readily discover any difference between these two modes of expression, nor would easily detect a nearer approach to heresy in the one than in the other. Yet the difference was very clearly understood in the time of Justinian; for while nobody felt any scruples about the latter expression, some Catholics hesitated to make use of the former, lest they should be supposed to ascribe suffering, not to a Divine person, but to the Divinity. Facundus on the contrary shews that the first is the proper mode of expression, as the latter does not stand sufficiently clear of Nestorianism. A Nestorian would not say that one of the Trinity suffered, but would say readily enough, that a person of the Trinity suffered, meaning that the Man Jesus Christ who suffered, bore the person of the Word, much in the same way as Paul bore it, when he said, "If I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes I forgave it in the person of Christ." What would have been thought, in those days, of the orthodoxy of men who openly avow their application, to the flesh of Christ, of terms which they will not apply to Christ? And what would have been thought of their knowledge of Theology, when they attempted to escape the charge of heresy by alleging that these terms are not applied in the offensive sense that they are commonly understood to convey.

In Part II. I had originally intended to give a complete view of the Theology of the Primitive Church on the doctrine of the Incarnation. But this I soon found, however important, would require a work

much larger than I contemplated, or could easily command time to execute. I found it necessary therefore to direct my attention exclusively to the one point of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. And on this point too, I found that I must confine myself to the writers of the first four centuries; and even within these limits I have been compelled to omit by far the greater number of the passages that I had marked for quotation. A different arrangement of the testimonies from the primitive writers would have exhibited their strength to much greater advantage. Still the simple arrangement of them according to the order of time, has other advantages besides being the easiest. Few as they are, to what they might easily have been, and inartificial as is the arrangement, I trust they will be found perfectly sufficient to convince every impartial reader that to say, that the primitive church believed in the sinfulness of Christ, or in the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, is an assertion the extravagance of which has never been exceeded.

As a mite, however small, such as my ability permits me to contribute to the treasury of Gospel truth, I beg to commit my work to the candour of the Church, and to the blessing of its glorious Head.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION.

CHAPTER I.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

THE doctrine of the Incarnation, so far as it can be understood by man, is sufficiently simple, and might be stated in a few sentences. But while errors are zealously propagated upon the subject, which go very directly to the total subversion of every doctrine of Christianity, a somewhat more detailed view of it seems to be called for, than would otherwise be necessary. I propose therefore to give such a general outline of the work of human redemption, and of the offices which Christ executes in the accomplishment of that work, as will enable us to see more distinctly the nature of the Incarnation. In doing this, I shall not fail to notice the bearing of the observations which may be made, upon the question of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity.

B

I shall not however limit my remarks to such points as may be necessary to prove that Christ was not fallen nor sinful, nor capable of falling or sinning. This may be proved in a few sentences, to any person capable of forming an opinion upon the subject, and willing to listen, either to the authority of Scripture, or to the dictates of reason. But while the proof of our Saviour's perfect sinlessness and impeccability will be with me a primary object, yet I trust, that the general view which I propose to take, will lead to observations. which may be interesting to those whose minds are so fully satisfied upon that question, that they would not take the trouble to read a single page upon the subject.

This world was made by him who does nothing in vain. It was therefore made for some specific purpose, and that, a purpose worthy of the work, and of the events of which it has been the scene. We may also rest perfectly satisfied that it actually accomplishes the purpose for which it was made; since it is certain that infinite wisdom could not err in the plan, nor infinite power fail in its execution. The question then is, what is the purpose for which the earth was made and man upon it? The reply to this question is, that God made all things for the purpose of manifesting his own perfections. Reason can discover no other cause of creation; and the fact that God made all things for his own glory,

is recognized. in every page of Scripture.

But when

it is said that God made all things for his own glory,

some explanation is necessary. We do not mean by this expression, that God made all things, or any thing, for the purpose of rendering himself more glorious than he was from all eternity, for that is impossible, his glory being alike incapable of increase or diminution; but that he made all things for the purpose of making his glorious perfections known. And when it is said that God made all things for the purpose of manifesting his perfections, it is meant that the manifestation was to be made, not to himself, which is impossible, but to the creatures whom he made. It is obvious then that the manifestation was to be made both by the creatures, and to the They were to be both the manifesters of the Divine perfection, and the percipients of these perfections when manifested. Now as the purpose for which every creature is made, is that it may, according to its nature, manifest the perfections of God, and perceive them as manifested by itself, and by all other creatures, it follows as a necessary consequence, that to do this must be the glory and the happiness of the creature,-its being's end and aim and it follows also, that the higher the degree in which any creature is capable of doing this, the higher is the degree of glory and of happiness which it is capable of attaining and enjoying.

creatures.

That every thing, according to its nature and capacity, does both manifest the perfections of God, and rejoice in them, is a fact open to every one's observation, and is often referred to in Scripture. The

B 2

From remarks on ze story of t

see Edin : X? Instucts Vol. XIII. See Index.