DISCOURSE I.

THIS queſtion, of all by far the moſt important, was put to our bleſſed Sa⯑viour by the Roman Governour, perhaps care⯑leſſly, perhaps contemptuouſly, but certainly without the leaſt wiſh for information. In much the ſame ſpirit of ſcorn, or with ſimi⯑lar indifference, the ſame queſtion is every day in the mouths, ſometimes of ſceptics and ſcoffers, and ſometimes of men of a more ſerious caſt, who affect to be perſuaded that we cannot, and, it may be, deſire not to give them ſatisfaction. Unhappily, the Chriſtian world is divided and ſubdivided almoſt infi⯑nitely; [2] it is parcelled out into ſectaries of a thouſand denominations. The fact is, though the right of private judgment in mat⯑ters of religion, which has been exerciſed from the beginning, was juſtly and neceſſarily aſ⯑ſerted by the leaders and friends of the RE⯑FORMATION, it muſt be acknowledged, folly, perverſeneſs, pride, and enthuſiaſm, have, by ſeverally maintaining it, been productive of that ſtrange multiplicity of religious ſenti⯑ment which we have ſo much cauſe to la⯑ment; of that ſchiſm, hereſy, ſcepticiſm, and infidelity, which have all along diſturbed the Church, but fix a mark of peculiar diſ⯑grace on the laſt and preſent century.

And indeed, when it is conſidered, that the Scriptures are on many accounts particu⯑larly liable to be miſapplied, perverted, or miſconſtrued; (a) that ſome paſſages are to be underſtood in a literal, and ſome in a figura⯑tive ſenſe; that ſome things are expreſſed agreeably to the modes of common ſpeech, and ſome in pure condeſcenſion to the human capacity; that paſſages are to be compared [3] with each other in order to a true underſtand⯑ing of them, and doctrines to be deduced, not ſo much from ſingle and ſeparate texts, as from the manifeſt tenor of the Scriptures at large; that not unfrequently one and the ſame text ſhall be capable of different, and even oppoſite conſtruction; that though moſt places in holy writ are of univerſal im⯑portance, yet ſome are of temporary and oc⯑caſional purport only; that the ſacred writ⯑ings, ſtrictly ſpeaking, are the foundation of a rule of faith and manners, ſuch as a creed, formulary, or confeſſion, rather than the rule itſelf, as will, I truſt, in due time more fully appear; and that an aſſent to the collective body of ſcripture, as true, does not imply a knowlege, or belief of all ſcrip⯑tural truths; when all this, to which more, were there occaſion, might be added, is fairly conſidered, we cannot poſſibly be at a loſs to account for that variety of notion, that wild⯑neſs and abſurdity of conceit, that extrava⯑gance, or impiety of opinion, which I juſt now obſerved has more or leſs ſo ſhamefully diſhonoured the Chriſtian name in all ages. [4] Of this exuberance of folly and wicked⯑neſs Popery has ever been induſtrious to avail itſelf. From the acknowledged liableneſs of the Scriptures to the groſſeſt abuſe, when in the hands of ſuch as are unlearned and unſta⯑ble, (to uſe the apoſtle's words,) the Church of Rome draws her moſt ſpecious argument againſt the common uſe of them; and would fain have us infer the neceſſity, or the cer⯑tainty of an infallible authority lodged in the Church for the deciſion of controverſies, and aſcertainment of a rule of faith, from the confeſſed convenience and utility of ſuch an authority. (b) But, unfortunately for her pre⯑tenſions, as much error and abſurdity has re⯑peatedly been demonſtrated to be within her pale as out of it. Wh t is truth? becomes therefore with many a queſtion of as much difficulty as importance; or, rather, of more form than importance; ſome encouraging themſelves in ſcepticiſm from theſe circum⯑ſtances, and others blindly acquieſcing in any mode of religion, or in none at all, or at beſt in that which is uſually called natural religion, from a pretence of the utter impoſſibility of [5] diſcovering the true under ſuch a complica⯑tion of perplexity.

With points of inferior conſequence I ſhall not trouble myſelf; but to ſuch as deny, or call in queſtion the capital articles of our religion on the ſtrength of the above conſide⯑rations, let me inſiſt that nothing of this na⯑ture ought to ſuperſede their endeavours to find the truth, and much leſs to diſcourage their obedience to it when found. After inquiry we may in ſome reſpect or other be miſtaken, but without it we are inexcuſable. In fact, the very diverſity, or contrariety complained of may be juſtly urged in behalf of the faith which is received in the Church. Were the doctrine of the Trinity, for inſtance, impugned from one quarter only, and by conſiſtent and uniform oppoſition, infidelity would be a much more formidable thing than it is; but you may as well look for one language at Ba⯑bel as for a catholic ſyſtem of unbelief, if I may be indulged with the expreſſion. To enumerate all the hereſies which have at different times torn and diſmembered the [6] Church of Chriſt, is in a manner to confute them; and theſe, their common animoſity againſt her excepted, are at perpetual enmity among themſelves. Nay, what is yet more extraordinary, we ſhall find infidelity itſelf abounding in myſteries, even while it repro⯑bates them almoſt with the confidence of a faith which could remove mountains! If the ſacred theory we are to maintain be in many reſpects incomprehenſible, the ſubſtitutions of human wiſdom will in due time be ſhewn to be at leaſt equally ſo; and to require the ſame degree of aſſent without any thing like the ſame foundation.

What is truth, ſay others among us, what is it but a ſyſtem of doctrines officially taught, and formally tranſmitted from generation to generation?

But if doctrines are true, why not officially taught, and carefully tranſmitted? Is profeſ⯑ſion ridiculous, or authority contemptible, as ſuch? Indeed, the queſtion is not, what ſaith the Church?—but—what ſaith the [7] Scripture? Now by Scripture, and the ear⯑lieſt antiquity, our ſureſt guide, and pureſt precedent, we are not only willing, but wiſh⯑ful to be tried. It is true the bulk of Chriſ⯑tians are not equal to this trial; in a certain ſenſe, they care for none of theſe things; they take matters upon truſt; they are not able to give an anſwer to every man that aſketh a rea⯑ſon of the faith that is in them, except that they were born and bred in it, and ſuppoſe it to be unqueſtionable. It is with reſpect to this implicitneſs of aſſent, this tameneſs of acquieſcence, as it is opprobriouſly called, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has no leſs impiouſly than ludicrouſly been expoſed to contempt under the deſcription of the ^* Tri⯑nity of the Mob! But this is very unfair re⯑preſentation. Surely no argument can be drawn from the incapacity, or the credulity of the many, to the diſadvantage of a doctrine that, with reſpect to the grounds on which we defend it, ſolicits, demands, defies the penetration of enquiry, and the inquiſitive⯑neſs [6] [...] [7] [...] [8] of criticiſm. The ſpiritual ſtate of the common people all over the world falls nearly under the ſame predicament; but at the ſame time a proportionable degree of ſa⯑tisfaction will always be derived to every man from every degree of rational aſſurance that he is in the right way; or belongs to a com⯑munion wherein the truth is held in purity approaching neareſt to the ſtandard of primi⯑tive Chriſtianity.

What is truth?—Say others. We are no ſtrangers to the doctrines publicly eſtabliſh⯑ed; to the faith aſſerted in your Articles, and expreſſed in your Creeds; but to theſe Sub⯑ſcription is much more univerſal than agree⯑ment. We can produce you names even among yourſelves of perſons not a whit behind the very chiefeſt Divines in point of rank, probity, or underſtanding, who nevertheleſs hold that God is to be worſhipped after a way which you call hereſy; who preach another Goſpel than that which ye have received from your fathers, conſtantly affirming, or per⯑petually inſinuating, that ye do err, not know⯑ing the Scriptures.

[9] Too true indeed it is that the principal controverted points ſubſiſting among thoſe "who profeſs and call themſelves Chriſtians" are of the moſt ſerious nature. If the tenets of our gainſayers and adverſaries of many ap⯑pellations are right and juſt, the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the reſurrection of the body, (which will be the objects of the enſuing diſquiſitions,) are hereſies of the moſt abominable, or ridiculous tendency. However, theſe are circumſtances which ſhould not check, but ſtimulate the ſpirit of inveſtigation. It will be of infinite moment to inquire whether we or they are the miſ⯑taken party, and on which ſide error really lies; whether our doctrines or theirs have the ſtrongeſt foundation in ſcripture and an⯑tiquity; are beſt ſupported by preſumptive ar⯑gument, and corroborative evidence; or have leaſt recourſe to artifice, and the pitifulneſs of ſubterfuge and evaſion. We do not wiſh to have this matter determined either vul⯑garly by a majority of voices, or invidiouſly by the reputation of names.

[10] But again, ſay others, What is truth?—What good purpoſe is anſwered, or what ad⯑vantage gained by this extraordinary zeal for theory and eſtabliſhment? What doth it but gender ſtrifes, and feed the flame of conten⯑tion? The practical doctrines of the goſpel are ſo forcibly, yet ſo familiarly inculcated, as not to be liable to miſinterpretation. Con⯑cerning the faith thouſands have erred, but, as one of our own poets hath ſaid,

It is well for us there is nothing argumen⯑tative in the jingle of a couplet. I confeſs myſelf to be one of thoſe who are hurt by every effort that has a plain aſpect towards reſolving all religion into morality. I con⯑ſider every attempt of this kind as an indi⯑rect attack upon the fundamentals of Chriſ⯑tianity. According to the idea of theſe rea⯑ſoners, the character of the Meſſiah, and of the Son of God, will dwindle into that of a mere Legiſlator, or moral philoſopher, who teaches us to live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly in this preſent world. ^†This text, and texts [11] congenerous with this, may plauſibly be urged in exaltation of good works to the ex⯑cluſion of faith: but let them be contraſted with the following, he that believeth, and is baptiz'd ſhall be ſaved; ^* he that believe thon the Son hath everlaſting life, ^†&c. and where is boaſting on the part of moral honeſty, or evangelical righteouſneſs? As ſpeciouſly, or as juſtly as men may harangue in demon⯑ſtration of the excellence of piety and virtue; or as loudly, or as reaſonably as they may exclaim againſt the violence, and much more the virulence, which has actuated the ſpirit of controverſy in too many inſtances; I pre⯑ſume, no intelligent perſon, if he is impar⯑tial, will deny, that the faith which St. Jude tells us was once delivered to the Saints, what⯑ever we are preciſely to underſtand by it, is ſomething entirely diſtinct from mere mora⯑lity; that it ought earneſtly to be contended for, agre ably to the ſame Apoſtle's exhorta⯑tion; that it is very poſſible to contend with meekneſs; that errors, and ſchiſms, and here⯑ſies are repreſented in ſcripture as things more or leſs ſinful, dangerous, and damnable; and [12] that conſequently it is of the utmoſt impor⯑tance to our ſpiritual intereſts to be right in principle as well as in practice. The petu⯑lancy, the pride, and the malevolence of bi⯑gots, and of diſputers of this world, as the Apoſtle calls them, will no doubt be brought into judgment no leſs than the groſſeſt immora⯑lities; but this will not by any means ſuper⯑ſede, or retard an honeſt and charitable at⯑tempt to enquire into and aſcertain the lead⯑ing doctrines of our common Chriſtianity.

Complaints againſt the damnatory clauſes of the Athanaſian Creed, as it is commonly called, reverberate from more quarters than one. People do not ſeem to be ſufficiently aware that a right faith and a good life are required by this form of confeſſion under the ſame penalty. ‘Which faith except a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he ſhall periſh everlaſtingly. They that have done good ſhall go into life everlaſting, and they that have done evil into everlaſting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be ſaved.’

[13] It is plain theſe clauſes are to be conſidered as ſimply declarative on ſcriptural grounds of the neceſſity both of faith and of good works to ſalvation; and at the ſame time as leaving all men to that infinite mercy, and thoſe ineſ⯑timable merits, which are fully adequate to the pardon and atonement of ſins, failings, ignorances, and errors of integrity. (c) Which few conſiderations will, I apprehend, fairly deliver the Creed before us from the reproach of uncharitableneſs. With regard to the ſe⯑veral articles of which it conſiſts, I truſt, they will be found, in the courſe of theſe diſquiſi⯑tions, to have foundation in a fully competent authority; and in the mean time I ſhall endeavour to remove one general prejudice againſt them, and to create rather a prepoſ⯑ſeſſion in their favour, by evincing, that their acknowleged myſteriouſneſs and incompre⯑henſibility does by no means unqualify them for our aſſent.

"Man is as ſuch a rational creature;" and as a rational creature he is a believing one too. We can no more conceive him to be [14] without belief, than without ſenſe, thought, or reflection. The Atheiſt who ſays in his heart, as well as with his lips, there is no God, believes there is none. He proteſts againſt the ſup⯑poſed folly, or extravagance of the fundamen⯑tal article of all religion; and on the ſtrength of falſe concluſions, reſolves every thing into a concourſe of atoms fortuitouſly uniting; or into the operation of an unintelligent prin⯑ciple which we call nature; or, in other words, into an everlaſting ſucceſſion of cauſes and effects. It is poſſible for a man to deny his own exiſtence, or that there is any ſuch thing as motion. We have heard of inſtances of this ſort; though properly they are in⯑ſtances, not of falſe perſuaſion, but of in⯑ſanity. (d) Still man is a rational creature, whether he reaſons well or ill; and whether, in conſequence of ſuch reaſoning, his faith be well or ill grounded. It is certain we know little or nothing by intuition. The mind yields aſſent to many myſterious truths by forming a very ſmall chain of deductions; ſuch as the immenſity of ſpace, the infinite progreſſion of number, and eternity, as well a [15] parte ante as a parte poſt. ‘Space and duration, ſays an ingenious author, are myſterious abyſſes in which our thoughts are confound⯑ed with demonſtrable propoſitions, to all ſenſe and reaſon, flatly contradictory to one another. Any two points of time, though ne⯑ver ſo diſtant, are each of them exactly in the middle of eternity. The remoteſt points of ſpace that can be imagined are, each of them, preciſely in the centre of infinite ſpace.’ ^*In fact, we have no ſtronger, or more ade⯑quate conception of immenſity than of om⯑nipreſence; we have no clearer idea of the exiſtence of SOMETHING from all eternity than we have of eternal generation. Faith, it is true, ſtrictly ſpeaking, has reference to religion only; ^†but, I hope, a truth or a myſ⯑tery is not inadmiſſible purely on account of its reſpecting practice, or implying obliga⯑tion. This will readily be granted even by infidels who deny the truths of Revelation; and much more by ſuch Chriſtians as have [16] called into debate particular points of that Revelation, to which in general they profeſs to ſubſcribe. It is well worth remarking that Deiſts and Heretics never fail to at⯑tack the profeſſed atheiſt with ſuch reaſon⯑ings, as, if purſued through their juſt con⯑ſequences, may fairly and ſucceſsfully be en⯑forced upon themſelves. For if he affects to decry the fundamental principle of all reli⯑gion, the Being of a God, on account of the pretended inconceivableneſs of it, will not they obſerve, in order to confute him, that, unleſs a more complete, a more uniform, and intelligible ſyſtem could be built on the ruins of this great article, ſuch his exception can have no weight? And this is the very rea⯑ſoning we urge againſt the principles both of deiſts and heretics. With the profeſſed atheiſt I ſhall no farther concern myſelf; but de⯑ſire to obſerve, that deiſts and heretics of all denominations are agreed with us in one ge⯑neral point, the acknowlegement of the ex⯑iſtence of God, and conſequently the incom⯑prehenſibleneſs of the Divine nature, attri⯑butes, and operations. The primary notion [17] which the human mind frames of God is this general and complex, yet negative idea of incomprehenſibleneſs. There is a certain preeminence, if I may ſo call it, in the Di⯑vine eſſence, &c. which utterly precludes in⯑veſtigation. But if ſo, all myſteries, whether natural or religious, whether relative, e. g. to the extenſion of ſpace, &c. or to the nature of the Deity; all theſe, if conſidered purely as myſteries, will ſtand upon a level in point of credibility. And let a revelation be ſup⯑poſed, all adventitious truths introduced there⯑by will be fixed upon the ſame foot; becauſe faith cannot have a ſtronger foundation in hu⯑man reaſon than in divine authority. This is granted without difficulty; but then as the deiſt denies the authenticity of thoſe writings which we affirm to contain ſuch revelation, ſo the heretic diſputes the ſenſe and ſcope of them. The queſtion therefore is, whether the opinion of the one, and the unbelief of the other, is reſpectively the reſult of judg⯑ment, or of paſſion; of conviction, or of pride; of impartial enquiry, or of unwilling⯑neſs to ſubmit the underſtanding of man to [18] the wiſdom of God? For, I repeat it, nei⯑ther the one nor the other can, conſiſtently with his own principles and acknowledg⯑ments, controvert the received ſenſe, or deny the authority of thoſe writings which the Church holds to be the Word of God, barely on account of myſterious truths contained in them. If the Divine Eſſence be neceſſarily incomprehenſible, no Revelation can poſſibly make it leſs ſo; ſo far from it, that the very idea of a Divine Revelation, with reſpect to that eſſence, implies a Revelation of myſte⯑ries; i. e. of truths undiſcoverable, and in⯑conceivable by our natural powers; and ac⯑cordingly, the credit of Revelation is rather confirmed than weakened by the number and importance of ſuch truths. For it is but natural to expect a more ample diſplay of wonders, and larger diſcoveries of ſublime and ſacred points of faith in this Revelation; and ſurely God is not the leſs to be believed, the more he communicates to us of his na⯑ture, properties, and diſpenſations. As far as theſe remarks affect Revelation in gene⯑ral, heretics in general will admit the juſt⯑neſs [19] of them; though at the very inſtant that they allow the writings in queſtion to be the ſole rule of faith, they endeavour, as much as may be, to reduce that rule to the meaſure of their own judgments and apprehenſions. I am however already juſtified in aſſerting, that as much as ſome people are averſe to be⯑lieving what they do not underſtand, they cannot avoid believing what they do not un⯑derſtand; and that therefore, on proper au⯑thority, it is full as reaſonable to believe an hundred myſteries as one. (e) And here taking my leave of the deiſt, I would deſire the he⯑retic by what appellation ſoever diſtinguiſhed, to recollect, that Revelation left human na⯑ture as it found it; I mean with reſpect to our intellectual faculties; that, from the be⯑ginning of the creation to this very hour, man is to be conſidered as a reaſonable creature, as a free-agent, as ſometimes believing upon competent evidence, ſometimes governed by paſſions, and ſometimes influenced by pre⯑poſſeſſion. A truth which accounts in a mo⯑ment for the multitude of perſuaſions which have engaged the ſpeculative world. To ex⯑pect, [20] or require that God ſhould manifeſt him⯑ſelf and his proceedings, &c. to every man fully and perſonally, is to deſtroy every no⯑tion not only of faith, but of obedience likewiſe; and to wiſh to invert the eſſential frame and conſtitution of things. Difficul⯑ties, unſurmountable difficulties of many kinds occur to our contemplations on that frame and conſtitution; difficulties, on which the light of Revelation darts not a ſingle beam. If we indulge the excurſive faculty of imagination beyond the bounds which reaſon and ſcripture have ſet us, we ſhall find ourſelves inextricably entangled in per⯑plexity, and ſometimes in impiety too. Who ſhall diſcover the conſiſtency between Divine preſcience and human free-will? Yet that man acts freely, and that God foreknows all events, and decrees accordingly, are equal⯑ly truths not to be ſhaken by any ſeeming irreconcileableneſs or contrariety whatſoever. So again: that the moſt perfect freedom of agency muſt be aſcribed to God, cannot poſ⯑ſibly be controverted; and yet does he not neceſſarily foreknow his own actions? Does [21] not neceſſarily act agreeably to the eternal rules of juſtice, wiſdom, and holineſs? That God is in no ſenſe the author of evil, either natu⯑ral or moral, every reaſonable man, and much more every Chriſtian will maintain; yet is it not certain, that had this world never been made, neither ſin nor death could have entered into it? Human wiſdom has fatigued itſelf to no purpoſe in the ventilation of theſe ſub⯑jects. (f) Many real truths, but at preſent ſeeming paradoxes, will doubtleſs be capable of future explication; and ſpiritual things in general ſhould rather be received with the humility of reverence, than encountered with the arrogance of diſcuſſion. There will be no end to doubtful diſputations while men's ſentiments are modified by a partial attach⯑ment to a favourite principle; and while truths, apparently oppoſite and contradicto⯑ry, are ſeparately contended for, which ought both to be admitted; as ultimately they will be reconciled.

What has been here advanced concerning faith, or myſteries in general, will, I truſt, [22] ſecure at leaſt a fair and earneſt attention to what I ſhall have to offer in defence of the myſteries of the Goſpel. If theſe myſteries ſhould be found to be real objects of faith, it will be neither right, nor ſafe, to think, or to ſpeak of them indifferently, unhandſomely, or contemptuouſly.

That the doctrines of the Church of En⯑gland, the doctrine of one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, and that of the Reſur⯑rection of the Body, are as reconcileable to our ideas as the conſiſtency of free-will with neceſſity, or of the Divine perfections with the exiſtence of evil, I ſhould ſuppoſe, no man can deny; and therefore the great queſ⯑tion is, whether thoſe doctrines be undeniably in thoſe Scriptures which all with whom I am concerned acknowledge to be the rule of faith.

That, with reſpect to the Trinity, the doctrine of the Church has been ſo long, ſo frequently, ſo copiouſly agitated with much leſs ſucceſs, on our part, than might have been expected from ſome of the beſt Soldiers of Jeſus Chriſt, [23] the weapons of whoſe warfare have been migh⯑ty in this ſpiritual field; this, I muſt confeſs, is a circumſtance enough diſcouraging; but however, not without its counterbalance in certain conſiderations. The race is not always to the ſwift, nor the battle to the ſtrong. Matters are capable of being ſet in new lights; nor will any exertion be deſperate which has for its object the honour of God, and the peace of his Church. Men are wedded to their errors as much as to their vices; but as we are not to be remiſs, or hopeleſs in our labours for the reformation of ſinners, though the whole world ſhould lie in wickedneſs; ſo neither ſhould we be impeded or diſheartened in our attempts for the con⯑verſion of infidels and heretics, by that pride, that prejudice, however contracted, that hard⯑neſs, or that ſlowneſs of heart, which indiſpoſes them for the reception of truth.—After all, inquiries of this nature are of very conſide⯑rable uſe and importance; they cannot fail at leaſt to ſtabliſh, ſtrengthen, and ſettle our⯑ſelves; to root and ground us in that faith which we ſhall find to be built upon the moſt immoveable foundations.

[24] That aſſertors and vindicators of this faith, that champions for the Church militant, might never be wanting in this place, the zeal and the piety, the wiſdom, and the mu⯑nificence of our founder hath nobly pro⯑vided. The preſent inſtitution is happily diſtinguiſhed by its location; and, in ſome de⯑gree to anſwer and accompliſh it's end, I ſhall proceed with as much confidence and ſatiſ⯑faction as may reaſonably be ſuppoſed to ariſe from a proper ſenſe of obligation, a full perſuaſion of the truth of the great doctrines in queſtion, and particularly of the merits of the Trinitarian cauſe.

DISCOURSE II.

TO the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament our bleſſed Saviour referred the Jews for ſatisfaction with reſpect to his claims to the character in which he appeared among them; and to the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, together with the other, I am to refer for proofs of thoſe great but myſterious doctrines which I have undertaken to defend: the doctrines contained in the Liturgy, and in the Articles of the Church of England.

Without laying before you at preſent all, or the principal texts by which the doctrine [26] of the Trinity is ſupported, or in which the abſolute divinity both of the Son and of the Holy Ghoſt is explicitly aſſerted, or neceſſarily implied, we may previouſly re⯑mark that, ſuppoſing them to be authen⯑tic, unequivocal, and intelligible, the in⯑fidel is in fact precluded from taking advan⯑tage of thoſe paſſages which are declarative either of the acknowleged humanity of Je⯑ſus Chriſt, or of the gifts and operations of the bleſſed Spirit: that humanity, and thoſe operations being things manifeſtly diſ⯑tinct from the Divine eſſence, and real per⯑ſonality. What we ſhall have to do therefore will be to enquire, in due time and place, whether the exceptions which have been made againſt the texts with which the catho⯑lic doctrine is fortified, are grounded in prin⯑ciples of common candour and common ſenſe; or, in other words, whether the in⯑terpretations of anti-trinitarians are critically juſt, and agreable to the rules which are ge⯑nerally allowed to govern interpretation. In the mean time, it will be well worth while to examine, whether the doctrine before us [27] is not proveable by evidence which, though indirect and collateral, is irreſiſtible. There is hardly any ſuch thing as framing a ſen⯑tence, or a propoſition that cannot be preva⯑ricated with; but the tenor of a context, and the weight of circumſtances will not eaſily admit of ſophiſtication.

According to the Athanaſian Creed, as it is called, ‘the Catholic Faith is this; that we worſhip one God in Trinity, and Tri⯑nity in Unity; and that the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt is all one: the Glory equal, the Majeſty co-eternal.’ But what ſaith the Scripture? Saith it not, in effect, the ſame alſo? That the Father is the firſt Perſon in the Trinity, merely in order of nomina⯑tion; the Son, the ſecond; and the Holy Ghoſt, the third; is ſufficiently demonſtra⯑ble from many conſiderations. In the firſt place, though the three divine Perſons are uſually mentioned in a manner which at firſt ſight ſeems to import an order of a dif⯑ferent kind, yet this order is upon ſome oc⯑caſions [28] inverted; e. g. in St. Paul's often quoted benediction to the Corinthians; The grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghoſt be with you: and in the following paſſage of the ſame Apoſtle; there are diverſities of gifts, but the ſame Spirit; and there are diffe⯑rences of adminiſtrations, but the ſame Lord; and there are diverſities of operations, but it is the ſame God which worketh all in all. ^*And, in other places, the ſame inverſion is obſervable with regard to the firſt and ſecond perſons; Ye know, ſays the Apoſtle, that no whoremon⯑ger, nor unclean perſon, &c. hath any inheri⯑tance in the kingdom of Chriſt and of God. ^† Now our Lord Jeſus Chriſt HIMSELF, ſays the ſame Apoſtle, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, comfort your hearts, &c. No man, ſays our Lord, knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Fa⯑ther ſave the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. ^‡To this we may add the intro⯑duction of St. Paul's epiſtle to the Galatians; Paul, an Apoſtle, not of men, neither by man, [29] but by Jeſus Chriſt, and God the Father, who hath raiſed him from the dead, &c. From theſe inſtances we may at leaſt draw this inference, that the general priority of order above mentioned imports no diſtinction, or preeminence of eſſence.

The root, ground, or fountain of eſſence may be acknowledged to be in the Father, without the leaſt prejudice to the Trinitarian doctrine, which ſuppoſes an ETERNAL com⯑munication to the Son and to the Holy Ghoſt. The terms root and fountain, &c. are cuſtom⯑ary indeed, but by no means ſtrictly proper, or preciſely deſcriptive. They are familiar, not to our ideas, but to our ears. When we ſpeak of, or contemplate the Divine nature, abſolutely, and without reference to particu⯑lar diſpenſations, God the Father is generally the firſt in our conception, as far as he can be the object of conception, but not to the excluſion of the Divine nature either of the Son or Holy Ghoſt. In theſe diſpenſations, in the heavenly oeconomy, we have a mani⯑feſt and obvious reaſon for addreſſing our [30] prayers and petitions, public and private, for the moſt part, to the firſt Perſon of the Holy Trinity. In ſhort, the terms Father and Son, under which it has pleaſed infinite wiſdom, by way of analogy, to repreſent this myſterious relation to our minds; theſe terms imply nothing more than nominal preemi⯑nence and ſubordination: if the Anti-trinita⯑rian ſhould inſiſt that they do imply more, and aſk what we mean by eternal generation, or proceſſion, we will anſwer him the mo⯑ment we are told what he means by eternal eſſence itſelf. (g)

Again. The Father is commonly repre⯑ſented to us under the character of the ma⯑ker, the governor, preſerver, and judge of the world; the Son under that of our re⯑deemer, advocate, and ſaviour; the Holy Ghoſt under that of our guide, comforter, and ſanctifier; and yet theſe characters, we ſhall ſee, with the names, properties, and at⯑tributes of the Deity, are frequently recipro⯑cated. Thus, in the following places among others, the office of Redeemer is aſcribed in [31] expeſs terms to the firſt perſon; or, if you pleaſe, to God abſolutely conſidered. God will redeem my ſoul from the power of the grave. I will ranſom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. ^* My ſoul ſhall rejoice which thou haſt redeemed. ^†So likewiſe in numberleſs paſſages the Fa⯑ther is ſtyled Saviour. To inſtance only a few. There is no God elſe beſide me, a juſt God, and a Saviour. ^‡ Paul, an apoſtle, &c. by the commandment of God our Saviour, ^§&c. We truſt in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men. To the only wiſe God our Saviour be glory and majeſty now and ever ^‖And again; the work of ſanctification is indiſ⯑criminately ſaid to be the work of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. Thus our bodies are ſometimes called the temple of God, and ſometimes of the Holy Ghoſt. The Apoſtle declares, that it is God which worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleaſure. The ſame Apoſtle prays, that the very God of peace may ſanctify the Theſſalonians; and [32] make his Hebrew converts perfect in every good work to do his will, working in them that which is well-pleaſing in his ſight; and, not to multiply examples, St. Jude addreſſes his ge⯑neral Epiſtle to thoſe that are ſanctified by God the Father, and preſerved in Jeſus Chriſt. To which we may add, that the Father hath ſometimes other titles and characters given him which belong more peculiarly to the Holy Spirit, and is called the God of conſola⯑tion, and the God of all comfort; as, accord⯑ing to one Apoſtle, all ſcripture is given by inſpiration of God; while we are aſſured by another, that holy men of God ſpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoſt. ^*

Again. We find all the great properties and characters of the firſt Perſon frequently at⯑tributed to the ſecond. In a Paſſage in Iſaiah he is even called the (h) everlaſting Father. ^†And (to lay no ſtreſs upon prophetic phraſeo⯑logy) is not the firſt perſon the ſupreme God, a ſelf-exiſtent, independent Being, the crea⯑tor, the governor, and preſerver of the world? [33] So is Jeſus Chriſt. For before Abraham was, ſays he, I am; ^* and he that came from heaven is above all; he filleth all in all; he is the head; and by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, viſible and inviſible; &c. All things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and upholdeth all things by the word of his power, and by him all things conſiſt. ^†Of ſome of theſe and the following texts at preſent we ſhall take the ſenſe to be granted. Is God the Father a being eternal and unchangeable? So is God the Son. For he hath neither beginning of days nor end of life. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the firſt and the laſt, which is, and which was, and which is to come; the Almighty; ^‡ Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever. Is omniſcience an attribute of the true God? So is it likewiſe of him whom he ſent into the world. For he knew all things; he knew what was in man; he knoweth the hearts of all men; ^§ he it is who ſearcheth the reins and heart. Can any power leſs than in⯑finite [34] raiſe the dead? And is it not the pre⯑rogative of the Supreme God to judge the world? Yet to do both is the work of Jeſus Chriſt. For he is the reſurrection and the life; ^* and as the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even ſo the Son quickeneth whom he will; and whoſo eateth his fleſh hath eternal life, and he will raiſe him up at the laſt day. ^†In conſequence of ſuch reſurrection we muſt all appear before his judgment ſeat. ^‡And once more; is not the true God inviſible and incomprehenſible? So is Jeſus Chriſt. For, agreably to a text before cited, no man knoweth the Son but the Father. Again. The character and office of the Third Perſon are explicitly attributed to Jeſus Chriſt. The Apoſtle's wiſh, or benediction, which we have already had occaſion to refer to, may be produced as one inſtance of this. Now our Lord Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, and God, even our Father, com⯑fort your hearts, and eſtabliſh you in every good word and work. For without Chriſt we can do nothing; and he of God is made unto us wiſdom, and righteouſneſs, and ſanctification, and redemp⯑tion; ^* [35] and he gave himſelf for the Church, that he might ſanctify and cleanſe it; and the Apoſtle could do all things through Chriſt which ſtrengthned him. Farther; the characters and properties both of the firſt and ſecond Perſon in the Holy Trinity are likewiſe many of them aſcrib'd to the third. Thus, in the old Teſtament, the work of creation ſeems to be attributed to the operation of the Holy Ghoſt, as a diſtinct perſonage, or agent. The Spirit of God, ſays Moſes, moved upon the face of the waters. Thou ſendeſt forth thy ſpirit, ſays the Pſalmiſt, and they are created: and Job aſſerts, that God by his Spirit hath garniſh'd the hea⯑vens; ^†and the Spirit of God ha smade me, ſays Elihu. ^‡For whatever might have been the preciſe notion of the antient Jews, with re⯑gard to the Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord, of which we find ſuch frequent mention; or, whatever they might underſtand by that parallel expreſſion, (in reſpect at leaſt of the work of creation,) the breath of the Almighty, or the breath of his mouth; the light of the New Teſtament, I ²⁷ [36] think, ſufficiently directs us to the above in⯑terpretation. Thus again, the Holy Ghoſt is omniſcient, and eternal; for the Spirit ſearcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; ^*and Chriſt through the eternal Spirit offered himſelf without ſpot to God. ^†Thus the office of advocate, or interceſſor, is attributed to the Spirit, who maketh interceſſion for the Saints according to the will of God. ^‡Thus the reſurrection of our Lord himſelf is ſaid to have been effected by the power of the Holy Ghoſt; for Chriſt was put to death in the fleſh, but quickened by the Spirit, ^§ and he that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead ſhall alſo quicken our mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in us. Thus again; both Prophets and Apoſtles are ſaid to be ſent, or commiſſioned by the Holy Ghoſt, as well as by the Father and the Son. The Lord God and his Spirit hath ſent me, ſays Iſaiah; the Spirit entered into me, ſays Eze⯑kiel, and ſaid unto me, go ſhut thyſelf within thy houſe; ^‖and the Holy Ghoſt ſaid, ſeparate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I [37] have called them. ^*Once more. The Holy Ghoſt is indiſcriminately called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Chriſt; and the Goſpel of God and the Goſpel of Chriſt are terms equivalent; and the Apoſtles are ſometimes ſtiled ſervants of God, and ſometimes ſervants of Jeſus Chriſt; and the Holy Ghoſt is ſaid to make overſeers over the flock; as God the Fa⯑ther hath ſet ſome in the Church, firſt Apoſtles, and as the Son gave ſome, Apoſtles; and ſome, Prophets, &c. And, laſtly, the very terms of our ſalvation are reciprocated. St. Paul teſtified to Jews and Greeks repentance to⯑wards God, and faith toward our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; ^†and among the principles of the doc⯑trine of Chriſt, the Apoſtle reckons repentance from dead works, and faith towards God. ^‡Our Saviour ſays in one place, he that believeth on the Son hath everlaſting life; and in another place, he that believeth on him that ſent him hath everlaſting life. The general ſcripture doctrine is, that we are ſaved by the mercy of God through the merits of our Redeemer; [38] and yet our ſalvation is ſometimes aſcribed abſolutely to the mercy, or grace of Jeſus Chriſt. Thus St. Peter declares his and his brethren's belief, that both Jews and Gentiles ſhall be ſaved through the grace of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; ^*and St. Jude exhorts Chriſ⯑tians to keep themſelves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt unto eternal life. ^†To all this we may add, that the title of Lord, (which is one unqueſ⯑tionable character of ſupremacy,) is common to the three Perſons in the Holy Trinity; to the ſecond it is applied as well as to the firſt in places almoſt numberleſs; and to the third beyond all doubt in the following: the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Chriſt; ^§ now God him⯑ſelf, and our Father, (where, by the way, the word—HIMSELF—does not appear to be more emphatical than in the text ſome⯑time ſince cited,) and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increaſe, and abound in love one towards another, to the end he may ſtabliſh your [39] hearts unblameable in holineſs before God, at the coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.* For that by the Lord in theſe texts we are to underſtand the Holy Ghoſt, is, I apprehend, demonſtra⯑ble from theſe two conſiderations; firſt, be⯑cauſe it is his peculiar office to direct the heart, to make us to increaſe in love, and to ſta⯑bliſh our hearts unblameable in holineſs; and ſe⯑condly, becauſe, according to any other con⯑ſtruction, we ſhall at beſt make but very in⯑different ſenſe of either of theſe paſſages. From this inverſion then and reciprocation, of which we have produced ſuch a number of inſtances, the Divinity of each Perſon in the Trinity may reaſonably be inferred; eſpe⯑cially as the ſenſe of many at leaſt of the texts I have produced is obvious, and alto⯑gether uncontrovertible.

Again; this great point is evincible from the neceſſary ſenſe, or natural import of cer⯑tain paſſages. Let us turn to a few of the moſt remarkable. ³⁹

[40] The ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt is pronounced by our bleſſed Lord himſelf to be of all ſins the moſt damnable. I ſay unto you, all man⯑ner of ſin and blaſphemy ſhall be forgiven unto men; but the blaſphemy againſt the Holy Ghoſt ſhall not be forgiven unto men. And whoſoever ſpeaketh a word againſt the Son of Man it ſhall be forgiven him; but whoſoever ſpeaketh againſt the Holy Ghoſt, it ſhall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ^*Now without ſtaying to inquire here into the preciſe nature of this ſin, or how far it may be abſolutely incapable of remiſ⯑ſion, or in what ſenſe our Saviour's audience underſtood him, or he meant to be under⯑ſtood, it will be ſufficient for our purpoſe to remark, that the doctrine of the Holy Tri⯑nity in general, and particularly of the per⯑ſonal exiſtence, and coequal divinity of the Holy Ghoſt with that of the Father, and of the Son, is plainly and truly though covertly comprehended in the above texts, and in their parallels in the other Evangeliſts. For otherwiſe we ſhall be unavoidably driven into [41] the following abſurd and execrable conclu⯑ſions, viz. that the higheſt degree of impiety and profaneneſs againſt God the Father is a mere venial ſin; and that a blaſphemy, or a ſin, a ſin, humanly ſpeaking at leaſt, with⯑out hope, or poſſibility of pardon, may be committed againſt a Being leſs than the ſu⯑preme God; and even againſt a kind of ſpi⯑ritual chimera, a motion, a virtue, a quality, or an operation.

Again. As touching brotherly love, ſays St. Paul, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourſelves are taught of God to love one ano⯑ther. ^*Now that by him who in this place is abſolutely ſtyled God, we are to underſtand Jeſus Chriſt, I have little or no difficulty to pronounce, for the two following reaſons; firſt, becauſe, though we may very properly be ſaid to be taught of God, when we are in⯑ſtructed by the mouth, or by the preaching of his prophets, or apoſtles, or others com⯑miſſion'd by him, yet the doctrine of univer⯑ſal love and charity was more immediately [42] and peculiarly the doctrine of our bleſſed Saviour: A new commandment, ſays he, I give unto you, that ye love one another;—by this all all men know that ye are MY diſciples, if ye have love one to another ^*; this is MY commandment, that ye love one another ^†: and ſecondly, be⯑cauſe the Apoſtle ſeems to regard this great duty as a principle recently taught, and par⯑ticularly enforced by the precept and exam⯑ple of our Divine Maſter.

Again. He that hath ſeen me hath ſeen the Father ^‡, ſays our Lord, and he that ſeeth me, ſeeth him that ſent me. Now in what ſenſe are theſe declarations true? Not in the literal; for the Father could not be viſible in the human perſon of the Son; becauſe God is a Spirit, and no man hath ſeen God at any time; whom no man hath ſeen, or can ſee ^§: and by neceſſary conſequence our Saviour hereby in effect aſ⯑ſerts, that, notwithſtanding his appearance in the fleſh, he himſelf really and truly par⯑took of the Divine nature; that, according [43] to his own expreſſion, the Father dwelt in him; or, in the language of the Apoſtle, in him dwelt all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily, or ſubſtantially.

Again. In the Goſpels St. John the Baptiſt is called the voice of one crying in the wilderneſs, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths ſtrait ^*: but in the evangelical prophet the ſtyle is at once more explicit and more majeſtical; prepare ye, ſays he, the way of the Lord, make ſtrait in the deſart a high⯑way for our God. ^†In the courſe of the ſame ſublime chapter Jeruſalem is called upon to lift up her voice with ſtrength, to lift it up and ſay unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God. And then the prophecy proceeds in the following words. Behold, the Lord God will come with ſtrong hand, and his arm ſhall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He ſhall feed his flock like a ſhepherd, &c. Now, unleſs it can be de⯑monſtrated, that theſe paſſages do not refer, ultimately at leaſt, to the coming, and to the [44] perſon of the Meſſiah, he is manifeſtly here announced under the different characters of a good ſhepherd, a righteous judge, and the Lord God. Beſides, if there is no ſuch reference, the ſeveral apoſtolical citations from the pro⯑phet are moſt impertinently ridiculous.

Once more. The firſt and ſecond perſons of the bleſſed Trinity are expreſsly diſtin⯑guiſhed, and reſpectively characteriſed as equal, in a paſſage wherein the Apoſtle occa⯑ſionally aſſerts the unity of eſſence in the Godhead. We know, ſays he, that there is none other God but one; for though there be that are called Gods, to us there is but 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 ^*. It may be pretended indeed, that the terms under which the Son is here characteriſed are not of equal weight and ſignificance with thoſe which are deſ⯑criptive of the Father; but I will take upon me to aver, that the ſame might have been pretended, had theſe terms been tranſpoſed, [45] and the paſſage had run thus; to us there is but one God, the Father, by whom are all things, and we by him; and one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, of whom are all things, and we in him. And in many places the three divine Perſons are ſeverally ſpecified and referred to, as jointly concurring in the wonderful ſcheme of man's redemption; particularly in the fol⯑lowing. St. Peter inſcribes his firſt epiſtle to the ſtrangers ſcattered through Pontus, Galatia, &c. elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through ſanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and ſprinkling of the blood of Je⯑ſus Chriſt: and St. John ſalutes the churches of Aſia with wiſhing them grace and peace from him which is, which was, and which is to come, and from the ſeven ſpirits which are be⯑fore his throne, and from Jeſus Chriſt ^*. I am ſenſible indeed that by the ſeven ſpirits, juſt mentioned, interpreters do not univerſally un⯑derſtand the Holy Ghoſt; but this at leaſt, I cannot help remarking, may be offered in favour of the ſenſe in which I have taken the expreſſion, that it is a ſenſe of which the [46] words are full as capable as of any other whatever; and that by the preſent conſtruc⯑tion a very conſiderable difficulty is removed which clogs a different interpretation. For admitting the Holy Ghoſt to be ſignified by the ſeven ſpirits, there will be nothing ſin⯑gular or unprecedented in this inverſion of the order of Perſons in the Trinity; but why angels, according to the ſenſe of ſome com⯑mentators, ſhould be mentioned before Jeſus Chriſt, (who is higher than the angels even in many of our adverſaries conceptions,) ſeems accountable only by forced and unnatural ex⯑plications. And ſtill more perplexed, and in⯑compatible with the nature of a bleſſing, or a ſalutation in general, or with the apoſtoli⯑cal greetings and benedictions in particular, the ſenſe of others ſeems to be, who by the ſeven ſpirits underſtand the graces of the Spi⯑rit, or the various operations of Divine Pro⯑vidence. (i) However, granting the paſſage to be rather obſcure, I would take occaſion to obſerve from it yet farther, that although we ſhould be very cautious of deducing doc⯑trines of faith from ſymbols, or myſtical ex⯑preſſions, [47] yet types and emblems confeſſedly ſignificant and characteriſtical will juſtify our ſuitable concluſions. It may be queſtioned perhaps what is preciſely to be underſtood by the ſeven ſpirits juſt mentioned, or by many other ſymbols in the Revelation; but it would be exceſs of perverſeneſs to doubt, whether the Lamb in our Apoſtle's allegori⯑cal prophecy be the emblem of Jeſus Chriſt. Whenever therefore we obſerve divine ho⯑nours plainly aſcribed to the Lamb, or find him ſpoken of in terms of equal importance and majeſty with thoſe which are predicated of him who is indiſputably the true God, the inference is obvious and unavoidable. How then will the antitrinitarian evade the force of ſuch paſſages as theſe? And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, &c. heard I ſaying, Bleſſing and glory, and honour, and power, be unto him that ſitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. ^* The Lamb ſhall overcome them, for he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. ^† I ſaw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty, [48] and the Lamb are the temple of it; and the city had no need of the Sun, &c. for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof ^*. And he ſhewed me a pure river of water of life, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb ^†. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, &c. hid them⯑ſelves in the rocks and the mountains, and ſaid unto the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that ſitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb ^‡. If any man ſhould affect to make a diſtinc⯑tion betwixt him that ſitteth on the throne and the Lamb, or him who is ſaid to ſit on the right hand of God, in proof of the ſuperio⯑rity of the former, I would deſire him to re⯑member, that the throne in queſtion is called ſometimes ſimply the throne of God; ſome⯑times, as in a text lately produced, the throne of God and of the Lamb; that, in another place, the Lamb is ſaid to be in the midſt of the throne; in another, to ſit down in the throne of the Father; and that it is the throne of the Son of God which is for ever and ever. [49] So likewiſe, notwithſtanding the diverſity of conſtructions to which the expreſſion of the ſeven ſpirits is liable, the perſonality, opera⯑tion, and Divinity of the Holy Ghoſt may be demonſtrated from the plain literal ſenſe of many places in this book which are utterly void of emblematical ornament, or alluſion. Indeed, the whole was evidently dictated by the Spirit, by whoſe inſpiration all ſcripture was given, who alone ſearcheth the deep things of God, ^*and under whoſe immediate direction our Apoſtle wrote this epiſtle: for he tells us expreſſly, before he communicates his Revelations, that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day; and elſewhere, that he was car⯑ried away in the Spirit; and the ſolemn call to all perſons concerned is frequently re⯑peated, He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit ſaith unto the Churches. ^†To all this we may add, that the perſonal inherency of the Spirit in the eſſence of the Godhead is demonſtrable from St. Paul's illuſtration of a paſſage juſt now quoted from him. The Spirit, ſays he, ſearcheth all things, yea, the [50] deep things of God. For what man, continues he, knoweth the things of a man, ſave the Spirit of man which is in him? Even ſo the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. If the conſcious ſpirit in man is man, the Spirit of God muſt be eſſentially God.

I deſire to obſerve yet farther, that nothing leſs than a belief in the doctrine of the Tri⯑nity, as it is received in the Church, can ſatisfy the full demands of the terms—faith,—and myſtery,—which we meet with ſo re⯑peatedly in the New Teſtament, and to which there is ſo much reference under the old. The whole of the myſtery of the divine will made known in the diſpenſation of the fulneſs of times; ^* the wiſdom of God in a myſtery, even the hidden wiſdom which God ordained before the world, ^†or, if you pleaſe, the real cha⯑racter of the univerſal Saviour, who was to be both God and man, was a ſecret from the beginning. This ſtupendous doctrine was infinitely, and by the divine intention, too ſublime for the carnal conceptions of the [51] Jews; who, whatever they might ultimately underſtand by, or hope from the Meſſiah pro⯑miſed to Adam, to Abraham, to the Patri⯑archs, and to others; and foretold by the Prophets in language clear and ſtrong indeed, but at the ſame time figurative, magnificent, and myſterious, expected, and primarily de⯑ſired only a temporal deliverer, who ſhould reſtore again, and perpetuate the kingdom to Iſrael. Nay, it is abundantly evident that the Prophets themſelves, thoſe holy men of God who ſpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoſt, ^*had not an inſight into the full ſcope, and whole import of the ſacred truths and oracles which they delivered. Our Lord ſeems to allude to this ignorance, when he acquaints his diſciples, that many prophets and kings had deſired to ſee the things which they ſaw, and had not ſeen them, ^†&c. It is true this was ſaid by way of anticipation; becauſe, as will be ſhewn, it was not then even to them given to know the capital myſtery of the kingdom of heaven. But St. Peter is plain and full upon this ſubject, when, ſpeaking, in his firſt general epiſtle, of the ſalvation obtained [52] for us by Jeſus Chriſt, he proceeds in the following words; of which ſalvation the pro⯑phets have enquired, and ſearched diligently, who propheſied of the grace that ſhould come unto you; ſearching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Chriſt which was in them did ſig⯑nify, when it teſtified beforehand the ſufferings of Chriſt, and the glory that ſhould follow: unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themſelves, but unto us they did miniſter the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the Goſpel unto you, with the Holy Ghoſt ſent down from heaven; which things the angels deſire to look into. ^*The ex⯑preſſions here are, I think, in themſelves al⯑moſt ſufficiently deciſive upon the great point before us. For it is hard to conceive that the Prophets, in whom, it ſeems, the Spirit of Chriſt reſided; and much harder that the angels ſhould not have a clear idea of the work of human redemption; ſhould not be able to comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, (as St. Paul expreſſes himſelf, with an eye, I imagine, [53] to this diſpenſation,) ſuppoſing that work to have been accompliſhed by any perſon leſs than very God; but admit the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, and the inquiſitiveneſs and the incapacity of men and angels will by no means be unaccountable. All this, I truſt, will afford a moſt ſtrong argument, that the faith which the Apoſtles preached after the aſcenſion of our Saviour; the faith which was firſt delivered to the chriſtian Saints; the faith which we are required to hold faſt without wavering, ^*and to build up ourſelves upon, ^†is a faith in the incarnation of the eternal Son of God; or, in other words, in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as it has all along been held in the Chriſtian Church. In conſe⯑quence of the removal of a popular objection againſt all this, I hope in the enſuing diſqui⯑ſitions to ſet in a ſtill clearer point of view the great doctrine before us.

DISCOURSE III.

THESE words immediately refer to the great event of our Lord's reſurrec⯑tion, but in conſequence of it to the divinity of his perſon. Of this therefore I ſhall pro⯑ceed to lay more proofs before you, taking firſt this opportunity to obviate the following popular objection; that, notwithſtanding all that has been, or can be advanced, the doctrine before us is not ſo abſolutely clear and indiſputable as we would have it thought, and as a fundamental article of faith ought to be; in as much as no text can be pro⯑duced which preciſely, and totidem verbis, [56] ſpeaks the language of the firſt article of our Church; viz. ‘in the unity of the Godhead there be three Perſons of one ſubſtance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt; or of the ſecond; two whole and perfect natures, that is to ſay, the Godhead and Manhood are joined together in one Perſon, never to be di⯑vided, whereof is one Chriſt, very God and very man; or of the fifth; the Holy Ghoſt, proceeding from the Father, and the Son, is of one ſubſtance, majeſty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.’

To all this, I apprehend, we may readily reply, that if there be any real force in ſuch objections, it will operate much farther by neceſſary conſequence than the objectors themſelves can be ſuppoſed to deſire it ſhould. For it will ſupply the perverſe, or idle caviller with pretences and exceptions againſt all the divine properties and attri⯑butes, as far as they are aſſerted in the firſt article. There is no one paſſage in the Scrip⯑ture [57] which literally tells us, that ‘there is but one living and true God, everlaſting, without body, parts, or paſſions, of infinite power, wiſdom, and goodneſs, the Maker and Preſerver of all things both viſible and inviſible.’ The divine ſuperintendency, &c, uſually called Providence, is juſtly re⯑puted one of the capital doctrines of reli⯑gion. Yet, upon the principles of theſe ob⯑jectors, it ſhould be no doctrine at all. For we meet with no ſuch term as Providence, in the ſenſe demanded, either in the old or new Teſtament. So that this doctrine muſt inevi⯑tably fall to the ground, unleſs it be main⯑tained and ſupported by natural inference; or unleſs we are at liberty to make uſe of a proper term to expreſs our ſenſe of it. He who objects to the term—Trinity—as un⯑ſcriptural, ſhould conſider by what texts he will undertake to prove the Unity of the Divine Nature; which, in the ſenſe required by his argument, is a term no more to be found in Scripture than the other. In fact, upon the principle of our opponents, we ſhall be under a neceſſity of expunging a [58] great part of the Apoſtles Creed, and even ſuch parts of it as all Chriſtians whatever, without the leaſt ſcruple or heſitation, have aſſented to. For I deſire to know by what expreſs or literal authority of Scripture any perſon believes in the Holy Catholic Church, or in the Communion of Saints; or that our bleſſed Lord was born of the Virgin Mary, or ſuffered under Pontius Pilate, &c? In ſhort, if we are to be abſolutely precluded the uſe and application of proper terms and expreſſions in the inveſtigation and expoſition of Scrip⯑ture-meaning, it will, I preſume, be impoſ⯑ſible to frame the moſt ſimple ſyſtem, or for⯑mulary of Chriſtian faith and doctrine, or any ſuch thing as a Creed of any kind in the Church. The holy Scripture is the ſole rule or meaſure of every form of confeſſion, it is the only teſt by which any doctrine, or ſyſtem is, in all its branches, even the moſt minute of them, to be deliberately and ulti⯑mately tried; but it is not the rule itſelf; and indeed a little inquiry will ſhew us why the capital points of religion are not ſyſte⯑matically delivered in the ſacred writings.

[59] The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as main⯑tained by the Church of England, was the doctrine of the Catholic Church at and before the time of the publication of the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, or it was not. If it was, the controverſy is at an end. If it was not, we would fain know how to account for that great variety of paſſages, and thoſe numerous circumſtances, by which it is at leaſt ſo plau⯑ſibly countenanced, not to ſay forcibly de⯑fended. We would fain know how to re⯑concile with the character of the meek and the lowly Jeſus, any one of his expreſſions which is capable of being conſtrued into a claim to the Divinity. If this doctrine was the doctrine of the Church previouſly to the publication of the holy writings, they are ſufficiently full and explicit for the ſatisfac⯑tion, or confirmation of Chriſtians of all ages; if otherwiſe, here is more than enough ſaid to perplex and miſguide them, and to lead them into errors of the firſt magnitude. The great queſtion therefore, I take it, is, whe⯑ther we have not all the reaſon in the world to infer from the very mode in which the [60] doctrine of the Trinity is inſerted and incul⯑cated in the ſacred pages; the queſtion, I ſay, is, whether we are not authoriſed by this circumſtance to conclude that this doc⯑trine was antecedently received in the Chriſ⯑tian world? For inſtance; ſuppoſing the doc⯑trine of the Trinity to have been the ſtanding doctrine of the Church when St. John (k) wrote his Goſpel, we have no kind of diffi⯑culty to encounter; but are we not very much embaraſſed by the contrary ſuppoſi⯑tion? In the former caſe, we may readily conceive the Apoſtle to be aſſerting the Divi⯑nity of Jeſus Chriſt in the moſt expreſs terms at the beginning of his Goſpel; and, in the courſe of it, to record many particulars clearly declarative of the ſame; not by way of formal anſwer to Cerinthus, or any other heretic that diſputed, or denied it, but purely in flat contradiction to the novel and he⯑terodox notions advanced and propagated by them; and to encourage and ſtabliſh good Chriſtians in the faith, as they had all along been taught. What this great Evangeliſt de⯑clares at the latter end of his Goſpel, viz. [61] that theſe things were written, or, as we may ſay, given under his own hand, that the Chriſtians whom he addreſſes might believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of God, is perfectly conſiſtent with their pre-acquain⯑tance with theſe matters. Agreably hereunto, and indeed in direct confirmation of our hy⯑potheſis, St. Luke (and many, it ſeems, before him,) ſet in order a declaration of thoſe things which moſt ſurely were believed among Chriſ⯑tians, ^*that the perſon he writes to might know the certainty of thoſe things wherein he had been inſtructed. In the ſame light we may re⯑gard thoſe paſſages in the epiſtles which have often been produced in vindication of the doctrine before us. Some of theſe epiſtles were, with reſpect to the main end and de⯑ſign of them, entirely of a temporary nature; being written with a view to the deciſion of controverſies in the primitive Church, which for many centuries have been out of date; and upon ſeveral occaſions and ſubjects of little moment to ſucceeding generations. Not one of them however was profeſſedly written [62] in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Ac⯑cording to our preſent hypotheſis, a vindi⯑cation of this kind had been abſolutely ſu⯑perfluous; and though we cannot wonder to obſerve a point of this conſequence fre⯑quently mentioned, or alluded to in theſe writings, yet it would be very unreaſonable to expect to find it methodically or ſyſtema⯑tically taught.

The grand principle of the leading op⯑pugners of the doctrine under conſideration is, that the only thing required of Chriſ⯑tians to be believed with regard to the Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, is, that he was the Meſſiah, the Perſon promiſed and ſent by God to re⯑deem men from that death which they were inevitably appointed to as deſcendants of Adam; and that the Meſſiah, and the Chriſt, and the king of Iſrael, and the Son of God, are terms or titles in Scripture abſolutely denoting one and the ſame thing. I need not tell you, that this is the favourite tenet of Mr. Locke in his treatiſe on the Reaſona⯑bleneſs of Chriſtianity, as delivered in Scripture.

[63] Now we ſhall willingly admit, that the Apoſtles themſelves were believers under this idea moſtly, during our Saviour's reſi⯑dence upon earth; as 'tis certain, they had not the whole myſtery of the Divine Will, the grand ſcheme of man's redemption, clearly and fully made known to them before our Lord's Aſcenſion into heaven. I have many things to ſay unto you, he ſays to them, but ye cannot bear them now; ^*&c. and in ſaying this he had moſt probably an eye to the myſtery of the Goſpel. For though he took frequent occaſions to aſſert and preſignify, as I may ſay, his truly Divine Nature, either directly, or by neceſſary implication, and could not but have been underſtood ſo to have done by his diſciples, and by the Jews, who ſought to ſtone him on that very account, yet, in the days of his fleſh, many circumſtances con⯑curred to ſhake, or rather to overturn the faith of his followers, with reſpect to this great article. This is plain enough from the tenor of the evangelical hiſtory. It would be ridiculous to ſuppoſe that the Apoſtles could believe their Maſter to be the Son of [64] God in the higheſt ſenſe, or even to be the redeemer of Iſrael in any ſenſe, when they all forſook him and fled. At the melancholy criſis I refer to, they conceived no doubt very dif⯑ferent notions of their Lord from what they had once entertained of him, and afterwards did, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, or to full effect, by his re⯑ſurrection from the dead. ^*

The fact is, the ſcheme of human redemp⯑tion by Jeſus Chriſt, the only-begotten Son of God, in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, was opened gra⯑dually, and propounded to the world as it were article by article. At firſt it muſt ne⯑ceſſarily have been ſufficient to have believed that Jeſus was the Chriſt, the Meſſiah, or the Son of God, merely as executing a divine commiſſion, his reſurrection, aſcenſion, and exaltation to the right hand of the Ma⯑jeſty on high, being ſubſequent points of faith; and accordingly we read of many that be⯑lieved on him at different times, and in dif⯑ferent places, long before the converſion of [65] the three thouſand on the day of Pentecoſt, whom we cannot but conſider as believers in a much higher ſenſe. The faith of Chriſ⯑tians at that memorable period, and ever ſince, cannot with the leaſt colour of reaſon be aſcertained, or is to be meaſured by what is declared to be faith in particular inſtances recorded in the Goſpels. The faith which made the woman whole, who had an iſſue of blood, ^*and the faith that ſaved, i. e. reſtored to ſight the blind man near Jericho, ^†could not be that faith, the myſtery of which St. Paul requires Deacons to hold in a pure con⯑ſcience. ^‡In ſhort, our Saviour's actual re⯑ſurrection, by virtue of his own as well as his Father's power, (as we ſhall preſently ſee,) cleared up a thouſand difficulties in a moment, and amounted to a full demonſtra⯑tion of his Divinity. From a thorough con⯑viction of this no doubt it was that his Diſ⯑ciples worſhipped him; and St. Thomas in par⯑ticular burſt into that rapture of acknow⯑legement, My Lord, and my God! Though therefore the Meſſiah, or the Chriſt, be not [66] unfrequently called the Son of God, as a per⯑ſon ſent from God, as a teacher, a prophet, or deliverer, &c. (as many even created beings, angels, &c. and men in general are called Sons of God in certain reſpects,) yet we inſiſt that this appellation belongs peculiarly to Jeſus, the author of our faith, as a Divine Perſon likewiſe; and that he is ſo called with reference to his nature, as well as to his offices. In ſome paſſages of Scripture per⯑haps, the preciſe import of this title may be controvertible; as when devils and unclean ſpirits call our Saviour the Son of God, and the Holy One of God; and when Peter ſtyles him the Son of the living God. In anſwer to our Lord's queſtion, whom ſay ye that I am? the diſciples, according to St. Mark, replied by the mouth of Peter, thou art the Chriſt. In other places the ſignificance of the title in queſtion is diſcoverable by the context; as when Nathaniel addreſſes our Saviour in the character of the Son of God, the king of Iſrael. But why muſt all this affect the ſenſe of any one paſſage wherein the appellation is given for reaſons infinitely ſuperiour? The [67] Holy Ghoſt ſhall come upon thee, and the power of the Higheſt ſhall overſhadow thee; therefore alſo that Holy thing which ſhall be born of thee ſhall be called the Son of God. ^* (l) Could ſtronger terms be deviſed to expreſs the aſ⯑ſumption of the human nature by the Di⯑vine? Is it not perfectly reaſonable to con⯑clude, that the ſacred penmen often make mention of the Son of God with an eye to this myſterious and ineffable incarnation? And is it not certain that the perſon whom St. John, at the end of his Goſpel, calls the Chriſt, the Son of God, is the ſame with him whom, at the beginning of it, he ſtyles the Word that was with God, and was God? And if ſo, is not the ſenſe of the latter paſſage determinable by the preceding? Neverthe⯑leſs the great Philoſopher above mentioned leaves the introduction to this Goſpel, and other paſſages in it of equal import, entirely unnoticed, as though it had no connection with his argument; which is a piece of diſ⯑ingenuouſneſs that, one cannot avoid ſaying, did little credit to his cauſe, or to himſelf. [68] We ſhall be enabled, by ſuch conſiderations as theſe, to put the true conſtruction on the title of the Son of God, in moſt, if not all the places where it occurs in the Epiſtles; naturally taking into the account the many clear and expreſs proofs of our Lord's Divi⯑nity which are cited from them. Of ſome of the moſt ſtriking of theſe proofs, among other particulars, we ſhall for ſatisfaction⯑ſake take a review in proper time. What Mr. Locke has adduced on this ſubject with a purpoſe to invalidate theſe proofs in general, will, I am confident, be utterly overthrown by the force of the following conſiderations; viz. that the Epiſtles are a part of the New Teſ⯑ment, and as eſſential a part as the Goſpels; were like them, as was obſerved, written oc⯑caſionally, and after our Saviour's Aſcenſion, that St. Paul, e. g. was as much a teacher of the Goſpel, an inſpired Apoſtle, as St. Matthew, or any other Apoſtle who has hiſtorically recorded the actions, words, or doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt; and that a Creed, or ſyſtem of faith ſhould have its foundation in theſe Epiſtles together with the other Scrip⯑tures. [69] The truth is, St. John in his Epiſtles aſſérts the ſame doctrine of our Lord's Divi⯑nity as in his Goſpel. By Mr. Locke's way of proceeding, viz. arbitrarily admitting, or re⯑jecting Scripture, we may mould Chriſtianity into what form we pleaſe; and to this way of proceeding, among other cauſes, we are to aſcribe the various Schiſms, and Hereſies, which have ſo long, and ſo deplorably di⯑vided the Chriſtian world.

We may now, I imagine, fairly date the reception of the doctrine of our Lord's Di⯑vinity from his reſurrection; and we will next ſee whether the ſubſequent accounts we have of the propagation of the Goſpel be not entirely uniform and conſiſtent upon this hypotheſis, at the ſame time that they open to us the whole Trinitarian ſyſtem.

Let it be obſerved then, that the firſt re⯑corded prayer we meet with is that of the Apoſtles after the Aſcenſion, in which the addreſs is made immediately to our Lord himſelf, that he would be pleaſed to ſhew [70] whether he had choſen Joſeph, or Matthias, to ſupply the place vacated by Judas the traitor, whom he had originally choſen with the eleven Apoſtles. Thou, Lord, which knoweſt the hearts of all men, ſhew whether of theſe two thou haſt choſen. ^*It is, I believe, gene⯑rally agreed that this addreſs was made to Jeſus Chriſt, and if ſo, this attribution of om⯑niſcience to him is ſure as ſtrong an argument of his Divinity as any one thing which can be produced in demonſtration of it. The aſcription is to me on any other foot unac⯑countable. It is indeed true, that the Apoſ⯑tles had not yet a thorough inſight into the evangelical myſtery, nor had got perfectly clear of the prejudices and notions, reſpecting the Meſſiah, which they had imbibed in com⯑mon with their countrymen: in conſequence of which we find them aſking our Lord, even after his reſurrection, and after he had ſpoken to them, more or leſs explicitly, of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, whether he would at that time reſtore again the kingdom to Iſrael? But that they put this queſtion to [71] him as to one who was able to effect ſuch reſtoration by his own inherent divine power, or, in other words eſſentially partook of the divine nature, muſt ſurely be concluded from this conſideration; that they could not poſ⯑ſibly now entertain the leaſt doubt but that all his declarations and aſſurances to them would be verified to a tittle; and that as he came forth from the Father, and was come into the world, ſo he would ſoon leave the world, and go to the Father; and be glorified with that glory which he had with the Father, before the world was. The caſe appears plainly to have been this: they did not yet comprehend the whole evangelical plan in the concurrence of three Divine Perſons, in "glory equal, in majeſty coeternal;" they did not perfectly conceive all the things pertaining to Chriſt's ſpiritual kingdom; the kingdom of God in the fulleſt and moſt exalted ſenſe, of which he had been ſpeaking to them alluſively forty days, and with regard to which he may be ſuppoſed to have before promiſed them, that the ſpirit of truth, whom he would ſend unto them from the Father, ſhould guide them into [72] ALL truth, and teſtify of him. Accordingly, after the miraculous effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt on the day of Pentecoſt, we find them diſcovering very different ſentiments, and animated with ſpiritual expectations; we ſee them calling upon the people to ſave them⯑ſelves from an untoward generation; exhorting them to repent, and to be baptized for the re⯑miſſion of ſins; (m) renouncing in an inſtant all honours, profits, and pleaſures of this world; rejoicing that they were counted worthy to ſuffer ſhame for the name of their Divine Maſter; and, in a word, preaching the Goſ⯑pel of Jeſus Chriſt, the Son of God, through the inſpiration of the Spirit, and in the trueſt ſenſe of the expreſſion. On the memorable day juſt mentioned we are told, that the Apoſtles were all filled with the Holy Ghoſt, and began to ſpeak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. What they ſpake is not particularly ſpecified; but in general we are given to underſtand, that they ſpake in all languages the wonderful works of God. On the credit of what has been advanced, which will be ſtrengthned by what will follow, it [73] is moſt reaſonable to ſuppoſe, that, by the works here referred to, the great work of re⯑demption by the eternal Son of God is prin⯑cipally intended; the myſtery of godlineſs, ex⯑hibited in God manifeſt in the fleſh, and diſ⯑played in the wonderful effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt.

In the firſt addreſs of the Apoſtles to the Jews, and Jewiſh proſelytes, by the mouth of Peter, on the ſame day, both the humanity and divinity of our Saviour are plainly and diſtinctly aſſerted, or implied; and in ſuch a manner as hardly to be liable to miſconſtruc⯑tion. The doctrine of the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, conſidered as the confirmation of a ſtill greater doctrine, that of his Divi⯑nity, is the chief corner-ſtone of our Chriſtian Faith; and, as ſuch, is particularly inſiſted upon by the Apoſtles, who were ordained to be witneſſes of it. And becauſe this moſt im⯑portant of all events could not be accom⯑pliſhed by himſelf in his mere human capa⯑city, we find the holy writers frequently de⯑claring that God raiſed him from the dead. But [74] let it be remembered, that Jeſus, whom God raiſed up, is likewiſe as expreſsly ſaid to have riſen; and is ſtyled by theſe very witneſſes the Holy One, and the Juſt, and the Prince of life in different places; which beyond all doubt are titles appertaining to the Supreme God. Under the firſt of theſe characters, God the Creator is deſcribed in numberleſs paſſages of the Old Teſtament; and he who is the Prince, or author of life, according to the marginal reading, muſt be the ſame, in point of power and perogative, with him to whom belong the iſſues from death; who kil⯑leth and maketh alive; and in whoſe hand is the life of every thing. Indeed the Prince, or Author of life muſt have life in himſelf from all eternity; muſt be emphatically the life and reſurrection, as our Saviour calls himſelf; and therefore may as truly and properly be ſaid to have raiſed the temple of his body by his own power, (to borrow his own phraſe,) as to have been raiſed from the dead by the power of God the Father. We may ſay, in ſhort, with equal truth and propriety, Chriſt was raiſed from the dead, or Chriſt roſe from the [75] dead, according to the Scriptures; the latter aſſertion importing his Divinity, the former not ſuperſeding it; and therefore when St. Peter told the men of Iſrael, that they had killed the Prince of life, I ſcarce know which ſtrikes us moſt, the force of the implied truth, or the keenneſs of the ſarcaſm. But to return to the addreſs of the Apoſtles. Peter, ſtanding up with the eleven, ſays the ſacred hiſtorian, lift up his voice, and ſaid unto them, ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jeruſalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; for theſe are not drunken, as ye ſuppoſe, but this is that which was ſpoken by the prophet Joel: and it ſhall come to paſs in the laſt days, (ſaith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all fleſh; and your ſons and your daughters ſhall propheſy, and I will ſhew wonders, and it ſhall come to paſs, that whoſoever ſhall call on the name of the Lord ſhall be ſaved. ^*Now let us com⯑pare the promulgation or delivery of this prophecy with the completion of it at this period. Obſerve the words of the Apoſtle in [76] the courſe of his harange. This Jeſus, ſays he, (whom, with reference to his humanity, he had juſt before called a man approved by God,) hath God raiſed up, whereof we all are witneſſes. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt, HE hath ſhed forth this which ye now ſee and hear. That the Father and the Son concurred in this won⯑derful diſpenſation of infinite wiſdom and power on an equal foot, it will ſcarce be poſſible for us to doubt, when we recollect that the ſecond Perſon in the bleſſed Trinity is often repreſented as the giver of ſpiritual gifts, independently on any promiſe from, or aſſociation with the firſt. I will give you a mouth, ſays he to his Apoſtles, juſt before his paſſion, and wiſdom which all your adver⯑ſaries ſhall not be able to gainſay. I am with you always, ſays he after his reſurrection, even unto the end of the world. ^* Without him, he tells them, they can do nothing. And, to produce only one paſſage more out of many that might be cited, which has a manifeſt [77] alluſion to the effuſion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecoſt, St. Paul aſſures the Ephe⯑ſians, that unto every one is given grace ac⯑cording to the meaſure of the gift of Chriſt. Wherefore, he adds, he ſaith, when he aſcended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. ^†It may be pertinent yet farther to remark, that ſometimes neither the Father, nor the Son, appear to be con⯑cerned in this matter; the Spirit being ſaid, of and by himſelf, to divide his gifts and graces to every man ſeverally as he will.

But what ſhall we ſay to the invocation implied in the cloſe of the prophecy we are conſidering; whoſoever ſhall call on the name of the Lord ſhall be ſaved? Whom are we to underſtand by the Lord here? This, I ſhould think, may be determined by the ſignificance of the ſame words in other places. They cannot be miſunderſtood in the original pro⯑phecy of Joel. And if we refer to the tenth Chapter of St. Paul's Epiſtle to the Romans, where they occur again, they will amount [78] to an irreſiſtible, though indirect proof of the point in queſtion. It is apparent that Jeſus Chriſt is intended, or included however in all theſe texts, is accordingly to be worſhipped, and conſequently is God.

After what has been ſaid, we ſhall not be at a loſs for the conſtruction to be put upon the inference with which the Apoſtle con⯑cludes this firſt diſcourſe which we have been remarking on. Therefore let all the houſe of Iſrael know aſſuredly, that God hath made that ſame Jeſus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Chriſt. Juſt noting that in the phraſe—that ſame Jeſus—abundance of reproach is conveyed, I obſerve, that theſe words ſuffi⯑ciently expreſs the two natures united in our bleſſed Saviour, the Chriſt in his human cha⯑racter, the Lord in his divine. But yet far⯑ther, the Apoſtle encourages his auditors, (who, it ſeems, were pricked in the heart by what he had preached to them,) to repent and be baptized in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, with the comfortable aſſurance that the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt was unto them, and to their [79] Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD OUR GOD ſhould call. Agreably to which declaration we are told, that the Lord added to the Church daily ſuch as ſhould be ſaved; and are afterwards in⯑formed, that believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. Now that, according to the moſt natural and obvious interpretation, we are by the Lord to under⯑ſtand Jeſus Chriſt in the two laſt quoted places, I preſume will be admitted by every candid enquirer; and if ſo, it is he who is de⯑ſcribed under the character of the Lord our God in the text immediately before cited. When therefore we are told at the 42d verſe of this Chapter, that the newly-baptized converts continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles doc⯑trine; and afterwards, that the Apoſtles taught and preached Jeſus Chriſt, and ſpake to the people the words of this life, &c. we may juſtly conclude that doctrine to have been the doc⯑trine of redemption, as it has ſince been re⯑ceived in the Chriſtian Church.

When St. Peter and his colleagues were brought before the High-Prieſt and Rulers, [80] &c, in order to be examined concerning the cure of the impotent man at the beautiful gate of the Temple, we find them again inſiſting on the reſurrection of their Maſter, as the fundamental article which was demonſtrative of the truth of his miſſion and doctrine, and by conſequence of the Divinity of his Perſon. This deceiver (as they had blaſphemouſly re⯑puted him) had ſaid, while he was yet alive, that after three days he would riſe again; he had affirmed to them, that as the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even ſo the Son quickeneth whom he will; he had declared to them his exiſtence before Abra⯑ham in the moſt explicit terms, Before Abra⯑ham was, I am; he had ſaid, that God was his Father, in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, making him⯑ſelf equal with God, &c, &c. Suppoſing then the Lord to have riſen indeed, the truth of theſe ſeveral aſſertions muſt neceſſarily fol⯑low. And, in fact, that he was riſen, theſe betrayers and murderers of the juſt one, had they not been ſtiffnecked and uncircumciſed in heart and ears, could not but have been con⯑vinced by beholding the lame man who was [81] healed ſtanding before them; and afterwards by the many ſigns and wonders which were wrought among the people by the hands of the Apoſtles, who moſt undoubtedly muſt have been endowed with ſuch power from on high; or, in other words, by their now glorified Maſter.

I have already in effect conſidered the ſin of Ananias and Sapphira, who agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, as a ſin againſt the Third Perſon in the Holy Trinity; and, I think, we may defy infidelity to put a fairer interpretation upon this portion of the Apoſ⯑tolical hiſtory.

I ſhall not dwell on the two invocations of the proto-martyr at the hour of death; Lord Jeſus receive my Spirit; Lord, lay not this ſin to their charge; both which abun⯑dantly imply his faith in Jeſus Chriſt as God; but paſs on to the account of the converſion of the Ethiopian Eunuch by Philip the Deacon. ^*The Angel of the Lord ſpake unto Philip, [82] ſaying, ariſe, and go toward the South, and he aroſe, and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia, an Eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, &c. who had come to Jeruſalem for to worſhip, was returning, and, ſitting in his▪ chariot, read Eſaias the pro⯑phet. Then the Spirit ſaid to Philip, go near, &c. And Philip ran to him, and heard him read, &c, and ſaid, underſtandeſt thou what thou readeſt? And he ſaid, how can I, except ſome man ſhould guide me? And he deſired Phi⯑lip that he would come up, and ſit with him. The place, &c. which he read was this, He was led as a ſheep to the ſlaughter, &c. And the Eunuch ſaid, I pray thee, of whom ſpeaketh the prophet this? Then Philip began at the ſame Scripture, and preached unto him Jeſus. And as they went on their way they came to a certain water; and the Eunuch ſaid, ſee, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip ſaid, if thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou mayeſt. And he anſwered and ſaid, I be⯑lieve that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. And he baptized him. The hiſtory is as ſuccinct as poſſible: but why is it not as reaſonable [83] to ſuppoſe, that, when Philip preached unto the Eunuch Jeſus, he laid the whole myſtery of Chriſtianity before him, the grand ſcheme of human Salvation; and conſequently that he believed Jeſus Chriſt to be the eternal Son of God, as that, when he baptized him, he did ſo in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt? There was no manner of occaſion to be more circumſtan⯑tial, ſuppoſing the primitive readers of this hiſtory to have believed in our ſenſe of the term.

The next particular that meets us is the converſion of St. Paul. It will be proper to lay it before you. ^*Saul yet breathing out threatnings and ſlaughter againſt the Diſciples of the Lord, went unto the high-prieſt, and deſired of him letters to Damaſcus to the Syna⯑gogues, that if he found any of this way, he might bring them bound unto Jeruſalem. And as he journeyed, ſuddenly there ſhined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice ſaying unto him, [84] Saul, Saul, why perſecuteſt thou me? And he ſaid, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord ſaid, I am Jeſus whom thou perſecuteſt: it is hard for thee to kick againſt the pricks. And he trembling, and aſtoniſhed, ſaid, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord ſaid, Ariſe, and go into the city, and it ſhall be told thee; and Saul aroſe, and when his eyes were opened, he ſaw no man; but they led him, and brought him into Damaſcus. And there was a certain diſciple at Damaſcus, named Ananias; and to him ſaid the Lord in a viſion, Ananias. And he ſaid, behold I am here, Lord. And the Lord ſaid, Ariſe, and go into the ſtreet which is called ſtrait, and enquire in the houſe of Judas for one called Saul of Tarſus; for behold he prayeth; and hath ſeen in a viſion a man named Ananias, coming in, and putting his hands on him, that he might receive his ſight. Then Ana⯑nias anſwered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy ſaints at Jeruſalem: and here he hath autho⯑rity from the chief prieſts, to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord ſaid unto him, go thy way; for he is a choſen veſſel unto me. And [85] Ananias went his way, and entered into the houſe; and putting his hands on him, ſaid, Bro⯑ther Saul, the Lord (even Jeſus that appeared unto thee) hath ſent me, that thou mighteſt re⯑ceive thy ſight, and be filled with the Holy Ghoſt. And he received ſight forthwith, and aroſe, and was baptized. Then was Saul certain days with the diſciples which were at Damaſcus; and he preached Chriſt in the ſynagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and ſaid, is not this he that deſtroyed them which called on this name? But Saul in⯑creaſed the more in ſtrength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damaſcus, proving that this is very Chriſt. Upon this compendious narrative I remark, firſt, that throughout the whole we muſt underſtand by—the Lord—Jeſus Chriſt: ſecondly, that whether Saul re⯑ceived the Holy Ghoſt by virtue of the impo⯑ſition of the hands of Ananias, and previouſly to his baptiſm, or after it; in either caſe, the whole myſtery of the Goſpel muſt have been communicated to him by immediate ir⯑radiation: and, thirdly, that therefore when he preached Chriſt in the Synagogues that he is [86] the Son of God, he aſſerted him ſo to be by eternal generation. Occaſionally indeed, when he confounded the Jews, by proving that this is very Chriſt, his argument no doubt turned upon what he alledged to ſhew that Jeſus Chriſt was the true Meſſiah, the prophet that ſhould come into the world, and the king of Iſrael in a ſpiritual ſenſe, whom they had, and did expect under the idea of a temporal Saviour. It ſeems after this Saul ſpake boldly in the name of the Lord Jeſus at Jeruſalem; and we are told, that upon his being ſent forth to Tarſus, that he might be out of the reach of the Gre⯑cians, who went about to ſlay him, the Chur⯑ches had reſt throughout all Judea, &c, and were edified, and walking in the FEAR OF THE LORD, and in the COMFORT OF THE HOLY GHOST, were multiplied. I recommend the two laſt particulars of this paſſage to the at⯑tention of every candid and intelligent hearer. I add too, in corroboration of what has been offered under this portion of the hiſtory, that as Jeſus Chriſt here tells Ananias, that Saul was a choſen veſſel unto HIM, ſo Ananias tells Paul, (according to the latter's account of [87] this tranſaction in another place,) that the GOD OF THEIR FATHERS had choſen him. ^*

The converſion of Cornelius and his family preſents itſelf next to our conſideration; and the ſhort, but important narrative of it is pregnant with matter to our purpoſe. This proſelyte of the gates (for ſuch doubtleſs he was) ſaw evidently an Angel of GOD coming unto him, &c. To the voice which called to Peter to riſe, kill, and eat, he anſwered, not ſo, LORD; for I have never eaten any thing that is common, &c. While Peter thought on the viſion, the SPIRIT ſaid unto him, Behold, three men ſeek thee; ariſe therefore, and go with them, nothing doubting, for I have ſent them. GOD hath ſhewed me, ſays he afterwards to Cornelius and his friends, that I ſhould not call any man common, &c. Now if we only ſup⯑poſe, as, I think, we can do no leſs than ſup⯑poſe, that St. Peter addreſſes Jeſus Chriſt in the words—not ſo, Lord, we have plainly a diſtinction of three Perſons in the ſacred ſtory. The ſame will be obſervable likewiſe in the [88] harangue of the Apoſtle upon this extraordi⯑nary occaſion. Of a truth I perceive that GOD is no reſpecter of perſons; but in every nation he that feareth him, &c. is accepted with him. The word which GOD ſent unto the child⯑ren of Iſrael, preaching peace by Jeſus Chriſt, (HE IS LORD OF ALL,) that word, I ſay, you know, which was publiſhed throughout all Ju⯑dea; how God anointed Jeſus of Nazareth with the HOLY GHOST, and with power, &c. However, if it be objected, that it is by no means credible this devout proſelyte and his family ſhould be converted to the Chriſtian Faith, in the trinitarian ſenſe, by any thing aſſerted, or intimated in St. Peter's diſcourſe to them, we will admit the objection, and leave our adverſaries in poſſeſſion of all the advantage they can make of it. We may venture to do ſo without the leaſt heſitation: for I deſire it may be remembered in what manner, and by whom the Apoſtle was in⯑terrupted in his ſermon, if it may be called one. While Peter yet ſpake theſe words, ſays the ſacred writer, the Holy Ghoſt fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the [89] circumciſion were aſtoniſhed, for they heard them ſpeak with tongues, and magnify God. By this miraculous event therefore all farther endea⯑vours of the Apoſtle for the inſtruction of theſe people were happily ſuperſeded: they were, as St. Paul was, inſtantaneouſly as it were, guided into all truth; and became be⯑lievers in the ſame ſenſe in which he was one. Agreeably hereunto, when St. Peter re⯑hearſed this matter, and expounded it by order to thoſe of the circumciſion who contended with him, he tells them in the courſe of his nar⯑ration, that as he BEGAN to ſpeak, the Holy Ghoſt fell on them that heard him. After this, would it not be idle to inſiſt upon the inade⯑quateneſs of St. Peter's addreſs to the purpoſe of converſion in its utmoſt extent?

We read in the ſequel of this, and in the following chapters, that the word was preached, that the hand of the Lord was with theſe preachers; that a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord; and that the word of God grew and multiplied. If theſe expreſ⯑ſions are compared with others ſimilar to [90] them in this hiſtory, and with ſeveral al⯑ready cited, they will be found, I preſume, abundantly to coincide with our hypotheſis, or, more properly, to confirm it.

But the time admoniſhes me to beſpeak your attention to the continuation of my ar⯑gument at the next opportunity.

DISCOURSE IV.

IN proſecution of the ſubject which en⯑gaged us laſt Sunday, I proceed to the account of St. Peter's impriſonment, and what followed upon it, which the ſacred Hiſtorian gives us in the 12th chapter of the Acts of the Apoſtles.

When Peter was put in priſon by Herod, it ſeems, prayer was made without ceaſing of the church unto God for him ^*; and on the night before his intended execution, the Lord, we find, ſent his angel, and delivered him out [92] of the hand of Herod, &c. Now that Jeſus Chriſt was the Lord that ſent his angel, ap⯑pears evident enough from theſe conſidera⯑tions. Jeſus Chriſt is manifeſtly deſigned by this title, for the moſt part at leaſt, through this whole hiſtory. The Lord who delivered Peter by his angel was certainly the ſame Lord who afterwards ſpake to Paul in the night by a viſion; and who, upon another occaſion, ſtood by the ſame Apoſtle, and encouraged him, &c. Now we ſhould be glad to know, why theſe particulars are not to be regarded as equivalent to the appearances, and viſions, and deliverances ^*, which are ſo frequent in the Old Teſtament; and, in that caſe, I need not point out the conſequences they lead to.

In the following chapter, we ſee Barnabas and Saul ſent forth by an immediate com⯑miſſion from the Holy Ghoſt. The Holy Ghoſt ſaid, ſeparate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them ^§. So they being ſent forth by the Holy Ghoſt, departed [93] unto Seleucia, &c. The paſſage has been in⯑troduced before, and I leave it to the conſi⯑deration of every attentive and impartial hearer.

The next occurrence is the converſion of the Deputy S. Paulus, who, we are informed, was a prudent man, and called for Barnabas and Saul, and deſired to hear the word of God. And we may reaſonably ſuppoſe that our Apoſtles preached it to him at large, and laid before him the great myſteries of the Goſpel; and that he believed in the moſt ex⯑tenſive ſenſe, and was confirmed in his faith by the judgment which he ſaw miraculouſly inflicted by the hand of the Lord upon Ely⯑mas the ſorcerer; being, as the ſacred text expreſſes it, aſtoniſhed at the doctrine of the Lord: the doctrine juſt above ſtyled the word of God.

After this we find St. Paul preaching in the ſynagogue of the Jews at Antioch in Pi⯑ſidia ^*Now theſe Jews, though they were [94] not immediately concerned with them that dwelt at Jeruſalem in the proceedings againſt our bleſſed Lord, were yet in all probability conſenting unto his death; as they could not all this while be unacquainted with his ſtory, or ſtrangers to his pretenſions. The Apoſtle therefore adopts the ſame mode of argumentation which St. Peter had uſed be⯑fore, in his ſpeech to the council, and lays the main ſtreſs on the fundamental article of the reſurrection of our Lord from the dead. From the admiſſion of this, the truth of the other great points of Chriſtianity muſt ne⯑ceſſarily follow. And it ſhould ſeem that this diſcourſe of our Apoſtle had a conſide⯑rable effect upon ſome of his audience; and indeed that others conceived the full force and import of the moſt ſtriking particulars in it: for we read, that when the congrega⯑tion was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proſelytes followed Paul and Barna⯑bas; who ſpeaking to them, perſuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And, by the way, this circumſtance may well be thought to imply, that the Spirit of grace had previ⯑ouſly [95] operated in their hearts to their entire converſion. But the next ſabbath day, we are farther told, almoſt the whole city came together to hear the word of God; and the reſult was, that the Jews, filled with envy, ſpake againſt thoſe things which were ſpoken by Paul, contradicting and blaſpheming. I would juſt aſk then, whether this BLASPHEMY does not help us to a very ſtrong preſumptive proof of the ſenſe in which theſe Jews un⯑derſtood the things which were ſpoken by the Apoſtle?

Let us now attend Paul and Barnabas to Iconium; and ſee whether we may not rea⯑dily infer the nature of their doctrine from the ſucceſs of it there. In this place, we are informed, they abode long time, ſpeaking boldly in the LORD, which gave teſtimony to the word of his grace, and granted ſigns and won⯑ders to be done by their hands ^*. I would de⯑ſire you to compare the laſt clauſe of this paſſage with the concluſion of St. Mark's [96] Goſpel; ſo then after the LORD had ſpoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, &c. and they went forth and preached; the LORD working with them, and confirming the word with ſigns following; and with the twelfth verſe of the next chapter; all the multitude kept ſilence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders GOD had wrought amongſt the Gentiles by them; and with the following paſſage in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews; how ſhall we eſcape if we neglect ſo great ſalvation; which at the firſt began to be ſpoken by the LORD, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; GOD alſo bearing them witneſs, both with ſigns and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the HOLY GHOST, according to his own will ^§; I ſay, I could wiſh you to com⯑pare theſe ſeveral places; and, I believe I might venture to abide by the concluſions you will draw from them.

We find our Apoſtles next at Lyſtra, where Paul cured the man that was impotent in his [97] feet, &c: ^*on the ſight of which miracle, the people lift up their voices, ſaying, the gods are come down to us in the likeneſs of men. Poſſeſſed with this notion, the prieſts of Jupiter brought oxen, and would have done ſacrifice, &c. This no ſooner came to the ears of Barnabas and Paul than they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, ſirs, why do ye theſe things? We alſo are men of like paſſions with you, and preach unto you, that ye ſhould turn from theſe vanities unto the living God, which made heaven and earth, &c. &c. Now this was preciſely the expoſtulation which the occaſion demanded. The exiſtence of the one living and true God was to be aſ⯑ſerted to theſe idolatrous believers in a plu⯑rality of deities. At that time to have op⯑poſed to their perſuaſions doctrines peculiarly Chriſtian, would have been altogether pre⯑mature and unſeaſonable. It appears however that our Apoſtles had, before and after this, preached theſe doctrines at Lyſtra, and in the neighbourhood, with ſucceſs; though moſt probably, for obvious reaſons, not in the [98] hearing of thoſe that would have done ſacrifice. For we read at the ſixth verſe of this chapter, that, being ware of the deſign of the Jews and Gentiles at Iconium to uſe them deſpitefully, &c. they fled unto Lyſtra and Derbe, &c. and there they preached the Goſpel. And after the affair of the ſacrifice, we are told, that there came to Lyſtra certain Jews from Antioch, who perſuaded the people, and having ſtoned Paul, drew him out of the city, that nevertheleſs he revived, and ſoon after preached the Goſpel at Derbe, and taught many, and returned again to Lyſtra, &c, confirming the ſouls of the Diſ⯑ciples, and exhorting them to continue in the ſaith. ^*

We meet with nothing now that hath particular connexion with our argument, be⯑fore the converſions related in the ſixteenth chapter. Let us proceed then to theſe. At Troas, ſays the hiſtory, a viſion appeared to Paul in the night; from which he and Silas aſſuredly gathered that the Lord had called them to preach the Goſpel in Macedonia. Obſerve [99] then the account of the converſion of Lydia at Philippi. A certain woman named Lydia, which worſhipped God, heard us: whoſe heart the Lord opened, that ſhe attended unto the things which were ſpoken of Paul. And when ſhe was baptized, ſhe beſought us, ſaying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my houſe, &c. Now I would aſk, whe⯑ther we may not reaſonably ſuppoſe the Lord opened this woman's heart for the reception of all evangelical truths, almoſt in an in⯑ſtant? Whether her caſe is not at leaſt ſimi⯑lar to that of Cornelius? And whether we are not as much authoriſed to take it for granted, that the things which were ſpoken of Paul were the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, agreeably to our ſyſtem, as that this convert was baptized according to the form in St. Matthew's Goſpel? I would juſt re⯑mark here, that this ſyſtem is in no wiſe pre⯑judiced, either by the declaration of the damſel poſſeſſed with a ſpirit of diviniation, who followed Paul and his companions, and cried, ſaying, theſe men are the ſervants of the moſt high God, which ſhew unto us the way of Sal⯑vation; [100] or by the Apoſtle's exorciſm of that ſpirit in the following words, I command thee in the name of Jeſus Chriſt to come out of her.

But let us turn to the converſion of the jailor, to whoſe cuſtody Paul and Silas were committed at Philippi. Sirs, what muſt I do to be ſaved? ^*is the queſtion which the former, in a fit of aſtoniſhment and terror, put to the latter. And they ſaid, believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, and thy houſe. And they ſpake unto him the word of the Lord, &c. And he was baptized, he and all his. And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his houſe. To believe in God, and to believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, appear here to be convertible expreſſions. In ſhort, I af⯑firm that in this, as well as in preceding in⯑ſtances, we have good reaſon to ſuppoſe the perſons preached to were made ac⯑quainted by the Apoſtle and his companion with the capital truths of Chriſtianity, as they are taught in the Church.

[101] Not long after this, our Apoſtle and his fellow-travellers came to Theſſalonica, where was a ſynagogue of the Jews. ^* And Paul (as the narrative proceeds) went in unto them, and three ſabbath days reaſoned with them out of the ſcriptures; opening and alledging, that Chriſt muſt needs have ſuffered, and riſen again, and that this Jeſus whom I preach unto you is Chriſt. And ſome of them believed. It will be ſufficient to obſerve here, that our Apoſ⯑tle dealt no doubt with theſe Jews and Jewiſh proſelytes, as he had before done with others on like occaſions. But the groſs miſrepreſentation, and ſcandalous calumny of the unbelieving Jews, in the city juſt men⯑tioned, is extremely worth notice. They drew Jaſon, as we are informed, and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, theſe men that have turned the world upſide down, are come hither alſo; ^† and theſe all do contrary to the decrees of Caeſar, ſaying, that there is another king, one Jeſus. Now it is perfectly reaſonable to ſuppoſe, that Jaſon and theſe brethren proclaimed their crucified [102] maſter king in a ſpiritual ſenſe; nay, that they proclaimed him the ſovereign of the univerſe, king of kings, and lord of lords; but it is clear, beyond a poſſibility of doubt, that they aſſerted no temporal juriſdiction of Jeſus Chriſt, or ſaid or did any thing con⯑trary to the decrees, or againſt the government of Caeſar.

We have next an account of Paul and Si⯑las's preaching the Goſpel at Berea ^*; but there is nothing in it which diſcriminates it from parallel ones already ſpoken to, except the candid reception the Goſpel met with at that place.

We will therefore follow our Apoſtle to Athens, where we find him diſputing in the ſynagogue with the Jews, and others that met with him. Among theſe were certain philoſo⯑phers of the Epicureans and the Stoics, who encountered him; ſome calling him a babler; others, a ſetter forth of ſtrange gods, becauſe he preached unto them Jeſus and the reſurrec⯑tion [103] ^§. I mean not to inſinuate from this paſſage, that the Apoſtle is maintaining the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt; as it is evident from the tenor of his enſuing diſcourſe to thoſe heathen philoſophers, which is ſet down at large, that he has here only an eye to the prophetic character, or office of our bleſſed Lord. If you will turn to the diſ⯑courſe, you will find the great points in⯑ſiſted on, to be the unity and the ſpirituality of the Godhead, together with the doctrine of a future ſtate, and the reſurrection of all men from the dead, in conſequence of his, whom God had ordained to be the judge of the world. This was a proper beginning with heathens. But what effect had this diſcourſe upon theſe idolatrous philoſophers? When they heard of the reſurrection, continues the ſacred ſtory, ſome mocked, and others ſaid, we will hear thee again; howbeit certain men clave unto, him, and believed, &c. Our Apoſtle appears then to have made converts at Athens, though we do not read that they were baptized, or indeed believed in the fun⯑damental [104] articles of Chriſtianity, according to our hypotheſis. Without doubt, theſe articles, the great myſteries of faith, were gradually opened to them afterwards, and previouſly to their admiſſion into the church by baptiſm. For we ſhall ſee preſently that theſe converts are not the only inſtances of perſons who were diſciples, or believers in a certain ſenſe, though they were uninſtructed in the firſt principles of Chriſtianity; and this too even ſince the propagation of it by the Apoſtles.

After theſe things, we are told, Paul and Silas—came to Corinth ^§; and Paul reaſoned in the ſynagogue,—and perſuaded the Jews and Greeks;—and was preſſed in ſpirit, and teſtified to the Jews that Jeſus was Chriſt; and when they oppoſed themſelves, and blaſ⯑phemed, he ſhook his raiment, and ſaid unto them, your blood be upon your own heads, &c. You will be pleaſed to compare this relation with that of the perverſe and unbelieving [105] Jews at Antioch in Piſidia, already taken no⯑tice of.

We have next an account of the conver⯑ſion of Juſtus, (though it is not particularly ſet down,) and of Criſpus, and of many of the Corinthians; which contains nothing mate⯑rial to our argument.

But after this we read-of an inſurrection made by the Jews againſt Paul, and of a charge brought againſt him before Gallio; which has a particular worth our notice. This fellow, ſay they, perſuadeth men to wor⯑ſhip God contrary to the law ^*. Now when we recollect, that our bleſſed Saviour was circumciſed, and ‘obedient to the law for man;’ that himſelf and his Apoſtles con⯑formed to the religion of their country in all points, and attended divine ſervice in the temple, and in the ſynagogues; that our Apoſtle circumciſed Timothy in pure conde⯑ſcenſion to the Jews; that, in vindication of his innocence, he declared to Feſtus, as [106] he had done before in ſubſtance to Felix, that neither againſt the law of the Jews, nei⯑ther againſt the temple he had offended any thing at all; that the Moſaic oeconomy to⯑tally ceaſed not before the final deſtruction of Jeruſalem, when all diſputes concerning circumciſion, and the legal rites and obſer⯑vances were happily terminated; when we recollect all this, to which more might be ſubjoined, it will, I conceive, be impoſſible to make tolerable ſenſe of the accuſation juſt mentioned, without ſuppoſing ſomething to have been ſuperadded to the Jewiſh worſhip by the Apoſtles, and firſt Chriſtians, which gave this great offence; and what ſhould this be but the worſhip of Chriſtians, as ſuch; or, in other words, the adoration of Chriſt, as God?

We will now proceed to the account which the ſacred hiſtorian gives us of Apollos in the ſame chapter. ^* A certain Jew named Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Epheſus. This man was [107] inſtructed in the way of the Lord; and, being fervent in the Spirit, he ſpake and taught dili⯑gently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptiſm of John. And he began to ſpeak boldly in the ſynagogue. Whom when Aquila and Priſ⯑cilla had heard, they expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was diſpoſed to paſs into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the diſciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace; for he mightily con⯑vinced the Jews, and that publickly, ſhewing by the Scriptures that Jeſus was Chriſt. This portion of Scripture, though a little abſtruſe, is replete with matter for our obſervation. Apollos is here ſaid to have been mighty in the Scriptures; to have been inſtructed in THE WAY OF THE LORD; and to have ſpoken, and taught diligently the THINGS OF THE LORD; i. e. beyond all controverſy, the things of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Nevertheleſs he is only called a Jew; and why, but be⯑cauſe he was not baptized in the name of Jeſus Chriſt? He was not a Chriſtian in the full ſenſe of the term, as we underſtand it; [108] he knew only the baptiſm of John; he knew, as we cannot but ſuppoſe from this account of him, he knew Jeſus Chriſt to be the pro⯑phet, the Meſſiah that was to come, whoſe way John had prepared by preaching the baptiſm of repentance, but he knew not the whole myſtery of godlineſs, the grand ſecret of human redemption by the Son of God, coexiſtent with his Father, before the foundation of the world. And accordingly, we may ſafely con⯑clude, that it was with reſpect to this great myſtery, that Aquila and Priſcilla expounded to him the WAY OF GOD more perfectly. If we do not infer from hence, that he expreſsly and directly preached the great myſtery in queſtion to thoſe Jews whom he mightily con⯑vinced, &c. every difficulty under this head is fairly ſolved by preceding conſiderations.

The caſe of the diſciples whom St. Paul found at Epheſus is very ſimilar to that we have juſt diſpatched. Have ye received the Holy Ghoſt, ſays he, ſince ye believed? And they ſaid unto him, we have not ſo much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoſt. ^† And [109] he ſaid, unto them what then were ye baptized? And they ſaid, unto John's baptiſm. Then ſaid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptiſm of repentance, ſaying unto the people, that they ſhould believe on him which ſhould come after him, that is, on Chriſt Jeſus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghoſt came on them; and they ſpake with tongues, and propheſied. The paſ⯑ſage is not wholly free from obſcurity; but we cannot do leſs than collect from it, that theſe diſciples knew as much of Chriſt Jeſus antecedently to this interview as Apollos did before his acquaintance with Aquila and Priſ⯑cilla; and conſequently, that when they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus, they were baptized in the name of a greater per⯑ſon than a prophet; and when the Holy Ghoſt came on them, and they ſpake with tongues and propheſied, had, like Cornelius and his houſhold, an immediate inſight into the profound myſ⯑tery of the Chriſtian faith. I juſt add that, in the chapter before us, the name of the Lord Jeſus is ſaid to have been magnified; [110] and that the WORD OF THE LORD JESUS, and the WORD OF GOD are different modes of expreſſion which at firſt ſight will be found to import one and the ſame thing.

But to proceed. I ſee nothing of conſe⯑quence enough to our argument to detain us, till we find St. Paul at Miletus, from whence he ſent to Epheſus, and called the elders of the Church. And when they were come to him, ſays the hiſtory, he ſaid unto them, ye know from the firſt day that I came into Aſia, after what manner I have been with you; ſerving the LORD with all humility; and how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you; teſtifying both to Jews and Greeks, repentance towards GOD, and faith toward our LORD Jeſus Chriſt. And now behold, I go bound in the ſpirit unto Jeruſalem, not knowing the things that ſhall befall me; ſave that the HOLY GHOST witneſſeth in every city, ſaying, that afflictions abide me. But none of theſe things move me, ſo that I might finiſh my courſe, and the miniſtry which I have received of the LORD ⁹⁵ [111] Jeſus, to teſtify the Goſpel of the grace of GOD. And now I know, that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of GOD, ſhall ſee my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record, that I am pure from the blood of all men; for I have not ſhunned to declare unto you ALL THE COUNSEL OF GOD. Take heed therefore unto yourſelves, and to all the flock, over which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overſeers, to feed the Church of GOD, which he hath purchaſed with his OWN BLOOD. For I know this, that after my departing ſhall grievous wolves enter in among you, not ſparing the flock: alſo of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things, to draw away diſciples after them. Now if we ſuppoſe this Apoſto⯑lical charge to have been delivered to perſons pre-inſtructed in the myſtery of the Goſpel, agreeably to our repreſentation of it, i. e. to have been believers in the Holy Trinity, it muſt be acknowleged to contain words of perſpicuity, truth, and ſoberneſs; but on every other ſuppoſition, muſt not St. Paul have been thought by his audience to have been indeed beſide himſelf? I would recommend [112] the whole of this paſſage to every judicious and impartial reader's thorough conſideration.

We will now attend this great Apoſtle to Jeruſalem; where we find him violently at⯑tacked by the Jews which were of Aſia, who ſtirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, men of Iſrael help, this is the man that teacheth all men every where againſt the people and the law, &c. The accuſation brought here againſt our Apoſtle is plainly in ſubſtance the ſame with that alledged by the Jews of Achaia, who accuſed him of perſuading men to worſhip God contrary to the law. I ſhall therefore refer you to what was ſaid on that occaſion. Only I will add here, that the obſervation then made is much con⯑firmed by the circumſtance of St. Paul's pu⯑rifying himſelf at Jeruſalem with the four men who had a vow on them, agreeably to the ad⯑vice before given by the judaizing Chriſtians, and in exact conformity to the Moſaic con⯑ſtitution. But if we turn to what the Apoſtle has to ſay in his own defence, we ſhall find ⁹⁶ [113] his apology to contain an account of his con⯑verſion, and of his Apoſtolical commiſſion in conſequence of it; which ſtrengthens much what has been remarked relative to the charge brought againſt him. It is obſervable, that St. Paul calls himſelf here a Jew in the very ſame breath almoſt in which he avows him⯑ſelf a Chriſtian. He admits his hearers to be zealous towards God, according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, ^†though he plainly intimates all the while that they were erroneouſly or blindly zealous, or, as he elſe⯑where expreſſes it, that their zeal of God was not according to knowlege. He does not undervalue or vilify the law, and much leſs pronounce it to be void, and of none effect, though he profeſſes himſelf a preacher of the Goſpel. Neither the Jews of Jeruſalem, nor thoſe of Aſia, could poſſibly be ſtrangers to the NEW DOCTRINE which he taught under that character: ſo that we are not at a loſs to know the nature and import of the teſtimony which he bore concerning his Divine Maſter. Beſide, we are to remember, that he was in⯑terrupted [114] in the courſe of his harangue, and precluded from enlarging his ſpeech, or ex⯑patiating on his doctrine, (which otherwiſe perhaps he might have done,) by the cla⯑mours and outrage of a giddy and incenſed multitude.

We ſee him next before the chief prieſts and council; in which ſituation he politicly takes advantage of the difference of ſentiment between them that compoſed it: the one part being Sadducees, and the other Phariſees. The Apoſtle openly declares himſelf a Phariſee; in which plea his immediate view was mani⯑feſtly to his own preſervation; though ulti⯑mately he had doubtleſs an eye to the con⯑verſion of the moſt conſiderable and reſpec⯑table part of his audience, by tacitly at leaſt referring to the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, and the important conſequences neceſſarily reſulting from it.

In much the ſame light we may regard his apology for himſelf before Felix in the ⁹⁸ [115] following Chapter. Under one article of his accuſation he is charged with being a ring⯑leader of the ſect of the Nazarenes; ^†or, as the Aſiatic Jews had expreſſed themſelves, with teaching men every where againſt the law; or, in the words of the Jews of Achaia, with perſuading men to worſhip God contrary to the law; and under another article he is traduced as a mover of Sedition, and a diſturber of the public peace. Now there is ſomething ob⯑ſervably dexterous in our Apoſtle's reply to all this; in which he partly denies the charge, profeſſes his innocence, and defies them to prove the things whereof they accuſe him; and partly aſſerts the cauſe he had eſpouſed, and in general terms acknowleges his Chriſtian principles. In this, as in the preceding caſe, there is fine addreſs in the Apoſtle's endeavour to intereſt his auditors on the ſide of Chriſtianity, by repreſenting its profeſſors as holding one common tenet with the ſtraiteſt and moſt popular ſect of the Jewiſh religion; while at the ſame time he was indirectly preaching through Jeſus the [116] reſurrection from the dead, and by neceſſary implication maintaining the great myſtery of the Chriſtian Faith. Felix, we find, was far from being unacquainted with at leaſt ſome of the doctrines of Chriſtianity, and reſerved the matter for a farther hearing; but in the interim he, with his wife Druſilla, which was a Jeweſs, ſent for Paul privately, and heard him concerning the faith in Chriſt. ^†It does not appear that our Apoſtle on this occaſion diſ⯑courſed on any one article of faith, ſtrictly and peculiarly Chriſtian. He reaſoned of righ⯑teouſneſs, temperance, and judgment to come, till this iniquitous governor trembled; and pro⯑bably had proceeded to the full diſplay of all evangelical truth, had he not been ab⯑ruptly diſmiſſed. However, if there be any difficulty here, it is ſuch as affects not our argument in particular; becauſe the very ſame difficulty will ſubſiſt, whether we ſuppoſe that Jeſus whom Paul preached to be "very God of very God," or to be the Son of God in a ſecondary ſenſe only, or indeed barely the prophet that was to come into the world.

[117] Many of the foregoing remarks may be applied to the defence made afterwards by our Apoſtle before king Agrippa and Feſtus ^†. I think it unneceſſary therefore to cite it. It will ſuffice to obſerve, or rather to repeat, that, aſſerting the doctrine of the reſurrection in general, and particularly that of Jeſus Chriſt, St. Paul at one and the ſame time in⯑ſinuates himſelf into the good graces of ſuch as were phariſaically diſpoſed; and points to a fact, the admiſſion of which, upon full and diſpaſſionate enquiry, muſt lead all that heard him, all the Jews at leaſt into a train of con⯑cluſions, neceſſarily comprehending the great truths of the Goſpel. And that this was a much more judicious mode of conviction than the direct or poſitive aſſertion of all, or any of thoſe truths could have been, I pre⯑ſume, I need not ſtay to prove.

When St. Paul ſome time after this ex⯑pounded and teſtified the kingdom of God to the Jews at Rome, perſuading them concerning Je⯑ſus both out of the law of Moſes, and out of the [118] prophets, ^†we cannot ſay with any preciſion how much of the whole ſcheme of Chriſtia⯑nity he laid before them. Moſt probably his uſual diſcretion directed him to deal tenderly with them at firſt; though when he declared to the unbelieving part of them that the ſalvation of God was ſent unto the Gentiles, the expreſſion has evident reference to that ſcheme; as, ſuitably hereto, the hiſtory of the Apoſtolical Acts concludes with an ac⯑count of his receiving all that came in unto him for two whole years, and preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching thoſe things which concern the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

This minute and circumſtantial ſurvey of the hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles, ſo far as it is connected with our preſent ſubject, will, I apprehend, throw much light upon the ſame. And it will receive additional luſtre from the following conſideration: that, as in the Holy Scriptures, ſo in the writings of the Apoſtolical Fathers, the leading truths of Chriſtianity are incidentally mentioned, or [119] alluded to, and not ſyſtematically, but uni⯑formly taught. The doctrine of theſe Fa⯑thers is delivered in the ſpirit of ſimplicity; it appears plainly to have been the ſtanding doctrine of the Church; nor is there a ſingle circumſtance that will incline us to ſuſpect them of a deſign to obtrude their own pri⯑vate opinions, or conceits, upon the Chriſtian world. This to me ſeems demonſtrable from a very obſervable particular; which is, that in their writings they do not cite all, or the principal texts which are adduced in main⯑tenance of the doctrine of the Trinity, but aſſert the ſame in other terms, and in lan⯑guage fully equivalent. They evidently con⯑ſidered it, not as requiring proof, but de⯑ſerving illuſtration. Ignatius, in the intro⯑duction to his Epiſtle to the Epheſians, ſalutes them ‘according to the will of the Father, and Jeſus Chriſt our GOD.’ The ſame Fa⯑ther wiſhes the Romans to ‘permit him to imitate the paſſion of his GOD;’ or, of Chriſt his GOD, as it ſtands in the Original. In the above-mentioned Epiſtle to the Ephe⯑ſians, he takes occaſion thus to expreſs him⯑ſelf. [120] ‘There is one phyſician, both fleſhly and ſpiritual; made and not made; GOD INCARNATE; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; firſt paſſible, then im⯑paſſible; even Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.’ (n) In the concluſion of his Epiſtle to the Mag⯑neſians, he injoins them to ‘be ſubject to their biſhop, as Jeſus Chriſt to the Father, according to the fleſh, ^†and the Apoſtles both to Chriſt, and to the Father, and to the Holy Ghoſt.’ This inverſion is a very remarkable one. In his Epiſtle to Polycarp he exhorts him ‘to conſider the times, and expect him who is above all time, eternal, inviſible, &c.’ Were there occaſion, much more to the ſame purpoſe might be extracted from this venerable Father.

Polycarp in his Epiſtle to the Philipians, wiſhes them to be ‘ſubject to the Prieſts, &c. as unto God and Chriſt.’

In St. Clement's firſt epiſtle to the Corinth⯑ians theſe paſſages occur. ‘The ſceptre of [121] the majeſty of GOD, our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, came not in the ſhew of pride,’ &c. &c. The ſecond ſection of the ſame epiſtle pro⯑ceeds in the terms following. ‘Ye were all of you humble-minded, &c. deſiring rather to be ſubject than to govern, &c. being content with the portion GOD had diſpenſed to you, and hearkening dili⯑gently to HIS word, ye were enlarged in your bowels, having HIS SUFFERINGS always before your eyes.’ This paſſage is not unſimilar to part of St. Paul's diſcourſe at Miletus to the elders of the church of Epheſus, before ſubmitted to your conſidera⯑tion. Let us ſee now what this Father ſays in his other epiſtle to the Corinthians. The exordium of it is this—‘Brethren, we ought ſo to think of Jeſus Chriſt as of GOD &c.’ In the third paragraph he quotes theſe words of our bleſſed Saviour; Whoſoever ſhall con⯑feſs me before men, him will I confeſs before my Father. But, continues he, ‘Wherein muſt we confeſs him? Namely, in doing thoſe things which he ſaith, &c. by wor⯑ſhipping him, not with our lips only, but [122] with all our heart, &c. for HE ſaith in Iſaiah, This people honoureth me with their lips, but &c.’ In conformity with this good Father's idea, we may aſk, after the manner of St. Paul, is Jeſus Chriſt the God of the New Teſtament only? Is he not alſo of the Old? Yea, of the Old alſo. In the concluſion of the epiſtle, St. Clement exhorts the Corinth⯑ians to be vigilant, &c. ‘becauſe we know not the day of GOD's appearing;’ i. e. un⯑doubtedly, the day when we muſt appear be⯑fore the judgmentſeat of Chriſt.

It is true, as the learned tranſlator acknow⯑ledges, this ſecond Epiſtle, was neither held in ſo much reverence by the ancients, nor is ſo generally received among the moderns, as the firſt; and, it is certain, St. Jerome, Photius, and Archbiſhop Uſher after them, concur in endeavouring to repreſent it as a ſpurious production. But I am apt to think every reader will be ſatisfied with what the learned Prelate has advanced in its defence; though, were the point ſtill really contro⯑vertible, as the ground of the objections, [123] raiſed by theſe illuſtrious perſonages, does not lie in the doctrine ſo explicitly contained in it, and at the ſame time ſo conſonant to the ſentiments of the apoſtolical fathers, I ſee no manner of neceſſity for retracting theſe quotations. Whoever the author might be, we have his clear ſenſe of the matter.

The charge of credulity brought againſt many of the Fathers by a late celebrated Author, with vehemency of zeal, and in the dialect of virulence, even admitting it to be well founded, cannot juſtly be thought to affect in the leaſt the validity of theſe pri⯑mitive and plain teſtimonies to the great truths of the Goſpel, as they are moſt ſurely believed among us. There is not, I am confi⯑dent, one circumſtance to colour a charge of this nature againſt the Fathers from whom we have been drawing our evidence, except that of the Phoenix, by which, as we ſhall ſee, St. Clement illuſtrates the doctrine of the reſurrection. And ample ſatisfaction will be given on that head in its proper place. (o)

[124] To theſe teſtimonies we might ſubjoin thoſe of Juſtin Martyr, Athenagoras, Ire⯑naeus, and a number of others; the weight of whoſe collected evidence will be found in⯑finitely to preponderate all that has perverſely been alledged to its diſcredit from writers of a ſubſequent date, and minor authority. (p) This in due time will fully appear.

Now, if in all this doctrine we can ſee nothing like a formulary, or ſyſtem, we ſee however from whence confeſſions of faith may reaſonably be ſuppoſed to have origi⯑nated, and by what at this day they may be moſt juſtly defended. Suppoſing the firſt rule of faith to have been purely the bap⯑tiſmal form; or, agreeing with Dr. Sykes, that the ‘very ſhort Creed which at firſt was deemed ſufficient to entitle men to bap⯑tiſm, was no other than a faith in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jeſus Chriſt, his Son our Lord, and in the Holy Ghoſt;’ even admitting this, we cannot ſurely have recourſe to better or ſounder authority than that which has been [125] laid before you, in order to know exactly what this faith implies. It will be hard in⯑deed if the Apoſtles, and theſe Apoſtolical Fathers, ſhould be all along teaching he⯑reſy, while they perpetually and earneſtly, though not formally or methodically, com⯑plain of, and expatiate againſt it.

But I have yet farther to obſerve, that the ſenſe of antiquity, and the faith of the primitive Church, may be inferred from ſuch circumſtantial evidence as has never, that I know of, been profeſſedly produced, but yet, I truſt, will be allowed to come little if at all ſhort of demonſtration.

The infamous reproach which was caſt upon the whole Chriſtian name by its firſt enemies, is a circumſtance of a particular aſpect to our purpoſe. Chriſtianity was called emphatically THE ATHEISM. (q) Now I own I cannot help conſidering this equally horrid and ridiculous imputation as neceſſarily im⯑porting the primitive Chriſtians to have wor⯑ſhipped Jeſus Chriſt as ONE with the Father, [126] or as "very God of very God" from all eter⯑nity. For nothing leſs than ſuch worſhip will account for the charge either from Jews or Gentiles. It might naturally be conſidered by both as a kind of dethroning of the ONE SUPREME GOD. But every modern unbe⯑liever will readily agree with me, that the idea of inferiority and delegation, &c. is far from being irreconcileable with Jewiſh te⯑nets, or with known principles of Poly⯑theiſm. (r)

According to the Apoſtolical conſtitutions, as we learn from an eminent author, it was cuſtomary for the prieſt, after amen ſolemnly pronounced by the communicants in the holy ſacrament, to cry out with a loud voice [...] —Holy things belong to holy perſons; upon which the people anſwered, There is one Holy, one Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

The ſame writer acquaints us from Ve⯑getius, an heathen author, who flouriſhed in the time of the younger Valentinian, that Chriſtians in a military capacity were uſed [127] to ſwear by God, Chriſt, and the Holy Spirit, and the Majeſty of the Emperor, which next to God is to be honoured, &c. ^*

In his Diſſertation on Epictetus, Arrian (as Biſhop Wilkins obſerves) ‘aſſures us, that in his time, (which was about an hundred and tweny years after Chriſt,) it was an uſual form in the prayers of the heathen to ſay [...]—Lord have mercy upon us; whereby they did acknow⯑lege the unity of God, ſays his Lordſhip; which clauſe, he adds, is thought to have been from that uſage taken into the Li⯑turgy of Chriſtians.’

Now, if this be admitted, I would re⯑mark, that as the title of Lord confeſſedly belongs to our Saviour, the Chriſtians may fairly be ſuppoſed, in their triple form of ejaculatory addreſs,—Lord, have mercy upon us; Chriſt, have mercy upon us; Lord, have mercy us; to invoke Chriſt the Lord, as ſu⯑preme God: or if by Lord we are in the firſt [128] and third petition to underſtand God the Fa⯑ther, ſtill we muſt be preſumed in the inter⯑mediate one to addreſs the Son as equal to the Father; becauſe we ſhall elſe be abſurd enough to invoke the ſupreme God and a ſub⯑ordinate being with the ſame fervour, and as it were in the ſame inſtant. You will ſee the argument theſe pious ejaculations fur⯑niſh us with, whether we do or do not cre⯑dit the account of Arrian. ^†

In confirmation of what has been offered, I deſire to add one or two more facts, which, if I miſtake not, have more weight in them than is commonly apprehended; as, for in⯑ſtance, the appointment of the Lord's day; and the ſtyle or title [...] by which churches were in the primitive times diſtin⯑guiſhed. For can we do leſs in common rea⯑ſon than worſhip him with the ſupreme God, and as the ſupreme God, to whoſe particular honour one day in the week is for ever to be kept holy; on whoſe particular account the moſt ſacred obſervances of religion were trans⯑ferred [129] from the ſeventh day of the week to the firſt; and whoſe peculiar houſe is now the only houſe of prayer for all people?

I ſhall conclude this diſcourſe with re⯑minding you of a circumſtance, if poſſible, ſtill more deciſive: I mean the Unitarian doctrine which is ſo copiouſly, and ſo em⯑phatically inculcated in the Koran of Ma⯑homet. ^*Of the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, in his prophetical character, this arch impoſtor ſpeaks in terms the moſt reſpectable. ‘God, ſays he, gave miracles to Jeſus, the ſon of Mary, and ſtrengthened him with the Holy Spirit, &c. Jeſus ſaid in the cradle, verily I am the ſervant of God. This was Jeſus the ſon of Mary, (s) the word of truth, &c. Verily God promiſeth thee a ſon, named John, (ſays the angel Gabriel to Zechariah, according to the Koran,) who ſhall bear witneſs to the WORD, which cometh from God, an honourable perſon, chaſte, and one of the righteous prophets.’ To do honour to the author of [130] Chriſtianity in this capacity, Mahomet poſi⯑tively aſſerts, that ‘they (the Jews) ſlew him not, neither crucified him; but that he was repreſented by one in his likeneſs. They did not really kill him, ſays he, but God took him up unto himſelf.’

But with reſpect to our Lord's Divinity, or equality with the Father, you have, among a thouſand parallel ones, the ſentiments fol⯑lowing. ‘They (viz. the Chriſtians) ſay, God hath begotten children; God forbid. It is not meet for God that he ſhould have any ſon; God forbid. Bleſſed be he that hath revealed the Forkan, (Koran,) to whom belongeth the kingdom of heaven and earth; who hath begotten no iſſue, and hath no partner in his kingdom, &c. Yet have they taken other Gods beſides him, which have created nothing, but are themſelves created, &c. Jeſus is no other than a ſervant whom we favoured with the gift of prophecy, &c. When Jeſus came with evident miracles, he ſaid, now am I come unto you with wiſdom, and to ex⯑plain [131] unto you part of thoſe things concerning which ye diſagree; wherefore fear God, and obey me. Verily God is my Lord, and your Lord; wherefore wor⯑ſhip him. He is God, beſides whom there is no God, &c. Far be God exalted above the idols which they aſſociate with him. The 112th. ch. of the Koran is entitled the declaration of God's Unity, and the whole runs thus: Say God is one God; (t) the eternal God; he begetteth not, neither is he begotten; and there is not any like unto him. In the 6th. ch. is the following queſtion: How ſhould he have iſſue, ſince he hath no conſort?’

That theſe carnal ſentiments, this groſs language, (the language of infidels and ſcof⯑fers every day,) is directly levelled, not at a new or ſtrange thing; not at a peculiar tenet of a few enthuſiaſts; or a particular ſect of Chriſtians; but at the leading article, the fundamental principle of our religion, may be affirmed in utter defiance of the united powers of effrontery and equivocation. The [132] doctrine of the Trinity was moſt indiſpu⯑tably the ſtanding doctrine of the Chriſtian Church at the time this falſe prophet broach⯑ed his impoſture, in the beginning of the ſeventh century. All theſe conſiderations combined, demoliſh in a moment the ſeveral forts of infidelity, in early corruptions, in Monaſtic ſuperſtition, in Gothic barbariſm, Scholaſtic ſubtilty, and Papal innovation. (v)

DISCOURSE V.

HAVING, I truſt, already beyond all reaſonable doubt aſcertained the abſo⯑lute Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, by many infal⯑lible proofs from holy writ, and by other arguments of a nature little leſs demonſtra⯑tive, I ſcruple not to ſet the words juſt read to you in the front of the preſent diſcourſe, as plainly declarative of this great doctrine, though, ſingly and ſeparately conſidered, they may not, on a critical review of the whole verſe, be altogether unliable to cavil, or, if [134] you pleaſe, to exception. And I hope very much to ſtrengthen what has been advanced by ſhewing the repugnancy of anti-trinita⯑rian principles to the genius and deſign of the Chriſtian diſpenſation; or, in other words, by proving that, if we ſolely or chiefly regard our bleſſed Saviour under any character inferior to that of the true God, our higheſt ideas will come infinitely ſhort both of the dignity of his Perſon, and the nature and end of his Commiſſion.

By affecting the common appellation of Unitarians, modern unbelievers, as well the followers of Socinus as the diſciples of Arius, (who again may be ranged under many more claſſes than one,) appear in ſome ſort to be aſhamed of the leaders of their reſpective hereſies, and to deſert the captains under whoſe banners they fight. But be their ſe⯑veral motives hereunto what they may, (tho' indeed they are obvious enough,) it will ſuf⯑fice, without concerning myſelf with parti⯑cular conceits, to take into conſideration the two following general perſuaſions:

[135] Firſt, that of thoſe who regard our Sa⯑viour merely as a Legiſlator, or teacher of morality by divine commiſſion: and,

Secondly, that of thoſe who profeſs them⯑ſelves both almoſt and altogether ſuch as we are, his coequality with the Father excepted.

With a view to the confutation of Socinian principles, I would obſerve in the firſt place, that the title of Legiſlator, or Lawgiver, is by no means that by which Jeſus Chriſt is diſtinguiſhed, or particularly deſcribed, either in the old or new Teſtament. The great cha⯑racters of Wonderful, Counſellor, Prince of peace, the Sun of righteouſneſs, ^* the Lord our righteouſneſs; ^†the Meſſiah, the choſen of God, ^‡the Chriſt of God; of Mediator and Advocate; of Saviour, Redeemer, and High-Prieſt; of Son of David, Son of God, Son of the Bleſſed, ^§ Lamb of God, Lord of glory, ^‖ Prince of life, Author and Captain of our Salvation; ^**theſe characters, and more that might be enume⯑rated, import little or nothing of legiſlation, [136] but are almoſt wholly ſignificative of the perſonal quality of our Saviour, and of his own moral excellence, and of the value and efficacy of his ſacrifice. He was, it is true, a teacher ſent from God; but he was not ſent primarily in the capacity of a teacher. To in⯑ſtruct the world in righteouſneſs was not the grand and ultimate, but merely a ſubordinate end of his appearance; and indeed a neceſ⯑ſary conſequence of it.

Let us ſee then, in the ſecond place, what the Scripture, and he himſelf declares to have been the more immediate purpoſe for which he was made fleſh, and dwelt among us. To this end was I born; ^* ſays he, and for this cauſe came I into the world, that I ſhould bear witneſs to the truth. Again; God ſo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoſoever believeth in him ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life. ^† Again; I muſt work the work of him that ſent me. ^‡I came not to call the righteous, but ſinners to re⯑pentance. ^§He hath anointed me to preach the [137] Goſpel to the poor; he hath ſent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the cap⯑tives, and to ſet at liberty thoſe that are bruiſed, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Once more; I muſt preach the kingdom of God, for therefore am I ſent. ^* What the ſum and ſubſtance of our Saviour's preaching was, will be remembered preſently; and mean time we ſhall find his Apoſtles delivering themſelves in language correſponſive to the above. The law was given by Moſes, ſays St. John, but grace and peace came by Jeſus Chriſt. ^†In this was manifeſted the love of God towards us, ſays the ſame Apoſtle, be⯑cauſe that God ſent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us; and ſent his Son to be the pro⯑pitiation for our ſins. ^‡ Again; When the ful⯑neſs of time was come, ſays St. Paul, God ſent forth his ſon, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of Sons. ^§This is a faithful ſaying, ſays the ſame Apoſtle, and worthy of [138] all acceptation, that Chriſt Jeſus came into the world to ſave ſinners. ^* And to adduce only one paſſage more, the grace of God that bringeth ſalvation, hath appeared to all men; teaching us that denying ungodlineſs, and worldly luſts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly, in this preſent world. ^† The queſtion then will be how, or in what manner, we are taught to live thus; or, in other words, what we are to underſtand by Chriſt's reli⯑gion, regarding it as a ſyſtem of morality.

I muſt beg leave then, in the third place, to put you in mind, that Chriſtianity is not a new law, properly ſpeaking, but a new edition, if I may ſo ſay, or promulgation of the old; agreeably to the expreſs declaration of its Divine Author, who aſſures us that he came not to deſtroy the moral law, or the pro⯑phets, but to fulfil both. ^‡The fact is, Chriſt blotted out the hand writing of carnal ordi⯑nances, ^§ and took out of the way the whole ceremonial of Judaiſm, but left every thing [139] which was intrinſically holy, and juſt, and good in the law, in its full force and obliga⯑tion. He was the mediator of a better cove⯑nant; he laid the foundation of a new ſyſtem of faith, and a purer mode of worſhip; but he repealed not a ſingle law of Moſes, that had any thing in it properly of a moral and binding nature. A religion of this ſort ſup⯑poſed and required reformation in the lives of its profeſſors; and accordingly our bleſſed Lord, in his excellent diſcourſe on the mount, and in other places, enforces the import, and explains the obligation of many of the pre⯑cepts of the Jewiſh lawgiver; the full ſenſe and genuine meaning of which had been perverted by the falſe gloſſes and miſcon⯑ſtructions of later ages, and particularly of the Scribes and Phariſees. We find him perpe⯑tually upbraiding theſe with their ſubſtitu⯑tions of oral tradition in the room of the written word of God; and with abſurdly and impiouſly teaching for doctrines the com⯑mandments of men. ^*In theſe inſtances he nobly reſcues the Scripture from human cor⯑ruptions; [140] and faithfully diſcharges the im⯑portant office, not of a maker or preſcriber of law, but of a doctor or expounder of it.

Suitably to all this, our Lord cites and refers to the law of Moſes upon all occaſions. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command⯑ments. ^† viz. the commandments contained in the Moſaic decalogue, was his anſwer to the perſon who had aſked him, what he ſhould do that he might have eternal liſe? When the lawyer, by way of tempting him, put this queſtion to him, which is the great commandment in the law? ^‡He mentions thoſe two capital ones, which, though not literally to be found among the ten, virtually com⯑prehended them all, namely, the love of God and of our neighbour; at once ſatisfying and confounding his inſidious queriſt with this appoſite and deciſive reply. Accordingly when he told his diſciples, that he gave them a new commandment ^§in his particular injunction to them to love one another, he [141] was not teaching a new doctrine, or bringing ſtrange things to their ears, this duty being evidently implied in the love of our neighbour, but only injoining a duty, by the practice of which his followers ought to be more eſpe⯑cially diſtinguiſhed; to which they had in⯑ducements of an extraordinary nature; to which they were bound by ties and conſide⯑rations peculiarly Chriſtian, and by reverence for his aſtoniſhingly great example, who ſo loved them, and waſhed them from their ſins in his own blood. ^*

In perfect conſiſtence with this, the Apoſtles preached the Goſpel, after their Lord and Maſter had left the world, and was gone to his Father. They taught Goſpel truths; they inſiſted on, (St. Paul more eſpecially,) they rejoiced, they gloried in their deliverance from bondage under weak and beggarly ele⯑ments; ^†they exulted in the abolition of the ceremonial law, as a mere temporary eſta⯑bliſhment, and ſhadowy inſtitution; but at the ſame time they regarded the moral law [142] as of inviolable authority, and a complete ſtandard of conduct ſtill. When the Apoſtle juſt now named expoſes the extreme folly of ſuch tranſgreſſors of the law as ſtood ſelf⯑condemned; or complains of the rigour of its requiſitions; or declares the impoſſibility of yielding meritorious obedience to it, and conſequently of obtaining Salvation under it, its ſubſiſtence and obligation are ſuppoſed beyond all poſſible contradiction. That it could not make the comers thereunto perfect, was an argument of its own intrinſic perfection. The ſame great Apoſtle, preſſing upon his Roman converts the duties of brotherly love, and univerſal charity, recites almoſt all the commandments of the ſecond table; and ſubjoins that comprehenſive precept of Moſes juſt now mentioned, which he no doubt con⯑ſidered as incluſive of every evangelical pre⯑cept, even that of loving our enemies, thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf. St. James calls this very precept, this great ſocial prin⯑ciple, the royal law; ^†and when he argues againſt the folly and preſumption of a partial [143] obedience to the divine commandments, and a commuting as it were for iniquities, reſts his argument wholly in that ſupreme autho⯑rity by which the law of Moſes was enacted: he that ſaid, do not commit adultery, ſaid alſo, do not kill. ^†In ſhort, both our Lord and his Apoſtles inculcated, and enlarged upon many things of practical importance, as circum⯑ſtances admitted, and occaſions required; but they taught nothing of this kind but what was reducible to the Moſaic inſtitu⯑tions, or to ſome general head of Jewiſh, or natural morality. I add of natural morality; becauſe the law of nature, the law of Moſes, and the law of Chriſt are, in point of mo⯑rality, one and the ſame; the latter illuſtrat⯑ing, explaining, enforcing, and recommend⯑ing the two former, but neither adding to, nor diminiſhing from them. For the reaſon or fitneſs of things is abſolutely unalterable; and whatever is in its own nature morally good or evil, has always been ſo, and will for ever continue ſo to be. The moral law which was once written upon tables of ſtone was origi⯑nally [142] [...] [143] [...] [144] engraved upon the fleſhly tables of man's heart. (u) To maintain or to imagine other⯑wiſe, is to charge God fooliſhly; and to ſup⯑poſe both the law and the Goſpel to preſcribe a practice in ſome inſtances unnatural and unreaſonable. St. Paul's deſcriptions of the groſs ignorance and depravity of the heathen world are equally animated and juſt. ^†But notwithſtanding this, the irradiations of reaſon and conſcience are ſometimes beautifully vi⯑ſible amidſt this blackneſs of ſpiritual dark⯑neſs. We might extract from the writings of Pagan authors, philoſophers and others, of different times, and in different places, a moral ſyſtem, againſt which, collectively taken, ſhould lie no fair exception; and pro⯑duce from them ſentiments finely coinciding with the moſt exalted principles, and moſt refined doctrines of Chriſtianity.

In theſe writings we find the pureſt piety, the exacteſt juſtice, the trueſt benevolence, the firmeſt fortitude, the nobleſt diſintereſt⯑edneſs, and the meekeſt patience, moſt ex⯑plicitly taught, and earneſtly inculcated. (w) [145] Tully divides the duty of man as we do at this day; viz. into that which is due, firſt, to God; ſecondly, to our neighbour; and thirdly, to ourſelves. Haec (philoſophia) nos primum ad Deorum cultum, deinde ad jus homi⯑num, quod ſitum eſt in generis humani ſocietate, tum ad modeſtiam, magnitudinemque animi eru⯑divit. ^*

The golden rule of equity, whatſoever ye would that men ſhould do to you, &c. (Matt. vii. 12.) ^†obtained, as many have obſerved, both among Jews and Gentiles, and was delivered by them as well negatively as poſitively, and under various modes of expreſſion. That to intend wickedneſs is to commit it, is the expreſs doctrine of Seneca, as quoted by Le-Clerc in his note on the 12th Chapter of the 4^th. book of Grotius; and, which is ſtill more remarkable, he inſtances in caſes of luſt and ſenſuality:

Even ſo great a debauchee as Ovid ſpeculates well upon this ſubject:

This is preciſely the morality of our Di⯑vine Legiſlator. Forgiveneſs of enemies, &c. is a great point of morality which the hea⯑thens were far from being unacquainted with. According to Plutarch, it was a prayer of the Lacedaemonians, that the gods would enable them to bear injuries. And we are informed by the ſame great biographer, that Dion maintained true philoſophy to conſiſt, not in ſhewing kindneſs to friends, but in forgiving injuries, and pardoning offences. Menander is clearly of the ſame opinion in the following fine paſſage;

Some of the philoſophers argued againſt pre⯑ſent ſolicitude, and the taking too much thought for the morrow, preciſely as our Sa⯑viour does in his diſcourſe on the mount. A philoſopher, or wiſe man, ought not to be anxious about theſe things, viz. food, &c. &c. [147] [...]—is a ſentence quoted by Dr. Whitby in his note on v. 25. Ch. 6. of St. Matthew. The following ſen⯑timent of Plato, [...], ^*is almoſt a counterpart to our Saviour's—of every idle word that men ſhall ſpeak they ſhall give account at the day of judgment. Tully's notion of the ſervitude of a ſinner quadrates exactly with the doctrine of our bleſſed Lord, and of St. Paul after him. Whoſoever com⯑mitteth ſin is the ſervant of ſin, ^†ſays the former; his ſervants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of ſin unto death, or of obedience unto righteouſneſs, ^‡ſays the latter; and ſays Ci⯑cero, ſi ſervitus ſit obedientia fracti animi, et arbitrio carentis ſuo, quis neget omnes imbrobos eſſe ſervos? ^§On the other hand, Deo parere libertas eſt, ſays Seneca, in the ſpirit of a Chriſtian, and the language of the Church; in one of the Collects of which, God's ſervice is called perfect freedom. The ſame philoſo⯑pher repreſents the Deity as a moſt bene⯑ficent Being who maketh his ſun to riſe on the evil and the good, and ſendeth rain on the juſt [148] and on the unjuſt; ecce ſceleratis, ſays he, ſol oritur, et piratis patent maria. ^*And, to mention only one particular more, he directs us in another place to conſider human afflic⯑tions as the corrections of a father for our ſpiritual benefit. God, he ſays, ſicut ſeve⯑rus pater durius educat; ^†which is almoſt literally the ſentiment of the Apoſtle. ^‡The frailty of human nature, our radical diſinclination to virtue, the neceſſity of pro⯑pitiation, and our want of extraneous aſſiſ⯑tance as well as of perſonal reſolution, for the purpoſe of a good life, are points often intimated, and as often inſiſted upon by Pagan writers. The nitimur in vetitum—of the poet was a ſort of ſtanding theſis with many. The multitude of heathen ſacrifices ſhews a con⯑ſciouſneſs of guilt, and a ſolicitude for atone⯑ment. Their ſenſe of the need of a divine bleſſing on their endeavours in general, ap⯑pears ſufficiently from their undertaking no⯑thing of moment, whether of a public or [149] private concern, without the previous obſer⯑vance of certain rites and ceremonies; or, as Pliny expreſſes himſelf in the introduction to his panegyric on Trajan, ſine deorum immorta⯑lium ope, conſilio, et honore. It may not be eaſy to aſcertain what we are to underſtand by the Daemon, or the Genius, which, by his own account attended Socrates; but it is cer⯑tain the notion of good and evil genii pre⯑vailed much in the heathen world. In the following lines, the warmth of divine infu⯑ſion in the human breaſt is beautifully ex⯑preſſed by Ovid;

The neceſſity of ſupernatural impulſe to the regulation of human conduct has always been acknowleged. Tully ſays ſomewhere, Nemo unquam vir magnus ſine divino afflatu fuit; and Homer affirms by the mouth of Polydamas, that God is the diſpenſer of all our talents, or endowments whatſoever:

[150] Correſpondently with all this, philoſophers have repreſented the difficulty of perſevering in a virtuous courſe, under the very ſame meta⯑phor which is uſed by our Bleſſed Saviour himſelf. Cebes affirms, that there is a little gate [...] ^*at the entrance of the path that leads to happineſs &c. and that it is a path which few walk in; in which [...].

When we conſider theſe ſentiments and prin⯑ciples independently and ſeparately from what⯑ever is erroneous, inconſiſtent, or extravagant in heathen authors, we can do no leſs than re⯑verence them as doing credit to human nature in its moſt depraved ſtate; as ſo many efforts of reaſon nobly ſtruggling to emerge from a vaſt abyſs of ignorance and impurity. The grand uſe and advantage of the Goſpel, re⯑garded as a moral ſcheme, is not ſo much that things are uniformly taught therein, and delivered in conſummate purity, as that they are taught with proper authority, by a Legiſla⯑tor ^†from heaven, and under ſanctions the moſt efficacious imaginable. In ſhort, the [151] Chriſtian religion ſtands particularly diſcri⯑minated from all other inſtitutions by the perſonal pre-eminence of its Author, and by the tranſcendent graciouſneſs, importance, and ſplendor of the diſpenſation.

If we regard our Saviour under any cha⯑racter inferior to that of the true God; at leaſt if we regard him merely as a man, or as a law-giver, we ſhall find few or no marks of that originality by which the founders of all perſuaſions, religious or philoſophical, are diſtinguiſhed. As a prophet, he was like unto Moſes, according to the expreſs prediction of the latter; as a worker of mi⯑racles, he ſtood ſupereminent, but not ſingle; as a teacher, or inſtructer, he followed pre⯑cedents; his apologues and allegories were agreeable to the oriental mode, and many of his parables were borrowed from the Jews; ^*even that excellent form of prayer which he taught his diſciples was almoſt entirely taken out of the Jewiſh liturgies; and the ſacraments which "he ordained in his [152] "Church" were graffed upon a Jewiſh ſtock; baptiſm being a rite which the Jews obſerved with the exactneſs of ſuperſtition; and that of the Lord's Supper being transferr'd from their practice of eating bread and drinking wine, in an euchariſtical way, at the celebra⯑tion of the Paſſover. ^*The great Apoſtle to the Hebrews ſeems to ſet the matter before us in the cleareſt light. He, ſays he, that deſpised Moſes's law, died without mercy, under two or three witneſſes: of how much ſorer puniſhment ſuppoſe ye, ſhall he be thought worthy,—(not who hath broken the law of the Goſpel, but) who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath accounted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was ſancti⯑fied an unholy thing, and hath done deſpite to the ſpirit of grace. ^†Immoralities, it is true, and thoſe of the groſſeſt kind, are implied in theſe words; but they are ſuch as are moſt provokingly aggravated by ſingular contemp⯑tuouſneſs; and the leaſt that can be inferred from this paſſage is, that a greater than [153] Moſes is here. How does Socinianiſm ſhrink before ſuch conſiderations as theſe!

But it is little material which of two errors may be moſt plauſible, when both are equidiſtant from the centre of truth. Our bleſſed Saviour is no more half-God than he is all man, if I have leave ſo to expreſs myſelf; nor will Arianiſm fix a firmer baſis of faith by its chimerical expedient of a ſecondary worſhip, and a gradation of Deity. For this at beſt will be found to be neither more nor leſs than Paganiſm improved, and contracted within a ſmaller circle. It muſt be equally idolatrous, equally injurious to the honour of the Supreme Being, to ac⯑knowlege Gods many, or Gods few, or only one God beſides him. Infinite almoſt as the number of ſubaltern deities was among the Heathens, there is no doubt but the wiſeſt of them at leaſt acted nearly upon Arian principles; viz. under a perſuaſion of the exiſtence and properties, and with a reſer⯑vation of the prerogatives of the one Su⯑preme God. According to univerſal tradi⯑tion, [154] the notion of a ſupreme power, a ſelf-exiſtent, independent Being, a firſt cauſe of all things, prevailed more or leſs every where in the world. ^*The doctrine of divine Su⯑premacy was no ſecret even among people whoſe religious rites and uſages were ſilly and extravagant enough to render them ob⯑noxious to the ſcorn and laughter of man⯑kind, thro' all ages. The ſuperſtitions of the Aegyptians were groſs and numberleſs; and their worſhip of the meaneſt animals, and indeed of things inanimate, was beyond meaſure contemptible. And yet they had an opinion with reſpect to God, that erred even on the ſide of ſpirituality. For they held that he is not to be addreſſed by mortals ſo much as in vocal prayer. ^†This is at once an inſtance of ſtrong belief, and miſ⯑taken veneration. The great attributes of the Deity are aſſerted by writers of all ſorts, by philoſophers, and by poets, and in terms of the fulleſt ſignificancy. His ſpirituality, omnipotence, omnipreſence, independence, inviſibility, and incomprehenſible nature, are [155] ſet in a very ſtrong light by Pagan authors; particularly by Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxago⯑ras, Cicero, Porphyry, Seneca, Homer, and the Greek Dramatiſts. (x) I have not time or occaſion to produce my authorities here. The truth is, many goodly pearls of ſpecula⯑tive doctrine are to be found amongſt the rubbiſh of Pagan antiquity; and they ſtri⯑kingly contraſt an enormous farrago of tra⯑ditionary error, radical prejudice, vulgar folly, and popular ſuperſtition. They are the ſentiments of minds that ſeem to have been enlightened beyond the conceptions of the bulk of mankind. If we ſeparate the carnal droſs from the ſpiritual bullion of hea⯑theniſm, we ſhall be able to extract a body of theoretic divinity from the old Pagans, little if at all inferior to the fineſt unitarian ſyſtem. In ſhort, if Arianiſm be not ſtrictly polytheiſm, it is not much better; it is maintainable only on much the ſame ground, and by a ſimilar mode of reaſoning.

Surely a Tully, or a Plato, had as admiſſible an apology for his conformity to idolatrous [156] ſervices, in general prepoſſeſſion, and national eſtabliſhment, as the modern unbeliever has for his ſecondary worſhip, in any diſtiction he may affect to make between Pagan and Arian theology. For unleſs the holy Scrip⯑tures direct us in the plaineſt manner, and with all poſſible cautiouſneſs of expreſſion, NOT to honour the Son even as we honour the Father; if they do not clearly and uni⯑formly diſtinguiſh between Jeſus Chriſt, and the Holy Ghoſt, and the Supreme God, in point of nature, or eſſence; or, in other words, if Arianiſm has not a moſt firm foun⯑dation in the ſacred pages, and in apoſtolical and primitive worſhip, we cannot honeſtly reſolve it into any thing but the pride of human reaſon, fabricating its own theory, and reſiſting the Holy Ghoſt. Now the inva⯑lidity of its pretences has, I perſuade myſelf been ſufficiently ſhewn already; and there⯑fore we are to reject its hypotheſis, together with that of Socinianiſm, as reſpectively aim⯑ing to eſtabliſh another doctrine than that we have received; as fundamentally erroneous, and abſolutely repugnant to the genius and ſpirit of Chriſtianity.

[157] But becauſe the ſtrength of true believers may be ſaid in ſome ſenſe to be made perfect in the weakneſs of their antagoniſts, as a giant appears to moſt advantage when con⯑fronted with a pigmy, I ſhall take my next opportunity for your conviction, that the anti-trinitarian cauſe has its chief ſupport in diſingenuous evaſion, flimſy ſophiſtry, or wil⯑ful miſconſtruction; and neither is nor can be defended from the ſtrong holds of reaſon, or by weapons from the armory of Sacred Writ.

DISCOURSE VI.

THE Apoſtle, as appears from the ar⯑gument he proſecutes throughout this epiſtle, had, in the words juſt read, an eye to thoſe Jewiſh converts who were ſo zeal⯑ouſly attached to the Moſaic ritual, the law of their fathers, that they could not endure to ſee it ſuperſeded by the more liberal, the more pure, the more ſublime principles of the Goſpel. But I ſhall avail myſelf of the latitude my text admits; not heſitating to regard as perverters of the Goſpel, thoſe here⯑tics of different ſorts, whoſe unfairneſs, or [160] imbecility of allegation, conſtruction, and exception on the part of infidelity, I ſtand engaged to make appear in the following diſcourſe.

That pride, or prepoſſeſſion ſhould be te⯑nacious of any opinion however ſtrange, or however extravagant, will be no matter of ſurprize to us when we recollect, that almoſt every thing which we ſee not by immediate intuition, or which is not capable of a ſtrictly mathematical demonſtration, may be ſtarted, and upheld for a ſubject of diſpute. It is poſſible indeed, and it ſometimes happens, that men ſhall reaſon injudiciouſly and in⯑concluſively even in a righteous cauſe; and truth may ſuffer, or rather be ſuppoſed to ſuffer by precipitance of paſſion, or inadver⯑tency of zeal. This before now has been the caſe with the cauſe before us. A pious wiſh to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity by producing multifarious evidence, and heaping proof upon proof; (y) or an earneſt endeavour to elucidate a point, the knowlege of which is too wonderful and excellent for [161] the attainment of human wiſdom, by meta⯑phyſical nicety, and the ſagacity of abſtract ſpeculation; (z) or by ſtudied ſimilitudes, and artificial alluſions, to bring it nearer to our conceptions; all this has been hurtful to the intereſt of religion, and given occaſion to the enemy to ridicule, if not to blaſpheme. Erroneous conſtructions, and miſapplication of particular paſſages, betray too often a want of moderation, or of ſkill in interpreters. But, all this while, a charge of unſkilfulneſs, or of prevarication, or of perverſeneſs, or of preſumption, or of inſincerity, or of intem⯑perance, will come with a very ill grace from our adverſaries; and we are to look on the ſide of infidelity for the moſt viſible ſigns of weakneſs, and the ſureſt tokens of conſcious diſtreſs. I am apt to believe, you will ſoon be convinced by a few ſelect particulars that this is not arbitarily, or groundleſsly ſaid.

I ſhall hardly be called upon to apologize for freedoms I ſhall be obliged to take with authors who are no more. It will be ac⯑knowleged, with reſpect to every Arian &c. [162] of note, that, to miſchievous purpoſe, he being dead yet ſpeaketh. To proceed then.

That when we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, we are baptized in the name of three Perſons, and of three Divine Perſons, and of three equally Divine Perſons, ^*ſeems not to be more evident from Scripture than from the reaſon of the thing. For elſe we are baptized in the name of two Perſons and one virtue or quality, &c. which is a notion pal⯑pably ridiculous; or we are baptized in the name of three Perſons, betwixt the firſt and two latter of which there is an infinite diſ⯑parity; (there being no medium between God and a creature;) which is a ſuppoſition not leſs ridiculous. And, in fact, the Bap⯑tiſmal Form is ſo ſtrong, that heretics have found themſelves under a neceſſity of chang⯑ing it; or of explaining it away; ſome bap⯑tizing into the death of Chriſt; ſome in the name of the uncreated God, and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the ſancti⯑fying [163] Spirit, created by the created Son. Dr. Clarke, to whom Arianiſm is under great ob⯑ligations, writes as follows. We are baptized, ſays he, into the profeſſion of that belief, and an obligation to the practice of that religion, which God the Father has revealed and taught by the Son, and confirmed and eſtabliſhed by the Holy Ghoſt. If this is extrication, what is difficulty? ^†

The ſame learned author paraphraſes the introduction to St. John's Goſpel in the fol⯑lowing words: ‘With God the Father, the FIRST, the SUPREME cauſe and original of all things, there exiſted before all ages that Divine Perſon whoſe name is called the Word of God, the only begotten of the Fa⯑ther, the brightneſs of his glory, and by ineffable COMMUNICATION of divine power and perfections, the expreſs image of his Perſon.’ The fine artifice of this para⯑phraſe will eſcape a common, or a curſory reader. I gueſs, Dr. C—would never have conſented to the leaſt alteration in this paſ⯑ſage, [164] or have permitted us only for ineffable to read eternal. The phraſe—before all ages—is deſignedly ambiguous; and imports merely an acknowlegement of the impoſſibility of fix⯑ing the date of the generation of the Son of God.

In the beginning was the word, ^*ſays St. John; i. e. (if we will hearken to the So⯑cinians,) Jeſus Chriſt exiſted when the Goſ⯑pel was firſt preached by John the Baptiſt; or, if you pleaſe, by himſelf. The word was with God; i. e. was known to God, and to God only; or, was with God, by being taken up into heaven to receive his prophetic commiſſion, agreeably to a parallel expoſition of another paſſage, which will be preſently noticed, and both by the ſame interpreters. The word was God, viz. in a ſecondary or derivative ſenſe; in a ſenſe implying Chriſt's priority and ſupe⯑riority to all other creatures; ſo that if we take this whole ſentence together, the word was with God, and the word was God, the term God is to be underſtood in the proper ſenſe in the firſt clauſe, and in an improper and inferior ſenſe in the ſecond: as Dr. C. [165] and others, according to a judicious writer's remark, ingeniouſly expound this paſſage!

No man hath aſcended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven; ^*are the words of our Lord himſelf in the ſame Goſpel. Perhaps the Socinian conſtruction of this text which was juſt now laid before you is little leſs ro⯑mantic than Grotius's expoſition of the words—he that came down from heaven, i. e. ſays this famous commentator, he that ‘was ſent, or given to us by the ſpecial Grace of God.’

As ſome interpreters make, or, more pro⯑perly, invent a diſtinction between primary and ſecondary worſhip, and would fain have us believe in a created creator, or a deity by delegation, ſo others of a very different ſtamp think of the Saviour of the world as meanly as they can poſſibly think, and diveſt him of almoſt every ray of glory. The word was made fleſh, and dwelt among us, ſays St. John. ^† [166] Chriſt was born mortal, ſubject to infirmities and ſufferings, &c. ſay ſome Socinian expoſi⯑tors: the word WAS fleſh, ſimply and abſo⯑lutely, ſay others: the word was MADE, or CONVERTED into fleſh, ſays the Flandrian Anabaptiſt.

St. Paul aſſures the Coloſſians, that in Jeſus Chriſt dwelleth all the fulneſs ^* of the Godhead bodily; viz. all the will of God as we are given to underſtand by Socinus. Before Abra⯑ham was, I AM, ^†ſays our Lord expreſsly to the Jews; by which he means only to affirm, according to ſome interpreters, that he was the Meſſiah before Abraham was the father of many nations; or, as others expound, ſhall I ſay? or wreſt this ſcripture, that he exiſted, or WAS before Abraham in the pur⯑poſe and decree of God. How far the name of Grotius dignifies this expoſition, let every intelligent hearer judge. Or, let us ſee whe⯑ther we are like to derive more ſatisfaction from the following explanation or rather evacuation of this text by the celebrated [167] author of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity. ‘Before Abraham was, and before all gene⯑rations, I had a being with him of whom Moſes told the Iſralites, that his name was I AM.’

That often juſtly cited paſſage in the 9^th. Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Romans, of whom as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came, who is over all, God bleſſed for ever, is a rankling thorn in the eyes of unbelievers, which Dr. C. wiſhed to extract with the poultice of a deviſed ambiguity. He would have us be⯑lieve that the original Greek is of a doubtful conſtruction, and may ſignify either, of whom Chriſt came; God who is over all be bleſſed for ever; or, of whom Chriſt came, who is over all; God be bleſſed for ever. To this text we ſhall have occaſion to turn again.

The Arians in general confeſs that the Di⯑vine Perſonage who ſo often, and ſometimes ſo magnificently makes his appearance under the Old Teſtament, is Jeſus Chriſt, the Son of God; yet when this tranſcendent Being [168] expreſsly ſays,—I am the God of Bethel,—we are to underſtand him as in effect ſaying only, my Father, whom I repreſent, is God of Bethel. Such is the ſenſe of theſe expoſi⯑tors; who however kindly and logically grant that the Word was with God, or, in plain terms, exiſted from all eternity, tho' not actually, yet potentially! One is tempted to ſpeak ludicrouſly by the extravagance of theſe conceits. Is not this making the word of God of none effect thro' wantonneſs of interpretation? Is not this turning holy Scripture, which ſhould be the rule of faith, into a mere play-thing of fancy?

Let us take a view of another famous writer's ſentiments on this important ſub⯑ject.—Mr. Whiſton, after acknowleging Jeſus Chriſt, (whom he calls [...]) to have given the law upon mount Sinai, to have appeared to the Patriarchs, &c. and to have taken ‘the peculiar ſtyle, titles, attri⯑butes, adoration, and incommunicable name of the God of Iſrael,’ ſuppoſes him to have been ‘truly and really concerned in the [169] creation of the world.’ But, obſerve, he was a Creator merely by commiſſion; &c. ‘it being (according to this author) unfit and impoſſible for the DIVINE NATURE ITSELF, or at leaſt THAT OF THE FA⯑THER, to be ſo much, and in ſuch a manner concerned with the corporeal world, and the ſinful race of mankind, as we every where find this DIVINE PERSON, our bleſſed Mediator, to have been.’ ^*And ſo we are obliged to this philoſopher for his wonderful diſcovery, that Jeſus Chriſt, tho' a DIVINE PERSON with all the attributes &c. and the "incommunicable name of the God of Iſrael," was yet without the DI⯑VINE NATURE, becauſe it is impoſſible for the DIVINE NATURE to act in the abſtract; or at leaſt for THAT of the FATHER to do ſo, which, it ſeems, is ſomething diſtinct from, or ſuperior to the Divine! If this is not Chriſtianity, it is tolerable Platoniſm.

But the grand expedient to which a late⯑mentioned Divine, and indeed the Arian [170] fraternity have uſually recourſe, is yet be⯑hind. Unable to with ſtand the united force of the ſeveral texts by which the full Divini⯑ty of our Saviour is evinced, they contrive to reſolve the whole of his Deity into that abſo⯑lute authority which, they ſay, he derives from his Father, and exerciſes jointly with him in the government of the univerſe. Dr. Clarke not unartfully tells us, that ‘the reaſon why the Scripture, tho' it ſtiles the Father God, and alſo ſtiles the Son God, yet at the ſame time always declares that there is but one God, is, becauſe in the monarchy of the univerſe there is but one authority, origi⯑nal in the Father, derivative in the Son: the power of the Son being not another power oppoſite to that of the Father, nor another power co-ordinate to that of the Father, but itſelf the power and authority of the Father, communicated to, manifeſted in, and exerciſed by the Son.’ ^*

But did not, or would not this able writer recollect, that ſomething beſides power was communicated, when the Father gave to the [171] Son to have LIFE in himſelf? ^*From which paſſage I take occaſion to obſerve, that when an ambiguous word occurs in any paſſage of Scripture; or a term, which independently conſidered, appears to denote communication from the Father, and inferiority in the Son, its ſignification is generally qualified and re⯑ſtrained by the plain tenor and importance of the whole ſentence. This is eminently the caſe with the text laſt quoted. As the Father hath life himſelf, ſays our Bleſſed Lord, ſo hath he given to the Son to have life in himſelf. In this phraſe—having life in himſelf, (which is a periphraſis of Jehovah, the firſt and moſt eſſential name of the Deity,) the ſelf-exiſ⯑tence both of Father and Son from all eter⯑nity is neceſſarily implied: becauſe tho' the word given imports communication of an incomprehenſible kind, yet ſuch communi⯑cation muſt have been from eternity. To aſſert, that the Father gave ſelf-exiſtence to the Son from all eternity at any ſuppoſed period of time, would be neither more nor [172] leſs than a contradiction in terms. ^†It may be worth while to adduce two or three inſtances more. By him, viz. by Jeſus Chriſt, ſays St. Paul to the Coloſſians, were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, viſible and inviſible, &c. all things were created by him and for him. Ch. 1. 16. Does not all this imply unoriginateneſs? Is not Chriſt repreſented here as abſolutely the Creator? Yet in this very chapter reference is had to the Goſpel-diſpenſation, and in that reference terms muſt neceſſarily be uſed importing ſubordination and inferiority. So in the 1ſt. chap. of the Revelation, where Chriſt is ſtyled Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, &c. the ſame reference is made. I am he that liveth, and was dead. So again, the Word was with God, ſays St. John; and this expreſſion does not neceſſarily im⯑ply equality, or coexiſtence. But what fol⯑lows?—The Word was God.

We not unfrequently meet with interpreters who agree in oppoſition to the catholic ſenſe of a paſſage, but differ in the mode of [173] it; who, like contrary qualities in bodies counteracting each other, mutually defeat their reſpective ends by repugnancy of con⯑ſtruction. We will turn to one or two ſin⯑gular inſtances of this.—By whom alſo ^* he made the worlds, ſays the Apoſtle to the Hebrews, ſpeaking of Jeſus Chriſt. One ſhould hardly think theſe words liable to be miſunderſtood. But Grotius, unwilling, as it ſhould ſeem, that Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be ſuppoſed to have any concern in the creation, even as an agent or miniſter, gives us to know, that the worlds were made not by him, but for him, or for his ſake; agreeably enough to part of a text juſt now cited, and agreably to the notion of the Jewiſh Rabbins, that the world was made for the Meſſiah. Now, in the firſt place, not to inſiſt with Dr. Whitby, that this conſtruction manifeſtly wreſts the prepoſition [...], with a genitive caſe annexed to it, from its proper import, I wiſh to obſerve, that there is no admitting this learned writer's expoſition of the place before us, and of that other paſſage of the Epiſtle [174] to the Romans, Chriſt was raiſed from the dead ^* by the glory of the Father, (the ſingle one with which he ſupports his interpreta⯑tion,) without obſcuring, or confounding our ideas of the divine operations. For, according to our author, God the Father made the worlds for the glory of his Son, but raiſed up that Son from the dead for his own glory.—Chriſt was raiſed from the dead for the glory of the Father, ſays our commen⯑tator; ſo that by this interpretation the Apoſtle in effect affirms, that Chriſt was raiſed from the dead by the Father for the glory of the Father: which at beſt is uncouth phraſeolo⯑gy. But let us ſee how the paſſage will fare under the management of Socinus and his followers. Theſe gentlemen are ſenſible of the powers of the prepoſition in queſtion, but are equally reluctant to believe Jeſus Chriſt to have been the Maker of the Uni⯑verſe.—By whom he made the Worlds; i. e. ſay they, by whoſe agency, or miniſtry God eſtabliſhed a ſpiritual kingdom, and reconciled the world unto himſelf by the Goſpel diſpenſa⯑tion. [175] Are not theſe ſeveral expoſitions as irreconcileable as light and darkneſs? And have we not reaſon in abundance rather to reject both, than to ſubſcribe to either? I juſt obſerve farther; that Grotius had been more conſiſtent, had he done no violence to the prepoſition aforeſaid, and adopted the Socinian interpretation. For he is intirely of one mind with the Socinians in his explica⯑tion of the above-cited parallel in the firſt Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians.

But this is not the only inſtance of this great writer's inconſiſtency with others and with himſelf. Convinced by ocular demon⯑ſtration of the reſurrection of his Maſter, Thomas anſwered and ſaid, that is, ſay ſome very gravely, in effect cried out, or exclaimed, My Lord, and my God. For, it ſeems, this is not the language of confeſſion, but of aſto⯑niſhment! Grotius however ſees this matter in a very different light. ‘Hic primum, ſays he, ea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab Apoſtolis Jeſu tributa, poſt⯑quam ſcilicet ſua reſurrectione probaverat, [176] ſe eſſe a quo vita et quidem aeterna ex⯑pectari deberet. Manſit deinde ille mos in Eccleſia, ut apparet non tantum in ſcriptis Apoſtolicis, ut in nono capite Epiſtolae ad Romanos commate quinto, et veterum Chriſtianorum, ut videre eſt apud Juſtinum Martyrem contra Tryphonem, ſed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epiſtola, ubi ait Chriſ⯑tianos Chriſto, ut Deo, carmina ceciniſſe.’ ^*

And yet we are not much obliged to this eminent commentator for an acknowlege⯑ment which appears to have been forced from him. In the firſt place, it is not true that Chriſt is ſtyled God purely becauſe he is the reſurrection and the life, as is here more than intimated. It is not true, that he is ſo called by the Apoſtles and firſt Chriſtians, merely on the ſtrength of the paſſage before us. For though the terms in which St. Thomas de⯑clares his conviction, My Lord, and my God, occur not before, nor poſſibly could, Chriſt is not only in effect in many places, but alſo expreſsly ſtyled God in this Goſpel. In the next place it is worth remarking, that this [177] author in ſome ſort at leaſt aſſerts the Divi⯑nity of Chriſt from a text, of which, when he takes it ſeparately in hand, he queſtions the authenticity. ^*

The truth is, we find too many among us perpetually leaning to the ſide of infidelity, by ſoftening and qualifying as much as poſ⯑ſible the ſenſe of texts which are quoted every day on the part of the orthodox. An eminent commentator ſuppoſes the firſt prayer of the Apoſtles, Thou Lord, who knoweſt the hearts of all men, ſhew whether of theſe two thou haſt choſen, to be addreſs'd not to Jeſus Chriſt, but ſimply to God. Whoſoever ſhall call on the name of the Lord ſhall be ſaved, ſays St. Peter in his diſcourſe on the day of Pentecoſt; i. e. ſays Dr. Pyle, ‘Whoſoever ſhall believe and embrace his religion;’ which paraphraſe plainly reprobates the idea of invocation on Chriſt. The reference of the words he is Lord of all, in St. Peter's ad⯑dreſs to Cornelius, either to God the Father, [178] or to Jeſus Chriſt, is at beſt perverſely ſin⯑gular; and ſurely neither juſt nor natural. To this end, ſays St. Paul to the Romans, Chriſt both died and roſe, &c. that he might be Lord both of the dead and living; ^*i. e. (ac⯑cording to our author's inadequate illuſtra⯑tion,) that ‘he might be the Saviour and rewarder of all good Chriſtians.’ St. Paul wiſhes grace and peace to the Church at Co⯑rinth, to them that are called to be ſaints, ^† with all that in every place call upon the name of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, viz. (as the ſame writer interprets the paſſage,) ‘to all who worſhip God through Jeſus Chriſt, the Lord and Saviour of all that profeſs his religion.’ In the ſecond Chapter of this Epiſtle, the Apoſtle calls our Saviour the Lord of glory; meaning, it ſeems, thereby ſimply the Meſſiah. God was manifeſt in the fleſh, ſays the ſame Apoſtle to Timothy; which, being interpreted by this writer, is only equi⯑valent to ‘the Son of God took upon him our nature.’ In ſhort, our author's notion [179] of the whole myſtery of the Goſpel ſeems to be lamentably inſufficient, when he tells, and in more places than one tells us, that it ſig⯑nifies only the admiſſion of Gentiles as well as Jews into the Chriſtian covenant.

But a very recent inſtance of perverſe in⯑terpretation in the work of a ſenſible and ſpecious author ^*out of our Church is fit to be taken into particular conſideration. In his note on that famous paſſage in the Epiſtle to the Romans, (which the Anti-trinitarians are ever attempting to preſs into the ſervice of Arianiſm, as has already been in effect ſeen,) viz. of whom as concerning the fleſh, Chriſt came, who is over all, God bleſſed for ever; this author admits the juſtneſs of the appli⯑cation to our bleſſed Lord, who, ſays he, ‘is God over all, as he is by the Father AP⯑POINTED Lord, King, and Governour of all.’ And then he refers to ſeveral texts as declarative of ſuch APPOINTMENT.

[180] The Father judgeth no man, but hath com⯑mitted all judgment unto the Son; John v. 22. Jeſus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; &c. John. xiii. 3.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Matt. xxviii. 18.

The word which God ſent unto the children of Iſrael preaching peace by Jeſus Chriſt, he is Lord of all; &c. Acts x. 36.

God alſo hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; Phil. ii. 9. and ſet him at is own right hand, in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, &c. and every name that is named not only in this world, but alſo in that which is to come, &c. Epheſ. i. 21, &c. He hath put all things under his feet, &c. 1 Cor. xv. 27. ‘This, ſays our author, is our Lord's SUPREME GODHEAD. And that he is bleſſed for ever, or the object of ever⯑laſting bleſſing, is evident from Revelation v. 12, 13.’ Worthy is the Lamb, &c. to receive bleſſing, &c. and every creature, &c. [181] heard I ſaying, bleſſing, and honour, &c. be unto him that ſitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever, &c. Now it is very obſervable that in ſome of the places here referred to there is not any intimation of an appointment. The annotator ſeems to be aware of this when it is too late; he grows jealous of the paſſage he had admitted; and, like one conſcious of having allowed more than his hypotheſis could conveniently afford, to all intents and purpoſes revokes his grant by a counter conſtruction, and ſo at one daſh deprives our Lord both of his bleſſedneſs and ſupremacy. For thus he pro⯑ceeds. ‘But what this part of his cha⯑racter, in which he is more nearly related to believing Gentiles, than to infidel Jews, has to do with privileges belonging to the latter, doth not ſeem to me very clear; much leſs can I conceive, why the Apoſtle in this particular enumeration of Jewiſh privileges, ſhould not mention their rela⯑tion to God, as their God, in which they particularly gloried, (Chapter ii. 17.) and which was indeed the glory of all their [182] glories, being the firſt and grand article in the covenant with Abraham; and which he fails not to aſſert among the ſingular privileges of Chriſtians, (Ch. v. 11.) when he is ſhewing that the ſubjects of their glorying were not inferior to thoſe of the Jews. How could he overlook the main article of this liſt? Or what if there ſhould be a tranſpoſition of a ſingle letter in the text, [...] for [...]. This will remove every difficulty. Then the Engliſh will be, of whom, as concerning the fleſh, Chriſt came, whoſe is the God over all, bleſſed for ever. Thus the grand privilege will be inſerted to advantage, and ſtand at the top of a lofty climax riſing from the Father, to Chriſt, and to God. We have indeed no copy to juſtify this reading. But the afore⯑ſaid conſiderations ſeem to make it pro⯑bable the article ( [...]) might be very eaſily tranſpoſed. This is only my conjecture.’

Now I beg leave to aſk, whether our an⯑notator was under an abſolute neceſſity of conjecturing? Conjectures, I preſume, are [183] never admiſſible in criticiſm, but when they clear the ſenſe of an author from obſcurity; or when direct abſurdities, or conſiderable difficulties are removed by them. Is either of theſe caſes the caſe at preſent? So far from it, that unleſs we are to ſacrifice ſenſe to figure, and real truth to ideal climax, I affirm without ceremony the old and uni⯑verſal reading to be the only right one; and that this paſſage, abundantly plain and con⯑ſiſtent in itſelf, is here obſcured by elucida⯑tion, and marred by amendment. Mr. T. in fact ſmothers himſelf in a duſt of his own raiſing. For though, in a ſpirit of true com⯑paſſion, and in the tendereſt affection to his brethren, &c. the Apoſtle calls to mind their national character, and many of the privi⯑leges they had enjoyed, yet at the time of his writing this Epiſtle, it ſhould be remem⯑bered, that their grand privilege of all, as our author juſtly terms it, that which the Jews conſtantly made their boaſt of, and ‘which was indeed the glory of all their glories,’ was abſolutely loſt, and irreco⯑verably done away for ever. God was no longer [184] their God in any ſenſe favourable to them; they were diſowned; they were cut off by him, to uſe St. Paul's words in another place; the believing Gentiles were now ‘more nearly related to him;’ they were purified to be a peculiar people; and Jews, as Jews, had no manner of intereſt in the new diſpenſation: ſo that, according to this author's conſtruc⯑tion, the Apoſtle falſifies fact, and inſults his kinſmen, by way of commiſeration.

There is another text which the ſame au⯑thor handles not leſs to his own diſadvantage. Every houſe is builded by ſome man, ſays the writer of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Ch. iii. 4. but he that built all things is God. Mr. T's. paraphraſe is as follows. ‘When he ſaith, every houſe is builded by ſome perſon, but he who built all things is God, he evidently diſtinguiſhes between a ſubordinate and Supreme builder. But this diſtinction he needed not to have mentioned, had he not ſpoke of a ſubordinate builder before. For, if in the caſe under conſideration, there be no ſubordinate builder at all, this diſ⯑tinction [185] is nothing to his purpoſe. Then his argument would have been; Chriſt muſt build the houſe; becauſe no one could build it but he; ſeeing no houſe is built by any but God. Whereas, contra⯑riwiſe, he aſſerts a ſubordinate builder, and tells us ſuch a one is conſiſtent with God's being the Supreme original builder.’

Now, I take it, this is a mere fanciful diſ⯑tinction of Mr. Taylor's own brain. The context runs thus. This man was counted worthy of more glory than Moſes, inaſmuch as he who hath builded the houſe, hath more honour than the houſe: for every houſe is builded by ſome man, but he that built all things is God. Surely he that built all things, he who made the world was the very Perſon or Being that built the houſe, as the Apoſtle expreſſes it; i. e. who founded the whole Jewiſh OEco⯑nomy, eccleſiaſtical and civil; and conſe⯑quently, though every houſe is builded by ſome man, though every inſtitution, &c. has ſome author, and Moſes in particular may be ſaid to be a founder in a ſecondary ſenſe, Jeſus [186] Chriſt is ſtrictly and properly the Supreme Architect, as we may ſay, as well in the one as the other of the above inſtances, to the total excluſion of every idea of ſubordination. And ſo this very paſſage in effect plainly aſſerts our Saviour's Divinity, and confirms the Supremacy this Gentleman appears to be extremely forward to deſtroy by it. It is re⯑markable enough that the texts under conſi⯑deration have been before now a ſnare to un⯑believers. For the Socinian gloſs on them is, ‘that Chriſt is as much more excellent than Moſes as God is more excellent than his own people;’ and this ſuperexcellence is on all hands allowed not to come one jot ſhort of abſolute infinity.

In conſequence of the ſhifts to which in⯑fidelity is reduced, it will add, omit, affirm, and ſuggeſt, ſometimes arbitrarily, ſometimes imprudently, and ſometimes on weak and incompetent authority. That paſſage in St. Paul's firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, without con⯑troverſy great is the myſtery of godlineſs; ^* God [187] was manifeſt in the fleſh, &c. makes ſo clearly for us, that the Socinians, and they who pa⯑troniſe them, ſtruggle to get rid of it at all events. And that they do ſo purely by the help of a ſuppoſititious reading, which can be ſupported only by a ſtrained, incoherent, and ridiculous conſtruction, (according to which the myſtery of godlineſs was manifeſt in the fleſh, and received up into glory, &c. in⯑ſtead of Jeſus Chriſt,) hath been abundantly ſhewn by many, and eſpecially by the learned Biſhop Pearſon in his Expoſition of the Creed.

With a view to the eluſion of certain paſ⯑ſages in the Revelation which we have al⯑ready produced as plainly expreſſive of the Son's coequal majeſty with the Father, Gro⯑tius has moſt unwarrantably aſſigned them their proper and reſpective thrones in heaven. He that ſat on the throne, &c. in primo ſolio, id eſt Deus, ſays he in his paraphraſe of Rev. xxi. 5.

Suppoſing, for argument's ſake, the merit of the trinitarian controverſy to depend chiefly [188] on the authenticity of the ſeventh verſe in St. John's 1^st Epiſtle, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoſt, and theſe three are one, ^†I would gladly aſk, whether it is not, in the nature of things, at leaſt as reaſonable to ſup⯑poſe in general that this text was omitted by the enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity, as that it was inſerted by its friends? And if ſo, infidelity would appear at beſt to ſtand upon a precarious foundation, as far as it depends on the ſpuriouſneſs of this text; and we ſhould ſurely err with more prudence and modeſty on the ſide of the Catholic Church, than againſt her. But an excellent writer ^*has, in his Letters to Mr. Gibbon on this ſubject, evinced the genuineneſs of this text to the intire ſatisfaction of every candid and impartial inquirer; and particularly makes it appear, that ‘the context of the Apoſtle is ſo far from receiving any injury by the retention of the verſe in queſtion, that it would loſe all its genuine ſpirit, would be⯑come unapt and feeble in its application, [189] and therefore could hardly be ſaid to ſubſiſt without it.’ To this performance I refer you with pleaſure.

It has been urged, and with an air of con⯑fidence, that Jeſus Chriſt cannot be an object of divine worſhip, becauſe in that excellent form of addreſs to the Deity which he re⯑commended to his diſciples, there is not the leaſt mention made of himſelf, nor the moſt diſtant alluſion to his office and character. A circumſtance which has been conſidered as deciſive in favour of Unitarianiſm. Some per⯑ſons have as little of knowledge as they have of faith in theſe matters. At the time of his dictating this mode of prayer, our bleſſed Lord was not, properly ſpeaking, either the mediator between God and man, or a ſacrifice for the ſins of the whole world. Though there⯑fore this form of devotion is uſed at this day with the greateſt propriety imaginable, yet it was originally delivered to the diſciples for their own more immediate uſe; as is mani⯑feſt from the nature of the thing, and from St. Luke's account of this matter. It came [190] to paſs, ſays that Evangeliſt, that as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceaſed, one of his diſciples ſaid unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John alſo taught his diſciples. ^* And he ſaid unto them, When ye pray, ſay, Our Father, &c. It was not till after his Aſcen⯑ſion, and return to his Father, that they could properly pray to or through him; that they were to aſk in his name, and to receive; it was not till after he had offered one ſacrifice for ſin, ^† and ſat down at the right hand of God, that his mediatorial character commenced, in which he ever liveth to make interceſſion for us.

There are two remarkable paſſages in St. Paul's Epiſtles, which, as they are claimed by our adverſaries with more appearance of right than the foregoing, it will be proper to take into conſideration. Who (i. e. Jeſus Chriſt) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made him⯑ſelf of no reputation, &c. ^‡This text is often quoted as aſſerting the true Divinity of our Saviour. I am therefore concerned to deliver [191] it from the conſtruction which the Arians with much aſſurance put upon it; and which many amongſt ourſelves have, I think, very un⯑warily admitted; ſubjecting themſelves there⯑by to the neceſſity of having recourſe to a hack⯑neyed, and after all mere verbal diſtinction be⯑tween ſelf-exiſtence and neceſſary exiſtence, in or⯑der to reconcile their admiſſion with orthodox principles. Thought it not robbery, &c. [...], i. e. (ſays Novatian and many with him,) he never compared himſelf with God the Father, nunquam ſe Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit; the reaſon follows, memor ſe eſſe ex ſuo Patre. Every Arian will abide by this explication; and how do the advocates for Novatian get clear of the im⯑puted conſequences? Why, ſays Dr. Water⯑land, ‘this interpretation of the text (ſup⯑poſing it juſt) implies no more than this, that Jeſus Chriſt never pretended to an equality with the Father in reſpect of his original, knowing himſelf to be ſecond only in order, not the firſt Perſon of the ever⯑bleſſed Trinity.’ Dr. W. obſerves, that the whole paſſage in Novatian, rightly un⯑derſtood, [192] affords a ſtrong proof of the co⯑equality of the two Perſons; and that it is quoted accordingly by Dr. Whitby in his trea⯑tiſe de vera Chriſti deitate. But as this can only be done by help of the above diſtinction, I muſt aſk, why Novatian's ſenſe of this text muſt be admitted as the true one? He did not affect, ſay ſome, did not claim, did not take upon him, &c. to be honoured as God. Notwithſtanding the great authorities of Grotius, Tillotſon, and Clarke, &c. ^*with which this interpretation is fortified, I can⯑not help thinking the reading in uſe, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, not barely to be the more eligible, but indeed the pro⯑per reading. For, not to inſiſt on one cir⯑cumſtance in its favour, which is the non⯑agreement of the ſeveral interpretations of the learned Gentlemen above-mentioned, it deſerves to be noted, that though the phraſe [...] would admit the conſtruc⯑tion contended for, yet the context will be found abſolutely to revolt againſt it. Grant⯑ing the phraſe being in the form of God to be [193] in itſelf of undeterminate ſignification, yet when predicated of him who is one with the Father, who was in the beginning with God, and really and truly was God, it certainly is to be regarded as ſynonymous with thoſe expreſ⯑ſions; and conſequently as importing an in⯑tire equality with God. But herewith the conſtruction of Novation, and of the Arians, not to ſay of Dr. W. himſelf, is totally in⯑compatible. The reading in uſe therefore muſt be allowed to be not only natural, but neceſſary. He thought it not robbery, i. e. to be no violation of right, or juſtice.

The other paſſage is the following. There is one body, ſays the Apoſtle to the Epheſians, and one Spirit; one Lord, one Faith, one Bap⯑tiſm; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Chap. iv. 4. &c. The Socinian and the Arian inference from theſe texts is obvious; but in proof that it is an unfair one, I would remark, that had St. Paul intended here to have diſtin⯑guiſhed the Father from the Son and the [194] Spirit, by this aſcription of Supremacy, he would certainly have named the two latter with their ſeverally diſcriminating inferior titles; and this without a needleſs, and I might ſay, impertinent combination of uni⯑ties, if I may ſo call them. Beſides, had this been the Apoſtle's deſign, how comes it to paſs that ſupremacy is in almoſt the ſame terms aſcribed in the New Teſtament to Jeſus Chriſt; whoſe throne is for ever and ever, who is Lord of all, who is over all, God bleſſed for ever? Or how are we to account for its being ſo frequently ſaid, that both Chriſt and the Spirit as well as the Father is in us? If the manifeſt attribution of Supremacy in the texts juſt now cited does not exclude the Fa⯑ther, why muſt it be underſtood in the place under conſideration to exclude the Son? The ſame queſtion may be aſked with the ſame propriety, and with the ſame ſucceſs, with re⯑gard to the following well-known paſſages in the firſt Epiſtle to Tim. which, I believe, the Anti-trinitarians in general ſet with much aſſurance at the head of their authorities.

[195] Now unto the king eternal, immortal, inviſible, the only wiſe God, be honour and glory for ever and ever: ^†Who is the bleſſed and only poten⯑tate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath ſeen, or can ſee: to whom be honour and power everlaſting. Surely all this is briefly but fully comprehended in the above deſcriptions of Jeſus Chriſt; to whom, by the way, in⯑dependently on the Father, St. Peter aſcribes glory both now and for ever. We ſhall now be able to deſpatch with no difficulty certain paſſages which at firſt ſight have an humi⯑liating tendency, and ſeem to import the in⯑feriority of the Son to the Father, and the imperſonality of the Holy Ghoſt. It may be of uſe to expoſe pretences.

With reſpect to his human character, or his legation, Chriſt is confeſſedly God's; and the head of Chriſt is God; and, ſays he, my Father is greater than I. We have already ſeen, that the abſolute Godhead of Jeſus [196] Chriſt, though it had been on certain occa⯑ſions not barely intimated, but in plain terms aſſerted by him, was not uniformly mani⯑feſted to his diſciples during his reſidence upon earth. It was a truth which he was in due time fully to authenticate to them, but which at preſent for obvious reaſons they could not bear. ^*Accordingly, as in many other places, ſo in the words laſt quoted, which were calculated to ſooth them under the loſs they were about to ſuſtain by his going away, my Father is greater than I, the bleſſed Jeſus with particular propriety alludes to the commiſſion he had undertaken, and adapts himſelf to their imperfect and un⯑ſettled conceptions. ^†On pretty much the ſame ground he had at another time declared to the ruler who addreſſed him under the character of Good Maſter, ^‡that there is none good but one, that is God. The full manifeſ⯑tation of the great myſtery of the Goſpel was reſerved for the day of Pentecoſt; before which conſideration a thouſand difficulties [197] will crumble into atoms; and by which an anſwer is given in full to the ſubſtance of what Dr. Prieſtly has advanced in the firſt Sect. of the Introd. to his Hiſtory of EARLY OPINIONS, with reſpect to the ſilence of the Old Teſtament, and the incompetency of a great part of the New.

This is life eternal, ſays our bleſſed Lord, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jeſus Chriſt whom thou haſt ſent. ^*Our Lord, ſpeaking here in his human capacity, and with reference to his miſſion, very naturally avows his Father to be the only true God, in contradiſtinction to all falſe Gods; but cannot be ſuppoſed to exclude himſelf and the Holy Ghoſt, who are partakers of one eſſence with the true.

So again: who is the firſt born of every creature, and the beginning of the creation of God. ^†As to the latter of theſe expreſſions, it implies no more, according to ſome inter⯑pretations, than the Father of the Chriſtian [198] Church, or, if the original word had been rendered the cauſe, or the origin, inſtead of the beginning, as with very ſufficient war⯑rant it might have been, this text is ſo far from affirming Chriſt to be a creature, that, in effect, it avers him to be the Creator; or, if it be preciſely equivalent to the former ex⯑preſſion, it will in courſe be reducible to the ſame ſignification. Now literally, and in his human character, Jeſus Chriſt was not the firſt-born of every creature; and in his divine character he was not born or begotten at all, except in a tranſcendent and incomprehen⯑ſible ſenſe; but he was, and is ſtyled in a few verſes below, the firſt-born from the dead, and in his own reſurrection aſcertained ours, &c. And in this juſt ſenſe he is the firſt-born of every creature, the beginning of the Creation of God, or of the new creation and conſtitution of things, not only without diſparagement to his divine nature, but in direct confirmation of it.

So again: Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, [199] neither the Son, but the Father. ^*In our Sa⯑viour's human capacity, or in his mediatorial character, the final and general judgment was a matter that did not concern him; but in his divine character he cannot but know the time of his own viſitations.

So again: Go to my brethren, and ſay unto them, I aſcend unto my Father, and your Fa⯑ther, and to my God, and your God. ^†Theſe words contain a proper and natural commiſ⯑ſion given to Mary Magdalen by our bleſſed Lord in conſequence of his reſurrection, and agreeably to what he had ſpoken unto his diſciples when he was yet in Galilee. ^‡It was his intention to ſignify by her the ſpeedy ac⯑compliſhment of what he had frequently foretold and promiſed them under the cha⯑racter of the Meſſiah; but it was neither ne⯑ceſſary nor expedient to diſcover to her ſingly the fulneſs of his Godhead.

So once more: When all things ſhall be ſubdued unto him, THEN ſhall the Son alſo [200] himſelf be ſubject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ^§In other words; when the great ſcheme of man's redemption ſhall be completed, Chriſt ſhall reſign his commiſſion into his hands from whom he received it, and his media⯑torial kingdom be ſucceeded by the eternal kingdom of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, with whom the Saints, and Spirits of juſt men made perfect, ſhall live in fulneſs of bliſs and glory. This is the obvious and in⯑deed neceſſary conſtruction. For if we attend to the letter of this paſſage, and not to the ſpirit and ſcope of it, when all things ſhall be ſubdued, &c. THEN ſhall the Son be ſubject, &c. we ſhall aſſert that Jeſus Chriſt will be ſubject to the Father AFTER the conſumma⯑tion of all things, but was not ſo BEFORE; or, that he was greater in his human cha⯑racter than in his divine: which is abſurd. He muſt reign, ſays the Apoſtle, juſt before, till he hath put all things under his feet. Now it is not literally true that he ſhall reign ſo long, and no longer than this, as the words [201] import. For though his reign over the Church militant ſhall ceaſe, of his reign over the Church triumphant there ſhall be no end. The truth is, with the Evangelical plan, with the commiſſion of Jeſus Chriſt, the idea of ſubordination, or ſubjection, is connected; but with regard to abſolute per⯑fection of eſſence and attribute, the comple⯑ment of the Godhead, the Trinity in Unity, ever was, and for ever will be ALL IN ALL.

Laſtly: with reſpect to ſuch expreſſions as the following, which appear inconſiſtent with perſonality, be filled with the Spirit; ^* quench not the Spirit; ^† the Spirit which he hath given us; ^‡ receive ye the Holy Ghoſt; ^§&c. it is obvious to remark, that, agreeably to a common figure, the cauſe and its effects are promiſcuouſly uſed; and accordingly by the Spirit in all theſe places, and in all pa⯑rallel ones, we are to underſtand the gifts and graces of which the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghoſt is the diſpenſer. If this interpretation [202] be not admitted, we may with equal pro⯑priety and juſtice call in queſtion the perſo⯑nality of Jeſus Chriſt in his human character, and even that of God the Father himſelf. For if Chriſt be in us, the body is dead; ^*and God is a conſuming fire; ^† God is love; ^‡ and God is in you of a truth. ^§

On the whole then, I may fairly conclude with remarking, that, for the moſt part, in the arguments of Socinians we may be ſaid to have premiſſes without concluſions, and in thoſe of Arians concluſions without premiſſes; and that there is nothing in the feeble at⯑tempts, the bold aſſertions, or the perverſe diſputings of our adverſaries, I do not ſay to terrify, but in any degree to diſcourage us from ſtriving together for the faith of the Goſpel, even that faith which ſtandeth not in the wiſdom of men, but in the power of God. ^**

DISCOURSE VII.

THAT important article of our Creeds, the Reſurrection of the Body, is the other great myſtery which has all along been fooliſhneſs to Infidels, and a ſtumbling-block to many Chriſtians. Under this article then I am to endeavour, agreeably to my engagements, to give all the ſatisfaction which the ſenſible, the candid, and the well-diſpoſed can re⯑quire.

I might inſiſt that the great doctrine before us is virtually at leaſt contained in my text: [204] but as there is a ſtrong propenſity in human pride to conſider what is propounded to our faith as inſulting our underſtandings, it will be neceſſary to enter into a full and even minute diſcuſſion of the ſubject.

A late ingenious author, Dr. Sykes, very confidently aſſerts, that this doctrine has no manner of warrant from ſcriptural authority. He obſerves, as Mr. Locke has done before him, that ‘there is not any ſuch expreſſion in the New Teſtament as the Reſurrection of the fleſh; that the Scriptures often ſpeak of a Reſurrection, and of the Reſurrection of the dead; but as to the Reſurrection of the body, or of the fleſh, there is not one word. And therefore that ſuch an article was required at firſt to be profeſſed in order to Baptiſm, can never be proved.’ ^*

I have already apologized for freedoms taken with the dead. The names I juſt now mentioned are of the firſt authority with unbelievers at this day; and I take a part in the controverſy with a hope to con⯑duct [205] it to your content, if not by recency of argument, or reply, at leaſt by the mode of their enforcement.

Now that the above expreſſions or phraſes,—the Reſurrection of the body, or the fleſh, never occur in the New Teſtament; that this article, together with ſome others which Dr. S. mentions, did not make a part of the Baptiſmal Creed before the middle of the fourth century, may without difficulty be admitted; becauſe if it will appear, that the Reſurrection of the body, or of the fleſh, is moſt unqueſtionably the doctrine of Scrip⯑ture, and of the Apoſtolical and primitive Church, we are bound by all means to retain it; and its inſertion into the Creed at any time was both proper and neceſſary; the original Creed, whatever it preciſely was, having been reaſonably enlarged, (by Dr. S's own confeſſion), as circumſtances de⯑manded, and hereſies multiplied.

Let us enquire then, whether the doctrine of the Reſurrection, as it is delivered in our [206] Creeds, be not founded in evidence rational, ſcriptural, and irreſiſtible.

If we conſider this doctrine as a matter of opinion, and not of faith, we ſhall find it to have countenance in no contemptible autho⯑rity. Tho' the heathens ſaw ſpiritual things in general thro' a dim glaſs indeed; tho' the proſpect of futurity was greatly clouded to a world almoſt wholly corrupt in principle, and abandoned in practice, yet the notion of another ſtate, and even of a reſurrection, or of a renovation of all things, which is a reſurrection in effect, was far from being univerſally ex⯑ploded, as abſolutely ridiculous, or chimeri⯑cal. We are aſſured Zorouſtres taught the doctrine of the reſurrection among the antient Perſians, as he himſelf derived it moſt pro⯑bably from the Jews, with whom he had communications. Grotius, who, with reſ⯑pect to this article at leaſt, was not of doubt⯑ful mind, in proof of the admiſſible poſſibi⯑lity of the thing, cites the authorities both of hiſtorians and philoſophers, and affirms it to have been the tenet of almoſt the whole ſect of the Stoics. ^*The Grecian [207] cuſtom of burying the dead with their faces upwards, and looking toward the riſing Sun, which is exactly the Chriſtian mode, has a very ſtrong ſmatch of this ſentiment. (aa) 'Tis obſervable, Mahomet ſpeaks in his Koran of the reſurrection as of a doctrine known and received in the world from the beginning, and far antecedently to the Moſaic diſpenſa⯑tion. This appears from the following paſ⯑ſage. ‘That this, i. e. the doctrine of the re⯑ſurrection, is no other than fables of the ANTIENTS is, ſays he, the pretence of unbelievers.’ And indeed his learned tranſlator remarks in his Preliminary Diſ⯑courſe, that ſome of the Pagan Arabs be⯑lieved neither a creation, nor reſurrection; but that others believed both. We are given to underſtand by a ſenſible writer, that the firſt Europeans who viſited China found many Chriſtian truths intermingled with the traſh of fable, and tradition; that the Gentiles of Indoſtan have confuſed notions of the Trini⯑ty; and in particular that the people of Ceylon believe the Reſurrection of the Body. ^*

[208] In his note at the 19th verſe of the 26th chapter of Iſaiah,—Thy dead men ſhall live, together with my dead body ſhall they ariſe, &c. the learned Bp. Lowth obſerves, that the doctrine of the reſurrection of the dead muſt have been "a popular and common doctrine" among the Jews, at the time of the delivery of this prophecy; and we may reaſonably make the ſame inference from a parallel paſſage in Daniel;—many of them that ſleep in the duſt of the earth ſhall awake; &c. many, as I find it noted by the judicious commentator, being here and elſewhere manifeſtly equivalent to all.

That the notion of a Reſurrection, accord⯑ing to the common acceptation of the term, prevailed among the Jews in our Saviour's time, will be ſoon manifeſt from certain occurrences and paſſages in the evangelical writings. St. Paul, in his apology before King Agrippa, affirms it to have its founda⯑tion in the hope of the promiſe made unto the Fathers: tho' when, where, or in what man⯑ner, he mentions not. And certain it is that the Phariſees, the ſtraiteſt and moſt [209] conſiderable Sect among them, not only en⯑tertained this notion with ſeriouſneſs, but contended for it with vehemency; as ap⯑pears from the violence of oppoſition be⯑tween them and the Sadducees, who as ſtre⯑nuouſly denied it. What then did both parties underſtand by it? Let us, for a reſolution of this queſtion, turn firſt to the account which the evangeliſts give us of a diſcourſe held by the Sadducees with our Saviour, on the ſubject of the Reſurrection. The ſame day, ſays St. Matthew, and much in the ſame words, St. Mark, and St. Luke after him, came to him the Sadducees, who ſay that there is no Reſurrection, and aſked him, ſaying, Maſter, Moſes ſaid, if a man die having no children, his brother ſhall marry his wife, and raiſe up ſeed unto his brother: now there were with us ſeven brethren; and the firſt when he had married a wife, deceaſed; and having no iſſue left his wife to his brother; likewiſe the ſecond alſo, and the third, to the ſeventh. And laſt of all, the woman died alſo. Therefore in the Reſurrection whoſe wife ſhall ſhe be of the ſeven, for they all [210] had her. ^*The argument herein implied is indeed perfectly ridiculous, and groſſly car⯑nal; and is expoſed accordingly by our bleſſed Lord in his reply to it: but it unde⯑niably ſuppoſes the reſurrection of the bodies of theſe ſame brethren and their wife, agre⯑ably to the Phariſaical hypotheſis. Indeed that very reply plainly ſuppoſes the ſame thing. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the reſurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marri⯑age, but are as the angels of God in heaven. All this is abundantly confirmed by our Saviour's own argument immediately follow⯑ing. As touching the reſurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was ſpoken to you by God, ſaying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. There is neither connection, nor indeed ſenſe in this portion of ſcripture⯑hiſtory, unleſs we ſuppoſe the re-union of the ſouls and bodies of Abraham and Iſaac, &c. in the reſurrection; and that our Sa⯑viour [211] meant by implication to aſſert it. For his argument directly proves nothing more than the immortality of the ſoul, and its conſequential exiſtence in a future ſtate. But had this proof been the ſole object of his diſcourſe, he would moſt aſſuredly have ex⯑preſſed himſelf in a very different manner upon the occaſion. Our Lord's meaning is yet more fully diſcovered by St. Luke's ac⯑count of this matter. Now that the dead are raiſed, ſays he, according to that Evangeliſt, EVEN Moſes ſhewed at the buſh, ſaying, &c.

Again: When our Lord told Martha, that her brother, newly deceaſed, ſhould riſe again, ſhe ſaid unto him, ſays the ſacred text, I know that he ſhall riſe again in the reſurrec⯑tion at the laſt day. ^*Now that Martha be⯑lieved her brother ſhould riſe again at the laſt day with that body which was laid in the grave, and had been dead four days, is evi⯑dent enough from this conſideration; that, though ſhe appears to have been doubtful of the poſſibility of his reſurrection at that time, [212] and in ſo extraordinary a way, Lord, ſays ſhe, by this time he ſtinketh, and this notwith⯑ſtanding her avowed belief that whatſoever our Saviour would aſk of God, God would give it him, and his declaration that he was him⯑ſelf the reſurrection and the life, yet when Lazarus actually came forth, neither ſhe nor the many Jews who were preſent ſhewed the leaſt ſign of amazement. It does not appear that they were in any degree aſtoniſhed at this mode of his reſtoration to life; and there⯑fore we may juſtly preſume they were per⯑ſuaded that in the reſurrection at the laſt day "all men ſhall riſe again with their bodies," through the operation of that omnipotent power which, in the twinkling of an eye, is able to inſpire life and vigour into duſt and aſhes, and animate corruption itſelf.

The ſuppoſed reſurrection of John the Baptiſt may be conſidered in the ſame point of view. Herod, hearing of the fame of Je⯑ſus, ſaid unto his ſervants, as the Evangeliſt acquaints us, this is John the Baptiſt, he is riſen from the dead, and therefore mighty [213] works do ſhew forth themſelves in him. Herod hardly thought theſe works were done by the ſpirit or apparition of the Baptiſt; and if not, we muſt conclude that he believed him to be riſen indeed, according to the notions entertained by the Jews. The ſacred hiſ⯑tory informs us the Sadducees were grieved that the Apoſtles preached through Jeſus the reſurrection from the dead. And is it not as plain as implication can make it, that their doctrine was, that the followers of Jeſus, and indeed all men, ſhould be raiſed in like manner as he was?

The truth is, of this kind of implied evi⯑dence we have plenty in the ſacred volume. I will only produce one piece more of Goſ⯑pel-hiſtory, in preſumptive proof that Gen⯑tiles as well as Jews underſtood by a reſur⯑rection what we do at this day. St. Paul concludes his diſcourſe to the Athenians with inſiſting on the certainty of a future judg⯑ment from the aſſurance which God had given to all men of it, by his having raiſed that man, whom he had ordained to be their judge, [214] from the dead. And when they heard of the re⯑ſurrection of the dead, ſays the hiſtorian, ſome mocked; but others ſaid, we will hear thee again of this matter. ^*Now St. Paul's audi⯑ence conſiſted chiefly of Stoics and Epicu⯑reans; and the latter moſt undoubtedly were the party that derided the doctrine which the former did not conceive to be altogether ex⯑travagant, or ridiculous. But had the Apoſ⯑tle meant only to inculcate the general doc⯑trine of a future ſtate, the Stoics in all pro⯑bability would have been ſatisfied as to that point without a farther hearing; and the Epicureans would have no more mocked, or inſulted, than if a Stoic had preached it.

Indeed there is one circumſtance in the evangelical hiſtory which at firſt glance may be thought to militate againſt what has been laid before you. When our Saviour came down from the mountain after his Transfigura⯑tion, with Peter, James, and John, and charged them that they ſhould tell no man what things they had ſeen, till the Son of man were riſen [215] from the dead, they kept that ſaying with them⯑ſelves, queſtioning one with another, what the riſing from the dead ſhould mean. ^†But that they could not poſſibly doubt what was to be underſtood by the expreſſion, or the thing itſelf, is demonſtrable from preceding con⯑ſiderations; and therefore the caſe muſt have been this. They were perplexed with the account our Lord had given of himſelf; they could not conceive how their Maſter, whom they ſtill regarded as a temporal deliverer, ſhould ſuffer and be put to an ignominious death, (as he had aſſured them he ſhould in the 31^st v. of the laſt Chapter;) or how the expected deliverance would be effected by, or after ſuch reſurrection: this was probably the ſubject of their enquiry; they queſtioned one with another, not what THE, but what HIS riſing from the dead ſhould mean. All this is perfectly conſiſtent with a parallel paſſage in St. Luke. He took unto him the twelve, and ſaid unto them, Behold, we go up to Je⯑ruſalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man ſhall be ac⯑compliſhed. [216] For he ſhall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and ſhall be mocked, and ſpitefully in⯑treated and ſpitted on; and they ſhall ſcourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he ſhall riſe again. And they underſtood none of theſe things: and this ſaying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were ſpoken. Luke xviii. 31.

What has already been advanced will ob⯑viate a common aſſertion, or inſinuation, that there is a very material difference between the caſe of a body which has been dead a few days, or months, or even years, and of one which has been buried in the earth many centuries ſince; and that the ſame Power which is able to effect a reſurrection in the former caſe, cannot be conceived adequate to the like operation in the latter. And indeed it deſerves to be remarked, that to maintain, or to intimate this, is at beſt to make ex⯑tremely free with Omnipotence, and in fact only begs a queſtion inſtead of ſatisfying it. Beſides, this expedient will appear to be hea⯑vily encumbered with ſtrange inconveni⯑ences; [217] to ſpeak much leſs harſhly of it than perhaps in juſtice I ſhould. When a finite underſtanding has laid the line which infi⯑nite power cannot paſs, it will have a fair claim to our attention; although, even were this done, the number of inſtances we meet with in holy writ of the ſame identical body's being raiſed from the grave, or reſtored to life, which had actually deceaſed, will how⯑ever juſtify our ſuppoſition, that the bodies of ſuch as ſhall die within a reaſonable time before the laſt day ſhall be raiſed after this modus or manner; and agreeably to the com⯑mon and natural ideas of a reſurrection. It will be hard indeed if our adverſaries will not allow us to take this for granted; and if they will, the ſame underſtanding which is able to meaſure infinity can readily inform us how, or whether with a body or without one, the bulk of mankind ſhall appear at the great day of final retribution.

I come now to revelation more clear and explicit; to plain, intelligible Scripture; with reſpect to which, it pains one to ſee ſo great a man as Mr. Locke taking refuge [218] in the above diſtinction, and indeed in the moſt pitiful evaſions. Obſerve then how this juſtly celebrated philoſopher expreſſes himſelf in the paſſage following. ‘In the New Teſtament (wherein, I think, are contained all the articles of the Chriſtian Faith,) I find our Saviour and his Apoſ⯑tles to preach the reſurrection from the dead, and the reſurrection of the dead in many places: but I do not remember any place where the reſurrection of the ſame body is ſo much as mentioned. Nay, which is very remarkable in the caſe, I do not re⯑member in any place of the New Teſta⯑ment, (where the general reſurrection at the laſt day is ſpoken of,) any ſuch ex⯑preſſion as the reſurrection of the body, much leſs of the ſame body. I ſay, the general reſurrection, &c. becauſe where the reſur⯑rection of ſome particular perſons preſently upon our Saviour's reſurrection is men⯑tioned, the words are, the graves were opened, and many bodies of ſaints, which ſlept, aroſe, and came out of the graves, after his reſurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many: of which peculiar way [219] of ſpeaking of this reſurrection, the paſſage itſelf gives a reaſon in theſe words, ap⯑peared to many; i. e. thoſe who ſlept, ap⯑peared, ſo as to be riſen. But this could not be known, unleſs they brought with them the evidence, that they were thoſe who had been dead, &c. And it is pro⯑bable they were ſuch as were newly dead, whoſe bodies were not yet diſſolved, &c.’ ^*

There is, I perſuade myſelf, little or no⯑thing in this paſſage but has its anſwer in the foregoing conſiderations; unleſs we ſhould be kind enough to acknowlege for argument the triumphant ſneer of that parentheſis, (wherein, I think, are contained all the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith.) It might therefore be ſufficient to remark, that Mr. L. ſeems to admit myſteries as ſome people diſpenſe alms, viz. grudgingly, or of neceſſity; and at the ſame time to expreſs our obligations to him for his indulgent conceſſion, that bodies have been raiſed from the dead upon particular oc⯑caſions. But becauſe this great writer may poſſibly be ſtill thought by ſome to have hit [220] upon an expedient, which happily helps him out of embaraſſment, in the ſtale diſtinction between a particular and the general Reſur⯑rection, let us ſee whether this diſtinction will not vaniſh before the enſuing argumentation.

I venture to aver then that the reſurrection of the body of Jeſus Chriſt is an eſpecial earneſt, or ſure token of the reſurrection of our bodies from the dead. I deſire your im⯑partial judgment of the texts which follow. Now is Chriſt riſen from the dead, and become the firſt-fruits of them that ſlept. ^* God hath both raiſed up the Lord, and will alſo raiſe up us by his own power. If we have been ^† planted together in the likeneſs of his death, we ſhall be alſo in the likeneſs of his reſurrection. He who raiſed up the Lord Jeſus, ſhall raiſe up us alſo by Jeſus. ^‡ As the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even ſo the Son quick⯑eneth whom he will. ^§Theſe texts will be ſufficient for my preſent purpoſe. Let us conſider them ſeparately a little. Now is [221] Chriſt riſen from the dead, and become the firſt-fruits of them that ſlept. I need not enlarge upon the Jewiſh practice alluded to under this figurative expreſſion; and ſhall only ob⯑ſerve, that, as the firſt-fruits were offerings of that identical grain of which the harveſt was to follow, the reſurrection of our bodies, after that of Chriſt, could not have been ſig⯑nified by a finer emblem. God hath both raiſed up the Lord, and will alſo raiſe up us by his own power: i. e. moſt undoubtedly, he will raiſe up us in like manner. If we have been planted together in the likeneſs of his death, we ſhall be alſo in the likeneſs of his reſurrec⯑tion. The former part of this verſe has ſome obſcurity in it, which may be liable to va⯑rious conſtruction; but the latter aſcertains, almoſt as fully as words can do, the great article before us. He who raiſed up the Lord Jeſus, ſhall raiſe up us alſo by Jeſus. This text is exactly parallel with that juſt quoted from the other Epiſtle to the Corinthians. As the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even ſo the Son quickeneth whom he will. This proof runs rather in another line, but how⯑ever [222] will terminate in the ſame point. For we may ſafely conclude, that the Son will raiſe the dead, and quicken them hereafter, in the ſame manner in which himſelf and many dead perſons have been already raiſed. We have by this time, I hope, ſufficient grounds for this concluſion. And indeed St. Paul aſſures us, that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſhall change our vile body that IT may be faſhioned like unto his glorious body. ^*For how, or when ſhall he do this, if not in the GENERAL re⯑ſurrection at the laſt day, and by a change of THAT body which was depoſited in the ground? Our vile body is not to be changed for ANOTHER body, but is ITSELF to be fa⯑ſhioned like unto Chriſt's glorious body. Would it not be prima facie ridiculous to attempt tor⯑turing the paſſage to any other ſenſe?

Though what has been here offered can, I think, ſcarcely fall ſhort of bringing convic⯑tion to a mind open to it, yet it will be greatly corroborated by other paſſages and particulars, and eſpecially by the doctrine [223] contained in the fifteenth Chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, which is almoſt totally ſpent upon this ſubject. In truth, there are more reaſons than one for our not paſſing by that Chapter. If we read this por⯑tion of Scripture with due attention, and impartiality, we ſhall be led, I preſume, to this unavoidable concluſion, that the bodies of all men ſhall be raiſed, if not abſolutely, totally, or numerically, yet really and truly the ſame as they died; or, in other words, that the bodies which ſhall be raiſed ſhall, with their reſpective ſouls, conſtitute the ſame per⯑ſons that lived before in the world: nor can this doctrine be invalidated by metaphyſical ſubtilties, and oppoſitions of ſcience falsly ſo called; which are much leſs calculated to ſatisfy, than to perplex and confound us. If the import of ſuch paſſages as the following, it is ſown in diſhonour, it is raiſed in glory; ^† it is ſown in weakneſs, it is raiſed in power; it is ſown a natural body, it is raiſed a ſpiritual body; behold I ſhew you a myſtery; we ſhall not all ſleep, but we ſhall all be changed in a mo⯑ment, [224] in the twinkling of an eye, at the laſt trump; for the trumpet ſhall ſound, and the dead ſhall be raiſed incorruptible, and we ſhall be changed; for THIS corruptible muſt put on incorruption, and THIS mortal muſt put on im⯑mortality; if the manifeſt import of theſe texts can be evaded, ſo may the moſt ſtudied paraphraſe, or the moſt careful illuſtration of them. There will be no ſuch thing as intelligible language to be found. The caſe is, the human body undergoes many changes in a courſe of years, e. g. from infancy to old age, which, I ſuppoſe, it will be granted, are the changes of the ſame body, properly ſpeaking, ſtill. For though it may not be eaſy to ſay preciſely in what the ratio of identity conſiſts, we may ſafely ſay, than an almoſt infinite number of changes and mo⯑difications, which might be ſuppoſed, do not affect it. There are very few names which have a ſtronger claim to deference than that of Mr. Boyle; and it is an obſervation of his, that ‘there is no ſaying what the utmoſt human art or contrivance may be able to effect; much leſs what means, even phyſical [225] ones, God is able to uſe for the repro⯑duction of bodies; of which the neceſſary conſtituent parts may be preſerved conſiſ⯑tently with numberleſs changes from the cradle to the grave, and after death.’ Our great Creator at leaſt knows what pro⯑perly conſtitutes identity much better than we can tell him; and therefore without en⯑tering fully into the ſtate of the controverſy as maintained long ago by Dr. Stilling fleet and Mr. Locke, (which would be little bet⯑ter than continuing a game of words,) I ſhall content myſelf with pointing out to you one or two inſtances of cavil, and quibble, and captiouſneſs in the latter, which plainly enough indicate him to have been galled in many places, and are indeed altogether un⯑worthy both of himſelf and his argument.

The Biſhop, in vindication of his own and the catholic tenet, cites theſe words of our bleſſed Saviour, all that are in the graves ſhall hear his voice, and ſhall come forth. ‘From hence, ſays Mr. L., your Lordſhip [226] argues, that theſe words, all that are in the graves, relate to no other ſubſtance than what was united to the Soul in life; be⯑cauſe a different ſubſtance cannot be ſaid to be in the graves, and to come out of them. Which words of your Lordſhip, if they prove any thing, prove that the Soul too is lodged in the grave, and raiſed out of it at the laſt day. For your Lord⯑ſhip ſays, can a different ſubſtance be ſaid to be in the graves, and come out of them? So that according to this interpretation of theſe words of our Saviour, no other ſub⯑ſtance being raiſed but what hears his voice, but what, being called, comes out of the grave; and no other ſubſtance com⯑ing out of the grave, but what was in the grave; any one muſt conclude, that the Soul, unleſs it be in the grave, will make no part of the perſon that is raiſed, unleſs, as your Lordſhip argues againſt me, you can make it out, that a ſubſtance which never was in the grave, may come out of it; or that the Soul is no ſubſtance.’ ^*But [227] will not this ſophiſtical bubble burſt in an inſtant before a moſt ſimple conſideration, purſued through its neceſſary conſequences? By a common figure, and agreeably to the cuſtomary licenſe of ſpeech, we talk of the acts, or operations of one of the two con⯑ſtituent parts of man, as of the acts or ope⯑rations of the whole. E. G. No ſoul ſees me; or no body ſees me; every ſoul heard him; or no body heard him; are expreſſions uſed in⯑diſcriminately, not only in ordinary diſcourſe, but in correct compoſition. The ſoul per⯑ceives the voice; the body is raiſed by divine power, and reunited to it. (bb)

Again: The learned prelate quotes the following words of the Apoſtle, in ſupport of the doctrine of the reſurrection as it is held in the Church. We muſt all appear be⯑fore the judgmentſeat of Chriſt, that every one may receive the things done in his body, accord⯑ing to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. To which his Lordſhip ſubjoins this queſtion: CAN THESE WORDS BE UNDER⯑STOOD [228] OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL SUB⯑STANCE BUT THAT BODY IN WHICH THESE THINGS WERE DONE? ‘A man, Mr. L. anſwers, may ſuſpend his deter⯑mining the meaning of the Apoſtle to be, that a ſinner ſhall ſuffer for his ſins in the very ſame body in which he committed them: becauſe St. Paul does not ſay he ſhall have the very ſame body when he ſuf⯑fers, that he had when he ſinned. The Apoſtle ſays indeed, done in his body. The body he had, and did things in at five, or fifteen, was, no doubt, his body, as much as that which he did things in at fifty was his body, though his body were not the very ſame body at thoſe different ages: and ſo will the body, which he ſhall have AFTER the reſurrection, be his body, though it be not the very ſame with that which he had at five, at fifteen, or fifty.’ ^*Now agreeing with Mr. L. and the admirers of his doctrine upon this head, that ‘the body which a man ſhall have after the reſurrection,’ according to their ſcheme, (for what ſhall be done in [229] or at it, we are left to conjecture,) I ſay, agreeing with them, that this body will be his body, yet we would fain know in what ſenſe he could be ſaid to receive the things done IN IT, or BY IT, according to another reading. A man has his body truly, if not numerically the ſame through life, under a greater or leſs variety of changes and modi⯑fications; but by Mr. L's train of reaſoning, it ſhould ſeem that a man may have his body before he is in poſſeſſion of it. Had the Apoſtle ſaid, as a man ſins in a body, ſo he ſhall ſuffer in a body, Mr. L's mode of ar⯑guing might have been admitted; but as matters ſtand at preſent, it has evidently no logic to ſupport it.

Once more. ‘The next text of Scripture you bring for the ſame body, ſays Mr. L. is, if there be no reſurrection of the dead, then is not Chriſt raiſed. From which your Lordſhip argues, IT SEEMS THEN OTHER BODIES ARE TO BE RAISED AS HIS WAS. I grant other dead as certainly raiſed as [230] Chriſt was; for elſe his reſurrection would be of no uſe to mankind. But I do not ſee how it follows, that they ſhall be raiſed with the ſame body, as your Lordſhip in⯑fers in theſe words annexed; AND CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT, WHETHER HIS BODY WAS THE SAME MATERIAL SUB⯑STANCE WHICH WAS UNITED TO HIS SOUL BEFORE? I anſwer, none at all; nor that it had juſt the ſame diſtinguiſhed lineaments and marks, yea and the ſame wounds that it had at the time of his death. If therefore your Lordſhip will argue from other bodies being raiſed as his was, that they muſt have proportion with his in SAMENESS, then we muſt believe, that every man ſhall be raiſed with the ſame lineaments and other notes of diſtinction he had at the time of his death, even with his wounds yet open, if he had any, be⯑cauſe our Saviour was ſo raiſed; which ſeems to be ſcarce reconcileable with what your Lordſhip ſays, of A FAT MAN FALLING INTO A CONSUMPTION, AND DYING.’ ^*

[231] The wit here is not worth anſwering; and the fallacy of the paragraph was obviated in ſome of the foregoing obſervations. Suffice it to remark that the addition of one word in its proper place would have demoliſhed all this fine fabric of reaſoning. Mr. L. ſhould have granted, that other dead and BURIED ſhall "as certainly be raiſed as Chriſt was." In ſhort, we affirm, on Scriptural authority, that at the laſt day the bodies of men ſhall really be raiſed. The article of the reſurrection in our Creeds requires only this belief. We are neither concerned in niceties of conjecture, nor obliged to adopt Mr. L's. notion of identity. (cc)

But to return to Dr. S. I admit that this learned writer has ſpeciouſly enough recon⯑ciled a text or two ^*to his favourite tenet, which have been generally referred to the re⯑ceived doctrine. But ſhall plauſibility be ob⯑truded upon us for demonſtration? Shall it overturn the credit of other interpretations [232] of the ſame paſſages, more ſolid perhaps, or at leaſt equally ingenious? Shall it ſuperſede the authority of a very great number of texts too clear and explicit to be oppoſed by any thing but general aſſertions, bold denials, flat contradictions, and the artifice of ſubti⯑lization? Shall it ſhake the faith of ages, and nullify the doctrine of the catholic Church?

And, after all, in this, as in the caſe of the Trinity, we are in effect only called upon to exchange one Creed for another. Theſe ſqueamiſh Gentlemen who know not how to digeſt the wholſome doctrines of the Goſpel, expect us to ſwallow with greedineſs a kind of ſpiritual Noſtrum, prepared by human imagi⯑nation. It is true, Dr. S. with all the ef⯑frontery of quackery, would make us believe his doſe may be taken without any ſort of in⯑convenience. For he roundly aſſerts, that ‘the reſurrection of the dead is no ways liable to any of the difficulties which the other notion MAY be liable to.’ Now whatever [233] difficulties our notion may be liable to, I aſk, whether that of the Doctor has not at firſt ſight its peculiar difficulties? Indeed it will ſtand clear of all, if we anſwer the following queries ſuitably to the confidence with which he propoſes them. ‘May there not be a reſurrection of the dead, ſays he, without the reſurrection of fleſh? May not the dead perſon be raiſed to life, and have a body given to him, ſuitable to the place he is to have? May not the thinking conſcious perſon be reſtored, though he has not that reſtored which has no thought, nor conſci⯑ouſneſs belonging to it?’ To the firſt of theſe three queſtions I anſwer abſolutely—No.—A reſurrection of the dead, ſuppoſes a reſurrection of fleſh. To the ſecond and third I make free to reply with a few queſtions in my turn; and deſire to aſk, whether, when the graves and the ſea ſhall give up the dead, they will not give up what was put into them? Was this the body, or was it the ſoul? Or, if by a reſurrection of the dead we are only to underſtand our being inveſted with a new [234] body, with what ſhadow of ſenſe is this ſtyled a reſurrection? Or, if there is ſenſe and pro⯑priety in the term, may we not fairly aſk, from whence is this body to come? (dd) If thought, or conſciouſneſs conſtitutes perſon, can thought or conſciouſneſs die? If not, what are we to underſtand by ‘a thinking con⯑ſcious perſon's being reſtored?’ Reſtored! From whence? Or to what? (ee) In ſhort, whatever becomes of man after death, what⯑ever may be the nature of the intermediate ſtate, what notion can we form of thought's riſing from the dead, or the reſurrection of conſciouſneſs? Men will advance inconſiſ⯑tences, and aſſert paradoxes ſooner than be⯑lieve as the Church would have them. (ff)

This notion of a thinking perſon's being re⯑ſtored does indeed correſpond well enough with an opinion maintained with much ear⯑neſtneſs ſome years ſince by certain Divines, ^*who held, that during the ſtate between death and the laſt day, the ſoul will ſleep, as [235] it were, and all the rational powers be ſuſ⯑pended. I ſhall not enter into the merits of their arguments. It will be ſufficient to ſay, that theſe writers ſuppoſed the reunion of the Soul to the body at the day of judgment; and conſequently, according to their notion, (for argument's ſake admitting it,) the reſtora⯑tion of the Soul to its powers, &c. and the re⯑ſurrection of the dead, are very different things.

Again: if we believe the Apoſtle's ac⯑count, the inſtantaneous change which is to be effected in us at the reſurrection will be from natural to ſpiritual, from corruptible to incorruptible; but we ſhall look in vain for ſuch a change under any other hypotheſis. They who inſiſt, that our ſouls ſhall be united to new bodies may be allowed to ſup⯑poſe ſuch bodies will be ſpiritual, as St. Paul ſpeaks, and incorruptible; but will they not be hard put to it to prove that theſe ever were natural, or corruptible? Or does this Apoſ⯑tle's illuſtration of the doctrine before us by the ſimilitude of ſeed ſown, which is not quickened except it die, convey the leaſt idea [236] of a ſoul's awaking from ſleep, and in a mo⯑ment as it were recovering the uſe of all its faculties? Surely this cannot be the myſtery which the inſpired writer ſhews us in this chapter. But, according to our ſenſe, the Apoſtolical compariſon is as apt and happy as poſſible. The bare grain is ſown, diſſolves, and appears again under a new modification. So alſo is the reſurrection of the dead. The body is ſown in corruption, it is raiſed in incorrup⯑tion. It is ſown in diſhonour, it is raiſed in glory. It is ſown in weakneſs, it is raiſed in power. It is ſown a natural body, it is raiſed a ſpiritual body; a body ſubtilized and puri⯑fied; a body diſencumbered from that fleſh and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and, to adopt the high figuring of St. Paul, clothed upon with an houſe from heaven, and arrayed with immortality. And, all this while, in both caſes, God giveth a body as it pleaſeth him, and to every ſeed, and to every individual, his own body.

[237] The learned authors we are concerned with, and their numerous admirers, ſeem to have forgot, or to wiſh us to forget, that they hold opinions declared to be heretical, and condemned as ſuch by an inſpired Apoſ⯑tle. The author of the Epiſtle to the He⯑brews numbers the reſurrection of the dead among the principles of the doctrine of Chriſt. ^*What was the preciſe tenet of Hymeneus and Philetus who aſſerted that the Reſurrection is paſt already, we cannot learn from the Apoſ⯑tle who ſo ſeverely cenſures them. But he deſcribes them to be perſons who concerning the truth had erred, and overthrown the faith of ſome. It is reaſonably to be preſumed, that they, as well as the old heretics, Baſilides, Carpocrates, Menander, Valentinus, &c. and the Anabaptiſts and Libertines of later ages, (as I find them called,) denied the reſurrection of the body on much the ſame grounds as their ſucceſſors in this heterodoxy. It has been boldly maintained, that by the reſur⯑rection of the dead we are only to underſtand [238] a reſurrection from ſin to a ſtate of grace; or a kind of reſurrection from ignorance to a knowlege of truth; or, in general, the im⯑mortality of the Soul. Libertini, ſays Calvin, as quoted by Arch-biſhop Laud, rident ſpem omnem quam de reſurrectione habemus, idque jam nobis eveniſſe dicunt, quod adhuc expectamus, &c. ut homo ſciat animam ſuam ſpiritum immortalem eſſe viventem in caelis. And ſays Peter Martyr, as cited by the ſame prelate, ſunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident, et reſurrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis tantum ad animas referunt. The Gnoſtics and Valentinians af⯑firmed the fleſh to be incapable of incorrup⯑tion. Carnis ſalutem negant, ſays Irenaeus, dicentes non eam eſſe capacem incorruptibilitatis. Menander had the impudence to annex the privilege of immortality to his Baptiſm. And among others, probably the Corinthian con⯑verts affirmed the Reſurrection of the dead imported no more than a renovation of life and manners, a newneſs of life, as St. Paul expreſſes it; and thus they abſurdly con⯑founded figure with letter, or a type with its antitype.

[239] We ſhould now ſee, for full ſatisfaction's ſake, what the ſenſe of the primitive Church was with reſpect to the doctrine before us; but this enquiry affording ample matter for diſtinct conſideration muſt be reſerved ac⯑cordingly.

DISCOURSE VIII.

THAT the doctrine of the Reſurrection of the body was taught by the Apoſtles and by our Lord we have already ſeen; and that the Apoſtolical Fathers maintained it with the ſame preciſion will preſently ap⯑pear.

This paſſage is almoſt a direct comment on the 36th. and two following verſes of the 15th. Chapter of St. Paul's firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians. St. Clement, it muſt be con⯑feſſed, is not ſo happy in his elucidation of the doctrine of the reſurrection of the body from the ſuppoſed death and reviviſcence of the Phoenix from his own aſhes, according to a current opinion in thoſe days; the enlarge⯑ment on which fabulous wonder has drawn a charge of ungenuineneſs on the Epiſtle it⯑ſelf. [243] But the judicious Editor and Tranſlator in his preliminary diſcourſe vindicates the good Father, and reſcues the work from this imputation in a moſt ſatisfactory manner; ſo that "with ſerious and ingenuous minds," (to borrow his own words,) this is a matter which will reflect no diſcredit on St. Cle⯑ment's doctrine, or on the pious zeal with which he maintained it. The reality of the doctrine is in no wiſe affected by the whim⯑ſicalneſs, or the weakneſs of the illuſtration.

‘He that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead, ſhall alſo raiſe up us in like manner, if we do his will,’ ſays Polycarp to the Philip⯑pians.

Ignatius aſſures the Trallians in the moſt poſitive terms, that ‘as Jeſus Chriſt was truly crucified and dead, ſo he was alſo truly raiſed from the dead by his Father, after the ſame manner as he will alſo raiſe up us who believe in him.’ (gg)

The following extract from St. Clement's ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians is at leaſt as [244] full and expreſs as the paſſage a little above quoted from the firſt. ‘Let not any one among you ſay, that this very fleſh is not judged, neither raiſed up. Conſider, in what were ye ſaved, in what did ye look up, if not whilſt you were in this fleſh? We muſt therefore keep our fleſh as the temple of God. For in like manner as ye were called in the fleſh, ye ſhall alſo come to judgment in the fleſh.’ (hh)

And yet all this evidence ſhall ſhrink into nothing before a little ready confidence, and unceremonious deciſion. For thus ſays the Author of the Inquiry. ‘If we paſs from the New Teſtament, Barnabas and Clemens of Rome mention no more than the reſurrec⯑tion; and not any particular modus of it, or the reſurrection of the fleſh: vide Barna⯑bas, ch. xxi. Clemens, ch. xxiv. Clemens indeed, in his ſecond Epiſtle, mentions the reſurrection of the fleſh; but that is allowed not to be genuine. Ignatius too ſpeaks as the Scriptures do. Ep. ad Trall. And in the larger Epiſtle to the Epheſians, he ſpeaks [245] of the reſurrection [...], from the dead; but he never mentions any thing of a re⯑ſurrection of the fleſh.’

Now if the paſſages I produced from St. Clement's firſt Epiſtle, and from Ignatius, do not to all intents and purpoſes aſſert the re⯑ſurrection of the body, or of the fleſh; if St. Clement's ſecond Epiſtle muſt abſolutely be pronounced ſpurious, becauſe the learned world is divided in its ſentiments relative to it; if the doctrine contained in this Epiſtle cannot poſſibly be agreeable to that of the other, or to that of Ignatius, or to that of the Apoſtolical and primitive Church, be⯑cauſe it is a matter of ſome doubt who the author might be; if theſe reverend fathers ſpeak in no place of the reſurrection of the body becauſe in ſome places they ſpeak of the reſurrection of the dead, or of the reſurrection in general, as the holy Scripture itſelf occa⯑ſionally does; if this be the caſe, equivoca⯑tion ſhall hereafter paſs for argument, and dogmaticalneſs for demonſtration.

[246] One ſhould be apt to think, that the nearer the fountain, the clearer the ſtream; or, in plain terms, that the moſt antient Chriſtians are the moſt orthodox; that thoſe who lived in, or neareſt to the times of the Apoſtles, and Apoſtolical men, were like to underſtand their doctrine with readineſs, to embrace it with veneration, and to tranſmit it in purity. What can be more clear than the language of Juſtin Martyr, as it is quoted by Dr. S. himſelf? ‘Chriſt ſhall come a ſecond time, when [...], he ſhall raiſe the bodies of all men that have been?’ Well; but ſays our author, ‘this was Juſtin's opi⯑nion, but it was not in any Baptiſmal Creed; he takes no notice of any article of any Creed as containing the notion of the reſurrection of the fleſh, whatſoever his own philoſophical notion of the reſurrec⯑tion might be.’

Will it follow then that the doctrine of the reſurrection of the fleſh was purely the perſonal, or philoſophical notion of Juſtin [247] Martyr, becauſe it was not in his time an article in any Creed? If ſo, it will follow, by parity of arguing, that almoſt all the other articles of our preſent Creeds were the private tenets or opinions of particular per⯑ſons, and not the common doctrine, or be⯑lief of the catholic Church. This muſt fol⯑low upon Dr. S's own principles. For he has himſelf remarked in his preface, that ‘it is highly probable theſe, (referring to doc⯑trines he had been mentioning,) and other doctrines were taught, (viz. after baptiſm,) as circumſtances aroſe, either to explain ſome things inculcated in the Goſpels, or to avoid ſomething erroneous. And hence it was that the original Creed was enlarged, and more things inſerted into it; and in⯑deed all that has been added to it ſeems to have been owing to theſe cauſes.’ The juſt now cited declaration of Juſtin Martyr is therefore to be regarded as exactly coincident with a doctrine publickly received, and not as the bare reſult of his own judgment, for any thing Dr. S. has ſaid, or proved to the contrary. But if ſo, the doctrine of the [248] Reſurrection of the body, or of the fleſh, was an article of faith from the beginning; and its ſubſequent date as an article of any Creed is a circumſtance of very inferior conſidera⯑tion. What matters it to us when it was thought neceſſary to be required of the mem⯑bers of the Church of Chriſt openly to pro⯑feſs they believed as the Apoſtles and primi⯑tive Chriſtians did?

But let me ſhew you how unfairly the author of the Enquiry deals by Polycarp. Of the two places in this father's epiſtle to the Philippians in which mention is made of the reſurrection, the principal, I think, is that I not long ſince quoted, and will here lay again before you. He that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead, ſhall alſo raiſe up us in like man⯑ner. The words in like manner are by the no leſs faithful than judicious tranſlator printed in Italics, as not been literally contained, though neceſſarily implied in the original. This paſſage then, like many more parallel ones which I have had occaſion to produce, I mean, from the Scripture itſelf, manifeſtly [249] imports the reſurrection of the body; though ſhould any perſon affect to doubt what the good father's meaning may be here, they may ſoon learn what his idea of the reſurrection was, from a part of the prayer he preferred to God in the hour of his martyrdom, according to the account we have of it in the circular epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna. He there makes mention of the reſurrection both of ſoul and body. For though the ſoul cannot, properly ſpeaking, be ſaid to riſe again, yet as the ſoul and body conſtitute the ſame man, as theſe conſtituent parts are ſeparated by death, and reunited at the reſurrection, this reunion is not unfitly expreſſed by a term that may be truly predicated of one of the conſtituent parts.

Dr. S. admits the genuineneſs of the above-mentioned narrative; and yet will not ſuffer us to conſider the letter in one place to be an explanation of the ſenſe in the other. There is more of art than honeſty in an at⯑tempt to ſlip out of this difficulty by ſaying, as the Enquirer does in the following words, [250] that ‘by the time this letter was wrote, the notion ſeems to have prevailed among Chriſtians, that the body was to be raiſed, though it was not yet got into any of their Creeds.’ This is a ſort of ſpiritual juggle which inverts truth, and diſguiſes it in the ſame inſtant: it metamorphoſes the real ſen⯑timent of Polycarp into a whimſical notion which began to gain ground in the Church!

But this matter may be viewed in another light. The force of truth has drawn from our author an involuntary ceſſion of his own darling point. For immediately after the ſentence laſt cited from him, he acquaints us, that ‘ſoon after the middle of the ſecond century diſputes aroſe about the reſurrec⯑tion; the heathens objecting to the poſſibi⯑lity of it, and the CHRISTIANS endea⯑vouring to anſwer the objections they met with. The enquiry, ſays he, was, whe⯑ther there was to be a reſurrection of the ſoul alone, or of the whole man conſiſting of body and ſoul? And then a ſecond queſtion was, whether the fleſh, the very [251] fleſh which we now bear about us, was to be raiſed up again? The WRITERS of that time ſtill extant contended for the re⯑ſurrection of the fleſh together with the ſoul. But there does not appear to be any Creed which eſtabliſhed ſuch a doctrine. For whatever PRIVATE PERSONS might ima⯑gine to be true, was not inſtantly to be profeſſed as an article of faith, neceſſary to be believed in order to Baptiſm.’ And af⯑terwards he tells us, that ‘the controverſy about the reſurrection of the fleſh did not begin till the middle, or near the end of the ſecond century. And then as philo⯑ſophers objected to the reſurrection ITSELF, from the common topics, how could FLESH devoured by beaſts or fiſhes, and thus become PARTS of thoſe animals; or perhaps reduced by fire to aſhes, or diſperſt by ſeas and rivers, be reſtored? Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Tertullian undertook a defence of this no⯑tion; and taught, that it was no ways be⯑yond the power of Almighty God to reſtore to every one the fleſh he once had.’ ^* (ii)

[252] Now I deſire to obſerve, in the firſt place, that theſe philoſophers objected to the reſur⯑rection from the common topics juſt men⯑tioned becauſe they were the ſtrongeſt that occurred to them; and becauſe when they objected to the reſurrection of the body, they moſt unqueſtionably meant to object to the reſurrection ITSELF. In the next place, I would remark, that if by the CHRISTIANS, who endeavoured to anſwer the objections of hea⯑thens, and by the WRITERS of that time, we are to underſtand only a few PRIVATE PER⯑SONS who maintained an extraordinary opi⯑nion; if Athenagoras, and Theophilus, and Tertullian did no more than defend their own perſonal tenets; it is paſſing ſtrange theſe ſame heathen philoſophers ſhould ſet their wits againſt them at all; and ſtranger ſtill, that the whole body of Chriſtians had not joined the outcry in their own vindication, and in public diſavowal of an enthuſiaſtic and ridiculous principle. Nay this is not all. The doctrine of the reſurrection of the body, if it was a mere private or perſonal opinion, was in fact contrary to the Goſpel of Chriſt, [253] and the ſenſe of the Church; and therefore muſt have been regarded as a moſt groſs, if not dangerous hereſy. But as it moſt un⯑doubtedly was never repreſented ſo to be, we are to conclude, I preſume, that it was true and catholic doctrine, notwithſtanding its non-appearance in any Creed, in the early ages, and though the acknowlegement of it was not a qualification for Baptiſm. We therefore inſiſt, that whenever it became an article of a baptiſmal Creed, it was inſerted with the moſt admiſſible pretenſions.

It is, farther, very obſervable, that the doctrine of the reſurrection of the body is moſt expreſſly taught in many places of the Koran of Mahomet. Let us turn to a few. ‘Man ſaith, ſays Mahomet, after I have been dead, ſhall I really be brought forth alive from the grave? Doth not man remember that we created him heretofore when he was nothing? The unbelievers ſay, when we and our fa⯑thers ſhall have been reduced to duſt, ſhall we be taken from the grave? Man ſaith, who ſhall reſtore bones to life when they are rotten?’ An⯑ſwer, he ſhall reſtore them to life, who produced [254] "them the firſt time." (kk) The whole ſyſtem of Mahometiſm is, you well know, a ſuper⯑ſtructure raiſed upon the foundations of Ju⯑daiſm and Chriſtianity. The grand aim of the impoſtor ſeems to have been to concentre both in one faith; with which view, and that no romantic one, he in part adopted, and partly rejected the reſpective theories. In order to ingratiate himſelf with the Jews, he aſſerted, as we have ſeen, even to an ex⯑tremity of zeal, the unity of the Godhead; and at the ſame time not to put the Chriſ⯑tians out of all temper, as he frequently takes occaſion to ſpeak reſpectfully of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo he declares probably in the moſt explicit terms for the great article we have been diſcuſſing. (ll) We may therefore fairly conclude from this circumſtance only, that the doctrine of the reſurrection of the body was not the ſentiment of a few individuals, but the profeſſion of the univerſal Church at the beginning of the ſeventh century. And after all, ſuppoſing it to be queſtionable whether this were really the plan of Maho⯑met, the leaſt that can be inferred from the [255] perſpicuity with which the doctrine of the reſurrection is taught and enforced in the Koran, is that he conceived it to be ſuffici⯑ently reconcileable with the common reaſon and apprehenſion of mankind; at the ſame time that, from this among other particu⯑lars, we muſt ſee, and muſt deſire its adver⯑ſaries to take notice, that it is not a doc⯑trine peculiar to Chriſtianity.

To come now to the concluſion of the whole matter. If theſe things are ſo, if the great doctrines we have been handling are defenſible upon ſound principles, and have a moſt firm foundation in Scripture, and in pri⯑mitive authority, abundant reaſon have we to hold faſt the profeſſion of our faith without wavering; in nothing diſmayed by adver⯑ſaries who trifle with us upon the moſt ſe⯑rious ſubjects; who render the word of God of none effect, by perverſe interpretation; who cannot, or will not ſee the plain ſenſe of the plaineſt expreſſions; who will not ac⯑knowlege Jeſus Chriſt to be the Creator of the world though all things were made by him; [256] or that he made ſatisfaction for ſin, though he was ſacrificed for us, and gave his life a ran⯑ſom for all. I know not any thing that can equal this ſtubbornneſs and ſlowneſs of heart except the inſolence of ſuch as gravely tell us, we muſt not hope to propagate the Goſ⯑pel among Jews, Mahometans, or heathens, while the ſtrange doctrines contained in our Creeds are retained in the Church. Is not this to all intents and purpoſes ſaying, we muſt not hope to eradicate infidelity till we have renounced the capital articles of our be⯑lief; or, in other words, muſt not expect to make converts to Chriſtianity, till we ceaſe to be Chriſtians? And indeed ſo in⯑conſiderable are the impediments to a ſpiri⯑tual coalition between the followers of So⯑cinus and the diſciples of Mahomet, that, ac⯑cording to information given us by writers of credit, terms of union and amity were ac⯑tually propoſed by the former to the latter in the laſt century. ^*That men ſhould admit the myſterious truths of holy Writ upon rational grounds, or that they ſhould reject them upon what they call rational grounds, [257] we may readily enough comprehend; but there ſeems to be ſomething unaccountably romantic in an attempt to compromiſe mat⯑ters as it were with the author of our faith by accommodating theſe truths to the human underſtanding.

But whatever may be the views, or what⯑ever the claims, or whatever the pretences of Latitudinarians in general, the notion of a Creed, or a ſyſtem, or an eſtabliſh⯑ment reſpecting the great doctrines we have been conſidering, occurs to us in a manner ſpontaneouſly. In the Church of Chriſt, the only queſtion ought to be, not whether a confeſſion, a formulary, or a ſeries of articles, be long or ſhort, ſimple or cir⯑cumſtantial, antient or modern, but whether it has its grounds in competent authority. (mm) If the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Reſurrection, as they are held in the Church, be ſcriptural doctrines, no more objection can juſtly lie againſt the Nicene, or the Atha⯑naſian Creed, than againſt that of Dr. S. This author not only admits but refers to an original Creed, which he obſerves has been [258] enlarged "as circumſtances aroſe," or oc⯑caſions called; though that it has been en⯑larged in ſome inſtances beyond all reaſon he ſtrongly inſiſts, with many others with him. But be this as it may, and even if theſe things were not ſo as we have repreſented them, it is abundantly ſufficient that they appear to be ſo to us. No rule, no ſyſtem, no eſta⯑bliſhment whatſoever can in any tolerable ſenſe be ſaid to invade the right of private judgment in matters of religion; becauſe Creeds, formularies, inſtitutions, and ap⯑pointments in general muſt be incompatible with the exerciſe of this right, at all periods of the Chriſtian Church, or at none. It is pleaſant enough to remark how zealouſly ſome will be affected in a ridiculous thing; and how vehemently they will beat the air in their contention for that right of private judgment, which is indeed unalienable; and in fact is exerciſed by thoſe who ſubmit to what may be called public; by men of all perſuaſions; by Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics; by the Sectaries of all religions; and by peo⯑ple of no religion at all. (nn) ‘Not Heretics only, ſays the great Chillingworth, but Ro⯑miſh [259] Catholics alſo, ſet up as many judges, as there are men and women in the Chriſ⯑tian world. For do not your men and wo⯑men judge your religion to be true before they believe it, as well as the men and women of other religions? Oh! but you ſay, they receive it, not becauſe they think it agreeable to Scripture, but becauſe the Church tells them ſo. But then, I hope, they believe the Church, becauſe their own reaſon tells them they are to do ſo. So that the difference between a Papiſt and a Pro⯑teſtant is this, not that the one judges, and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifeſt.’ The fact is, every man's attachment to any thing, to this or that Church, to this party, or to that principle, &c. is ultimately reſolvible into his opinion of its excellence, its truth, its propriety, or its expedience; or of its conduciveneſs on the whole to his welfare, comfort, and ſatiſ⯑faction, i. e. it is reſolvible into his own private judgment. This judgment, it is true, may be warped by paſſion, biaſſed by prejudice, clouded by ignorance, and blinded [260] by perverſeneſs; it may be intoxicated by voluptuouſneſs, enervated by indolence, or inverted by frenzy; or it may be influenced by wiſdom, by folly, or by caprice. But, at the ſame time, whether we judge well, or ill; or of whatever differences or degrees human judgment may admit; we ſhall ſtrictly and properly be found in all caſes and in⯑ſtances to judge for ourſelves. ( [...])

It was the concurrence of private judgment which firſt formed the Chriſtian Church; it was the ſame concurrence which gradually compounded the enormous maſs of popery; it was the ſame that effected the Reformation; and it was the ſame that conſtituted the nu⯑merous ſects and parties into which this Re⯑formation has been moſt deplorably ſplit and ſubdivided. It is to nothing more or leſs than this that the Church of England owes her exiſtence. And upon this ground it is cer⯑tain, her requiſition of aſſent to her public offices, and of ſubſcription to her articles, the meaſure of juſt policy, and common pru⯑dence for her ſecurity, are no more to be re⯑garded [261] as invaſions of the right of private judgment, than the open attempts, or the ſecret machinations of her enemies, for her deſtruction. Upon this ground, in ſhort, her declarations of faith in what ſhe holds to be evangelical truth; and indeed the whole ſcheme of her doctrine, diſcipline, and polity, are perfectly intelligible, and manifeſtly con⯑ſiſtent. But is not the inference drawn from the acknowleged right of private judgment by a late famous author, and his aſſociates, al⯑together chimerical, and totally incompre⯑henſible? Their inference is, that every in⯑dividual Chriſtian may, if he thinks fit, with⯑draw himſelf from all the Churches upon the face of the earth, ſtand abſolutely ſingle in the profeſſion of his faith, or, as this au⯑thor expreſſes it, be a Church to himſelf. ^*And is not this in effect to aſſert, that a Church may be formed without a communion, with⯑out government, or miniſtry; without a poſ⯑ſibility of being infected with hereſy, or di⯑vided by ſchiſm? Is it not to all intents and purpoſes to aver, that a ſociety may ſubſiſt without members, without eſtabliſhment, or [262] conſtitution? We deny not that a man may judge he has a claim to this ſpiritual inde⯑pendence; and indeed our principle ſuppoſes him ſo to judge; but then we muſt beg leave to think in our turn, that he is groſſly miſ⯑taken in that judgment. (pp)

I wiſh to remark, that if the capital truths of the Goſpel are diſcoverable any where, they are moſt indiſputably to be found in the Catholic Church; the great repoſitory of Chriſtian doctrine. Our bleſſed Lord's aſſu⯑rances of ſuperintendency, ſupport, and pro⯑tection are out of all queſtion given to his diſciples, and to believers in general, as to a body, or ſociety. Upon this rock, ſays he, I will build my Church, &c. Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. When he promiſed his Apoſtles that he would ſend the Holy Spirit to them, who ſhould guide them into all truth, he muſt ne⯑ceſſarily mean that truth which they were to communicate to their ſucceſſors, and theſe to others, and ſo on, through all generations. When the ſacred penmen ſpeak of the truth, [263] or the faith, &c. they undoubtedly ſpeak of the truth embraced, and the faith profeſſed by all ſound Chriſtians; and when St. Paul ex⯑horts the Corinthians to examine themſelves, and to prove themſelves, whether they were in the faith, he moſt certainly means the faith of the catholic Church. In a word, we muſt look for ſpiritual truth in its native ſimplicity, though we ſearch for it as for hid treaſures; we muſt look for it within the pale of ſome communion or other: which ſurely will be acknowleged by every man, who does not, in defiance of Scripture, and in contempt of all the world, ſuppoſe that the infallibility which he juſtly denies to appertain to any Church upon earth, is really and truly lodg⯑ed in himſelf.

The principle of the Confeſſional leads, we apprehend, to theſe abſurd conſequences; but at the ſame time we aſſert no dominion over the faith, or the conſciences of others; we leave every one to ſtand or fall to his own maſter; we conceive, that, by the immutable conſtitution of things, every one will think [264] and act for himſelf, though we imagine all men to be accountable to God as well for their opinions as for their practices; we nei⯑ther do, nor wiſh to compel men to come in that our Church may be filled, perſuaded as we are at the ſame time that this Church is, in reſpect of all eſſentials, an apoſtolical one; that ſhe holds faſt the things which become ſound doctrine, and teaches the words of eternal life.

It may with great truth be affirmed, that the Church of England aſſerts the right of private judgment in the ſame ſenſe, and to the ſame latitude that every party or body of Pro⯑teſtants does. For how does the management of the ſeveral leaders and teachers of the Sectaries accord with this univerſally avowed principle? How do they leave men to their own judgments in matters of religion? Do they not find ways and means to become maſ⯑ters of the underſtandings, and the conſci⯑ences of their followers; and accompliſh that by indirect artifice which they load us with obloquy for doing under the ſanction of law⯑ful authority? The fact is, in caſe of ſupe⯑riority, [265] any ſect that you may name would think itſelf, not barely empowered, but bound to ſtrengthen and ſecure itſelf by legal fences and eſtabliſhments, and by authorita⯑tive conſtitutions; i. e. by thoſe very means and methods againſt which it now ſo vehe⯑mently exclaims. Experience will juſtify our ſuppoſition that ſuch would be the caſe; as we know the moſt conſiderable branch of the Diſſenters to have changed its language, and its ſentiments, with its ſituation. The firſt article of the memorable ſolemn League and Covenant declares the intention of its fra⯑mers to be, to ‘bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the neareſt conjunction and uniformity in religion, CONFESSION OF FAITH, FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERN⯑MENT, and DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP and CATECHISING; that they and their poſterity after them might as brethren live in faith and love.’

It is pleaſant enough to obſerve, that, notwithſtanding the fine flouriſhes and co⯑lourings of certain authors, who plauſibly [266] profeſs themſelves to be advocates for the common rights and privileges of Chriſtians, we find them ſometimes driven out of their track by the irreſiſtible force of truth, and inſenſibly advancing▪ or admitting eccle⯑ſiaſtical notions: we find them after all their efforts and ſtruggles to climb over the pale of the Church, unwarily, or rather unavoid⯑ably ſlipping back, as I may ſay, into her fold, and undermining their own principles. The words of a late famous prelate ^*upon this ſubject will verify the obſervation. ‘As it is abſurd, ſays he, to ſuppoſe that any man can be ſaved by the faith of another, or by any belief but what is truly his own; ſo there is no poſſible method of having a faith of his own, properly ſo called, with⯑out building it entirely upon what appears right to his own judgment, ſuch as it is, after his beſt endeavours for INFORMA⯑TION.’ That is to ſay, in other words, a man cannot properly be ſaid to judge for himſelf till he has received information, or inſtruction from others. In ſhort, let privi⯑leges be as ſacred, or conſciences as tender [267] as you pleaſe, I affirm that the erection and eſtabliſhment of a national Church, whether the doctrines ſhe teaches are in themſelves orthodox or otherwiſe, true or falſe, is as fairly defenſible upon rational and proteſtant grounds, as the inſtitution of any religious ſect, or ſociety whatſoever.

True it is that men, inflamed with falſe zeal, or miſled by wrong judgment, may de⯑part both from proteſtant and Chriſtian prin⯑ciples; and at their peril it will be. The Church of Rome endeavoured to extirpate what ſhe called hereſy by the very ſame means which in early days Paganiſm employed for the overthrow of the Chriſtian faith itſelf. And what was the conſequence? The inhu⯑manity of perſecution afforded to every think⯑ing mind a very ſtrong argument of the cor⯑ruption of that Church in which it was countenanced; it frightened men into their Senſes; it helped to open their underſtand⯑ings; and Popery may upon the matter be ſaid to have been burnt out of the kingdom. I undertake not to prove, that in our own [268] Church zeal has always been ſufficiently governed by prudence, or tempered with charity. There is no occaſion to recur to a few diſagreeable inſtances, or the tranſactions of untoward times. But, I truſt, I ſhall be abun⯑dantly warranted in aſſerting, that he who at this day ſhall charge the Church of England, or any conſiderable number of her members, with a want of due moderation, knows not of what manner of Spirit we are of. And yet, if the author of the Confeſſional is to be cre⯑dited, we are relapſing gradually into Po⯑pery, both in our doctrines and our prac⯑tices. We are given to underſtand, in the ſeventh Chap. of that work, that ‘Some competent obſervers have grounds for more than a ſuſpicion, that the Church of England has been, and ſtill is, though by degrees imperceptible to vulgar eyes, edg⯑ing back once more towards Popery.’ Sure theſe obſervers are much more ſharp-ſighted than their neighbours! I do not well know what theſe Gentlemen are afraid of; but I know true Chriſtianity to be moſt in danger from the diametrically oppoſite quarter; not [269] ſo much from men of too great, as from people of too little faith; not ſo much from the triple-mitre of the Roman pontiff, as from the many-headed hydra of infidelity. The truth of the matter is, the author before us and his friends do not ſpeak out, as our open enemies have done, and as themſelves were called upon to do, by every maxim of juſtice, candor, and generoſity. They are in no dread of fire and faggot; they are offend⯑ed, not by the diſcipline, but by certain doc⯑trines of the Church of Rome, which we hold in common with her, (even the doc⯑trines I have been defending,) and which they moſt inſidiouſly and induſtriouſly labour to confound with the abſurdities which are juſtly had in deriſion, or in abhorrence among us, and of which the credit viſibly diminiſhes every day. Errors may be grafted upon the ſtock of truth; which in itſelf is not the leſs pure, or the leſs amiable, becauſe it may be holden in folly as well as in unrighteouſneſs. To an ardent longing to ſee theſe common doctrines expunged from our Articles and Creeds, we are unqueſtionably to aſcribe that [270] profuſion of ſpleen, malevolence, and ran⯑cour with which ſo many pages, of the Con⯑ſeſſional, and of other treatiſes are ſhamefully defiled. But for theſe doctrines, I am tho⯑roughly perſuaded, the reaſonableneſs, and utility, not to ſay neceſſity of Church-eſta⯑bliſhments, would generally be admitted, and even contended for. That nicety of human wiſdom which ſtrains at two or three of our Articles could, I am apt to think, well enough digeſt the remainder of the thirty nine. But as matters are circumſtanced, the principle I have been combating is far from being an unpopular one. The privilege, or right of private judgment, in the ſenſe of our adverſaries, reduces in ſome ſort all men to an equality, and is extremely ſoothing to vain and to weak minds. The fact is, there is no difficulty in declaiming from ſtanding and ſpecious topics either of eulogy, or in⯑vective. An affected zeal for reformation, and an avowed anxiouſneſs for the revival of goſpel ſimplicity, have a verv ingratiating ten⯑dency with the bulk of mankind. Liberty of conſcience, Freedom of ſentiment, (qq) eccle⯑ſiaſtical [271] tyranny, violence of bigotry, arbitrary injunctions, ſpiritual impoſitions, &c. are, I grant, expreſſions ſufficiently ſonorous and amuſing, and may paſs with many for argu⯑ment; though at the ſame time, looſeneſs of principle, ſtubbornneſs of ſchiſm, rankneſs of hereſy, arrogance of ſelf-ſufficiency, perverſe⯑neſs of oppoſition, and petulance of temper, &c. are phraſes which muſt be allowed by "competent" judges to ſound quite as well, and to mean full as much.

To conclude. That there is nothing in the leaſt exceptionable in our whole eccle⯑ſiaſtical ſyſtem; nothing that might reaſon⯑ably be retrenched; nothing that could poſ⯑ſibly be amended even in our Articles, as well as worſhip, rites, and uſages, we by no means affirm: but reſpectfully leaving theſe things to the conſideration of them that are over us in the Lord, we utterly deny that there is any thing fundamentally wrong, or eſſentially erroneous in our ſpiritual conſtitu⯑tion. (rr) Men may be, and we find them to be bigots in the cauſe of infidelity; nor [272] can it afford the leaſt matter of wonder, if no regard is paid to the complaints, or rather the railing accuſations of ſuch as under fair ſhews and pretences have manifeſtly evil will at Sion; and while they profeſs themſelves to be actuated by the Spirit of liberty, appear to be really poſſeſſed with the Daemon of li⯑centiouſneſs. I profeſs I ſee not what we can do for, or with theſe determined enemies of our holy faith except praying, in the ſpirit of fervent charity, that God would be pleaſed "to bring them into the way of truth." The Spirit ſpeaketh expreſsly, ſays St. Paul, that in the latter times ſome ſhall depart from the faith, giving heed to ſeducing Spirits, and doctrines of devils. ^*This paſſage cannot poſ⯑ſibly be conſidered as a dead letter; and therefore it infinitely concerns ALL perſons "diligently to try and examine themſelves," in order to their moral aſſurance that it does not in any ſenſe or degree touch THEIR ſpiri⯑tual ſtate. In general however, under a con⯑viction that we are ourſelves in the good and the right way, it will be our duty, as Mem⯑bers [273] of the Church to wiſh, and as Chriſti⯑ans to pray, that God would ‘have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Here⯑tics; that he would take from them all ignorance, hardneſs of heart, and contempt of his word; and ſo fetch them home to his flock, that they may be ſaved among the remnant of the true Iſraelites, and be made one fold under one Shepherd, Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.’