make these attributes the basis of our reasoning on the theological subjects, it is idle to undertake to reason on such subjects at all. If a particular passage of scripture is so interpreted as to deny any of these attributes of God, it is, by that very fact, proved to be a false interpretation, if there is any way in which an interpretation can be proved to be false.

Suppose a man should undertake to prove from the Bible, that God possesses a natural body, and for this purpose should adduce all those texts in which hands, feet, eyes, arm and mouth are ascribed to the Divine Being. Suppose that after quoting these texts, and asserting with the utmost confidence, that they are explicit proof of his hypothesis, he should reply to the objection that his theory is inconsistent with the perfections of God" Because human reason dimly peering through its earthly telescope, cannot scan the vast dimensions of God's infinite Essence, and ascertain with precision how his divine" and omnipresent nature can be clothed in a material body, "shall human reason, thus thwarted by the diminutiveness of its own powers of vision, venture boldly to repudiate a doctrine proved to be scriptural?" Would Mr. G. feel the force of such an appeal? Would he not say that an interpretation of scriptural texts which so directly conflicts with the acknowledged perfections of God cannot be true?

Now I venture to affirm, and I do it without fear of contradiction, that neither Mr. G. nor any other man, can produce a single declaration of scripture, which

seems to assert that Christ, in his divine nature, was filled with dismay in anticipation of the last passion, so much as many texts seem to assert that God actually possesses the organs of a material body. I will venture also to affirm, that the hypothesis of Mr. G. can no more be reconciled with the omniscience and immutability of Christ's divine nature, than the hypothesis that God possesses a material body, can be reconciled with his spirituality and omnipresence. What do we mean by omniscience? When we speak of the omniscience of Jehovah, we mean that he has a full and perfect knowledge of every thing present, past, and future. If Christ, in his divine nature, is omniscient, then he had as clear and perfect a view of the scenes in the garden, and on the cross, before his incarnation, as he had at the time when these scenes transpired. To say that he had not, is as plainly to deny his omniscience, as it would be to say that he has now but an imperfect knowledge of the scenes of the judgment day.

Our author admits "that eternity and immensity have no recesses hidden from Omniscience." But he adds, "How vivid may be his anticipations of coming events, brought home by his unerring prescience, the Bible has not told us with perfect distinctness. On this sacred theme we may, perhaps, without inconvenience, draw some twilight imaginings, from the analogy of his earthly substitute, made in his own image, and after his own likeness, and into whose nostrils he breathed the breath of life. To a good man it may be

Yet

revealed, as it was to Peter, that a violent death awaits him. The conviction of his bitter doom is sure. The cruel death dwells ever in his conscious breast. does not its sting disturb his happiness or serenity, until the hour draws nigh for the triumph of the king of terrors."

I cannot but express my surprise, that the author should suppose that these cases are parallel. Man cannot look into futurity; and although he may believe things that are future on the credit of the divine testimony, yet such is the weakness of his faith, they do not appear as real, as those things which are present to his view. Not so with God's Omniscience. Away with "twilight imaginings." God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. He seeth not as man seeth, "through a glass darkly." His Omniscience sees present things just as they are, and future things just as they will be. Otherwise it would not be Omniscience. It would be but imperfect knowledge.

But according to our author, even Omniscience cannot have a very clear and vivid view of coming events, until they are about to transpire. He says, "So the Bible shadows forth the progressive intenseness of the anticipations of the Son of God, caused by his approaching suffering. When he foretold his passion first, it produced in him little seeming emotion. From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things.' 'And he began to teach them that the Son of man must

suffer many things.' A little farther onward, in Luke, he declared, But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.' Still onward, in John, he declared, Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.' And at Gethsemane, when the dreaded baptism, the tremendous hour was just at hand, being in an agony, he sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.""

Now all this, the author supposes, to be predicated of Christ, not in his human nature only, but in his divine nature. That is, he supposes that the Omnis

cient Jehovah looked forward to the time of the crucifixion, with infinite joy and blessedness, till within a few years of its occurrence; and that he then began to have more and more vivid anticipations of it till just before it transpired, when he was overwhelmed with fear and dismay, and endured sufferings, in comparison with which, the utmost that human nature could endure, would be but as a drop to the ocean. Now I appeal to every unprejudiced mind, is this view consistent with the acknowledged attributes of God? According to this theory, scenes which were contemplated by the Omniscient God at one time with perfect happiness, in a short time after were contemplated with infinite dismay, and horror, and anguish. This theory, to my mind, involves as plain a denial of the perfection of the divine character, as it would be to say that Omnipotence is weak, or Omniscience is blind, or immutability may change.

CHAPTER IV.

Examination of certain texts of scripture relied on by Mr. G.

Luke 12: "Now

50; "I have a baptism to be baptized with." John 12: 27, 28; is my soul troubled." John 13: 21; "He was troubled in spirit." Heb. 5: 7,8; "When he had offered up prayers and supplications." "The fiftythird chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 63: 3; "I have trodden the wine press alone." Zech. 12: 10; "And they shall look on me whom they have pierced."

MUCH reliance is placed by our author, on the following text, as proof of his theory: Luke 12: 50; "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished."

That Christ here refers to his last passion, and particularly to the violent and ignominious death which he was to endure, there can be no doubt. He knew that there was before him an overwhelming scene of suffering; and he looked forward to it with earnest desire that it might be accomplished.

But asks our author, "Who was 'straitened' until the baptism should be accomplished? Was it the man only? Or was the indwelling God also straitened?" The question seems to imply, that the "man" and "the indwelling God," are two distinct persons. The person speaking is Christ, who is both God and man, in one person. If the question be whether he was straitened in his human nature only, or in his