to destroy us? I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God: and devils also came out of many, crying and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God." Consider the overpowering effect of these collective evidences: will not these prove this appellation to be appropriate to Christ in a manner that it cannot be to any other person? If even "devils believe and tremble," surely men should pause, should hesitate, should tremble, before they dare to deny the Divinity of Christ. In addition to these testimonies from Heaven above and the realms beneath, innumerable are the occasions mentioned in the Gospels, on which Christ assumed to himself this title, and indeed founded his mission upon it. His own words ought to decide and determine the matter, even without any other testimony. In the 5th chapter of St. John, when the Jews hypocritically complained of his healing a cripple on the Sabbath-day, they sought to kill him, not only because

by this beneficent act he had broken the Sabbath, but that he had said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." What more positive proof can be given than this, that the Jews considered him to claim equality with the Father? Surely Jesus, if he did not mean to assume this title in its highest sense, would have undeceived them. Another time, the Jews took up stones to stone him, and on Jesus enquiring the cause, they answered, "For blasphemy, because that thou being a man, makest thyself God." On another occasion, when he had opened the eyes of one that was born blind, the blessed Jesus met the man after he had been turned out of the synagogue, and said to the man whom he had healed, "Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" he answered and said, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?" and Jesus said, "Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that talketh with thee. And the man said, Lord, I believe, and

G

he worshipped him." Can any perverse metaphysician deny this plain, positive, and express evidence, and this adoration of the Divine Jesus? Would this spotless, this meek and humble Saviour, have accepted this adoration, if it had not been his just right? Would he not have pointed out the error of this man, and taken this opportunity of renouncing the high title, and directing him to the wor ship only of the Father in Heaven, had not his divine coequality been unquestionable? I lament that any men should tread on such dangerous ground, who endeavour to rob the Son of God of his rights, and strive to degrade the Eternal Son of the Father to the rank of a mere mortal, a poor being like ourselves. I have already alluded to the opinion expressed by the Apostle Peter, of Christ's Divinity, and our Saviour's memorable reply, in which he plainly declares, that human discernment was unequal to the discovery of it, and it could only be

revealed to him by God himself: such also is the fact at this present hour. Those, who are wise in their own conceits, and have proud and carnal minds, do not receive or know the truth of these things of the Spirit of God, because they can only be spiritually discerned this is the only cause that can be given why the Socinians (or Unitarians, as they choose to call themselves,) are blind to this great and evident truth. St. Paul, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, says, "Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power." This expression plainly proves that the Apostle considered it not as a mere title applicable to others as well as to Jesus, but possessing full authority as he had come in all the power of the Highest. St. Peter, on a remarkable occasion, (sixth chapter of St. John,) says, "We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." When the High Priest adjured him to tell whether he was

"art

"the Christ, the Son of God?" or thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" to which, when our Lord assented, the High Priest rent his clothes, declaring that he had spoken blasphemy. Would the High Priest have pronounced this to be blasphemy, and that the assertor of it was worthy of death, if the assuming this title had not been deemed an especial claim to Divinity? nay, more, it was for the support of this just and indisputable claim that Christ laid down his life, and suffered on the cross. The Apostle John, at the conclusion of his Gospel, says, that the account which he had given, was for the especial purpose that ye might believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." !!

4

After such repeated texts and proofs I need not add more on this great point: for all, who are not involved in the Unitarian cloud of error, all who

possess

candid and unprejudiced minds, will,