years after the ascension; the other from Eusebius who wrote about the end of the third century. The first I bor. row from Paley's evidences, vol. ii. p. 235, and it is as follows

there is not a nation either of Greek, or Barbarian, or of any other name, even of those who wander in tribes, and live in tents, amongst whom prayers, and thanksgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of the universe, by the name of the crucified Jesus.'

The other quotation, selected from amongst a host, may be found in Milner's church history, vol. 1, p. 256. It runs thus" Amongst them," says Eusebius, speaking, of the books which were published in the end of the second, and the beginning of the third century, "there is found a volume written against the heresy of Artemon, which Paulus of Samosata in our days endeavoured to revive." When this book had confuted the said presumptuous heresy, which maintained Christ to be a mere man, and that this was an ancient opinion; after many leaves tending to the confutation of this blasphemous falsehood, the author writes thus: "they affirm that all our ancestors, even the Apostles themselves, were of that, opinion, and taught the same with them; and that this, their true doctrine was preached, and embraced to the time of Victor, the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after

* Dial. cum Tryph.

+ The fair inference from this passage would be, that no such heretical doctrine as the mere humanity of Christ then existed, for to talk of endeavouring its revival, supposes its previous extinction; and if the attempts of Paulus had succeeded, Eusebius would surely have spoken of the heresy as something actually then in existence, and have said, which Paulus of Samosata has in our days revived, rather than endeavoured to revive. The word endeavoured, as it is here used, naturally supposes a failure. How is it that if the heresy above reprobated did ever prevail to any extent amongst the early Christians, scarcely a book in favour of it should have come down from their time to ours? Of the books by them written, those which have been preserved, declare in the most explicit terms, the divinity, and atonement of Christ.

which they published long before the time of Victor, against the Gentiles in the defence of the truth, and in confutation of the heresies of their times. I mean Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, and Cloment, with many others, in all which works Christ is preached and published to be God. Who knoweth not that the works of Irenæus, Melito, and all other Christians do confess Christ to be both God and man? In fine, how many psalms and hymns, and canticles were written from the beginning by faithful Christians, which celebrate Christ the word of God, as no other than God indeed? How then is it possible, according to their report, that our ancestors to the days of Victor, should have preached in that way, when the creed of the church for so many years, is pronounced as certain, and known to all the world? And ought they not be ashamed to report such falsehoods of Victor, when they know it to be a fact, that this very Victor excommunicated Theodotus a tanner, the father of this sapostacy, who denied the divinity of Christ, because he first affirmed Christ to be only man. If Victor, as they report, had been of their blasphemous sentiments, how could he have excommunicated Theodotus the author of the heresy ?" Theodotus lived still a denier of Christ, and being afterwards upbraided for denying his God; No says he, I have not denied God, but man; for Christ is no more."+ His heresy, says Milner, hence obtained a new name, that of the God denying A postacy.+

* B. v. c. 25.

+ Damascen. Heres. 54.

Arnesitheos aposasia.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Divinity of Christ continued.

WHY, says the Socinian, if Christ had really a

divine nature, should it not have been declared to us in terms so plain, as that to doubt should have been impossible, and that the incarnate God might have received from all who had heard his Gospel, the honours due to his name? The most natural way of answering this question, is by proposing another, viz.-can the Socinian devise a form of words to be applied to our Saviour, more expressly declaratory of his divinity than these-" who is above all, God blessed for ever ;"* (Rom. 9. 5.) “ but unto the son he saith, thy throne oh God is for ever and ever," Heb. 1, 8; "I and my Father are one," John 10, ver. 30. "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth," Matt. 28, ver. 18. "The first man is of the earth, earthy, the second man is the Lord from heaven," 1 Cor. 15, ver. 47. Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which

I cannot but introduce here from Augustine's Confessions, written about the beginning of the fifth century a short passage as it stands trans“lated in the second vol. of Mr. Milner's church history, p. 343. “I now Sought the way of obtaining strength to enjoy thee” (God) “ and found it not till I embraced the Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, who is above all, God blessed for ever,' calling and saying, I am the way, the truth and the life." On this passage Mr. Milner's comment is as follows. "Here is a clear testimony to the authenticity and genuine interpretation of that remarkable text, the light of which has been so peculiarly offensive to those, whom fashionable heresies in our days have darkened,"

is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. i. ver. 21, 22, 23 ?

This, I say, is the most natural way of answering the Socinian, but here he steps forward, and availing himself of his superior learning tells us, that either "original error or subsequent corruption" have debarred us of all power of learning the truth; or else that we have ourselves perverted the truth by mistranslating. Nothing therefore is left to us but to say, that when the Socinian tells us why the proofs of the Gospel's truth, are not such as it is absolutely impossible to be dissatisfied with, and why great and important truths in all sciences are discoverable only by the diligent and uniform exercise of our reason; then will we tell him why the declarations of Christ's divinity are not iterated in the Gospel so frequently, and in such terms, as shall vanquish even his incredulity.

I have already attempted to shew how little ground man has to hope for salvation, but through the efficacy of an atonement made for his sins.

"A mediator between God and man," says that same Augustine from whom we have just quoted, should possess the natures of both." Let us see how far we are war

ranted from Scripture in believing that Christ our passover" had this double nature.

I assume, for the reasons before given, that Christ was sincere; so sincere that professing to make no account of earthly good, he did make no account of it; so conformable in his practice to his preaching, and so courageous in his conduct, that no earthly advantage or threat could move him from what he thought right.

Now this Christ, thus sincere and inflexible; thus proof against the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the de, vil; thus regardless of fame, wealth, power, ease, the pleasures of sense, and so on ; at one time suffered his disciples to fall down and worship him; at another time he let a disciple call him my Lord and my God." He let the peo ple sing hosannas to him. He thought himself then it is evident something above man; so much above him that

he might innocently receive his worship. Had he thought himself mere man, would he not, being only as honest as St. Peter, have cried out as that Apostle did on a similar occasion to Cornelius, "stand up, I myself also am a man;" (Acts x. 26.) or have said, as Paul and Barnabas did to the Barbarians who would have paid them divine honours, Sirs, why do ye these things, we also are men of like passions with you?" Acts 14. 15. None but God is the fit object of worship. If Christ received it, he must either have been a deceiver (and we have seen what improbabilities that supposition involves) or less apprized of the nature and dignity of God than we are, or arrogantly vain, or else divine. The Socinian tells us that the word worship, when applied to our Saviour, does not mean worship, but respect, as, says he, in the marriage ceremony we say, "with my body I thee worship." How far this assertion is founded in truth, we will presently inquire.

St. Paul also seems to have fallen into the same error as his Master about the divine nature of the latter, for says the apostle, at his (Christ's) name, "every knee shall bow, both in heaven and in earth." (Phil. ii, 10.)

Now can we for a moment suppose St. Paul to have believed, that all this honour should accrue to a being, of whom the most that he could say was this, viz. that he was the best man who ever lived; a being about as much above other men, as other men are above the brute creation? Impossible: but St. Paul was an inspired writer; what he wrote was certainly true, and therefore (unless we can assign some other meaning than the obvious one to the above passage, or else shew that the hosts of heaven might fitly bow before the very name of a "mere man, in all respects similar to other men,") Christ was of a superhuman

nature.

But let us quote texts, and comment on them as we go on.

"The Son of man sh all send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." Mat. 13, 41.