who is offended by their disobedience and waywardness? No. I am persuaded that the mind of man is susceptible of impressions, which, with reference to this age, deserve the name of religious impressions, at a much earlier period than is commonly supposed. Were there any doubt on the subject, it has been removed by the experiment of Infant Schools. One instance I will mention, which came under my own observation. A child in one of our Schools had a father who broke forth on every excitement into curses and swearing. His child having been taught the sinfulness of such a practice, on hearing his parent swear, exclaimed, with an innocent artlessness of rebuke which found its way to his heart, Father, you must not say such wicked words-God hears you, and will be angry with you. The truth thus spoken was too powerful to be resisted; and the result was, that the father, by God's grace, was enabled to break through his sinful custom, and profaned the name of God no more. But to a human and benevolent mind, it will be no slight additional praise of these Institutions to say, that they contribute to preserve most materially, and to improve the bodily health of the children of the poor. The number of fatal accidents which happen to those who are confined at home, or who are suffered to run at large, is greater than meets the public eye; and even where they escape these, their health is apt to suffer from the confinement of crowded apartments: whereas the very room in which they are instructed, the space allotted for their recreation, and the happy mechanism of instruction which combines amusement and exercise with learning, produce a visible improvement in their health; a circumstance of great importance to those who are to be labourers, or mechanics, or servants. | These, and still greater than these, being the advantages that result from the establishment of Infant Schoolsadvantages which we can now promise with the confidence built on experience it remains with you to consider, how far you have it in your power to answer the gracious purposes of him who has commanded us to bring young children to him. If other schools deserve your notice, consider that these, as preparing young children to enter into them by the instructions there afforded, are a part of the same charitable institutions. If you doubt their sufficiency as places of religious instruction, there can be no doubt as to their promoting the happiness of poor children. I would invite you to visit a well conducted infant school, and observe the delight, the obedience, the cheerfulness, the good order, the good temper of the little infants there assem bled; and contrast them with the rudeness, the wretchedness, the quarrelsomeness, the disobedience, of the miserable, neglected children, who are left to themselves, and the evil example of others; and then say which of those is nearest to Christ-the former bringing up in his nurture and admonition, in habitual communion with their Saviour-while the other, hardened in utter darkness, are marked out, and set apart, to be the subjects, and servants, and victims of the evil one. Where so awful an alternative depends on yourselves, can any other argument be required to excite your sympathy, and move you to a liberal contribution? Yes, there is one other argument peculiar to the Christian, an argument of irresistible force; for it teaches that in contributing to such objects, he contributes to the cause of the Lord Jesus himself; "Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these, ye did it unto me." A Sermon DELIVERED BY THE REV. J. F. DENHAM, AT ST. BRIDES' CHURCH, SEPT. 12, 1830. John, i. 1.—" In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." THE doctrine which I have now in view to establish may be thus defined: that although the person called Jesus Christ appeared in the world as a man, he is nevertheless possessed of a nature perfectly similar and equal to that of the Eternal Father. Before adducing the proofs of this assertion, it may be permitted me to offer you a few considerations, relative both to the subject itself, and to the method also by which it will be pursued. First. The subject before us yields in importance to none that can possibly occupy the attention of the human mind. The views we take of it will not only influence our sentiments in reference to all the other important doctrines of the gospel, but will lead us to one or other of the following conclusions:— To reject, as mistaken and idolatrous, the worship which has been unquestionably offered to Christ, by the great majority of his professed followers, in every age; or, to infer that the views of those who disbelieve the doctrine, are opposed to the most transcendent display which has been made of the Divine goodness and wisdom. An enquiry which must inevitably terminate in results, not only connected with the entire character of our religious opinions, but also with the glory of God, will surely be deemed worthy of the most serious attention by all who value truth, and believe the scriptures to be a divine revelation. Secondly. The state of mind which we should bring to the investigation ought to be that of a perfect neutrality of feeling. We should listen to the arguments which may be brought forward, with the same unbiassed state of mind with which we should attend to an enquiry into the sense of any other documents, in any other place. The slightest possible prepossession on behalf of either side of the questionby which I mean a persuasion anterior to a due examination, and independent of evidence-is incompatible with the pure love of truth, and is a state of the understanding unfavorable to the attainment of it. Such persons as are conscious of the repugnance here described, should pray the Father of lights, that he would impart to them a sincere desire to learn whatever he has revealed, and an entire determination to adopt it, although it may be found inconsistent with their pre-conceived notions, and contrary to the natural expectation of their minds. Thirdly. That the sole object of this enquiry is, Whether the doctrine of the Deity of Christ be clearly taught in the Sacred Scriptures. From no other book, from no other possible source, can we derive the slightest information upon a subject which, but for the contents of the Bible originally, would never probably have entered into the imagination of a mortal. The sense of the Scriptures, only, is therefore to be examined." Fourthly. That during the whole investigation, which will probably occupy several discourses, the inspiration of the Scriptures will be taken for granted: that, consequently, they are pure from error, free from oversights, and contain nothing superfluous or defective. In short, that every passage, and every word, which is not deficient in Manuscript authority, is to be received as truth. Fifthly. That the language of the Scriptures throughout is to be taken in its plain obvious signification, in precisely the same manner that we take the sense of any other book. It is an entire misapprehension to suppose, that the Scriptures contain any hidden or difficult meaning, requiring the constant application of criticism in order to explain it. Such a supposition militates against the very purpose of a revelation, which is, the instruction of all mankind; and which, therefore, to accomplish this object, must necessarily be conveyed in a language capable of being understood by all, by the plain and uneducated, as well as by men of erudition. It is a notion wholly inconsistent, also, with all which we know of the writers of the New Testament. They were, in general, simple and unlettered men, who had no mode of expressing themselves different from the rest of their nation, or from mankind generally. The opinion is therefore unfounded, that there is in their writings any technical, philosophical, or peculiar signification, any more than there is in the History of Josephus, who was a countryman of the Apostles, and wrote during the life-time of some of them. Josephus undoubtedly possessed more learning than had fallen to the lot of any of the Apostles; and yet his narrative is remarkable for its simplicity, and for the accurate use of the words and phrases which pervades the whole. | not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Either of these instances afford abundant proof, that the Jews understood our Saviour's language in precisely the same sense, in which it would be understood by ourselves. These instances are the more valuable, because they include the same kind of expressions which, when made use of in reference to | Christ in the New Testament, are often attempted to be explained away, as the figurative and symbolical language peculiar to the Oriental style. Sixthly. Should the Deity of Jesus Christ be shown to be clearly taught in the Sacred Scriptures, then no difficulty which we may feel in admitting or comprehending it, can affect the certainty of the doctrine itself, or ought to affect our faith in it. A truth is what it is, independent, not only of any supposed difficulty, but also of any other consideration whatever. Thenceforward the conclusion becomes unavoidable: we must either receive the doctrine with implicit docility, or renounce our claim to the appellation of Christian; the only intelligible meaning of that word being, an individual who believes whatever he is taught in the Scriptures. The historical parts of the New Testament contain also abundant proofs, that the language of Jesus and of his Apostles was understood by the Jews, Lastly. Throughout the whole it in precisely the same sense in which we shall be my endeavour to offer you no ourselves should understand it. Per-proof which has not undergone patient mit me to remind you of a few such and conscientious examination-none instances. In John, x. 30, we find that that is merely ambiguous, and does Jesus had uttered the following words not necessarily include the sense in in the hearing of the Jews:-"I and which it is used-none, in a word, my Father are one." The impression upon which my own mind does not it produced on them immediately is repose with implicit confidence in its thus described:-"Then the Jews took own important concern in the subject. up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, saying, Many good works have I shown you of my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Another instance is found in John, v. 17. Jesus justifies his having healed the impotent man upon the Sabbath-day, by alleging an equality of exemption with the Father from the commandment respecting the Sabbath. "My Father worketh hitherto"-in conducting the various laws of the material world" and I work." We are told "the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had The object of the following discourses is, to revive the proofs of the doctrine in the minds of those by whom it has already been believed; to convince them who may regard it with any degree of distrust; and to confirm the young in their belief of the "certainty of these things in which they have been instructed.' We now enter upon the question, WHETHER THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST BE A DOCTRINE TAUGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES. We assert that it is so most clearly, and in numerous forms: consequently, the obvious conduct for us to pursue is to maintain that assertion. The first position laid down, which it is supposed no person will be inclined to controvert, is, That the various modes by which God has manifested himself in the Sacred Scriptures are the five following:-The names which are given to him-the attributes which are ascribed to him—the actions peculiar to himself which he has performed-the relations which he sustains to created beings-and the worship which he has demanded from his intelligent creatures. These five particulars make up our idea of God; since all that is at present revealed to us respecting him ranges itself under one or other of them. We also assert that each and all of these several particulars, and the same both in nature and in degree, are attributed in the Sacred Scriptures to Jesus Christ. But since they comprehend all that is peculiar to Deity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, therefore, follows as an unanswerable conclusion, upon the self-evident principle, that, the same assemblage of precisely the same qualities constitutes equality. In order to render the principle of the argument clear to every mind I will endeavour to illustrate it thus ;-Every object which we may contemplate presents to us an assemblage of properties, and nothing more. Our idea, for instance, of a statue, is an assemblage of the following properties ;-colour-figure-extension-solidity. Whenever the assemblage of these same properties, in the same degree, is supposed, then, of course, you conceive the idea of another perfectly similar and equal statue to the former. The principle may also be illustrated in its application to persons. My idea of Alexander the Great is made up of the following particulars, and of them only ;-his name-the qualities both of body and mind ascribed to him—the actions he performed the offices he bore-and the honors he received. Whenever I conceive the same assemblage of these several properties, I, of course, imagine another Alexander the Great, perfectly similar and equal to the former. It now, therefore, remains simply to substantiate the assertion, that the same qualities which are, in the Sacred Volume ascribed to God, are also, in the same degree, attributed in the Scriptures to Jesus Christ. In the first place, ALL THE NAMES GIVEN ARE ALSO GIVEN TO JESUS CHRIST.. To establish this particular will be the object of the present discourse. The following are the names given to God in the Sacred Scriptures :-JEHOVAH-GOD-THE LORD GOD-THE GREAT GOD-THE TRUE GOD-THE MIGHTY GOD-THe God of Israel. JEHOVAH is well known to be a name ascribed to God in the Old Testament. It is universally considered as a name peculiar to the Deity, which is never bestowed on any inferior being, and which has on that account frequently been called "the incommunicable name of God." Let us now examine the following passages :John, xii. 37: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." Let it be kept in mind that these things were said when Esaias saw the glory of Christ. Let us now turn to Isaiah, vi. 10, where alone, throughout the whole prophecy, you find the words quoted by St. John, or any thing that can be taken for them. Let it also be noticed, that they form part of a vision which the prophet thus describes in the first verse:-" In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw JEHOVAH sitting upon his throne." Bishop Lowth says of this passage, that Jehovah is probably the true reading, as in many other places in which the superstition of the Jews had substituted "Lord" for "Jehovah." In reference to these two passages it should be observed, that St. John says, Isaiah spoke the words in question when he saw the glory of Christ; and that Isaiah tells us it was Jehovah whom he saw upon the occasion of his uttering them. Therefore, Christ is here called JEHOVAH. See also Isaiah, xl. 3: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert : In regard to these, by no means the only instances of the same kind, I beg to recall to your memory the words spoken by God through the means of the prophet Isaiah. Ch. xlii. 8. "I am Jehovah that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." Yet we have seen that in the word of the same God, the name Jehovah is given to another-not indeed communicated, but applied to him as his own original appellation. We are taught to use this distinction by God himself. Exodus, xxiii. 20: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him." The name Jehovah is therefore in Christ, not by being imparted, but as his own pos session. tions of Unitarians: but it may be expedient here to enquire, for a moment, what is said by them to this unequivocal declaration of the Scripture. Their reply is, in substance, as follows.-That because the definite article does not accompany the last word eos in the original, we must understand the word in an inferior signification. It has consequently been thus rendered in what is termed the Improved Version of the Scriptures, put forth by the Unitarians :-" In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god." "It has, however," says Bishop Middleton, "been satisfactorily answered, that in whatever acceptations is to be taken, it properly rejects the article, being here the predicate of the proposition. If we read 5, the proposition would have assumed the convertible form; and the meaning would have been, that whatever may be affirmed or denied of God the Father, may also be affirmed or denied of the Logos; a position which would accord as little with the Trinitarian as with the Socinian hypothesis. The writer could not have written sos without manifest absurdity." This declaration, quoted from the works of this learned prelate, may serve for one instance, out of many, in which the followers of Socinius have evinced the scanty proportion of sound erudition which has fallen to their lot. As an additional instance, such persons as are familiar with the controversy between Bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley, will recollect, that the Prelate has occasion frequently to accuse the Unitarian of inaccurate renderings from both the Greek and Latin languages. Another instance in which the term GOD is applied to Jesus Christ is found in Romans, ix. 5: "Of whom❞ that is, as the context shows, of the Jews-" as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." 2. Jesus Christ is also called GOD in a variety of instances, in the most explicit manner. The text may be the first passage adduced. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." That by the Word here mentioned Jesus is to be understood, is evident from what is said of the same Word in the fourteenth verse, that he "became flesh, and dwelt among us." This one passage alone, were the Scriptures allowed to speak their own language, would be sufficient to decide the enquiry; nor can any remarks be made upon it which can add to its own intrinsic strength. I hope, in a future discourse, to advert more fully to the sentiments and interpreta-manded, in reference to this passage Here Christ is said to have come of the Jews as concerning the flesh-an unintelligible distinction if Jesus had received the origin common to all the sons of men. At the same time he is declared to be " over all. God blessed for ever." Can language be more explicit? It might be de |