IV. One passage in which our Lord directly affirms this proposition in so many words, and no other proposition. (John viii. 58.)

LECTURE III.

ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

Matt. xxii. 41, 42.

This attempted to be proved from those passages in which the titles of God are ascribed to Jesus Christ, of which there are three kinds :

I. Those in which he is styled the Son of God. II. Those in which he is styled not the Son of God, but God himself.

III. Those which are quoted by the apostles from the Old Testament, in which the word Jehovah is ascribed to Jesus Christ.

LECTURE IV.

The DIVINITY of Christ proved from those passages in which the creation of the visible universe is ascribed to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I. This fact established by scripture testimony, and

II. The attention directed to the necessary conclusion which is to be derived from it, That if Jesus Christ appear by scripture testimony to be the Creator of all things, he is necessarily God; since the primary idea which man entertains of God identifies those perfections which created the world with the existence of Deity.

LECTURE V.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST PROVED FROM HIS BEING THE OBJECT OF DIVINE WORSHIP.

Worship may be considered as mental or local. It is to mental worship, as consisting of those sentiments of adoration of the Deity for his great mercies, a dependence upon the Author of them, a desire of his favour, and submission to his will, which mark every devout christian, and expressed in the language of prayer or praise, to which this part of the discussion is chiefly confined.

LECTURE VI.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST PROVED FROM CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH COULD NOT WITH CONVENIENCE BE REDUCED TO ANY ONE HEAD, SIMILAR TO THOSE ALREADY BROUGHT FORWARD.

I. If Jesus Christ be not a divine person, let me say, it is utterly inconceivable how he can discharge the office and assumption of Head of the Church, and Lord of the christian dispensation.

II. The simple humanity of Christ is utterly inconsistent with those perfections which are ascribed to the Saviour; since there is not a single attribute of the divine nature which is not found ascribed in different forms to our Lord Jesus Christ.

III. The idea of the simple humanity of Christ is utterly incompatible with that ardour of sentiment, of which he is represented in every part of scripture as the object.

IV. The Divinity of Christ is plain, from the fact of his being created and appointed the Judge of the Universe.

LECTURE VII.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST PROVED TO BE NOT A NEW DOCTRINE, BUT THAT IT WAS KNOWN BEFORE THE NICENE COUNCIL HELD IN THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY, BY REFERENCES TO THE FATHERS:—BARNABAS, HERMAS, IGNATIUS, CLEMENS ROMANUS, POLYCARP, JUSTIN MARTYR, THEOPHILUS BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, IRENEUS, TERTULLIAN, CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, ORIGEN, AND CYPRIAN.

[The above five Lectures upon the Divinity of Christ were preached from the same text; Matt. xxii. 41, 42.]

LECTURE VIII.

ON THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Matt. xxviii. 19.-Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The first proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit appears to result from the manner in which the Spirit, whatever is intended by that word, is mentioned in the Scriptures.

In order to understand this, it is necessary to reflect upon the meaning of the word " "Spirit." The first meaning of the term Spirit, is wind, or breath. (John iii. 8.)

The next use of the term Spirit, in the Scriptures, and other writers, in analogy to this, is to denote the invisible and immaterial part of man, in distinction from that which is corporeal, fleshly, and tangible. (Matt. xxvi. 41.)

Again, It is applied to those supernatural agents who are supposed not to be clothed with gross flesh and blood, and not to be possessed of bodies, or any fleshly vehicle whatever. (Luke xxiv. 39; x. 17, 20.)

The fourth meaning of this term is very agreeable to the former. By way of distinction, the word Spirit is applied to the third person in the blessed Trinity; that is, THE SPIRIT, by way of eminence; and it appears to be so employed when it is preceded by the definite article τὸ πνεῦμα, THE SPIRIT.

The second argument on this subject is derived from the obvious consideration, that the particular acts which are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and its inspirations, are such as are totally inconsistent with any idea but that of his being a proper person.

Speaking is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. (2 Sam. xxiii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 1; Acts xiii. 2.) Approbation is ascribed to the Spirit. (Acts xv. 28.)

The passion of grief is often applied to the Spirit of God. (Eph. iv. 30; Isaiah lxiii. 10.)

Suffering or permitting is predicated of the Holy Spirit. (Acts xvi. 7.)

Sin can be committed against nothing but a person; but Peter addresses Ananias in these words, "Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" &c. (Acts v. 3, 4; Matt. xii. 32.)

The third argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit, is derived from the personal pronouns applied to the Spirit of God, in such a manner as

cannot be accounted for, except upon the obvious supposition of the intention of our Saviour to represent the Spirit of God under the character of a person. (John xiv. 16-26; xv. 26; xvi. 13.)

In the fourth place, the passage which has been taken as the foundation of this discourse, appears to afford an irrefutable proof of the truth for which we are contending; because the Holy Spirit is here associated in such a manner with two real and divine persons, as would render the connexion unaccountable, if a real person was not understood in the third, as well as in the two former instances.

LECTURE IX.

ON THE ATONEMENT.

1 Cor. xv. 3.-For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.

I. The first argument in proof of the atonement of Christ, is, that the death of the Saviour is repeatedly stated to be a proper sacrifice.

LECTURE X.

ON THE ATONEMENT.

1 Cor. xv. 3.

II. The second argument for this doctrine is this; That the importance which the inspired writers attach to the blood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the socinian hypothesis, of his death. being