so as well as he, if the Eternal Sovereign had so ordained; but the Supreme Being is in such a manner Jehovah; The Mighty God; The King of Glory; The Creator Of Heaven And Earth; and The Lord Of Hosts; that none but He can possibly have the glory. If, then, we could not without blasphemy apply to any other man, whether by way of allusion or of accommodation, this one character, The Lamb Of God, which, though peculiar to Christ, has no relation to his essence; how much more impious would it be to apply to Jesus so many grand titles of the Most High, which are not only peculiar to him, but expressive of his essence? In the former case, the honour of a creature, highly beloved of God, is prejudiced; in the latter, the glory of God himself is injured. In that, the only danger is, lest scandal be given by a profane allusion; in this, there would be both scandal and seduction; such seduction as would terminate in idolatry and ruin, by confounding the creature with the Creator.

Our opposers, then, may put their imaginations upon the stretch, and rack their wits; they may labour to render some books of the Holy Scripture suspected, and speculate on the manner how the Apostles were inspired, as long and as much as they please; but it will all be to no purpose, while it remains a fact, that the Apostles have applied to Christ, whether by way of allusion, or of accommodation, or otherwise, those oracles of the Prophets which characterize the true God. For if Jesus Christ be not a partaker of the Divine essence-if he be a mere creature, to whom such characters cannot possibly belong-we must consider the Apostles as betraying us into idolatry, by impious witticisms, and blasphemous applications of the prophetic writings. It necessarily follows, therefore, if the hypothesis of our adversaries be true, that the prophets did not foresee things as they were to come to pass; and that the Apostles

either did not understand the Prophets, or they designed to betray us into error; consequently, that there is no harmony between the Old Testament and the New.

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

VERAX.

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

POSTSCRIPT.

I am well aware that one of the principal arguments in favour of the Socinian hypothesis, is formed on these words of our Lord, St. John, xvii. 3: "This is Life Eternal, that

they might know thee the only True God, and Jesus "Christ whom thou has sent." If our adversaries mean to prove from this passage, that Jesus Christ is not God, they act inconsistently, for they acknowledge that he bears the name in the Holy Scriptures. Nay, if they would hence make it appear that he is not the True God, they contradict themselves, for Socinus expresses himself in the following remarkable words: "It is very false that we should openly declare Jesus Christ is not true God. We profess to say the contrary, and declare that He Is True God, in several of our writings, as well in the Latin, as in the Polish language." (Socin. ad Wick. p. 49.) "Jesus Christ," says Smalcius, "may be called with sovereign right Our God, and the True God; and so he really is." And in another place he assures us, "That Jesus Christ is God in the most Perfect Manner; perfectissimo modo." If, then, Jesus Christ be God, the True God, and God in the most perfect manner; and if this be the sentiments of our opponents, what do they mean by adducing and arguing upon this

passage? Is it their intention to prove, by taking the words in their greatest rigour of signification, that Christ is not the True God, and that the sublime title belongs only to the Father? But this is diametrically opposite to their own declarations.

I know that our opponents labour to persuade us that the term God is not a proper name, but an appellative. For this purpose they have written whole Treatises; nor need we wonder at it. For if it be certain that the emphatical term is the proper name of the Supreme Being, they must be obliged to acknowledge Jesus as a truly Divine Person; because they allow that he is frequently called God, even in such passages as are not supposed to be figurative. They therefore will have it, that the sublime name is an appellative, and that it is frequently given to others besides the great Supreme. Without entering into this dispute, we shall reason with them on their own principles. If, then, the term God be an appellative, we may form the same judgment of it as of the name of king, which is given to Jehovah, by way of excellence, but is also attributed to others. Now I demand of our adversaries, supposing the words of the text were, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only True King, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," whether they would not affirm that the expressions, "only true king," belong to the Father exclusively of the Son? or whether they would allow them to belong to both? They would, I am persuaded, understand the words thus: This is life eternal, to know thee the only true King; thee, Father, with him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ.

Now, as the name of God, on their principles, is no less appellative than the term King, they ought, if they would act consistently, to understand the words of our Lord thus: This is life eternal, that they might know thee to be the

True God; thee, Father, with him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ. The adjective, true, will furnish us with another argument. By the "True God," our opponents understand the Great God, by way of excellence, the Supreme Being. We allow, that the True God is the Great God; and that the Great God is the True God. But we maintain that the idea of True God, and that of Supreme Being, are two ideas which represent the same object in different lights. The former opposes the infinite object to all such as falsely bear the name God. The latter contrasts the same eternal and sovereign object with every other being in the universe; for all creatures are necessarily and infinitely inferior to him; so that though the very same adorable object is signified by these two Divine characters, yet, as they convey distinct ideas, they ought not to be confounded. This, however, our opponents constantly do, when they dispute against us from the text under consideration. It would not avail to say, the term true conveys the idea of excellence; as when it is said, "Constantine was a true emperor-Alexander was a true hero," meaning that the one had all the qualities which an emperor ought to have, and the other was a great hero. For although the adjective, true, is sometimes used to indicate the excellence of the subject intended, yet it more frequently signifies the reality of it. As when it is said, Henry the Fourth was the true King of France when he fought against the League, after Henry the Third's death." That is, he was then really King; he did not usurp the crown. So in the text before us, the expressions, "only True God," carrying in them a manifest allusion to the multitude of Pagan divinities who falsely bore the name of Gods; the epithet true, must signify the reality, rather than the excellence of Him to whom it is applied. But if so it is very easy to prove that the phrase, "only true God,"

should be referred to the Son as well as to the Father. But perhaps I may be told, that the word only, connected with true God, may give the title an excellence, so as to render it peculiar to the Father. By no means. For as the term only, determines that of true; so the term true, limits that of only. As the adjective true, is opposed to false; so the adverb only, is opposed to many. "Only True God," therefore, stands opposed to the multitude of false gods worshipped by the Heathens.

LETTER X.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT-ABSURDITY OF CONSIDERING JESUS ONLY AS MAN.

REV. SIR,

An unanswerable argument for the Divinity of Christ, as it appears to me, may be taken from the doctrine of atonement. Various parts of holy Scripture are full of it; and, indeed, without it the Bible would be one of the most strange and unaccountable books in the world. But, if Christ were no more than a man, this doctrine becomes impossible in the nature of the thing. I conclude, therefore, that our Blessed Saviour is possessed of a nature equal to this undertaking, or, in other words, that he is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.