swear by the Emperor's head, without being guilty of the same crime; though nobody, on that account, could imagine the Emperor to be God. But it would be the height of idolatry to call him God, and to pay him Divine honours, as the Romans did on some occasions. Because idolatry does not only consist in giving to a creature all that is due to the Creator, but in giving anything to the former which belongs to none but the latter. The sacred writers, however, not only ascribe to Jesus Christ a part of what is peculiar to God, but they agree in attributing to him all the most peculiar and essential characteristics of his glory. They ascribe to Jesus Christ the most magnificent of all Divine works: to him they attribute the power and wisdom, the immensity and eternity of God, with other perfections of the Divine nature: they also give him God's titles, names, and glory. How, then, would it be possible to confound the creature with the Creator to a greater degree?

It may, perhaps, be said, "Though the writers of the New Testament speak of Christ as of one that partakes, in some measure, of the glory of the Deity; yet, that he might not be accused of a design to confound himself with God, he expressly declared, 'The Father is greater than I.'"But this is far from invalidating our argument. A person, for instance, who loves money, who is really a covetous man, and who has bowed all his life at the shrine of Mammon, will readily allow, that God is the chief good, and to be loved above all riches: yet such an acknowledgment will neither acquit him from the charge of covetousness, nor from the guilt of idolatry. A man who should assume the titles and names of God, with a view to be worshipped, would set himself up for an idol, though he were once and again to confess, that God is greater than he. Or, to vary the comparison, a subject who should ascribe to himself all the works of his sovereign; assume his titles, and call

himself, the true king, the great king, and the lord of the state, whom all around are bound to obey; who should cause himself to be addressed as king, and exact such honours as were never given to any but the real monarch; would certainly be guilty of high treason, though he might have said, once at least, The King is greater than I.

Again: Rev. Sir, the Christian religion, according to the Socinian hypothesis, (which, in fact, is Unitarianism,) is not distinguishable from imposture ;-is little better than an impious comedy, which is calculated to dishonour God, and deceive mankind. For shocking to imagine !-Jesus Christ appears in the Church much like an actor on the stage, who takes the names and titles of a king, who attributes to himself his words, and requires his honours, without being really what he pretends to be. Yet with this difference, a player on the stage, when acting the part of a sovereign, does not pretend that the play is an important reality; nor that the spectators should pay him the honours of royalty after the representation; nor yet that they should be sincerely persuaded he is a king while the play continues but here, according to the impious genius of the Socinian system, we have a kind of comedy, in which a man calls himself God, the Great God, the Mighty God, and the True God; who requires Divine honours, and, as God, has received them from his most eminent disciples, though he depend on God for his very existence.

That the Christian religion is turned by the Socinian system into an empty appearance and mere show, is evident; for you find in it, a representative God, and a metaphorical sacrifice-an atonement, that is only so in appearance, and an imaginary hell, for the wicked, according to the Socinians, shall be annihilated.

"But the miracles which Jesus Christ wrought were true and real; nor ought they to be compared with the

representations of the stage." This consideration, detached from other things, is of little weight; for of what worth are miracles performed by one, who attempted to seat himself on the throne of the Deity? If Jesus usurp the glory of God, neither humility, nor justice, nor zeal for God, nor love to men, can be found in him. On this supposition, all his virtues, and all his piety, are obscured and lost : and in their stead we behold pride and ambition, injustice and sacrilege, blasphemy and seduction. For as miracles, accompanied with holiness, are evidently wrought by the spirit of God; so those works, however amazing, which patronise blasphemy and idolatry, ought ever to be considered as proceeding from the spirit of darkness.

But I shall not further enlarge on this argument, nor any longer defile my paper with such horrid suppositions.Enough, I persuade myself, has been said to prove into what a dreadful abyss the principles of our adversaries lead. Enough also has been said to evince that the Deity of Jesus Christ is essential to the Christian religion, which is the grand principle I proposed to demonstrate.

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

VERAX,

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

POSTSCRIPT.

"Observe," says St. Augustine, " that when in the creed the name of God the Father is conjoined, it is thereby declared, that he was not first of all a God, and afterwards a Father; but without any beginning, he is always both God and Father. When thou hearest the word Father,

acknowledge that he hath a Son truly born, as he is called a possessor who possesseth anything, and a governor who governs anything; so God the Father is a term of a secret mystery, whose true Son is the Word."-(Serm. de Temp. 181.)

LETTER XV.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

A REPLY TO THE OBJECTION OF THE SUPPOSED
SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE.

REV. SIR,

To the objection from the supposed silence of the Scripture I reply as follows; and in order that I may not be suspected of weakening the arguments of our adversaries, I shall make use of their own words; and if, to avoid prolixity, I contract them a little, their objections will not be the less forcible. The argument, then, which appears to me to be the first in order, and one of the most plausible, is that which they form on the supposed silence of the Scripture, as to the mystery of the incarnation.

"We see," say they, "that those things which are difficult to be believed, yet absolutely necessary to salvation, are very frequently and plainly expressed in the Scriptures. Such, for instance, as the creation of heaven and earth; the care which God takes of human affairs; his know

Ꮮ

Now, if the

ledge of our thoughts; the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life. Various things also of less importance are clearly and distinctly contained in holy writ. For example, 'That Jesus Christ is of the seed of David.' incarnation of the Supreme God were a fact, it would be an article of faith absolutely necessary, and at the same time very difficult to be believed. It ought, therefore, to have been very clearly asserted in the Scripture, and so frequently inculcated by the sacred writers, who design to promote and secure our happiness, that none should have any reason to doubt whether it was a part of Divine Revelation. Yet it appears to us that there is no such thing contained in their writings. For the passages, produced by our adversaries to prove the tenet, are of such a nature that they are obliged to draw several consequences from them, before they can infer the incarnation of the Most High God; or, that he was made man. Nor is the doctrine of the incarnation mentioned where it should be, supposing it were true. For, when Matthew and Luke wrote the history of the birth of Christ, and relate a variety of particulars, of much less importance than the incarnation of the Supreme God; how is it possible they should have omitted, should have entirely passed over in silence, that wonderful fact, had it been true? They inform us, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost; that he was born of a Virgin, in the days of Augustus, and at the town of Bethlehem, with many other particulars. Why, then, should they omit the most important and wonderful thing, and that which was more necessary to be known and believed than any other in the whole narration? Luke has not forgotten the manger, in which the new-born Saviour was laid; yet he has omitted the incarnation of the supreme God, and says nothing about the hypostatical union of the divine and human nature. How came it to pass,