When He assumed to Himself the attribute of eternal selfexistence, declaring, "before Abraham was, I am,”* his hearers, enraged at the supposed blasphemy, instantly rushed forward to stone Him. And finally on this ground they justified His crucifixion; for when driven from every other pretext of accusation, by the undeniable innocence of His life, and the moral excellence of His doctrine, they rested their charge on this, "we have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God,"† clearly and truly understanding that this high title imported, not that He was merely the creature of God, equally with every other human being, but that He was the Son of God so peculiarly, as to partake the divine nature, and inherit all the divine perfections. Thus, it appears, that during His whole life, and peculiarly at His death, the doctrine that our Lord was in such a sense the Son of God, as to be equal with God," was the great stumbling-block of the Jewish nation, the great stimulus to their accusation and outrage. Surely, then, St. Matthew, who wrote with the express design of instructing and conciliating the Jews, would never have revived this doctrine in such a solemn and authoritative manner, if he had not taught it under the irresistible control of his Divine Lord's command, enjoining the promulgation of this truth, as so essential, that its acknowledgment was the indispensable condition of admission into the Christian covenant.

66

If from the Jews we turn to the heathen, we shall perceive a strong additional proof, that the doctrine contained in this celebrated passage, would never have been brought forward by the first teachers of the Gospel, if it had not been established by an authority most clear and decisive, such as this solemn declaration of our divine Lord supplies. The strong ground on which the first Christians assailed heathenism was the absurdity and impiety of idolatry. To this they imputed all the profanations and crimes, which polluted and degraded the heathen world; declaring, that "as when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, but changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the creature, more than the Creator; therefore, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which were not convenient, being filled with all unrighteousness." This was the * John, viii. 58. † John, xix. 7. Rom. i. 21, 25, &c.

accusation which the apostle of the Gentiles hesitated not to advance against the lordly Romans, and philosophic Athenians, whom he charged with excessive superstition, and with ignorance of the true God, "who made the world and all things therein, in whom we live and move and have our being,"* whom he calls on them to worship, and, "turning from idols, to adore the living God, &c. no longer to believe that the Lord of heaven and earth dwelleth in temples made with hands," or that the Godhead could be "like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven with art or men's device." Now, to this idolatry charged on the heathens, the deification of Christ seemed to be exactly similar. To deify a crucified man, must even have appeared to the heathens a more degrading idolatry, than to exalt among the gods, heroes and legislators, the benefactors and rulers of mankind;—and this accusation was, in fact, retorted upon the Christians with all the insolence of triumphant scorn. Thus was Christ crucified, and then worshipped, to the "Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness."† Never then would the Christians have exposed themselves to this retort, (so overpowering had it been well founded,) if they had not distinctly known, that they could fully vindicate their holy faith from the foul calumny, by showing the clearest proofs, that in that same Jesus who was crucified, dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." To suppose that to an error so fatal as this, (if it had been an error,) countenance should have been given by the solemn declaration now before us, as the primary and leading doctrine of the primitive church, is utterly incredible. No; nothing but the divinity of Christ, being clearly established by irresistible proofs, could have justified the Christians' conduct, or vindicated their religion from the imputation of idolatry and impiety, the most inconsistent and degrading. When, therefore, our Lord had commissioned His disciples, "to go and teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded," and at the same time enjoined them "to baptize all whom they received into His church, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," he loaded his religion with a weight, which must have

Acts, xvii. 28, &c.

+1 Cor. i. 23, Griesbach reads ".

sunk it for ever, if it had not been sustained by the evidence of divine truth, and the co-operation of divine power.

Surely, then, every Christian pastor must, like the holy Ananias, who acted under the immediate direction of the Spirit, call on each convert admitted to baptism, to receive Christ with the faith, adoration, and obedience due to God, as the indispensable condition of pardon and acceptance. "Arise," said Ananias to St. Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."* From this important fact, how clearly does it follow, that the great apostle of the Gentiles, from whom at his baptism, such faith in Christ, and such adoration of Him had been thus authoritatively demanded, would from all whom he himself should afterwards convert, require, as indispensably due to the Redeemer, similar faith and similar adoration.

This argument becomes almost irresistible, on our seeing, that the great apostle of the Gentiles, although, when noting and condemning the worship of idols, he brings forward the unity of God in direct contrast with them, yet in the very same sentence speaks of the divine majesty of Christ, in strict union with the majesty of God the Father. "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." Thus, he asserts the unity of the Godhead, in opposition to the idols of polytheism. But, he adds; "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as their be gods many, and lords many, but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Now let me ask, is it conceivable that at the moment of thus pronouncing on the nothingness of idols, and proceeding to condemn those, "who with a conscience of the idol eat any thing as offered unto an idol"-that is, who conceive that by doing so, they share in, or countenance the worship of a false God-is it conceivable, that at the very same moment, the apostle would lay such a snare to involve men in idolatry, as he certainly would, by extending to Christ

Acts, xxiii. 16.

+ Cor. vii. 4 to 7.

the honour due only to the one God, if that honour were not really his declaring that "besides God the Father of whom are all things, there is one Lord Christ by whom are all things;" that is, that as we all exist in the Father, this existence is at the same time sustained by the instrumentality of the Son? Is it possible, that the incommunicable attributes of creating and sustaining all things, would have been thus divided, as it were, between the great First Cause, the universal Father, and Christ the Lord, if the Godhead of the Father and the Son were not one and the same, co-equal and co-eternal?

It is alleged,* in order to weaken the force of the proof from the solemn declaration of our Lord in the text, "that it is evident, it was not intended to prescribe an invariable formula" in the administration of baptism; for the apostles themselves baptized simply into the name of Jesus; and for this, different instances are referred to. Let us consider the principal of them distinctly.

We are referred to one instance of certain Jews, who having been "baptized unto John's baptism, had never so much as heard of the Holy Ghost;" on discovering which, St. Paul declared it necessary they should be again baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus."† Surely we cannot suppose, that by omitting the name of the Holy Spirit in this new baptism of these converts, that great defect in their previous faith, which this very baptism was intended to remove, should be still permitted to remain. We may, therefore, certainly conclude, that the entire form of baptism prescribed by our Lord was here observed, though thus briefly described as a baptism in the name of Christ. In truth, if we were at this day speaking of the reception of heathen converts into the church, we would naturally express it, by saying, they were baptized in the name or into the faith of Christ, without ever supposing or meaning to imply, that the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost were omitted at the administration of the baptismal rite. This

• Vide Note on the text in the improved version of the Unitarians.,

↑ Acts, xix. 2.

conclusion once established, can be easily applied to every other instance where the same brief description is employed.

There appear additional and distinct reasons why it should be applied to that signal one, the baptism of the devout Cornelius, and those assembled with him, the first fruits of the Gentile world, to whom St. Peter, by a particular divine command, was expressly sent to instruct them in the Christian faith. Let us consider whether the manner in which this apostle speaks of Christ on this illustrious occasion, weakens the evidence of his divinity. Of the Gospel and its divine Author he thus speaks: "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word ye know ;"* thus interrupting the direct course of his narrative, to introduce by anticipation, as it were, this declaration of the universal dominion, and by consequence the divinity of Christ-for who but God can be said to be the "Lord of all;" an expression so evidently equivalent to that of our Lord, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” He then proceeds to describe his character and miracles in the most exalted terms. He describes him as "going about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him ;" and finally he declares, that " He was ordained to be the Judge of the quick and the dead, and that whosoever believeth in him, should receive remission of their sins." How decidedly these characters of Judge of all, and Author of the remission of sins, attest the divinity of Christ, we shall hereafter consider. They certainly are most signal instances of exercising that universal dominion, which the apostle had before ascribed to our Lord. The narrative concludes with declaring, "that while Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they spake with tongues, and magnified God:" then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."† Now can it be supposed, that in the baptism then administered, the name of that Holy