hearts, to what knowledge short of omniscience, could he make his confident appeal?—I am not fond of the paraphrastic mode of exposition. The following paraphrase of the words by Dr. Guyse, however, seems to convey very correctly their true import:-" Lord, I know there is no deceiving thee, who art fully acquainted with all things, even to the most secret dispositions of the heart: but my great comfort is, that, how justly soever I may suspect myself, and deserve to be suspected by thee and others, thy omniscient eye sees the principle of love which is in my soul towards thee, and the uprightness of my appeal to thee about it."

The reader, then, must be very weak, who is misled by the mere similarity, or even sameness, of phraseology, in circumstances so totally different.

This Discourse has necessarily consisted entirely of proof: nor would it be considered as quite admissible, to deduce any inferences from the point at issue, till the evidence of it has been closed. To detain you longer at present would, besides, be very unseasonable.-I entertain no fears about the practical consequences, if the truth which I am endeavouring to establish, be once received in the love of it.

Respecting that portion of evidence which we have gone over, one remark may be made, which, it is probable, many of you have anticipated:that with regard to all those texts which have been quoted, no attempt is made on the part of our opponents to prove that, upon the ordinary principles of construction, they are unfairly or unnaturally rendered. As to a number of the texts, indeed, it is not the translation that is disputed, but the sense. In those, however, of which a different translation is proposed, it is not pretended that the new rendering is more consistent with the rules of syntax, or the ordinary usage of the original language, than the old; but only that the

words are capable of bearing it,—that it is possible for them to be so translated. It seems as if writers on that side of the question, proceeded upon the principle, that the doctrine is in itself so utterly incredible, that if there be a discoverable sense of which the words are at all susceptible, that sense ought to be preferred.-I would, on this subject, remark, in the first place, that in every one of the instances I have referred to, in which a change of translation is attempted, there is requisite, to make out the change, some deviation, either greater or less, from the ordinary arrangement of the words in similar cases, or from the usual, if not even the uniform syntax of the original language. -Secondly, That any such principle as that alluded to is, in its nature and practical application, utterly inconsistent with the candour of an ingenuous mind. According to it, our inquiry is not to be, What is the plain and obvious meaning of the writer, agreeably to the ordinary and established rules of interpretation?—but, Is it possible to understand his words otherwise? Men may talk of prejudice: but I can conceive of few prejudices more strong, or more deceitful, than that which is involved in such a principle. It is surely a very suspicious circumstance, as to the foundation on which any system rests, when its abettors feel it necessary, formally to warn their readers "to be on their guard against what is called the natural signification of words and phrases."* Can any thing be more unfavourable to the discovery of truth? or can any thing more plainly indicate a secret dissatisfaction with ordinary rules, and an unacknowledged feeling of the need in which the system stands of some unusual modes of interpretation?

Yet on what subject should TRUTH be more seriously and devoutly the object-the simple and exclusive object, of our

* Belsham's Calm Inquiry, pp. 4, 5.

inquiry, than on one so important and so interesting as that now before us?-On such a subject, it is my sincere and earnest prayer, that I may never be left to contend for victory. God forbid! God forbid! On points of amusing theory, and abstract speculation, we may argue for the sake of argument, and triumph in the success of our own ingenuity;—though, indeed, even on such topics, the practice, when indulged in, is by no means free from the danger of pernicious influence on the mind of the gratuitous combatant:-But for fellowcreatures to argue for victory, when the claims of Deity are involved in the question, and when all the dearest interests and sublimest hopes of mankind are at stake!—this were a prostitution of intellect, and a perversity of principle, unworthy of a rational being;—and in a being who feels and acknowledges his responsibility to the "Judge of all," an insensibility of conscience, unutterably affecting, and ominous of the most fearful results.

Let the inquiry, then, of every one of us always be, "What is truth?" and our prayer, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law."

I PROPOSED, you will recollect, to prove, that the distinguishing NAMES, ATTRIBUTES, WORKS, and WORSHIP of the Supreme God, are all, in the Scriptures, unequivocally ascribed to Jesus Christ.

Pursuing this arrangement, I endeavoured, in last discourse, to show you, from a variety of passages, both in the Old Testament, and in the New, that the names GoD and JEHOVAH are, in their proper and highest sense, given to Christ :-and also, that he is distinctly represented as possessing the Divine attributes of ETERNAL EXISTENCE, ALMIGHTY POWER, OMNIPRESENCE, and OMNISCIENCE.

Still deferring further recapitulation, I now go on immediately to the two remaining articles of discourse.

III. We affirm, then, in the THIRD place, that WORKS are ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, to which no being is competent but the Supreme God.

The most superficial reader of the Gospel history can hardly fail to be struck,-I do not say with the miracles themselves which Jesus is recorded to have performed-for similar wonders were wrought by the prophets before, and by the apostles after him;-but by the peculiar manner in which some of these miracles are described as having been

done. "He arose, and rebuked the winds, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still! and immediately there was a great calm." Do not these words remind us of that Being, of whom it is said, in the sublime language of the Psalmist: “He stilleth the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people?"* When the Redeemer performed this miracle, the persons who were in the ship were filled with amazement and dread, and said one to another, "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"+ Had the name of the almighty Jehovah been invoked, or in any way acknowledged, when the command was given that hushed the turbulence of the storm;-although the instantaneous suddenness of the effect could not have failed to strike them with wonder, yet the cause of the astonishment would not have been such as is here described. They could, in that case, have been at no loss, even for a moment, to account for what was done. But, "the winds and the sea OBEY HIM!" Here seems to have lain the chief cause of their amazement. They saw a man-in external appearance like one of themselves. Yet this man "spoke and it was done:" -spoke with the authority and the majesty of one who was conscious of having in himself the necessary power. And when they expressed the perplexity of their minds-as respecting a fact for which they were unable to accountsaying, "What manner of man is this?" the true answer would have been, "He is a man, in union with Deity:-he is Immanuel, God with us."

There is nothing from which we can conceive the mind of a holy creature to revolt with deeper abhorrence, than the discovery of his having said or done any thing that could lead his fellow creatures to imagine, even for an instant, that he