If it proved anything, it would prove the incarnation of the whole Deity. Besides the epithet Immanuel, if it proved anything, would prove two incarnations, one in the days of Ahaz, and one at the time of Christ. That God the whole Deity did, in a peculiar manner, manifest himself to the world through Christ, is what we all believe. God was peculiarly with his people, we all know, when he made through Jesus of Nazareth, his last and best revelation to mankind.

So you perceive the doctrine of the incarnation of the second Person in the Trinity, as stated in those articles of faith I read to you, utterly fails of support in that very part of Scripture, where we should most naturally look for it, in the accounts of the conception and birth of Jesus.

The next we hear Then he displayed

Let us then trace on his history. Is it supposable that an infinite God could be so joined to the soul of an infant and child, as not to have manifested his presence? Yet we hear nothing of it. of Jesus is at twelve years of age., an uncommon maturity of mind and knowledge of the Scriptures, but nothing that we can fix upon as miraculous. The mind of Jesus, I have no doubt, indepen-dently of all miraculous endowments, was of the highest order. Everything about him seems to evince it. He was raised up by God for an especial purpose. He might then have been preeminently endowed. Much of the efficacy of his religion was to depend on the perfection of his character. He may therefore have had mental and moral powers far above those of mankind. in general. What, or whether any miraculous action

of God upon his mind previous to his baptism took place, we are not informed, or whether he had any in-· timation of the office he was to fill. One thing however is certain. That is recorded of him at twelve years of age, which is utterly inconsistent with the supposition that the second Person of the Trinity made a part of his person. "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." A person, who was already infinite in knowledge, could not increase in wisdom; and the second Person in the Godhead could hardly increase in favor with the whole Deity. If it be answered that it was the human nature, -then we ask, what kind of a connection of two minds in one person that could be, or of what advantage, in which there was no communication between them, if one did not know what was known to the other.

We e now come to the ministry of Jesus. We have hitherto detected not one particle of evidence of the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity in him. During his ministry, it was to have been expected that this Divine Person would have manifested himself, although he had not done so before. It was to have been expected, that it was for the sake of this ministry that he had become connected with the soul of Jesus. It was to have been expected that this Divine Person, clothed with omniscience and omnipotence, would have come forward to do and say those things, which belonged to the Messiah's office, but which were above the powers of humanity. We therefore examine his ministry, in order to discover, if we can, the agency of this Being.

We shall divide the ministry of Christ in this examination into what happened to him, what he did, and what he said.

We say, in the first place, that the events which happened to him are utterly inconsistent with the supposition, that the second Person of the Trinity dwelt in, and was united to his soul. Take for example, the events attending his baptism, and his induction into the Messiah's office. The Holy Spirit descended upon him. Something seems to have been communicated to him from above; not anything called forth, which was in him before. Is it not a striking fact, that his miraculous character should have commenced from this? Is it not strange, that the third Person of the Trinity should have been necessary to call into action the dormant energies of the Second? A voice came from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Could this whole transaction be intended to point him out as a Person of the Trinity to the Jews, who had not the least conception of any such division of God, or of any such Person; or was it to point out and designate him as the Messiah, by an appellation, which the Jews had long before appropriated to him whom they expected? Is "my well beloved Son" the manner in which one of the Persons of the Trinity would be expected to address another? But immediately after, we read, that "Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." Now is it at all credible that Jesus, if the second Person of the Trinity made a part of him, should be filled and guided by the third? How

are we then to have evidence of the fact of the incarnation of the second Person, "the very and eternal God," if at the very point in the life of Christ, where he is expected to act, no action or manifestation appears; and the Holy Spirit does all which he would have been expected to do? We read that he was tempted. Can omniscience and omnipotence be tempted? Angels ministered to him. Would he need their ministry were he God?

It is worth while to compare the account given here of the origin of Christ's miraculous powers, with that which was afterwards given by the Apostle Peter. "God," says he, "anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power." So Peter supposed and asserted that the miraculous parts of Christ's character, were to be ascribed to this unction of the Holy Spirit, and not to the second Person of the Trinity making a part of him.

We read on one occasion, when the ship he was in was like to sink, he was found asleep on a pillow. Could that be true of a Being, "who never slumbereth nor sleepeth?" But it is objected that it was his human nature that was sleeping. We turn to the original proposition with which we started. "The very and eternal God took man's nature, and Godhead and manhood were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ." If Godhead and manhood were joined together into one Person, Christ, never to be divided, he certainly acted as the Christ during his whole ministry. It must either be true that God slept, which is impious, or that these two natures

were divided, and the compound Person, Christ, ceased to exist. He was weary on the well of Samaria. Can Almighty Power be weary? His soul was exceeding sorrowful. Can God be sorrowful? He was in an agony. Can God be in an agony? The person then here spoken of as being weary, sorrowful, agonizing, excluded, did not comprehend the second Person in the Trinity. But this is contrary to all ideas of personality, and contradicts the fundamental law of this very union, that it never was to be divided.

But the great trial of this hypothesis comes when we read of his crucifixion. The boldest of the supporters of the two natures, is startled when he comes to the proposition that God died, or a Person of the Godhead. Most of them, therefore, evade this awful supposition, by saying, that the human nature only suffered. Then, according to this hypothesis, the Person Christ did not. suffer at all, for the union of the Divine and human natures, which composed that Person was dissolved before the approach of death. Besides, he himself declared "it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." The suffering was as important as any other part of the mission.

Do we, then, go too far when we say that there is not the least shadow of evidence in the birth, the life, and death of Christ, that there was any such being as the second Person of the Trinity, who made a part of his person? Do not all the circumstances we have mentioned, negative such a supposition?

Let us next examine and see if we can detect any evidence of this Being in what he did. In the first