Christ was God, and Christ was man? He had a nature human and divine. One person, indeed, in the sense in which Abraham was, he is not. Nor is there any created object to which the union of Godhead with humanity can be compared. But shall we deny the possibility of it on this account? Or shall we tax with absurdity that which it is utterly beyond our reach to scan? I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in the attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation may dictate in regard to this. It becomes us here to do so-to prostrate ourselves before the Father of Lights, and say, "Speak, Lord, for thy servants hear. Lord, what wilt

thou have us to believe?"

You may indeed find fault with us that we speak of three persons in the Godhead where there is but one nature; and yet of but one person in Christ where there are two natures. I admit that it is an apparent inconsistency in the use of language; and cannot but wish that it had not originally been adopted. Still it is capable of some explanation. In the first case, person simply designates the idea that there is some real distinction in the Godhead, in opposition to the opinion that it is merely nominal. In the second, it designates Christ as he appears to us in the New Testament, clothed with a human body, and yet acting (as we suppose) not only as possessing the attributes of a man, but as also possessing divine power. We see the attributes of human nature in such intimate conjunction with those of the divine, that we

cannot separate the agents; at least we know not where to draw the line of separation, because we do not know the manner in which the union is effected or continued. We speak therefore of one person,-i.e. one agent. And when we say that the two natures of Christ are united in one person, we mean to say that divinity and humanity are brought into such a connexion in this case, that we cannot separate them so as to make two entirely distinct and separate agents.

The present generation of Trinitarians, however, do not feel responsible for the introduction of such technical terms, in senses so diverse from the common ideas attached to them. They merely take them as they find them. For my own part I have no attachment to them; I think them injudiciously chosen, and heartily wish they were by general consent entirely exploded. They serve perhaps, in most cases, principally to keep up the form of words without definite ideas; and I fear they have been the occasion of many disputes in the Church. The things which are aimed at by these terms, I would strenuously retain; because I believe in the divine origin and authority of the Bible; and that its language, fairly interpreted, does inculcate these things. And candour on your part will certainly admit, that things only are worth any dispute. Logomachy is too trifling for

a lover of truth.

LETTER III.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,

My great object hitherto, has been to show that the real question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in the Godhead and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be decided independently of the Scriptures. There is no such absurdity or inconsistency in either of these doctrines, as will justify us in rejecting them without investigation. The question whether they are true or not, belongs entirely and purely to revelation. If you admit this, then the simple question between us is, what does revelation teach? We are agreed that the Bible is the word of God; that whatever "Christ taught, either during his personal ministry or by his inspired apostles, is of divine authority." We are agreed as to principles of interpretation, in most things that are of importance. We both concede, that the principles by which all books are to be interpreted, are those which apply to

the interpretation of the Bible; for the very plain reason which you have given, that when God condescends to speak and write for men, it is according to the established rules of human language. What better than an enigma would the Scriptures be, if such were not the fact? An inspired interpreter would be as necessary to explain, as an inspired prophet or apostle was to compose, the books of Scripture.

From this great and fundamental principle of the Scriptural writings, viz. that they are composed agreeably to the common laws of human language, it results, that the grammatical analysis of the words of any passage, i. e. an investigation of their usual and general meaning, of their syntactical connexion, of their idiom, and of their relation to the context, must be the essential process in determining the sense of any text or part of Scripture. On this fundamental process depends the interpretation of all the classics, and of all other books. In conformity to this process, rules of interpretation are prescribed which cannot be violated without at once plunging into the dark and boundless field of conjectural exegesis. I may obtain aid from many sources, to throw light upon the meaning of words and sentences. From a knowledge of the geography of any country-of its climate, soil, productions, mountains, rivers, and other natural objects, as well as of the manners, customs, laws, history, &c., of its inhabitants-I may obtain assistance to explain its language, and must obtain it if I mean to make out

But I can never

a satisfactory interpretation. dispense with the laws of grammatical analysis. These laws are vindicated by the simple fact, that every writer wishes and expects to be understood by his cotemporaries, and therefore may be expected to use language as they do. We presume this of the sacred writers; and therefore apply to their productions, as to those of classic authors, the common rules of grammatical interpretation.

Admitting these rules to be the best and surest guide to the meaning of language, we cannot supersede them by supposing, or conjecturing, peculiarities in a writer. It is only when these peculiarities are proved, or at least rendered probable, that they can be admitted to influence our interpretation of any passage. Without such proof, we cannot violate the obvious principles of grammatical interpretation, for the sake of vindicating from inconsistency, absurdity, or contradiction, any author, even a scriptural one.

I must here explain myself, however, in order to prevent mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scriptures certainly stand on different ground from that on which any other book rests, on account of their claim to be received as a revelation from God. What other book can plead wellauthenticated miracles for its support; or can produce declarations of a prophetic nature that have been fulfilled; or can glory in such an exhibition of the principles of piety and virtue-of love to God, and of benevolence and beneficence to men? Just in proportion, then, as these evi