Though "'tis strange, yea passing strange," some great, learned, pious theologians have advanced and endeavored to support doctrines and positions, which they acknowledge they do not know, and which they say they cannot understand. I think all must agree, that, if the allegation is true, it was undoubtedly revealed and made known unto Paul. It is certain, therefore, as he did not plainly preach the doctrine for truth, that, if it is true, he kept back something most important-that he did not declare the whole counsel of God—that he did not testify the whole truth clearly; and so he has deceived us, in his solemn protestation of faithfulness.- Probably there is now no professed Christian who will openly call Paul's character in question, attempt to discredit him as a witness, or deny his inspiration, superior intellectual powers, and capacity for the display and support of revealed truth; if there be any, it is fortunate for the character of Paul, that he is fully supported by the other Apostles, and by the Son of God himself, who was declared from heaven to be, emphatically, "the faithful and true Witness." The testimony of Paul being thus corroborated, the only alternative is, to show that this doctrine is not true, that it cannot be supported by Paul's testimony. And here, I will remark, that the advocates for the doctrine of the supreme Divinity of Christ rely principally upon St. Paul and St. John for the support of their doctrine. We shall see, upon what foundation they have built their faith-if it is better than that on which the foolish man built his house, which fell, for the want of a solid, permanent foundation.

It is an established rule of evidence, that the onus probandi is with the affirmative. If a proposition is affirmed to be true, it must be so proved. Proof of the negative is not required. But although we perceive no evidence in favor of the affirmative proposition, that Christ is truly God, but all seems adverse thereto; yet we are willing to undertake to prove the negative, so far as a negative can be proved; and this may be done by Paul's testimony alone. It is an acknowledged principle, that, when any fact, if it exists, must be fully known to a witness, and that witness, when duly called on to testify the whole truth, does not disclose that fact at all, or not clearly, such circumstance is full, conclusive, against the existence of such fact. As if a witness should be called to make an affidavit of the full character and rank of a certain person in England, and he should state, that he had known the man from his infancy to the present time that he knew him to be of good moral character and of good education - that he belonged to the religious sect, called Friends or Quakers that he was also a whig, and that he had been a member of Parliament - but not a word is said about his being an Admiral of high reputation in the British Navy. Now would such affidavit be any proof that this person is such Admiral? Would it not be conclusive, full evidence of the negative? It certainly would. Because it would be almost impossible that the deponent should, without any cause assigned, omit the most material part of the character of such person, as his being an Admiral

would be, if true; and so commit perjury, by not stating the whole truth. And besides the fact stated, that he is of the sect of the Friends is satisfactory evidence that he never was an Admiral, for the Friends always refuse to accept any military office, being from principle opposed to all war. And this rule of evidence will apply more forcibly to divinely inspired witnesses, as they could not give an imperfect or partial testimony, by mistake, forgetfulness, or design. For so far as relates to their apostleship and their duty as Christ's ministers, they, as Paul says, "know all things ;" and keep back nothing, but declare the whole counsel of God. Now what does the inspired Paul testify concerning Christ? From first to last, from his conversion to his last breath, he declares, that he is the Son of God-that he came down from heaven, on commission from the Father, for the salvation of mankind-that he was crucified, dead, and buried that he derived his first existence from his Father, by him was raised from the dead, and from him receives all his power of action, and by him is seated on the throne, at his right hand in glory. Paul nowhere says that he was the supreme, self-existent God. And what authority have uninspired men to say it? Do they know more than Paul? Have they received a fuller revelation? Show me the authority. I do not find it in the Bible. It is not there. It is not there. If it had been revealed to Paul, he could not have omitted a matter of such infinite importance. He could not have committed an act, the like of which, in human affairs,

would consign a man to the Penitentiary for life. Besides, he does state many facts, which fully disprove the assertion. He does declare that Christ is the Son of God that his very existence is derived from his Father-that he is, in every respect, a dependent being, which could not be, if he is the supreme God, the first cause of all being- that there is but one God, and that is, the Father, and not the Son. Paul expressly says, "God raised up Christ; and that he liveth by the power of God.”

We

But, besides Paul's preaching and writings, consider his practice; for preaching, without concordant practice, availeth little. Paul's faith is known by his works. He practised what he preached. find that Paul constantly gave his highest thanks and praises to God the Father, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—“ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." -"Giving thanks always for all things unto God, even the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."" Now unto God, even our Father, be glory. forever and ever. Amen.""That ye may glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.". "We give thanks to God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Epistles are full of such devout ejaculations of Paul to God the Father. But not one to the Son can be found. Does this look like proof, that Paul considered the Son God, or equal with God? True, he is full of gratitude to the Son, for his amazing love, in being willing to suffer

Amen.".

and die for sinners; and he rejoices with joy unspeakable for the gift of the Son. But he never ascribes to him supreme worship, nor supreme power.

He has never even given him the name of God, as is very frequently given to the Father; as, "to the glory of God the Father-giving thanks to God the Father," and hundreds of such like expressions may be found in the Epistles.

Another circumstance in Paul's life and writings shows clearly, that he did not, that he could not believe in the Supreme Divinity of Christ. It cannot be pretended that the Jews, or Paul before his conversion, had any idea that the Saviour or Messiah, that was to come, was the Almighty God. They believed that he would be a holy, an exalted person, and that he would be a temporal deliverer. This error Paul acknowledged and renounced, and urged the renunciation of it upon all the Jews. But he never acknowledged that he had been in an error, a gross error, in not believing that the Son, the Messiah, is very God. Nor did he ever endeavor to reclaim the Jews from such a God-provoking error, as it must have been, if it was one. He gives no account of any time or place, when he was converted upon this subject. He never preached to the Jews or Gentiles that they must believe this doctrine or they could not be saved. He never told them, that it was revealed to him from heaven, when he had several miraculous communications with the Son of God. If it was so revealed, if it is true, and Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, held his peace, would not the very