To the arguments which have been stated, nothing needs to be added. But for your complete satisfaction, I shall lay before you some considerations, arising from a different view of the subject, and showing that the Divinity of Christ is interwoven with the scheme of Redemption. It is a sort of a posteriori reasoning, which, from the character that he sustains in that great work, and the part that he acts, proves that he must be a person superior in dignity to all men, and to all creatures.

First, Let us consider him as the Revealer of the Divine Will, the Instructor of the human race. In this general office, men were associated with him, as the Prophets of the old dispensation, and the Apostles of the new; and hence he bears the same names, being called "the Prophet whom God raised up according to his promise," and "the Apostle of our profession." His preeminence, however, is undisputed; and it will be acknowledged by all, that no other person was ever so gifted, or possessed of equal authority. It belonged to him in this character, to complete and close divine revelation; to make known to the world the whole counsel of God; to publish truths which eye had not seen, ear had not heard, nor had it entered into the mind of man to conceive; and further, internally to illuminate the minds of men, to remove the veil of prejudice and error, to impart a vivid and commanding perception of invisible things, to dispose them to receive truths humiliating to the pride, and revolting to the corrupt propensities of the heart. If it be granted that the latter part of this statement was comprehended in his office, it cannot be consistently denied that he was greater than a human teacher; for no mere man has an absolute control over the minds of others, and can guide their movements according to his pleasure. But even the communication of a perfect knowledge of the Divine Will, which was effected by his own ministry, and by that of his Apostles whom he qualified for the work, seems to have required greater powers of understanding than could fall to the lot of a creature; an understanding commensurate to the subject, which has a height and a depth, a length and a breadth, not to be measured by a limited capacity. If it should be said, that God might have illuminated his mind, as he illuminated the minds of other Prophets, and fitted him for his duty by successive revelations, we should recollect that, according to his own testimony, he had the same knowledge of the Father which the Father had of him. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son." * We should recollect, that the Evangelist John ascribes a knowledge to him quite peculiar, when he says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."t Would he have used such language of any creature? To see God, is to know him perfectly; to be in his bosom, is to be the intimate associate of his counsels. More is meant than that the man Jesus Christ had a greater degree of knowledge than other men; the words evidently import, that he had knowledge of a totally different kind, arising from immediate vision, and perpetual communion. No Prophet or Apostle is ever said to have enjoyed such means of knowledge, even in an inferior degree. None of them had seen God; none of them was in his bosom. The voice from the excellent Glory made a clear distinction between him and all other teachers. "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him." The Father substituted him in his own room, as the instructor of the human race; he pointed him out as the object of the attention, and faith, and obedience of the world; he commanded us henceforth to learn wisdom from his lips, and to regulate our conduct by his authority. Did he ever give such a command concerning any other person? Was it ever said concerning any other, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." "Every soul, which will not hear this † John i. 18. + John iii. 36.

* Matt. xi, 27.

Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." We are informed that "the people were astonished at his doctrine, because he taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes ;" but we rise a step higher and say, not even as the Prophets. Between his manner, and theirs, there is a very remarkable difference. They, in fact, claimed no personal authority, and delivered their instructions in the name of the Lord; while he spoke in his own name: “Verily, verily, I say unto you." Who is this that requires men to take him as their supreme guide in religion? who is this that makes his own testimony the foundation of faith? Would a human messenger have ventured to advance such pretensions? Could he have adopted this lofty style without impiety? In conformity to this claim, when he gave the Apostles a commission to teach the nations, he gave it in his own name. They were his ambassadors; they were to produce his warrant for the doctrines which they taught, and the laws which they enjoined; they were to subject men to him as the Lord of their consciences. Was it a mere man who issued such orders, and demanded the homage of all people, and kindred, and tongues? I shall mention one circumstance more which is a proof of his Divinity, that he inspired those ambassadors, gave them the Holy Ghost, and invested them with the power of working miracles, to attest the truth of their message. The Apostles, it is true, also communicated supernatural gifts; but, there is this essential difference, that what they did, was done confessedly in his name, and, therefore, instead of weakening, strengthens the evidence of his power; whereas he acted with independent authority, dispensing, as a Sovereign, gifts over which he had absolute control. "He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Surely this is the voice of a God, and not of a man.

In the second place, Let us consider him in the character of a priest, whose office it was to offer a propitiatory sacrifice, for the whole human race, as some maintain, or for the elect, according to others, composing a multitude which no man can number. By offering a propitiatory sacrifice, I mean, that he was to suffer death for them, that the claims of justice being satisfied, the moral Governor of the universe might release them from the penalty of sin. Now, this transaction supposes, that his sufferings were an equivalent for theirs; that the ends of punishment were as fully answered by his death, as if the transgressors had died; that the divine authority was upheld, the divine righteousness was asserted, the divine holiness was manifested in unclouded splendour. Would these designs have been accomplished by the death of a mere man? There is a manifest disproportion between the means and the end. It is unaccountable upon any principle of moral calculation, that the blood of one man, whatever value it might be conceived to have derived from his virtues and endowments, should have been accepted as a full compensation for the debt which millions owed, for innumerable violations of the law! Its acceptance as such, would have lowered the divine government in the estimation of its subjects; it would have confirmed them in the opinion, that its demands were not high, that it felt little resentment against crimes, and that it wanted only the shadow of a pretext for dismissing them with impunity. But the Scriptures teach, that the death of Christ was a true and proper atonement for sin, and was so complete, that God is just, although he remit the sins of those who believe; and that the highest glory redounds to his moral perfections, from the dispensation of grace. There must, therefore, be a greater worth in the blood, and greater efficacy in the sufferings of Christ, than in the blood and sufferings of any other person. No such effect is ever ascribed to the death of a prophet, an apostle, or any other martyr; it is not said, that they expiated their own guilt by the sacrifice of their lives, and still less, that they expiated the guilt of their brethren. Had our blessed Lord been only a man, his blood would not Acts iii. 23. † John xx. 22.

have redeemed us from the curse of God, any more than the blood of Stephen, and Peter, and Paul. Of this our antagonists are sensible; and accordingly they deny that his death was vicarious, and affirm that the sole design of it was to give us an example of patience, and to attest his doctrine; thus maintaining the consistency of their own system, although they are directly at variance with the doctrine of Scripture. Such, you may observe by the way, is the intimate connexion of the truth which I am defending, with other articles of christianity, that the denial of it is the removing of the foundation, in consequence of which the whole structure falls to the ground. We, who believe the Divinity of Christ, can account, without difficulty, for the great and happy effects which are ascribed to his death. We can understand, how the sufferings of a man, who was personally united to the Son of God, were of greater value, in a moral estimate, than the sufferings of the actual transgressors. We can see, how this single sacrifice answered all the ends of justice, and demonstrated in the most solemn manner, the righteousness and holiness of the Universal Governor, the unspeakable evil of sin, the immutable purity and unbending rigour of the law. I shall not appeal to the words, "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood,"* because there is a various reading which substitutes Lord for God; but surely the same Apostle meant to convey a higher idea of our Saviour than that of a mere man, when he said, "Had they "-the Princes of this world-known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory ;" and again," The law maketh men highpriests, which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." They are more blind than the princes of this world, who, amidst the light of revelation which now shines, can perceive upon Calvary no greater scene than a common martyrdom. Strange, that notwithstanding the preternatural darkness, the earthquake, and the opening of the graves, they should be more insensible than an ignorant heathen, who, convinced by the signs in heaven and on earth, that the supposed malefactor was no ordinary sufferer, exclaimed, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Let us, in the last place, consider him as sustaining the character of universal Lord. He is represented as invested with supreme authority over the church, and all persons and things upon earth; and likewise over angels, principalities, and powers in the invisible world, the noblest and mightiest creatures in the universe. Besides his own declaration, "all power is committed to me in heaven and on earth," let us attend to the words of an Apostle, who, having informed us, that, though "he was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God," yet "he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," adds, "wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." One should think, that his investiture with unlimited dominion over the creation, would prove to the satisfaction of every reflecting mind, that he is not a creature, that he is not a mere man, but a person, in whom the fulness of the Godhead resides; for it is impossible to conceive that he could hold that dominion, and perform the various acts which it implies, unless he were possessed of divine perfections. It is certainly necessary, that he should be acquainted with all his subjects, and all their circumstances; that he should be capable of conducting the whole system of affairs with order, and to its destined ends; and that he should be able to keep every being in his proper place, to restrain wayward movements or confine them within due bounds, and to make the mightiest and † 1 Cor. ii. 8. + Heb. vii. 28. § Phil. ii. 6-11.

Acts xx. 28.

the most refractory bend to his purpose. In other words, he could not govern the universe without infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom, and infinite power. It would be a mockery to place a creature upon the throne, to whom the extent of his kingdom would be unknown, and whose proceedings would be at one time marked by error, and at another embarrassed by opposition. The duties arising from the relation in which we stand to him as our Sovereign, are such as we owe to him alone, who is God over all. We are bound by express command, to trust in him, to worship him, to obey him, to submit to his disposal, to expect from his lips the sentence which will decide our eternal state; and what more do we owe to the Father? And we have already seen, that it is His will, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour himself. Unitarians get quit of this argument, by the usual expedient of figures, as if the sacred writers, as soon as they began to speak of our Saviour, had been hurried away by some unaccountable impulse, into the region of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole. All this magnificent language concerning his kingdom, we must be careful not to understand literally, lest we fall into the great error of supposing, that he is actually placed at the head of affairs. Let us not be so simple as to adopt this idea. Nothing more is meant than the moral influence of the Gospel; and the reign of Christ is like the reign of any other man over his followers, who have embraced his doctrines, and submitted to his institutions. "The subjection of all mankind to the rules of piety and virtue delivered by Christ, is shadowed out under the imagery of a mighty king, to whom all power was given in heaven and earth.” So say our antagonists; but they only will receive this interpretation, who have been given over to strong delusion, to believe a lie.

I have laid before you a variety of arguments, by which the Divinity of Jesus Christ is evinced; and in doing so, I have endeavoured to obviate such objections as are made to the passages quoted. I shall conclude by bringing under your notice some other objections, with answers to them.

It is objected, that the supposed Divinity of Christ is inconsistent with the doctrine of the Unity of God; and those passages which affirm that there is one God, and that there is no God besides him, are confidently brought forward to refute our opinion. But we know those passages as well as our opponents, and are as fully persuaded of the truth which they inculcate. We hold at the same time, the Unity of God and the Divinity of Christ, without at all thinking that we are liable to the charge of self-contradiction; for our doctrine is, not that the Father is one God, and the Son is another, but that, while there is only one Divine nature, the Father and the Son are distinct persons in that nature. It is absurd, therefore, to allege the acknowledged Unity of God as subversive of our doctrine, till it is proved, and not merely asserted, that personal distinctions in one Divine nature are impossible. For a more complete answer to this objection, I refer to our illustration of the Trinity.

It is objected, that whatever may be implied in the title or designation, Son of God, it is a fair conclusion from it, that he is not God himself. It is admitted, that the son of a man as such, is also man; why is it denied, that the Son of God is also God? We grant, indeed, that the two cases are different, because a man and his son are two separate beings, have the same specifio, but not the same numerical nature; but the title leads us to conceive, that he who is the Son of God, has the nature of God, and, since the nature cannot be divided or multiplied, that the same nature is common to both, The title implies a community of essence; and all that we can legitimately infer from it is, that he is a distinct person from the Father.

It is objected, that our Lord excludes himself from the honour of divinity, in these words, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true VOL. I.-43 2 D

God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."* But surely a single passage, instead of being set in opposition to an hundred other passages, should be explained, if possible, in consistency with them. We grant that our Lord would have denied his own Divinity, if he had said that the Father only is God, to the exclusion of himself; but it is quite evident that he merely distinguishes his Father from other pretenders to Divinity. He does not say, "Thou only art the true God," but "Thou art the only true God." When the Scripture calls the Father, "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords," the design is obviously to except, not Jesus Christ, but the "lords many" of the Gentiles; and accordingly, Jesus Christ receives the same title in other places, being designated "King of kings, and Lord of lords," and the "Prince of the kings of the earth." "The Socinian argues,' says Bishop Middleton, " as if in our Saviour's days there had been the same controversy about the nature and essence of the One True God, which arose afterwards; whereas the dispute then was, whether there were a plurality of gods, or only One: The Jews held the latter opinion, and the whole pagan world the former. Our Saviour, therefore, keeping, if I may so call it, this controversy in view, tells his hearers that eternal life is to be obtained only by a knowledge of the One True God, and of Jesus Christ, thus at once directing the mind to the truths both of natural and of revealed religion; and the hearers of our Lord could not possibly have understood him in any other sense. It is, therefore, perfectly frivolous to introduce this passage into the Trinitarian dispute; and the stress which has been laid on it, can be accounted for only from the extreme difficulty of giving to the opposite hypothesis any thing like the sanction of Scripture." Besides, there is a passage in one of the Epistles of John, from which it appears that the words before us are not exclusive of the Son, because what is here affirmed of the Father, is there affirmed also of him." And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." It is certain, that the Father is often called God, and our Saviour is mentioned, at the same time, as distinct from him. The reason is, that, in the economy of redemption, the Father sustains the majesty and maintains the rights of the Godhead, while Christ acts as Mediator. By him we come to the Father, but we do not hold him, personally considered, to be subordinate. We worship the Son also; but the usual order is to draw near to the Father in the name of the Son. Keeping this economy in mind, we can easily understand the passage before us, and others of a similar nature. "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."Ş

It is objected, that our Saviour himself acknowledged his inferiority to the Father, and cannot, therefore, be God in the proper sense of the term. "My Father is greater than I." But there is another passage which we shall do well to take into consideration at the same time. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The words have undergone much criticism, which it would be tedious to detail; but, whether we translate aux aprayor nynσaro, he thought it not robbery, or, he did not seize as a prey, or catch at equality to God, the result is the same, namely, that he was really equal; for, if this had not been the case, there would have been no humility in declining to display his equality for a time; and, as an example of humility, the case is introduced. It would be a strange recommendation of the humility of a creature, to say that he did not aim at equality to God. Now we are sure, that the Scripture does not contradict itself; and hence, when two parts of it appear to be at variance, there can be no doubt that there is a Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 372. ed. 1808. John xiv. 28. ¶ Phil. ii. 6.

* John xvii. 3.

+ 1 John v. 20.

§ 1 Cor. xiii. 6.