ter, in God, rquires that his hatred of iniquity, whenever and wherever it may take place, be rendered as visible, in his administration of government, as his love of righteousness. As it never could be believed, that God loved righteousness, should the righteous be left unprotected and unrewarded; no more could it, that he hated iniquity, should there be no marks of displeasure with those who commit it. The same disposition, which inclines the holy God to manifest his love of righteousness in his creatures, must necessarily incline him with equal strength, to manifest his hatred of their iniquity-Nor can it any more consist with the glory of God and the good of the system, that he suppress the manifestation of the latter, than of the former.

HENCE it must clearly follow, that if the glory of God and the good of his moral kingdom require that he manifest his approbation of righteousness in his creatures in every instance of it; they equally require, that he manifest his abhorrence of iniquity in every instance in which it takes place. Love as necessarily requires, and the good of God's great kingdom as imperiously demands, that every injury to divine government be avenged, as that every act of righteousness be acknowledged. And, we can conceive of no way in which this can be done, but by rewards and punishments.

It will be obvious to every reflecting mind, that, if there be no exhibition, in the work and death of Christ, of Gol's just abhorrence of the characters, the sins of such as are saved by him; all the wickedness of that innumerable multitude, which will finally compose the body of Christ, will be passed by without any marks of divine displeasure. And if this be so, where shill we fal suisfactory evidence, that the virtue and righteousness of such as follow the Lamb, may

not, also, be passed by without marks of divine approbation!

THESE are among the difficulties, which naturally occur respecting the doctrines of divine revelation, and the nature of the moral government, which is exercised over us, on a denial of the Divinity of Christ.

HAVING taken a view of some of the consequences naturally resulting from a denial of the atonement made by Christ, we observe,

II. THAT if Christ be not truly a divine person, God as well as man, it must be, for aught we can see, that he gave much occasion for his honesty to be called in question.

THERE were many things, in the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, while he was on earth, which it cannot but appear to us, were so far from that piety and meekness, which are ever characteristic of true goodBess, in creatures, that, were he but a man, we see not how to reconcile them with common honesty. Waving the point, at present, of his actually claiming to possess powers and attributes, which are peculiar to Divinity, it is manifest, that he said and did many things, which impressed the minds of, both his friends and enemies, with a belief, that he claimed to be some. thing more than a mere creature.

It appears evident, that the Jewish rulers,the scribes and pharisees thought that Jesus claimed, both a char acter and a respect, which belong only to the Most High God, and can be due only to Him. On being faulted by his enemies for healing an impotent man, on the Sabbath, Jesus answered, John, v. 17, "My "Father worketh hitherto, and I work." On this, we are told, in the succeeding verse, that the "Jews

"sought to kill him, because he not only had broken "the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, "making himself equal with God." The connexion in which these words of the Saviour were spoken, must naturally have suggested to the Jews, the construction they put on them. He was queried with upon having wrought a miracle of healing, which it required an al mighty power to effect. His reply, that his Father wrought hitherto, and he worketh, would naturally suggest the idea, that That Being, whose power could controul nature, was He, whom he called his Father and that, in common with Him, whom he stiled his Father, he himself possessed power over nature, and could controul it. Therefore, instead of either repro ving them for the construction they put on his words, or correcting them for any mistake; he proceeds with a train of observations, which they could not but sup pose, were designed to vindicate his claim to preroga tives and powers, which can belong to no mere crea ture. He tells them, that, "What things soever the "Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise "That as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quick "eneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he "will That all judgment is committed unto the Son, "that all men should honor the Son, even as they hon "or the Father-That the hour was now come, when "the dead should hear the voice of the Son of God, "and, hearing should live-That the hour was coming "when all, in their graves should hear his voice, and "come forth." On supposition, that the Jews had misinterpreted the meaning of this Great Teacher sent from God, and, without ground, inferred from what he had just said, that he claimed an equality with God; can any one rationally suppose, that the things, which this charge occasioned him to say of himself, were, either designed or fitted to correct their mistake? Any one may see that, instead of this, the whole tenor of what our Saviour said on the subject, had a direct ten

dency to confirm them in the opinion, that he, in fact, did claim to himself, such an equality with God, as it would be blasphemy in any mere creature to assume.

1

BUT this was not the only opportunity and, one might think, the most pressing reason, the Saviour had, for disavowing such high claims, did he mean never to be understood to make them. On another occasion, speaking of God as his Father, he had explicitly said, "I and my Father are one,' John, x. 30. On this, the Jews took up stones to stone him.

He mildly says, 66. many good works have I shewed 46 you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?" They say, for no good work, but for blasphemy; because thou, being a man, makest thyself equal with God.-Does this true and faithful Witness, as honesty must have necessarily dictated, had he been but a man, a mere creature, reject with detestation, every pretension to so high a prerogative? In stead of that, he evidently proceeds, to the apprehen sion of the Jews, still to maintain the claim, and justify himself in making it. If those, to whom the word of God came, were stiled God's, “ say ye, said he, of "him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into "the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I

66

am the Son of God?" He then appeals to the works he wrought, as evidence, that the Father was in him, and he in the Father. Could the Jews reasonably sup pose, that he meant any other, than to vindicate his claim to an equality with God? That they, in fact, did understand him in this light, is evident from their seeking again to take him.

To pass by other instances; Jesus was finally aps prehended, and brought to trial, before the high priest, on a charge of blasphemy-the charge being this, that he claimed to be the Son of God in a sense, which was understood to imply equality with God. Jesus him

self well knew, that this was the charge, on which they meant to execute on him the penalty, prescribed by the law of Moses, for blasphemy.—He could not be igno rant of this: For, not only had the Jews repeatedly sought to stone him, on an apprehension, that he claimed powers, and challenged prerogatives, which can belong to no mere creature; but the high priest, while he stood at his bar, adjured him, by the living God, to tell him, whether he were the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus immediately confesses, that he claimed to be all that, which he well knew they considered it as blasphemy in him to claim: And, instead of putting any other or different construction on terms and phrases, in which he had often expressed what the character was, in which he appeared and acted, adds, “ I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall sce the "Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and "coming in the clouds of heaven," Matt. xxvi. 64. On the supposition, that Jesus was but a mere creature, a man, why did not the high priest reason justly in saying, 66 What further need have we of witnesses? "Behold now ye have heard his blasphemy." how could Jesus be considered in any other light, than that of a blasphemer, if, he were, in fact, but a mere creature? To hear any man, or mere creature speak of himself as the Son of God-As doing the same works, which God doeth-As quickening from the dead and raising up whom he will-As having all judgment committed to him-As causing the dead to hear his voice, and live; and, asserting that it is his voice, which shall finally raise all the dead, some to everlasting life, and others to damnation. Should we now hear any man assert all this of himself, should we not immediately conclude, that he took to himself a character, and assumed a place infinitely too high for a creature ?— Further than this; Should we hear him speak of God as his Father, and assert, that he and the Father are one -That the Father is in him, and he in the Father

R

And