who reject the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, I shall now direct your attention to a few of the arguments upon which I think this great truth has been irrefragably established.

I. The Divine nature of Jesus Christ was foretold by some of the prophets, either explicitly, when speaking of the Messiah, or by describing works and characteristics of God, which the apostles have declared were referable to Jesus Christ.

Thus, the prophet Isaiah, in a passage where he clearly predicts the coming of the Messiah, describes his person and character in the following terms:

"Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given;
"And the government shall be upon his shoulder:
“And his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor,
"The mighty God, the Father of the everlasting age,
"The Prince of Peace.

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." (y) In another portion of his prophecy Isaiah says,

"Jehovah God of hosts shall be

"A stone of stumbling, and rock of offence,

"To the two houses of Israel."

The apostle Peter says, Jesus Christ is that "stone "of stumbling, and rock of offence.” (~)

The same prophet predicts the coming of one who should be the harbinger of God, and cry,

"In the wilderness prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH. "Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

St. Matthew applies this prediction expressly to John the Baptist, (a) who was the forerunner of Jesus

(y) Lowth's Isaiah, ix. 5, 6. (a) Is. xl. 8. Matt. iii. 1-3.

(x) Is. viii. 14. 1 Pet. ii. 8.

Christ. But unless Jesus be Jehovah, this prophecy cannot apply to John the Baptist.

Isaiah again, in another place, says, in the name of "Jehovah :"

"Look upon me, and be ye saved, O all ye remote people of the earth.

"For I am GOD, and there is none else.

"TO ME shall every knee bow, shall every tongue swear;

"In JEHOVAH shall be justified, and make their boast, all the seed of Israel." (b)

"" to me,

Paul applies this prophecy to Christ, the judge of all: "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God.” (c) The prophet Zechariah, speaking in the name of God, says, They shall look upon me whom they have "pierced." An evangelist relates, that "one of the "soldiers pierced Jesus's side with a spear.

66

"so that the Scripture was fulfilled

"they shall look on him whom they pierced." (d) Here the prophet foretells that they would pierce God; the evangelist says, they pierced Jesus; and refers to this circumstance as a completion of the prophecy.

The Royal Psalmist has many distinct predictions respecting the Messiah, which prove his divinity: I shall only select those which were quoted or evidently referred to, by Paul, in the 1st chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews. In the second psalm, universally (b) Is. xlv. 22, 23, 25.

(c) Rom. xiv. 11. I may just add that Jer. xxiii. 6, compared with John, xii. 41; Joel, ii. 32; with Rom. x. 13; and Malachi, iii. 1, 2, with the character and office of John the Baptist, furnish irresistible arguments to the same purpose.

(d) Zech. xii. 10. John, xix. 34-37.

allowed to be prophetic of the Messiah, he is declared to be of the same nature with the Father by the language, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten "thee." Paul quotes this passage to show that Christ is superior to angels: "for," says he, "to which of "the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, "this day have I begotten thee?" (e)

(e) Ps. ii. 7. Heb. i. 5.-It is worthy of remark, that the Socinians, in their New Version, evade the force of this passage in a very disingenuous manner, by putting a false translation in the text, and the true one in a note. In the text they give-" This day I have adopted thee," while in a small note, which not one reader in ten will look at, they say, begotten thee. Gr. and N." To be sure, it would require a front of brass, to deny that the original ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, is properly translated in the authorised version. Why, then, should adopted be thrust into the text, and begotten be obscured in a note? Are adoption and begetting synonymous? Or, in such a case as that before us, can one, with any degree of fairness, be substituted for the other? In another passage (John i. 15,) these critics get quit of an equal incumbrance upon their system, by an amazing piece of delicacy: "Only begotten (say they, quoting from Mr. Lindsey's List of Wrong Translations)" is most gross and improper language to be used "in English, especially with respect to Deity." I would be glad to ask these admirable detectors of " wrong translations," by what other English term they will express the true meaning of piovoyɛves, with equal correctness and equal conciseness?

Mr. Belsham, who seems to rely alike upon the ignorance of his adnirers and the supineness of those who oppose his dangerous speculations, affirms positively (p. 259 of his book on the Divinity of Christ) that the word αγαπητος "does not occur in St. John," and that therefore that writer used μovoyɛvɛg to denote well-beloved. How will the astonishment and horror of the unlearned reader be excited when I assure him, notwithstanding this bold assertion, that John employs aуаπηтоs, in his Gospel and Epistles, at least eight times! Indeed both these words occur in one and the same chapter: see 1 John, iv. 1, 7, 9, 11. Such misrepresentation and evasion, as are glanced at in this note, would be very contemptible even in reasoning upon minor topics; but it is

In another passage the Psalmist says, "Confounded "be all they that serve graven images, that boast "themselves of idols: worship Him (i. e. Jehovah,) "all ye gods or angels." Here David describes the Supreme God, and commands the angels to worship him. St. Paul quotes the psalm, (ƒ) applies it to Jesus, and commands the angels to worship HIM. In Paul's estimation, therefore, Jesus is God supreme.

66

Again, in the hundred and second psalm, “the "afflicted, who poureth out his complaint before the "LORD," says, "O my God, take me not away in the "midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast THOU laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of THY "hands. They shall perish, &c.—But THOU art the 66 same, and THY years shall have no end." St. Paul applies this also to Jesus Christ, (g) to prove that he was really God, because he made the world.

66

&c.

Once more, in the forty-fifth Psalm, an avowed and very expressive prophecy of the majesty and grace of the Messiah, we have this language: "Thy throne, "O GOD, is for ever and ever," &c. And this also is cited by Paul, to show that the title of the everlasting God belonged to Christ. "But unto the Son he "saith, Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever; a

difficult to reconcile them with common integrity or common humanity when they are employed to seduce men into a system in the adoption or rejection of which, for aught these writers can show to the contrary, the salvation of the soul may be deeply implicated.

66 sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king❝ dom." (h)

The quotations here made, are not from authors who are careless in the employment and selection of their language, nor from those who were deficient in jealousy for the honour of God. On the contrary, they would not suffer the character of God to be depreciated, nor would they permit that of man to be unduly exalted, or in any way to usurp the place of God. "Surely," says one of them, "men of low

(h) Psalm xlv. 6. Heb. i. 8. Here again the Socinians have been evincing their ingenuity in a remarkable manner. Their translation is, "God is thy throne for ever and ever." This appears to approximate more nearly to nonsense than either to pure theology or genuine philosophy; but it serves to exemplify the natural progress of erroneous sentiment. Jesus Christ is not the Son of God really, but by adoption (and adopted not in the opinion of the apostle Paul, but of modern theologians, who mistranslate his language to favour their notions): he discharges his "office "of Son" so well, that he is to be rewarded by having his Almighty Father transformed into a chair of state, on which he is to sit "for ever and ever." Such is the way in which these writers preserve the awful and sublime character of God from degradation. Truly this is a tissue of absurdity very adroitly woven, considering that it is done by those who pride themselves upon their rationality, and who are presumptuous enough to accuse the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews of indulging in "far-fetched analogies, and inaccurate reasonings." It ought to be added to the honour of Dr. Carpenter, that after he had selected "God is thy throne" as one of the most important improved renderings, he admitted in his "Letters to Mr. Veysie," that the idiom of the Greek forbids our so rendering it.

The modern Socinians are not the first who have misinterpreted the language of the 45th Psalm to suit an erroneous hypothesis. The Jews in the earlier times of Christianity did the same; and Origen (Cont. Celsus, lib. i. cap. 45) shows how he baffled a Jewish doctor, and exposed the evasions by which he aimed to escape the only true deduction, in reference to the essential Deity of the Messiah, which could be made from that graphic prediction.