, we worship Deity veiled in human form. True, in our thoughts we may not always so separate the two natures, nor is it needful; it suffices that the mind is directed to him as God.

For proof that this superior being was God himself, we might take our stand upon the names, attributes, works, and worship

ascribed and rendered to him-for to no being less than God could such ascriptions be made without blasphemy. We might appeal to the worship rendered him in heaven, where he is associated with the Supreme Being in the praises of angels and the redeemed. But at the present time we will rest our position upon a short but conclusive argument derived from his trial and condemnation. So conclusive do we think it that we would willingly rest our belief of his Divinity upon this argument alone.

Christ was hated by the rulers whom he exposed; but was so beloved by the people that his enemies dared not destroy him by violence. When, at last, they had drawn him into their power, they sought to slay him through a judicial process. By carefully comparing the recorded particulars, we may see how they effected it. He had two trials. The first was before an ecclesiastical court, the High Priest and Jewish Sanhedrim. The second was

a state trial before Pilate, the Roman Governor.

The indictments framed against him in these trials were different, though both were framed and prosecuted by the same persons. On the first trial his judges were his prosecutors. They hired Judas to betray, and witnesses to accuse him. The indictment charged upon him the guilt of "blasphemy "-" that, being a man, he made himself," or claimed "to be God." Witnesses were called, but no two were found to witness the same point. At last two were found who asserted that he claimed omnipotence, but in some way their testimony conflicted and was thrown out. Could this charge be sustained, his enemies could sentence him to death under the Mosaic statute. This statute, recorded in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, commanded death to those who enticed Israel from the worship of the true God. Could they not substantiate this charge, they must acquit him. Their witnesses all failed them, and, at the last, their only hope was that Christ would confess to the indictment. The High Priest proceeded, therefore, to put Christ himself under oath, adjuring him, by the living God, to speak the truth. He then put two questions to Christ. The first was whether he was really Christ, the expected Messiah. But, as if this was not explicit enough to meet the Mosaic statute, he added another question: "Art thou, then, the Son of God?" The language, Son of God," may be used in various senses. Angels are called sons of God, and so is Adam called the son of God. But the High Priest meant not to ask whether he was an angel or a man, but whether he was the Son of God in the high sense charged-claiming divine honors, and so coming under the statute of Moses. He meant to ask whether Christ would confess to the indictment or no. So addressed, Christ was not to consider what meaning these words might possibly bear, but the sense in which the High Priest used them. He could not but know he was called upon to answer, whether he was the Son of God in the sense of claiming divine