his opinion, I apprehend, that he has in fact lapsed into the alleged heresy of the Nestorians, which was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. His language is certainly unusual, and I greatly doubt whether it is orthodox.

*

Let us for a moment suppose, that he believes in the perfect distinctness not only of the two natures, but also of the two minds, to which those natures respectively belong. We have then to contemplate an eternal and infinite mind, unchangeably possessed of all the attributes of God; we have also to contemplate a mortal and finite mind, distinguished by the qualities of man and united to a human body. These two minds, as well as their two natures, continue perfectly distinct from one another. They have distinct wills, distinct operations, distinct and opposite properties. They are said to be united in one person. But what is meant by person? If one person means one mind, or one intelligent agent, the doctrine is a direct contradiction in terms. If on the other hand the term person has no meaning, the doctrine may indeed stand in point of consistency; but what becomes of its orthodoxy? It implies no more than a Unitarian, or even a Deist may believe. The hypostatic union has always been represented by its advocates as a most sublime and incomprehensible mystery. A preacher, whose fame and popularity in his day were equal to Dr. Wardlaw's in the present, commences his discussion of this subject in the following terms: "The union of two natures of Christ in one and the self-same person is that great wonder which now we must speak as we are able; but alas, how should we speak this union, and not be confounded in ourselves? It is a great mystery, a secret, a wonder; many wonders have been since the beginning of the world, but all the wonders that ever were, must give place to this, and in respect thereof cease to be wonderful.+" But, if the doctrine be such as Dr. Wardlaw seems now to represent it, there is nothing mysterious or wonderful in it. We are told of two distinct minds, a divine and a human, each retaining its peculiar properties. These two minds are said indeed to be united. But to what does this assertion amount? Are not the minds of all intelligent beings in some sense

*To deny them distinct wills would be to fall into the heresy of the Monothelites.

+ Looking unto Jesus, by Isaac Ambrose, Book iv. chap. i. § 5.

united to God? Are not all created things united into one system? May not the mind of every prophet or inspired person be said to be in a more especial manner united to the Divine mind? Dr. Wardlaw chooses to employ in reference to this union a set of scholastic terms; but, if he attaches no clear or intelligible notions to them, he may in fact believe no more than we do, and his orthodoxy may after all be nothing more than "Unitarianism in a mist."

In my " Sequel" (p. 73) I complained of the "strange confusion" of a part of Dr. Wardlaw's language upon this subject. But, as the question now stands, we have "confusion worse confounded." In order to be extricated from it, I beg leave through your pages to ask from him an answer to the following simple questions:

1. Does Dr. Wardlaw, in reference to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, use the term PERSON with a meaning, or without a meaning?

2. If he uses it with a meaning, what is that meaning? 3. Does he believe that there are in the God-man Jesus Christ two distinct MINDS as well as two distinct NATURES?

4. Can he show, that any other authors of acknowledged orthodoxy have maintained the same doctrine in the same language?

Awaiting a reply to these interesting questions,

I remain, SIR, yours respectfully,
JAMES YATES.

Reflections on the Principles and Evidences of Christianity.

LETTER III.

On the Resurrection and Translation of Jesus as proved at his Sepulchre. I HAVE observed that the circumstances which are related concerning the resurrection of Jesus, are a representation, not merely of the revival of a dead person to ordinary vitality, but also of his translation to an immortal existence. Few, indeed, can imagine, that on his ascension, he retained the same gross animal body; it must now, at least, have undergone a change to a state in which it was incorruptible, as well as removed from the ordinary cog. nizance of mortals. But, by considering the circumstances just alluded to, it will, I am persuaded, appear, that he

underwent this great change at the instant of his resurrection, and that his subsequent appearances in the ordinary state of humanity, were only occasional, like those of the angels at his sepulchre, or of Moses and Elijah, at his transfiguration; and had principally in view, to bring home to the conviction of the apostles, and through them, to the world at large, the evidence that he was in his own proper person, in body and mind, both restored to life, and translated to a superior and immortal state of being.

It is no where intimated, that there were any manifestations of Jesus, while he remained in the state of death; on the contrary, it is clearly implied in the phrase, "Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," that his whole person remained inanimate, and could resume its vital functions only by that interposition of the Almighty which raised him from death. But his manifestations subsequent to that event, were materially different from such as would have attended a simple restoration to this mortal state of existence. They were only occasional, while he was usually withdrawn from the observation even of his apostles, though, from the circumstances in which he presented himself, and the conversations which he held with them, it appeared that he was intimately acquainted with what passed among them, and even with the particular state of their minds, previous to his several appearances. And though on all those occasions he gave them abundant proofs of his real and corporeal presence, yet the manner of his presentations and removals, in every instance in which they are related, appear to have been supernatural, and in several instances, clearly proved that he had been, and was again removed from the observation of their senses.

That this invisible state of existence was the result of a resurrection from death, and of a translation of his body from its animal and visible state, appeared in its removal from the sepulchre in a manner which eluded the vigilance of the watchmen.* It was in consequence of his having predicted the occurrence of the first of these events, at the time when it is related to have taken place, that they were posted at its entrance to prevent the removal of the body. They would now, therefore, be watching with their utmost vigilance to secure their charge, and its ap

* See Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and 11, &c.

pearance from the place where it was deposited, whether living or inanimate, would have been the most prominent object to have arrested their attention. Had they seen it in either of these states, it would have been incumbent on them to have related the facts with precision to their employers, who would not easily acquiesce in any representation of their ignorance on a point so material, and apparently easy to be determined. Could they have ascertained that it had been removed in a state of inanimation, though by means which they had been unable to prevent, this would have furnished such a strong presumption against the reality of his resurrection, as would have overruled almost any evidence on the contrary side. How desirous both they and their employers were of being enabled to set forth such a representation, appeared in their abortive attempt to give evidence of what passed while their senses were steeped in slumbers. Could they have alleged convincing proofs that they had beheld the living person of Jesus stepping forth from his sepulchre, with all the dignity and majesty, which in that case might have been expected, this would clearly have acquitted them of their charge, and would have appeared more satisfactory, and less far-fetched and incredible than that which is related. But, upon the only topic on which information was to be expected from them, they appear to have had nothing to communicate, except that the body had disappeared; while they relate other particulars of a most extraordinary description, which no one could have anticipated. They represent that an unknown personage had appeared, of such power as to overrule all their martial energies, rolling away the immense stone which secured the body in the sepulchre, and by his awful form and aspect alone, inspiring them with a deathlike tremor.

In this representation, two opposite species of miracles appear to be included: both of which must have been remote from the conceptions of those from whom it originated. Their minds must, at the time, have been engrossed with ideas relative to the body or person of Jesus. Any attempts from without to effect its release, they must have resolved to oppose at the hazard of their lives; their military character being staked in its prevention. If they had any boding apprehensions, they must have been of Jesus from within, who, without any mention of exterior

.

assistance, had predicted, that " on the third day, he would rise again;" and as they had been instrumental in fulfilling his predictions concerning his death to the very letter, they could hardly feel free from all apprehensions of his resurrection. Between their determined resolution, therefore, to withstand any outward attempts upon the sepul, chre, on the part of his disciples, and the apprehensions of his personal appearance, their thoughts must have been fully occupied. Any attempts from without, would sum, mon forth their utmost energies, and would operate to release them from apprehensions from within; as a clandestine attack for the purpose of effecting the removal of the body, would convince them that Jesus was a deceiver, and his agents endeavouring to carry on the fraud. On the other hand, any movement from within, would awaken all their apprehensions, and would so strongly imprint, amid the darkness and silence of night, the dreaded form of the risen Jesus upon their imaginations, that it could with difficulty be distinguished from reality. The event reverses their feelings and anticipations in both respects; they perceive and are alarmed by nothing from within; while from without, a power arrives which appals their firmest resolutions, overrules all their military strength, and eludes the utmost vigilance of their senses, or even the liveliest bodings of their imaginations, with regard to the appearance of the body, or the mode of its disappearance. From without, they anticipated nothing but an attack from the disciples, which they were fully able and firmly resolved to withstand, and which would tend greatly to promote their courage, as it would release them from all apprehensions from within; their whole solicitude was bent on retaining the body, and their sole apprehensions centred on its return to life by one of those acts of miraculous power which he had in so many instances ex

ercised upon others. With these ideas their minds must have been occupied; the appearance of a personage which in both respects affected them totally contrary to their anticipations, therefore, could only have been the effect of reality. If their senses were before in any degree dulled by a tendency to sleep, every faculty must have been thoroughly awakened by the rolling of the stone from the sepulchre, and all their attention attracted toward the body of Jesus, nor is it conceivable, that it could have escaped the marked notice of some of them,