that both natures exist, unmixed and unconfounded, in the same Person. Such is the orthodox faith: and unless it can be shewn that this faith involves a contradiction, it is clearly most irrational to say, that it ought not to be maintained, because it is incomprehensible. Such is the absurdity to which the heretical impugner of the divinity of Christ will be driven, by a careful pursuit of the argument. His only remaining refuge therefore is to be found in the denial that the Scriptures are rightly interpreted by the supporters of the orthodox faith and his hope is, that by the arts of criticism, and the powers of subtle argumentation, he may be able either to wrest the page of inspiration to his purpose, or so to perplex the question, as to draw the defender of the faith out of the strong holds of Scripture, where, if he be skilful in the use of his weapons, he can neither be baffled nor defeated, into the mazes of metaphysical disputation, where certainty is unattainable, and skilful sophistry may avail to make the worse appear the better reason. It is with a view to the former of these

objects that the bold position has been lately taken, which assumes, that the true interpretation of St. Paul's writings will contribute to establish the fact, that the simple humanity of Christ is the clear indisputable doctrine of the New Testament "." That such an assertion (so boldly made) may not be supposed by any to be indisputable, because it is not formally disproved as often as it is repeated; it may be useful to inquire, what St. Paul really taught on this fundamental question; and thus endeavour to arrive at a knowledge of what he probably intended to teach in this his first sermon, by examining the import of the language which he has repeatedly used in his Epistles to illustrate the same subject. My intention is, first, to consider some of those passages in which the Apostle applies the title of " the Son of God" to Jesus Christ; and then to illustrate that title by other parts of his writings, in which he discourses more at length on the mysterious nature of his heavenly Master.

• Vide Belsham's New Translation and Exposition of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Preface.

In the commencement of his Epistle to the Romans", after announcing himself as an Apostle, set apart for the promulgation of that Gospel which had before been promised by the prophets in the holy Scriptures, he informs them, that the tidings which he was thus commissioned by God to deliver were 66 concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Here then the Apostle explicitly teaches, that "Jesus Christ our Lord," who was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh," was the Son of God; and was declared, or, as the original more forcibly expresses it, was clearly defined and shewn to be such, in spirit and in power, by his resurrection from the dead. It is not easy to imagine a form of language which could

P Rom. i. 3, 4.

66

'Ogio levros, declarati, demonstrati, et confirmati: ita certo demonstrati ut in controversiam vocari non amplius possit." Schleusner.

more emphatically state the divine nature of Jesus Christ than this, when thus taken, according to the plain, literal, and grammatical construction of the words ". As St. Paul here tells the Romans, that Jesus Christ was" of the house and lineage of David ;" had he merely added that he was "the Son of God," without further explaining or enforcing the meaning of his words, there might have been something like a plausible pretence for considering this title as nothing more than a recognition of some extraordinary and especial portion of divine favour and assistance, by which he was supported and fitted for his prophetical and regal offices. But when

r 66

Neque sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo. Sic et Apostolus de utraque ejus, substantia docet: Qui factus est, inquit, ex semine David; hic erit homo, et filius hominis: qui definitus Filius Dei secundum Spiritum; hic erit Deus, et sermo Dei Filius. Videmus duplicem statum non confusum, sed conjunctum, in una persona, Deum, et hominem, et Jesum." Tertullian. adv. Prax. cap. 27.

..s I do not here insist upon the expression the Apostle has chosen to use, when declaring the human nature of Christ; saying, that he was made of the seed of David: though undoubtedly it may appear to intimate his pre

δυναμει

the Apostle proceeds to inform us, that this extraordinary person was the Son of God really and effectually, ev duvaμɛi; a partaker of the holy and spiritual nature of the divinity, κατα πνευμα ἁγιωσύνης; and that he was thus clearly declared, in a manner beyond the reach of cavil or ambiguity, by that great surpassing miracle, his resurrection from the dead; it might seem scarcely possible for language to be framed less liable to exception, less open to misconstruction, less capable of being perverted from its true meaning by the ingenuity

existence in another nature; and that there was something peculiar in the manner of his becoming a partaker of our own: and as such the primitive Church adopted the distinction; teaching that as the Son of God, he was begotten, not made; but as man, he was made, and not begotten.

"Hoc quidem impressius," says Tertullian, " quod factum potius dicit quam natum: simplicius enim enuntiasset natum. Factum autem dicendo; et verbum caro factum est, consignavit; et carnis veritatem ex virgine factam adseveravit." Tertullian de Carne Christi, p. 322. edit. Rigalt.

"In Novo Testamento Filius Dei dicitur yavouevos, factus, si de humana ipsius natura; sed wv, existens ab æterno, si de ejus deitate est sermo." J. B. Carpzov. in Epist. ad Rom. ch. i. 3.