patible with one another. The qualities of God are eterni- · ❝ty, independence, immutability, entire and perpetual exemp"tion from pain and death, omniscience and omnipotence. "The qualities of man are derived existence, dependence, lia❝bility to change, to suffering, and to dissolution, comparative "weakness and ignorance. To maintain, therefore, that the "same mind is indued both with a Divine and a human "nature, is to maintain that the same mind is both created "and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and "independent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal "and immortal, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, "both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted "with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant

66

of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate know"ledge of them. If it be not certain that such a doctrine

as this is false, there is no certainty on any subject. It is "vain to call it a mystery; it is an absurdity, it is an im"possibility. According to my ideas of propriety and duty, "by assenting to it, I should culpably abuse those faculties “of understanding, which have been given me to be em"ployed in distinguishing between right and wrong, truth "and error. According to the maxims laid down as the guides of our inquiry, and acknowledged by Mr. Wardlaw "as fundamental principles, this doctrine could not be esta"blished even by the clearest declarations of the ScripFor the testimony of the Scriptures would not prove it to be true: on the contrary, its occurrence in "the Scriptures would prove them to be false." (Pages 160, 161.)

❝tures.

Now in all this I have the happiness of most entirely and cordially agreeing with my opponent. If the orthodox doctrine be what he here represents it, let it be rejected

and proscribed as it deserves, and branded with every epithet that implies impiety and folly. But it is not so. And, what is more, Mr. Yates knows it is not so; and knew it at the moment when he was sketching and filling up this most hideous picture. Whether any Trinitarian has sat to him for the portrait I know not:-if any one has, we deny the family likeness; we do not recognise a single feature of consanguinity. But the truth is, Mr. Yates on this occasion, for reasons best known to himself, preferred the pencil of the caricaturist to that of the faithful portrait painter, and he has certainly shown with what dexterity he can wield it.-Having finished his picture, he exhibits it to the public as the object of their disgust and aversion. But on the painter must alight the indignation and the scorn of every one who is capable of comparing the portrait with the professed original. "Is it like?-Like whom?" It has no prototype in nature. It is the monstrous production of a malicious fancy.

But I am forgetting the proof of my charge. It is not far off. In the account given by Mr. Yates, in the latter. part of his work, of the origin and progress of the Trinitarian error, he says, (p. 264.) "In 431, another council "was held at Ephesus, in which it was voted that the "two natures of Christ make but one person; and in 451, "another was held at Chalcedon, to determine, that notwith"standing their personal union, the Divine and human na"tures of Christ continue distinct. Thus the doctrine was "gradually brought to the state in which it has been since "received by the reputed orthodox."-Mr. Yates then was perfectly aware, that in the system of the "reputed orthodox,” the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ, continue "distinct;" that is, (as the word is explained by

themselves in this connexion) that they are united but not confounded; that the peculiar properties of the former are not communicated to the latter, nor those of the latter to the former; that the union "did not consist in the transmutation "of the Divine into the human nature, or in the blending of "the one with the other; but in the assumption of the human "nature into a close and mysterious conjunction with the "Divine, which produced no alteration in either, but united “them, in a manner to us incomprehensible, as one princi"ple of operation in the accomplishment of redemption. Mr. Yates knew this. He could not but know it; for it is most distinctly and carefully stated in the confessions and creeds of the Protestant churches. Why, then, has Mr. Yates, in the above extract, sacrificed truth for the sake of pointed antithesis? Why has he given there a statement of the views of his opponents diametrically opposite to what he knew to be the views they hold? He has enumerated the properties of God, and the properties of man ; and then, instead of keeping them distinct, he has represented the system of Trinitarians as ascribing these opposite and incompatible properties to the same mind: as if they held the doctrine of the human soul of Jesus possessing the attributes of his Divine nature, or his Divine nature the qualities of his human soul.-Mr. Yates has accused me of "bitter misrepresentation." I leave it with the reader to judge, whether, "having search"ed all my stuff," he has been able to produce any thing comparable to this. It became Mr. Yates to take up our doctrine as it really is;-to prove it absurd and contradictory if he was able:-but, instead of this, he has framed a doctrine for us, and tried to make his thoughtless and ignorant reader (for it could succeed with no other) gape with

* Sermons by the Rev. John Dick, D. D. just published, Sermon III. P. 63.

astonishment and horror at the creature of his own imagination. He has laid on his blows lustily; but they light on a shadow. No Trinitarian can feel them. The only wound they inflict, is making the heart bleed, in pity for the man who could act so unworthy a part.

That Mr. Yates was fully conscious at the time, that the view he was giving was a false one, appears pretty clear even from some parts of the context of the strange extract quoted above. In the conclusion of that extract, he says: "According to the maxims laid down as the guides of our

66

inquiry, and acknowledged by Mr. Wardlaw as funda"mental principles, this doctrine could not be established ❝even by the clearest declarations of the Scriptures. For "the testimony of the Scriptures would not prove it to "be true; on the contrary, its occurrence in the Scriptures "would prove them to be false."-Yet in the next paragraph on the same page, he thus expresses himself: "Neverthe"less, if we find in the Scriptures the unintelligible pro"position, that in the person of Christ Jesus, a Divine "was united with a human nature,' or if this assertion be "uttered in these terms, and declared to express a truth, by "an accredited prophet, we shall give our implicit assent,

66

presuming that it is understood by the prophet who pro"nounces, the apostle who writes, or the God who dictates "it."-Now, what is this but to say, If the Trinitarian doctrine be asserted in the Scriptures, we will believe it? Is Mr. Yates then prepared to give "implicit assent" to a proposition, "the occurrence of which in the Scriptures would be suffi "cient to prove them false?" It does not belong to me to make out his consistency. I presume, however, that we must apply the former of these two passages to the Trinitarian doctrine, as Mr. Yates found it convenient to represent

it; (in which case I have already expressed my concurrence with him in all he can say of its absurdity)-and the latter to the same doctrine, as he knew it in reality to be held.

Before proceeding to Mr. Yates's observations on the Scripture evidence of this point, I shall take this opportunity of offering a few remarks on the philosophy of the case.-I had said, (Discourses, pages 34, 35.) "How that which is "infinite can be united with that which is finite ;—the infinite "nature of Deity with the finite nature of a creature,"of a mortal man,-is at once admitted to be beyond our "comprehension. But let us see here, as in the former 66 case, whether there be not, in some of the Divine perfec"tions, of the existence of which we are accustomed to speak "without even the slightest measure of doubt, something "quite as incomprehensible; felt to be so, whenever we at"tempt to make it the subject of fixed thought, or of distinct "conception. I refer to the same attribute of Deity, from "which I took my illustration formerly. We ascribe omnipresence to God. We say that God is here. But how, "I ask, is he here? How can that which is infinite be here? "What is the nature of that connexion, which subsists "between a Being who is infinite, whose existence is bound"less, and any particular limited portion of space? As soon "as our opponents have answered this question, we shall "be able, I think, to answer theirs, What is the nature "of the connexion between the infinite nature of Deity, "and the finite nature of the man Christ Jesus?' The

66

66

principle which affords a satisfactory answer to the one, "will afford an answer equally satisfactory to the other. "That is, they are both alike unanswerable:-for I do not "introduce the one case, as furnishing any explanation ❝of the other, so as to render it more easily comprehensible;