work; and God hath exalted him to be a PRINCE and a SAVIOR The price of redemption he has personally paid; and he is made head over all things to the church. Judging the world is a Divine work; and the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son. It is indeed a truth, that God does all these things by his Son; but the Son is the real agent or doer of these things, as truly as Paul was the author of the epistles to Timothy.

It is a principle of reason and common sense, as well as of revelation, that great and excellent works are a proper ground of honor. When the elders of the Jews came to Christ to request favor in behalf of the centurion, whose servant was sick, in commendation of the centurion the elders said, That, "he is worthy for whom he should do this; for he loveth our nation, and hath built us a synagogue." What honors have been paid to Washington, on the ground not only of the important offices he sustained, but on the ground of the important works he performed! Now, if more honor has been due to Washington on the ground of his works, than has been due to the meanest soldier in his army, or the meanest peasant in community, Divine honors are due to Christ on the ground of his Divine works. A greater than Washington is here; one who has done greater things; one who hath loved our race, and built us a world, and filled it with the fruits of his kindness; yea, one who hath so loved us as to give himself, his own life, for our redemption. But God raised him from the dead, and "exalted him with his own right hand.” God viewed him worthy of Divine honors, on the ground of what he had done, "wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." If it was not improper for God to place the Son on his own right hand, it is not improper for us to pay Divine honors to his name.

From the evidence we have in the sacred writings, that Divine honors are to be paid to the Son of God, it has been inferred, that the Son is personally the self-existent God. And so confident have some been that this inference is infallibly correct, that they have ventured, on the supposition it be not so, to implicate the Christian world in a charge of gross idolatry, and the God of truth in a charge of self-contradiction and inconsistency. Is not this, sir, for fallible creatures, earrying things to a great length? And does it not imply such a degree of confidence in the correctness of their own understandings, as none should possess until they arrive to that state where they shall see as they shall be seen, and know as they shall be known ?

But what, sir, is the ground on which this extraor-dinary confidence rests? Is it not a principle, taken for granted, which has no real foundation in reason, analogy, or the word of God? Yea, a principle which is contradicted by analogy, and by as plain representations as are contained in the oracles of truth? The principle taken for granted is this, That it is impos-· sible with God to constitute a CHARACTER which shall be worthy of Divine honors; therefore, if Jesus Christ be not personally the self-existent God, he cannot be an object of Divine honors.

But, sir, be pleased to admit, for one moment, the possibility that Christ is just such a Person and character as I have supposed him to be-truly the Son of the LIVING GOD, God's own and ONLY SON-a Son in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness

should dwell-one truly united to Deity, and by God invested with the Divine offices of Savior, Lord, and Judge: What but Divine honors are due to his name?

What says analogy ?-By David's pleasure, we behold Solomon placed on the throne of Israel; and we see the friends of David and of Solomon giving him the honors which were due to the son of David and king of Israel. We also see the SON OF GOD, "for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor," seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high, exalted by God, as Lord of all; and shall we pronounce it idolatry to pay him Divine honors as the SON OF GOD, and the constituted LORD of the universe? Or shall we arraign the conduct of God, and pronounce it absurd for him thus to exalt his own SON ?

But what saith the Scriptures? When they represent Christ as an object of Divine honors, do they not uniformly represent him as a Person as distinct from GOD as he is from the FATHER? Is there one instance in which he is represented as the self-existent God, and on that ground worshipped ?-In regard to those declarations of the Divine will respecting the honoring of Christ, or the wershipping of Christ, is he not in the plainest manner distinguished from the selfexistent God? All judgment was COMMITTED unto HIM by the FATHER, that all men should honor the Son as they honor the FATHER. Was he not a Being distinct from the one who committed all judgment unto him? In the connection, he calls that Being his Father; and Peter says, that Christ commanded his disciples to preach and to testify that it is He who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead. Therefore, when he is honored as the Judge,

he is honored as one ordained of God. He is then, in
this case, plainly distinguished from God. It was
God also who brought him into the world, as the
ONLY BEGOTTEN, and said, "Let all the angels of
God worship HIM." It was God also who "exalted
him ;" and God gave him the name which is above
every knee
every name, that at the name of Jesus
should bow. In all these cases, the Son is as clearly
distinguished from God, as Solomon is, in any place,
distinguished from David.

As there is no declaration importing that Christ should be worshipped or honored as being personally the self-existent God, we may perhaps find, that, in the examples of worshipping Christ, he was honored or worshipped as a Being distinct from God. When he had stilled the tempest, they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." And in several instances he was worshipped under this title. By the woman of Canaan he was worshipped as the Lord, the Son of David. Can any person of candor and discernment suppose, that in either of these cases he was considered as personally the self-existent God? The terms they used certainly import no such thing. To be the in this SON of God, and to be the self-existent GoD, are ideas pla? as distinct as David and the Son of David. The angels were not required to worship him as the self-existent God; but the self-existent God required them to worship Christ as the only begotten Son of God. When John, in the Revelations, gives us such a striking representation of the worship or Divine honors paid by all the angels and saints to Christ as the LAMB OF GOD, the LAMB, in the representations, is elearly distinguished from God as another intelligent

Being as one who had been SLAIN-as ONE who had redeemed us to God by his blood.

No one, it is hoped, will pretend, that God, the self-existent, was ever slain; yet when Divine honors were paid the LAMB, the angels and the redeemed of the Lord said, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing."

There is not, perhaps, a more striking representation of Divine honors paid to the Son of God, in any part of the Bible, than those which are given by John in the Revelations; yet all those honors were paid to one who could say, "I am He that liveth, and was Redame dead, and, behold, I live forevermore ;" and to one man whom the worshippers considered as having been slain. Then, as true as it is that God was never personally dead, so true it is that Jesus Christ may receive divine honors as an intelligent Being, personally distinct from God.

It may not be amiss here to notice an extraordinary idea suggested by Mr. Jones, in regard to the LAMB. Speaking upon these words, "Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood," and feeling the impropriety of supposing that God suffered and died, he informs us that by the Lamb is intended "the Messiah's humanity." [p. 32.] That the title LAMB includes the Messiah's humanity, is not denied; but that the term LAMB means the Messiah's humanity in contradistinction to his own proper nature as the SON OF GOD, may not be admitted. If the name Lamb mean the "Messiah's humanity" in the sense suggested by Mr. Jones, we may properly substitute the terms "Messiah's humanity” whenever the word Lamb is used as denoting Christ.