character are reconciled; reason is satisfied with the justness of the relations which it perceives in him, and demands nothing more.

I examine Jesus Christ with close attention, and discover in him a perfection of reason, a depth of doctrine, a sublimity of virtue, which surpasses every thing that my mind is capable of conceiving in all those different kinds. What modesty! what humility! what disengagement from his own interest, and especially from his own glory! what a zeal for the glory of his Father! what submission to the will of this adorable Father! He sacrifices, to please him, his rest, his honour, his life, and, to say all, in one word, he expires on a cross, between two robbers, to obey him.

I observe Jesus Christ still closer: and I see that this man is giving laws to other men with the air and the authority of a God; that he calls himself God, causes himself to be adored as God, styles himself equal to the same God whom he calls his Father, and the same God with him; the same God, I say, whom at times he calls also his God, whom he declares to be greater than he, and whom he obeys as his servant.

Hereupon I say to myself: If Jesus Christ be, in fact, but a mere man, he is therefore, at once, the most humble and the proudest of all men: the most disengaged from his own glory, and the most ambitious: the most submissive and the most rebellious-submissive even to the death of the cross, rebellious even to pretend to place himself on the throne of God, at his side, as his equal. But how can all this be at once? How can two vices, and two virtues, which are diametrically opposite to each other, form the habitual character of the same man? How can the same man be constantly, in all the tenor of his life, a prodigy of humility, and a monster of pride: a prodigy of submission, and a monster of revolt? Has this ever been seen? can this ever be seen?

On the other hand, if Jesus Christ be God only without being man, how has he degraded himself to such a degree, as to call God his God, and to obey him, in fact, as his God?

In a word: If Jesus Christ is simply man, he is an inexpli

cable enigma, for it is evident that he has spoken and acted, as God. If Christ is God only, he is again an explicable enig. ma; for he has spoken and acted, obeyed and suffered as man.

But, if I suppose, that Jesus Christ is God and man together, from that moment every thing in him explains itself, every thing is adjusted. The apparent contradictions of his character are reconciled. I see that Jesus Christ might have said, with truth, that his Father was greater than he, and that he was his equal: that he was his God, and that he was the same God with him. I see that Jesus Christ was all what he was to have been that he sustained, if I may so speak, the personage of God, and that of man, with all that dignity which became the one, and with all that humility which beseened the other. My reason approves him. He is such as 1 conceive he ought to be. It is thus, I conceive, that God should be man, and it is thus, I conceive, that man should be God.

FOURTH PROPOSITION.

CCXXV. Jesus Christ made a most solemn aud authentic declaration of his Divinity before the Supreme Court of the Jewish nation, therefore he is true God.

St. Mark, xiv. 60, thus relates the juridical examination of Jesus Christ, before the supreme council of the Jewish nation, and the solemn declaration of Jesus Christ: "And the high priest rising up in the midst, asked him, and said to him: art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest, rending his garments, saith what need we any further witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What think you? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." St. Matthew, xxvi. 63, in the following words: "And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him: thou hast said it. Nevertheless, I say to you: hereafter you shall see the Son of

man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He has blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What think you? But they, answering, said he is guilty of death." St. Luke relates this fact nearly in the same terms: xxii. 70, and following verses.

Whence I thus argue: When the high-priest called upon Jesus Christ, in the name of the living God, to tell whether he was the Son of God, he meant to ask whether he was the true, natural, and consubstantial Son of God, and not whether he was only an adoptive Son of God, as all just men and angels are. This is manifest, first, from the object the highpriest had in view, which was to find in Jesus Christ a just ground of condemnation. Now they could no more consider it a crime in Christ to call himself an adoptive Son of God, than they considered it a crime for themselves to call God their Father and themselves his children, a title in which all the Jews gloried. Next, from the horror and indignation of the high-priest, and the people, at the answer of Christ, as at a horrid blasphemy, for they unanimously declared him to be guilty of death; all which would have been disgustingly ridi eulous, had they not understood Christ's answer to imply that he was the true and natural Son of God; for there was not one upon those benches, and in that multitude, that did not look upon himself as the adoptive child of God. It is, therefore, unquestionably true, that the question put to Christ on this solemn occasion, was about his natural, and not his adoptive filiation or sonship. It is likewise unquestionably true, that Christ answered the question in the meaning which his judges had attached to it, and that he was understood in the same meaning by the council and all the people. Therefore, if, as our Unitarian friends would fain have it, Christ was no more than man, it became his most sacred duty, on perceiving that his answer was taken in a wrong sense, to explain himself, and to undeceive the council and the people, by solemnly declaring that he never meant to call himself the Son of God in

any other way,than they themselves did. Christ, I say, juridically interrogated by the higher authorities, on the supposition that he was not God, was bound to give this clear and explicit declaration, chiefly for the following reasons: First, To hinder the Jews from committing the crime of murder, in shedding his innocent blood: and, secondly, To hinder all future generations from being innocently and irresistibly hurried into the heinous crime of idolatry, by adoring him, on that supposition, a mere man, as God. Now, did Christ give that declaration? Did he explain his answer in the meaning of the Unitarians? Did he undeceive the Jewish nation, when they took his answer as implying that he was the true and natural Son of God? So far from this, that he rather confirmed them in their im pression, by threatening them with his second coming, in which he, in his turn, is to judge his own judges. "Nevertheless, I say to you: hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven;" in a word, Jesus Christ was juridically asked, whether he was the true, natural and consubstantial Son of God. Jesus Christ answered; Iam: his answer is taken in the meaning of the judges, by the council and the assembled people: Christ, far from undeceiving them, confirms them in their impression; therefore, Jesus Christ is either the true Son of God, or he has deceived mankind, and, of course, is an impostor; the latter is horrid blasphemy, the former, then, must be admitted.

What could be, moreover, the meaning of that exclamation, into which the centurion broke out, at the consternation of all nature, that took place at the death of Christ: "Indeed this was the Son of God?" Matt. xxvii. 54. Does he not seem to say this man was condemned to death as a blasphemer, be cause he made himself the true Son of God; but now, the universal mourning of nature, and the supreme power he exercises over the dead and the elements, sufficiently show, that he was more than man, that he was actually that for which he gave himself out; "that indeed he was the Son of God." We read in the same history of the passion of Christ, that

"they passed by, blaspheming him, saying: If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross:" and again, "For he said: I am the Son of God. The people reproached Jesus Christ on the cross with the crime of having called himself the Son of God; it was, therefore, notorious among the whole nation, that he had called himself so in the strict sense of the word; that is to say, the true, natural and consubstantial Son, for, otherwise, how could they have made it a crime in Christ to have called himself, in a general and improper sense, the Son of God, as they themselves, at every turn, did it, and as they reckoned the dignity of being children of God among their noblest prerogatives? After this, may not all christians justly exclaim with an ancient writer: "Lord, if what we believe, be an error, it is thou thyself that hast deceived us."*

FIFTH PROPOSITION.

CCXXVI. Jesus Christ is true God, because he raised himself, by his own power, to life.

My reasoning on this proposition is simply this: He that has resuscitated himself by his own power, is God.

But Jesus Christ has resuscitated himself by his own power. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.

The first proposition is disputed by none; no,not by the Jews, nor by the pagans, nor by the new sophisters; for when a dead person resuscitates himself, that is to say, when he restores life to himself, and reunites his soul to his body, which he had freely separated from it, it is evident that he raises himself by his own power, or else it would no longer be he that would raise himself but he would be raised by another. Now, the resurrection of a dead person cannot be brought about but by the supreme power of God: He therefore that raises himself by his own power, must needs possess the power of God as his own, and of course he must be God. If therefore it be prov

*"Domine, si quod credimus, error est, a te decepti sumus." Richardus a S. Victore, lib. ii, de Trinit. cap. 2.