THIS question, of all by far the most important, was put to our blessed Sa­viour by the Roman Governour, perhaps care­lessly, perhaps contemptuously, but certainly without the least wish for information. In much the same spirit of scorn, or with simi­lar 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 infi­nitely; [Page 2] it is parcelled out into sectaries of a thousand denominations. The fact is, though the right of private judgment in mat­ters of religion, which has been exercised from the beginning, was justly and necessarily as­serted by the leaders and friends of the RE­FORMATION, it must be acknowledged, folly, perverseness, pride, and enthusiasm, have, by severally maintaining it, been productive of that strange multiplicity of religious senti­ment which we have so much cause to la­ment; of that schism, heresy, scepticism, and infidelity, which have all along disturbed the Church, but fix a mark of peculiar dis­grace on the last and present century.

And indeed, when it is considered, that the Scriptures are on many accounts particu­larly liable to be misapplied, perverted, or misconstrued; (a) that some passages are to be understood in a literal, and some in a figura­tive 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 [Page 3] with each other in order to a true understand­ing 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 im­portance, yet some are of temporary and oc­casional purport only; that the sacred writ­ings, 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 scrip­tural 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 wild­ness and absurdity of conceit, that extrava­gance, or impiety of opinion, which I just now observed has more or less so shamefully dishonoured the Christian name in all ages. [Page 4] Of this exuberance of folly and wicked­ness 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 unsta­ble, (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 cer­tainty 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 pre­tensions, as much error and absurdity has re­peatedly 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 circum­stances, 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 [Page 5] discovering the true under such a complica­tion 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 conside­rations, let me insist that nothing of this na­ture 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 Ba­bel 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 [Page 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 repro­bates 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 profes­sion ridiculous, or authority contemptible, as such? Indeed, the question is not, what saith the Church?—but—what saith the [Page 7] Scripture? Now by Scripture, and the ear­liest antiquity, our surest guide, and purest precedent, we are not only willing, but wish­ful to be tried. It is true the bulk of Chris­tians 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 rea­son 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 ^* Tri­nity of the Mob! But this is very unfair re­presentation. 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 inquisitive­ness [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 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 sa­tisfaction will always be derived to every man from every degree of rational assurance that he is in the right way; or belongs to a com­munion wherein the truth is held in purity approaching nearest to the standard of primi­tive Christianity.

What is truth?—Say others. We are no strangers to the doctrines publicly establish­ed; to the faith asserted in your Articles, and expressed in your Creeds; but to these Sub­scription is much more universal than agree­ment. 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 per­petually insinuating, that ye do err, not know­ing the Scriptures.

[Page 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 ap­pellations 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 mis­taken party, and on which side error really lies; whether our doctrines or theirs have the strongest foundation in scripture and an­tiquity; are best supported by presumptive ar­gument, 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 vul­garly by a majority of voices, or invidiously by the reputation of names.

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

It is well for us there is nothing argumen­tative 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 con­sider every attempt of this kind as an indi­rect attack upon the fundamentals of Chris­tianity. According to the idea of these rea­soners, 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 [Page 11] congenerous with this, may plausibly be urged in exaltation of good works to the ex­clusion 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 demon­stration 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 pre­sume, no intelligent person, if he is impar­tial, will deny, that the faith which St. Jude tells us was once delivered to the Saints, what­ever we are precisely to understand by it, is something entirely distinct from mere mora­lity; that it ought earnestly to be contended for, agre ably to the same Apostle's exhorta­tion; that it is very possible to contend with meekness; that errors, and schisms, and here­sies are represented in scripture as things more or less sinful, dangerous, and damnable; and [Page 12] that consequently it is of the utmost impor­tance to our spiritual interests to be right in principle as well as in practice. The petu­lancy, the pride, and the malevolence of bi­gots, and of disputers of this world, as the Apostle calls them, will no doubt be brought into judgment no less than the grossest immora­lities; but this will not by any means super­sede, or retard an honest and charitable at­tempt to enquire into and ascertain the lead­ing 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.’

[Page 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 ines­timable 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 se­veral articles of which it consists, I trust, they will be found, in the course of these disquisi­tions, 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 prepos­session in their favour, by evincing, that their acknowleged mysteriousness and incompre­hensibility 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 [Page 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 sup­posed folly, or extravagance of the fundamen­tal 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 prin­ciple 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 in­stances, not of false persuasion, but of in­sanity. (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 [Page 15] parte ante as a parte post. ‘Space and duration, says an ingenious author, are mysterious abysses in which our thoughts are confound­ed with demonstrable propositions, to all sense and reason, flatly contradictory to one another. Any two points of time, though ne­ver 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 ade­quate conception of immensity than of om­nipresence; 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 mys­tery is not inadmissible purely on account of its respecting practice, or implying obliga­tion. This will readily be granted even by infidels who deny the truths of Revelation; and much more by such Christians as have [Page 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 at­tack the professed atheist with such reason­ings, as, if pursued through their just con­sequences, may fairly and successfully be en­forced upon themselves. For if he affects to decry the fundamental principle of all reli­gion, 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 rea­soning we urge against the principles both of deists and heretics. With the professed atheist I shall no farther concern myself; but de­sire to observe, that deists and heretics of all denominations are agreed with us in one ge­neral point, the acknowlegement of the ex­istence of God, and consequently the incom­prehensibleness of the Divine nature, attri­butes, and operations. The primary notion [Page 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 Di­vine essence, &c. which utterly precludes in­vestigation. 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 sup­posed, all adventitious truths introduced there­by will be fixed upon the same foot; because faith cannot have a stronger foundation in hu­man 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 judg­ment, or of passion; of conviction, or of pride; of impartial enquiry, or of unwilling­ness to submit the understanding of man to [Page 18] the wisdom of God? For, I repeat it, nei­ther the one nor the other can, consistently with his own principles and acknowledg­ments, 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 myste­ries; i. e. of truths undiscoverable, and in­conceivable by our natural powers; and ac­cordingly, 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 na­ture, properties, and dispensations. As far as these remarks affect Revelation in gene­ral, heretics in general will admit the just­ness [Page 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 be­lieving what they do not understand, they cannot avoid believing what they do not un­derstand; and that therefore, on proper au­thority, 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 he­retic by what appellation soever distinguished, to recollect, that Revelation left human na­ture as it found it; I mean with respect to our intellectual faculties; that, from the be­ginning 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 pre­possession. A truth which accounts in a mo­ment for the multitude of persuasions which have engaged the speculative world. To ex­pect, [Page 20] or require that God should manifest him­self and his proceedings, &c. to every man fully and personally, is to destroy every no­tion not only of faith, but of obedience likewise; and to wish to invert the essential frame and constitution of things. Difficul­ties, 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 per­plexity, 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 equal­ly 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 pos­sibly be controverted; and yet does he not necessarily foreknow his own actions? Does [Page 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 natu­ral 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 sub­jects. (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 attach­ment to a favourite principle; and while truths, apparently opposite and contradicto­ry, 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, [Page 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 En­gland, the doctrine of one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, and that of the Resur­rection 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 ques­tion 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, [Page 23] the weapons of whose warfare have been migh­ty 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 con­version of infidels and heretics, by that pride, that prejudice, however contracted, that hard­ness, or that slowness of heart, which indisposes them for the reception of truth.—After all, inquiries of this nature are of very conside­rable use and importance; they cannot fail at least to stablish, strengthen, and settle our­selves; to root and ground us in that faith which we shall find to be built upon the most immoveable foundations.

[Page 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 mu­nificence of our founder hath nobly pro­vided. The present institution is happily distinguished by its location; and, in some de­gree to answer and accomplish it's end, I shall proceed with as much confidence and satis­faction 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.

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 [Page 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 re­mark that, supposing them to be authen­tic, unequivocal, and intelligible, the in­fidel is in fact precluded from taking advan­tage of those passages which are declarative either of the acknowleged humanity of Je­sus Christ, or of the gifts and operations of the blessed Spirit: that humanity, and those operations being things manifestly dis­tinct from the Divine essence, and real per­sonality. 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 catho­lic doctrine is fortified, are grounded in prin­ciples of common candour and common sense; or, in other words, whether the in­terpretations of anti-trinitarians are critically just, and agreable to the rules which are ge­nerally allowed to govern interpretation. In the mean time, it will be well worth while to examine, whether the doctrine before us [Page 27] is not proveable by evidence which, though indirect and collateral, is irresistible. There is hardly any such thing as framing a sen­tence, or a proposition that cannot be preva­ricated 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 Tri­nity 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 nomina­tion; the Son, the second; and the Holy Ghost, the third; is sufficiently demonstra­ble 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 dif­ferent kind, yet this order is upon some oc­casions [Page 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 diffe­rences 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 whoremon­ger, nor unclean person, &c. hath any inheri­tance 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 Fa­ther save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. ^‡To this we may add the intro­duction of St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians; Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, [Page 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 com­munication to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. The terms root and fountain, &c. are custom­ary 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 particu­lar 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 mani­fest and obvious reason for addressing our [Page 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 preemi­nence and subordination: if the Anti-trinita­rian should insist that they do imply more, and ask what we mean by eternal generation, or procession, we will answer him the mo­ment we are told what he means by eternal essence itself. (g)

Again. The Father is commonly repre­sented to us under the character of the ma­ker, the governor, preserver, and judge of the world; the Son under that of our re­deemer, 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 at­tributes of the Deity, are frequently recipro­cated. Thus, in the following places among others, the office of Redeemer is ascribed in [Page 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 Fa­ther 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 indis­criminately 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 [Page 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 ge­neral 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 consola­tion, and the God of all comfort; as, accord­ing 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 at­tributed to the second. In a Passage in Isaiah he is even called the (h) everlasting Father. ^†And (to lay no stress upon prophetic phraseo­logy) is not the first person the supreme God, a self-existent, independent Being, the crea­tor, the governor, and preserver of the world? [Page 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 in­finite [Page 34] raise the dead? And is it not the pre­rogative 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, com­fort 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 redemp­tion; ^* [Page 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 hea­vens; ^†and the Spirit of God ha smade me, says Elihu. ^‡For whatever might have been the precise notion of the antient Jews, with re­gard 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 [Page 36] think, sufficiently directs us to the above in­terpretation. 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 Eze­kiel, 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 [Page 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 Fa­ther 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 to­wards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; ^†and among the principles of the doc­trine 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; [Page 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 Chris­tians 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 unques­tionable 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 him­self, and our Father, (where, by the way, the word—HIMSELF—does not appear to be more emphatical than in the text some­time 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 [Page 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, demonstra­ble from these two considerations; first, be­cause it is his peculiar office to direct the heart, to make us to increase in love, and to sta­blish our hearts unblameable in holiness; and se­condly, because, according to any other con­struction, we shall at best make but very in­different 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; espe­cially as the sense of many at least of the texts I have produced is obvious, and alto­gether uncontrovertible.

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

[Page 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 man­ner 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 remis­sion, or in what sense our Saviour's audience understood him, or he meant to be under­stood, it will be sufficient for our purpose to remark, that the doctrine of the Holy Tri­nity in general, and particularly of the per­sonal 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 [Page 41] the following absurd and execrable conclu­sions, 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, with­out hope, or possibility of pardon, may be committed against a Being less than the su­preme God; and even against a kind of spi­ritual 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 ano­ther. ^*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 in­structed by the mouth, or by the preaching of his prophets, or apostles, or others com­mission'd by him, yet the doctrine of univer­sal love and charity was more immediately [Page 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, be­cause the Apostle seems to regard this great duty as a principle recently taught, and par­ticularly enforced by the precept and exam­ple 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 as­serts, that, notwithstanding his appearance in the flesh, he himself really and truly par­took of the Divine nature; that, according [Page 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 high­way 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 de­monstrated, that these passages do not refer, ultimately at least, to the coming, and to the [Page 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 pro­phet are most impertinently ridiculous.

Once more. The first and second persons of the blessed Trinity are expressly distin­guished, and respectively characterised as equal, in a passage wherein the Apostle occa­sionally 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 des­criptive of the Father; but I will take upon me to aver, that the same might have been pretended, had these terms been transposed, [Page 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 fol­lowing. 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 Je­sus 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 be­fore his throne, and from Jesus Christ ^*. I am sensible indeed that by the seven spirits, just mentioned, interpreters do not universally un­derstand 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 [Page 46] words are full as capable as of any other whatever; and that by the present construc­tion 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 sin­gular or unprecedented in this inversion of the order of Persons in the Trinity; but why angels, according to the sense of some com­mentators, 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 ex­plications. And still more perplexed, and in­compatible with the nature of a blessing, or a salutation in general, or with the apostoli­cal greetings and benedictions in particular, the sense of others seems to be, who by the seven spirits understand the graces of the Spi­rit, or the various operations of Divine Pro­vidence. (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 doc­trines of faith from symbols, or mystical ex­pressions, [Page 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 allegori­cal prophecy be the emblem of Jesus Christ. Whenever therefore we observe divine ho­nours 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, [Page 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 them­selves 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 distinc­tion 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 superio­rity of the former, I would desire him to re­member, that the throne in question is called sometimes simply the throne of God; some­times, 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. [Page 49] So likewise, notwithstanding the diversity of constructions to which the expression of the seven spirits is liable, the personality, opera­tion, 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 car­ried away in the Spirit; and the solemn call to all persons concerned is frequently re­peated, 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 [Page 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 Tri­nity, as it is received in the Church, can satisfy the full demands of the terms—faith,—and mystery,—which we meet with so re­peatedly 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 cha­racter 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 [Page 51] Jews; who, whatever they might ultimately understand by, or hope from the Messiah pro­mised to Adam, to Abraham, to the Patri­archs, 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 de­sired 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 [Page 52] for us by Jesus Christ, he proceeds in the following words; of which salvation the pro­phets 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 sig­nify, 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 ex­pressions here are, I think, in themselves al­most 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, [Page 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 conse­quence of the removal of a popular objection against all this, I hope in the ensuing disqui­sitions to set in a still clearer point of view the great doctrine before us.

THESE words immediately refer to the great event of our Lord's resurrec­tion, but in consequence of it to the divinity of his person. Of this therefore I shall pro­ceed 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 pro­duced which precisely, and totidem verbis, [Page 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 di­vided, 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 attri­butes, as far as they are asserted in the first article. There is no one passage in the Scrip­ture [Page 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 re­puted one of the capital doctrines of reli­gion. Yet, upon the principles of these ob­jectors, 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 inevi­tably fall to the ground, unless it be main­tained 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 un­scriptural, 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 [Page 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 Scrip­ture-meaning, it will, I presume, be impos­sible to frame the most simple system, or for­mulary 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 ulti­mately tried; but it is not the rule itself; and indeed a little inquiry will shew us why the capital points of religion are not syste­matically delivered in the sacred writings.

[Page 59] The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as main­tained 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 plau­sibly countenanced, not to say forcibly de­fended. We would fain know how to re­concile 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 satisfac­tion, 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, whe­ther we have not all the reason in the world to infer from the very mode in which the [Page 60] doctrine of the Trinity is inserted and incul­cated in the sacred pages; the question, I say, is, whether we are not authorised by this circumstance to conclude that this doc­trine was antecedently received in the Chris­tian world? For instance; supposing the doc­trine of the Trinity to have been the standing doctrine of the Church when St. John (k) wrote his Gospel, we have no kind of diffi­culty to encounter; but are we not very much embarassed by the contrary supposi­tion? In the former case, we may readily conceive the Apostle to be asserting the Divi­nity 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 he­terodox 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 de­clares at the latter end of his Gospel, viz. [Page 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-acquain­tance with these matters. Agreably hereunto, and indeed in direct confirmation of our hy­pothesis, St. Luke (and many, it seems, before him,) set in order a declaration of those things which most surely were believed among Chris­tians, ^*that the person he writes to might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed. In the same light we may re­gard 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 de­sign 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 [Page 62] in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Ac­cording to our present hypothesis, a vindi­cation of this kind had been absolutely su­perfluous; and though we cannot wonder to observe a point of this consequence fre­quently mentioned, or alluded to in these writings, yet it would be very unreasonable to expect to find it methodically or systema­tically taught.

The grand principle of the leading op­pugners of the doctrine under consideration is, that the only thing required of Chris­tians 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 re­deem 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 Reasona­bleness of Christianity, as delivered in Scripture.

[Page 63] Now we shall willingly admit, that the Apostles themselves were believers under this idea mostly, during our Saviour's resi­dence 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 con­curred 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 [Page 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 dif­ferent 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 re­surrection from the dead. ^*

The fact is, the scheme of human redemp­tion by Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, in the strictest sense, was opened gra­dually, and propounded to the world as it were article by article. At first it must ne­cessarily 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 Ma­jesty on high, being subsequent points of faith; and accordingly we read of many that be­lieved on him at different times, and in dif­ferent places, long before the conversion of [Page 65] the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, whom we cannot but consider as believers in a much higher sense. The faith of Chris­tians 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 con­science. ^‡In short, our Saviour's actual re­surrection, 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 demonstra­tion of his Divinity. From a thorough con­viction of this no doubt it was that his Dis­ciples worshipped him; and St. Thomas in par­ticular burst into that rapture of acknow­legement, My Lord, and my God! Though therefore the Messiah, or the Christ, be not [Page 66] unfrequently called the Son of God, as a per­son 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 per­haps, 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 [Page 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 as­sumption of the human nature by the Di­vine? Is it not perfectly reasonable to con­clude, 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? Neverthe­less 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 dis­ingenuousness that, one cannot avoid saying, did little credit to his cause, or to himself. [Page 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 Divi­nity which are cited from them. Of some of the most striking of these proofs, among other particulars, we shall for satisfaction­sake 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 Tes­ment, and as essential a part as the Gospels; were like them, as was observed, written oc­casionally, 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 Scrip­tures. [Page 69] The truth is, St. John in his Epistles assérts the same doctrine of our Lord's Divi­nity as in his Gospel. By Mr. Locke's way of proceeding, viz. arbitrarily admitting, or re­jecting 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 di­vided the Christian world.

We may now, I imagine, fairly date the reception of the doctrine of our Lord's Di­vinity 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 re­corded 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 [Page 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, gene­rally agreed that this address was made to Jesus Christ, and if so, this attribution of om­niscience 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 unac­countable. It is indeed true, that the Apos­tles 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 com­mon 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 [Page 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 pos­sibly 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 [Page 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 them­selves from an untoward generation; exhorting them to repent, and to be baptized for the re­mission 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 Gos­pel 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 [Page 73] is most reasonable to suppose, that, by the works here referred to, the great work of re­demption by the eternal Son of God is prin­cipally intended; the mystery of godliness, ex­hibited in God manifest in the flesh, and dis­played 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 misconstruc­tion. The doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, considered as the confirmation of a still greater doctrine, that of his Divi­nity, 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 im­portant of all events could not be accom­plished by himself in his mere human capa­city, we find the holy writers frequently de­claring that God raised him from the dead. But [Page 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 kil­leth 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 [Page 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 com­pare the promulgation or delivery of this prophecy with the completion of it at this period. Observe the words of the Apostle in [Page 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 won­derful 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 adver­saries 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 [Page 77] allusion to the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, St. Paul assures the Ephe­sians, that unto every one is given grace ac­cording 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 con­cerned 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 pro­phecy 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 [Page 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 con­cludes 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 suffi­ciently express the two natures united in our blessed Saviour, the Christ in his human cha­racter, the Lord in his divine. But yet far­ther, 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 [Page 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 in­formed, 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 under­stand 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 de­scribed 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 doc­trine; 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 doc­trine of redemption, as it has since been re­ceived in the Christian Church.

When St. Peter and his colleagues were brought before the High-Priest and Rulers, [Page 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 re­puted 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 Abra­ham in the most explicit terms, Before Abra­ham was, I am; he had said, that God was his Father, in the strictest sense, making him­self equal with God, &c, &c. Supposing then the Lord to have risen indeed, the truth of these several assertions must necessarily fol­low. 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 con­vinced by beholding the lame man who was [Page 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 Apos­tolical 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 abun­dantly 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, [Page 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 pro­phet. 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 Phi­lip 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 be­lieve 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 [Page 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 circumstan­tial, 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 Syna­gogues, 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, [Page 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 Ana­nias 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 autho­rity 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 [Page 85] Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Bro­ther Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee) hath sent me, that thou mightest re­ceive 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 in­creased 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 re­ceived the Holy Ghost by virtue of the impo­sition 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 ir­radiation: and, thirdly, that therefore when he preached Christ in the Synagogues that he is [Page 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 Gre­cians, who went about to slay him, the Chur­ches 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 at­tention 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 [Page 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 sup­pose, as, I think, we can do no less than sup­pose, 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 [Page 88] harangue of the Apostle upon this extraordi­nary 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 child­ren of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, (HE IS LORD OF ALL,) that word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Ju­dea; 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 in­terrupted 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 [Page 89] circumcision were astonished, for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. By this miraculous event therefore all farther endea­vours 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 be­lievers in the same sense in which he was one. Agreeably hereunto, when St. Peter re­hearsed this matter, and expounded it by order to those of the circumcision who contended with him, he tells them in the course of his nar­ration, 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 inade­quateness 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 expres­sions are compared with others similar to [Page 90] them in this history, and with several al­ready 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 ar­gument at the next opportunity.

IN prosecution of the subject which en­gaged 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 [Page 92] of the hand of Herod, &c. Now that Jesus Christ was the Lord that sent his angel, ap­pears evident enough from these considera­tions. 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 com­mission 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 [Page 93] unto Seleucia, &c. The passage has been in­troduced before, and I leave it to the consi­deration 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 ex­tensive sense, and was confirmed in his faith by the judgment which he saw miraculously inflicted by the hand of the Lord upon Ely­mas 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 Pi­sidia ^*Now these Jews, though they were [Page 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 be­fore, 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 ne­cessarily follow. And it should seem that this discourse of our Apostle had a conside­rable 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 congrega­tion was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barna­bas; 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 previ­ously [Page 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 un­derstood the things which were spoken by the Apostle?

Let us now attend Paul and Barnabas to Iconium; and see whether we may not rea­dily 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 won­ders to be done by their hands ^*. I would de­sire you to compare the last clause of this passage with the conclusion of St. Mark's [Page 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 com­pare 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 [Page 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 as­serted to these idolatrous believers in a plu­rality of deities. At that time to have op­posed to their persuasions doctrines peculiarly Christian, would have been altogether pre­mature 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 [Page 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 Dis­ciples, and exhorting them to continue in the saith. ^*

We meet with nothing now that hath particular connexion with our argument, be­fore 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 [Page 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, whe­ther we may not reasonably suppose the Lord opened this woman's heart for the reception of all evangelical truths, almost in an in­stant? Whether her case is not at least simi­lar 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 re­mark here, that this system is in no wise pre­judiced, 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 Sal­vation; [Page 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 af­firm that in this, as well as in preceding in­stances, we have good reason to suppose the persons preached to were made ac­quainted by the Apostle and his companion with the capital truths of Christianity, as they are taught in the Church.

[Page 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 Apos­tle 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 men­tioned, 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 [Page 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 con­trary to the decrees, or against the government of Caesar.

We have next an account of Paul and Si­las'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 philoso­phers 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 resurrec­tion [Page 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 dis­course, you will find the great points in­sisted 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 fun­damental [Page 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 blas­phemed, 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 [Page 105] Jews at Antioch in Pisidia, already taken no­tice of.

We have next an account of the conver­sion of Justus, (though it is not particularly set down,) and of Crispus, and of many of the Corinthians; which contains nothing mate­rial 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 wor­ship 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 con­formed 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 conde­scension to the Jews; that, in vindication of his innocence, he declared to Festus, as [Page 106] he had done before in substance to Felix, that neither against the law of the Jews, nei­ther against the temple he had offended any thing at all; that the Mosaic oeconomy to­tally ceased not before the final destruction of Jerusalem, when all disputes concerning circumcision, and the legal rites and obser­vances 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 [Page 107] instructed in the way of the Lord; and, being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and taught dili­gently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Aquila and Pris­cilla 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 con­vinced 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 be­cause 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; [Page 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 pro­phet, 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 con­clude, 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 con­vinced, &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 [Page 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 pas­sage 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 Pris­cilla; and consequently, that when they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, they were baptized in the name of a greater per­son 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 mys­tery 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; [Page 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 conse­quence 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 [Page 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 Aposto­lical 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 [Page 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 at­tacked 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 con­firmed by the circumstance of St. Paul's pu­rifying himself at Jerusalem with the four men who had a vow on them, agreeably to the ad­vice before given by the judaizing Christians, and in exact conformity to the Mosaic con­stitution. But if we turn to what the Apostle has to say in his own defence, we shall find ⁹⁶ [Page 113] his apology to contain an account of his con­version, 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 him­self 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 else­where 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 in­terrupted [Page 114] in the course of his harangue, and precluded from enlarging his speech, or ex­patiating on his doctrine, (which otherwise perhaps he might have done,) by the cla­mours 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 mani­festly to his own preservation; though ulti­mately he had doubtless an eye to the con­version of the most considerable and respec­table 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 [Page 115] following Chapter. Under one article of his accusation he is charged with being a ring­leader 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 ob­servably 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 [Page 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 dis­coursed on any one article of faith, strictly and peculiarly Christian. He reasoned of righ­teousness, temperance, and judgment to come, till this iniquitous governor trembled; and pro­bably had proceeded to the full display of all evangelical truth, had he not been ab­ruptly 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.

[Page 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 in­sinuates 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 con­clusions, 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 pre­sume, I need not stay to prove.

When St. Paul some time after this ex­pounded and testified the kingdom of God to the Jews at Rome, persuading them concerning Je­sus both out of the law of Moses, and out of the [Page 118] prophets, ^†we cannot say with any precision how much of the whole scheme of Christia­nity 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 ac­count 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 [Page 119] alluded to, and not systematically, but uni­formly taught. The doctrine of these Fa­thers 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 pri­vate 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 main­tenance of the doctrine of the Trinity, but assert the same in other terms, and in lan­guage fully equivalent. They evidently con­sidered it, not as requiring proof, but de­serving illustration. Ignatius, in the intro­duction to his Epistle to the Ephesians, salutes them ‘according to the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our GOD.’ The same Fa­ther 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 Ephe­sians, he takes occasion thus to express him­self. [Page 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 im­passible; even Jesus Christ our Lord.’ (n) In the conclusion of his Epistle to the Mag­nesians, 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 Corinth­ians these passages occur. ‘The sceptre of [Page 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 pro­ceeds 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 dili­gently 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 considera­tion. 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 con­fess 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 wor­shipping him, not with our lips only, but [Page 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 Corinth­ians to be vigilant, &c. ‘because we know not the day of GOD's appearing;’ i. e. un­doubtedly, the day when we must appear be­fore the judgmentseat of Christ.

It is true, as the learned translator acknow­ledges, 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 contro­vertible, as the ground of the objections, [Page 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 pri­mitive and plain testimonies to the great truths of the Gospel, as they are most surely believed among us. There is not, I am confi­dent, 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)

[Page 124] To these testimonies we might subjoin those of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Ire­naeus, and a number of others; the weight of whose collected evidence will be found in­finitely 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 origi­nated, and by what at this day they may be most justly defended. Supposing the first rule of faith to have been purely the bap­tismal form; or, agreeing with Dr. Sykes, that the ‘very short Creed which at first was deemed sufficient to entitle men to bap­tism, 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 [Page 125] laid before you, in order to know exactly what this faith implies. It will be hard in­deed if the Apostles, and these Apostolical Fathers, should be all along teaching he­resy, while they perpetually and earnestly, though not formally or methodically, com­plain 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 im­porting the primitive Christians to have wor­shipped Jesus Christ as ONE with the Father, [Page 126] or as "very God of very God" from all eter­nity. 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 unbe­liever will readily agree with me, that the idea of inferiority and delegation, &c. is far from being irreconcileable with Jewish te­nets, or with known principles of Poly­theism. (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 Ve­getius, an heathen author, who flourished in the time of the younger Valentinian, that Christians in a military capacity were used [Page 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 acknow­lege the unity of God, says his Lordship; which clause, he adds, is thought to have been from that usage taken into the Li­turgy of Christians.’

Now, if this be admitted, I would re­mark, 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 su­preme God: or if by Lord we are in the first [Page 128] and third petition to understand God the Fa­ther, still we must be presumed in the inter­mediate one to address the Son as equal to the Father; because we shall else be absurd enough to invoke the supreme God and a sub­ordinate being with the same fervour, and as it were in the same instant. You will see the argument these pious ejaculations fur­nish us with, whether we do or do not cre­dit 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 in­stance, the appointment of the Lord's day; and the style or title [...] by which churches were in the primitive times distin­guished. For can we do less in common rea­son 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 trans­ferred [Page 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 re­minding you of a circumstance, if possible, still more decisive: I mean the Unitarian doctrine which is so copiously, and so em­phatically inculcated in the Koran of Ma­homet. ^*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 [Page 130] Christianity in this capacity, Mahomet posi­tively 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 fol­lowing. ‘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 ex­plain [Page 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 wor­ship 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 scof­fers 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 [Page 132] doctrine of the Trinity was most indispu­tably the standing doctrine of the Christian Church at the time this false prophet broach­ed 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)

HAVING, I trust, already beyond all reasonable doubt ascertained the abso­lute Divinity of Jesus Christ, by many infal­lible proofs from holy writ, and by other arguments of a nature little less demonstra­tive, 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 [Page 134] you please, to exception. And I hope very much to strengthen what has been advanced by shewing the repugnancy of anti-trinita­rian 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 se­veral motives hereunto what they may, (tho' indeed they are obvious enough,) it will suf­fice, without concerning myself with parti­cular conceits, to take into consideration the two following general persuasions:

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

Secondly, that of those who profess them­selves 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 cha­racters 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 enume­rated, import little or nothing of legislation, [Page 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 in­struct the world in righteousness was not the grand and ultimate, but merely a subordinate end of his appearance; and indeed a neces­sary 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 re­pentance. ^§He hath anointed me to preach the [Page 137] Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the cap­tives, 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, be­cause 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 pro­pitiation for our sins. ^‡ Again; When the ful­ness 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 [Page 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 reli­gion, 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 pro­phets, but to fulfil both. ^‡The fact is, Christ blotted out the hand writing of carnal ordi­nances, ^§ and took out of the way the whole ceremonial of Judaism, but left every thing [Page 139] which was intrinsically holy, and just, and good in the law, in its full force and obliga­tion. He was the mediator of a better cove­nant; 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 sup­posed 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 pre­cepts of the Jewish lawgiver; the full sense and genuine meaning of which had been perverted by the false glosses and miscon­structions of later ages, and particularly of the Scribes and Pharisees. We find him perpe­tually upbraiding these with their substitu­tions of oral tradition in the room of the written word of God; and with absurdly and impiously teaching for doctrines the com­mandments of men. ^*In these instances he nobly rescues the Scripture from human cor­ruptions; [Page 140] and faithfully discharges the im­portant 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 command­ments. ^† 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 com­prehended 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 [Page 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 espe­cially distinguished; to which they had in­ducements of an extraordinary nature; to which they were bound by ties and conside­rations 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 ele­ments; ^†they exulted in the abolition of the ceremonial law, as a mere temporary esta­blishment, and shadowy institution; but at the same time they regarded the moral law [Page 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 self­condemned; 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 con­sidered as inclusive of every evangelical pre­cept, even that of loving our enemies, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. St. James calls this very precept, this great social prin­ciple, the royal law; ^†and when he argues against the folly and presumption of a partial [Page 143] obedience to the divine commandments, and a commuting as it were for iniquities, rests his argument wholly in that supreme autho­rity 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 circum­stances admitted, and occasions required; but they taught nothing of this kind but what was reducible to the Mosaic institu­tions, 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 mo­rality, one and the same; the latter illustrat­ing, explaining, enforcing, and recommend­ing 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 origi­nally [Page 142] [...] [Page 143] [...] [Page 144] engraved upon the fleshly tables of man's heart. (u) To maintain or to imagine other­wise, is to charge God foolishly; and to sup­pose 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 vi­sible amidst this blackness of spiritual dark­ness. 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 pro­duce 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 disinterest­edness, and the meekest patience, most ex­plicitly taught, and earnestly inculcated. (w) [Page 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 homi­num, quod situm est in generis humani societate, tum ad modestiam, magnitudinemque animi eru­divit. ^*

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 Di­vine Legislator. Forgiveness of enemies, &c. is a great point of morality which the hea­thens 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 pre­sent solicitude, and the taking too much thought for the morrow, precisely as our Sa­viour does in his discourse on the mount. A philosopher, or wise man, ought not to be anxious about these things, viz. food, &c. &c. [Page 147] [...]—is a sentence quoted by Dr. Whitby in his note on v. 25. Ch. 6. of St. Matthew. The following sen­timent 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 com­mitteth 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 Ci­cero, 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 philoso­pher represents the Deity as a most bene­ficent Being who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just [Page 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 afflic­tions as the corrections of a father for our spiritual benefit. God, he says, sicut seve­rus 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 pro­pitiation, and our want of extraneous assis­tance 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 con­sciousness of guilt, and a solicitude for atone­ment. Their sense of the need of a divine blessing on their endeavours in general, ap­pears sufficiently from their undertaking no­thing of moment, whether of a public or [Page 149] private concern, without the previous obser­vance of certain rites and ceremonies; or, as Pliny expresses himself in the introduction to his panegyric on Trajan, sine deorum immorta­lium 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 cer­tain the notion of good and evil genii pre­vailed much in the heathen world. In the following lines, the warmth of divine infu­sion in the human breast is beautifully ex­pressed 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:

[Page 150] Correspondently with all this, philosophers have represented the difficulty of persevering in a virtuous course, under the very same meta­phor 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 prin­ciples independently and separately from what­ever is erroneous, inconsistent, or extravagant in heathen authors, we can do no less than re­verence 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, re­garded 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 Legisla­tor ^†from heaven, and under sanctions the most efficacious imaginable. In short, the [Page 151] Christian religion stands particularly discri­minated 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 cha­racter 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 mi­racles, he stood supereminent, but not single; as a teacher, or instructer, he followed pre­cedents; 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 [Page 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 celebra­tion 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 sancti­fied 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 contemp­tuousness; and the least that can be inferred from this passage is, that a greater than [Page 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 ac­knowlege 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 reser­vation of the prerogatives of the one Su­preme God. According to universal tradi­tion, [Page 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 Su­premacy was no secret even among people whose religious rites and usages were silly and extravagant enough to render them ob­noxious to the scorn and laughter of man­kind, 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 mis­taken 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 [Page 155] set in a very strong light by Pagan authors; particularly by Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxago­ras, 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 specula­tive doctrine are to be found amongst the rubbish of Pagan antiquity; and they stri­kingly contrast an enormous farrago of tra­ditionary 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 hea­thenism, 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 [Page 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 Scrip­tures 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 uni­formly 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 foun­dation 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 inva­lidity of its pretences has, I persuade myself been sufficiently shewn already; and there­fore we are to reject its hypothesis, together with that of Socinianism, as respectively aim­ing to establish another doctrine than that we have received; as fundamentally erroneous, and absolutely repugnant to the genius and spirit of Christianity.

[Page 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 con­fronted 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 wil­ful misconstruction; and neither is nor can be defended from the strong holds of reason, or by weapons from the armory of Sacred Writ.

THE Apostle, as appears from the ar­gument he prosecutes throughout this epistle, had, in the words just read, an eye to those Jewish converts who were so zeal­ously 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 here­tics of different sorts, whose unfairness, or [Page 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 te­nacious 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 in­conclusively even in a righteous cause; and truth may suffer, or rather be supposed to suffer by precipitance of passion, or inadver­tency 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 [Page 161] the attainment of human wisdom, by meta­physical 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 intem­perance, 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 ac­knowleged, with respect to every Arian &c. [Page 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 pal­pably ridiculous; or we are baptized in the name of three Persons, betwixt the first and two latter of which there is an infinite dis­parity; (there being no medium between God and a creature;) which is a supposition not less ridiculous. And, in fact, the Bap­tismal Form is so strong, that heretics have found themselves under a necessity of chang­ing it; or of explaining it away; some bap­tizing 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 sancti­fying [Page 163] Spirit, created by the created Son. Dr. Clarke, to whom Arianism is under great ob­ligations, 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 fol­lowing 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 Fa­ther, 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 para­phrase will escape a common, or a cursory reader. I guess, Dr. C—would never have consented to the least alteration in this pas­sage, [Page 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 fix­ing 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 So­cinians,) Jesus Christ existed when the Gos­pel 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 supe­riority 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. [Page 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 ro­mantic 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 pro­perly, 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. ^† [Page 166] Christ was born mortal, subject to infirmities and sufferings, &c. say some Socinian exposi­tors: the word WAS flesh, simply and abso­lutely, 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 Abra­ham 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 pur­pose and decree of God. How far the name of Grotius dignifies this exposition, let every intelligent hearer judge. Or, let us see whe­ther we are like to derive more satisfaction from the following explanation or rather evacuation of this text by the celebrated [Page 167] author of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity. ‘Before Abraham was, and before all gene­rations, 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 be­lieve 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 Di­vine 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 [Page 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 exposi­tors; 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 sub­ject.—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, attri­butes, adoration, and incommunicable name of the God of Israel,’ supposes him to have been ‘truly and really concerned in the [Page 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 FA­THER, 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 DI­VINE 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 late­mentioned Divine, and indeed the Arian [Page 170] fraternity have usually recourse, is yet be­hind. Unable to with stand the united force of the several texts by which the full Divini­ty of our Saviour is evinced, they contrive to resolve the whole of his Deity into that abso­lute 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, origi­nal 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 [Page 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 re­strained 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-exis­tence both of Father and Son from all eter­nity is necessarily implied: because tho' the word given imports communication of an incomprehensible kind, yet such communi­cation 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 [Page 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 im­ply equality, or coexistence. But what fol­lows?—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 [Page 173] it; who, like contrary qualities in bodies counteracting each other, mutually defeat their respective ends by repugnancy of con­struction. We will turn to one or two sin­gular 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 [Page 174] to the Romans, Christ was raised from the dead ^* by the glory of the Father, (the single one with which he supports his interpreta­tion,) 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 commen­tator; 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 phraseolo­gy. 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 Uni­verse.—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 dispensa­tion. [Page 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 explica­tion 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 demon­stration 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 asto­nishment! Grotius however sees this matter in a very different light. ‘Hic primum, says he, ea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa, post­quam scilicet sua resurrectione probaverat, [Page 176] se esse a quo vita et quidem aeterna ex­pectari 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 Chris­tianos Christo, ut Deo, carmina cecinisse.’ ^*

And yet we are not much obliged to this eminent commentator for an acknowlege­ment 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 de­clares 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 [Page 177] author in some sort at least asserts the Divi­nity 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 pos­sible 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 ad­dress to Cornelius, either to God the Father, [Page 178] or to Jesus Christ, is at best perversely sin­gular; 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. (ac­cording to our author's inadequate illustra­tion,) that ‘he might be the Saviour and rewarder of all good Christians.’ St. Paul wishes grace and peace to the Church at Co­rinth, 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 equi­valent to ‘the Son of God took upon him our nature.’ In short, our author's notion [Page 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 sig­nifies only the admission of Gentiles as well as Jews into the Christian covenant.

But a very recent instance of perverse in­terpretation 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 appli­cation to our blessed Lord, who, says he, ‘is God over all, as he is by the Father AP­POINTED Lord, King, and Governour of all.’ And then he refers to several texts as declarative of such APPOINTMENT.

[Page 180] The Father judgeth no man, but hath com­mitted 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 ever­lasting blessing, is evident from Revelation v. 12, 13.’ Worthy is the Lamb, &c. to receive blessing, &c. and every creature, &c. [Page 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 pro­ceeds. ‘But what this part of his cha­racter, 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 rela­tion to God, as their God, in which they particularly gloried, (Chapter ii. 17.) and which was indeed the glory of all their [Page 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 afore­said considerations seem to make it pro­bable the article ( [...]) might be very easily transposed. This is only my conjecture.’

Now I beg leave to ask, whether our an­notator was under an absolute necessity of conjecturing? Conjectures, I presume, are [Page 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 uni­versal reading to be the only right one; and that this passage, abundantly plain and con­sistent in itself, is here obscured by elucida­tion, and marred by amendment. Mr. T. in fact smothers himself in a dust of his own raising. For though, in a spirit of true com­passion, and in the tenderest affection to his brethren, &c. the Apostle calls to mind their national character, and many of the privi­leges they had enjoyed, yet at the time of his writing this Epistle, it should be remem­bered, 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 irreco­verably done away for ever. God was no longer [Page 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 construc­tion, the Apostle falsifies fact, and insults his kinsmen, by way of commiseration.

There is another text which the same au­thor 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 dis­tinction [Page 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, contra­riwise, 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 dis­tinction 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 OEco­nomy, ecclesiastical and civil; and conse­quently, 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 [Page 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 re­markable enough that the texts under consi­deration have been before now a snare to un­believers. 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 in­fidelity 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 con­troversy great is the mystery of godliness; ^* God [Page 187] was manifest in the flesh, &c. makes so clearly for us, that the Socinians, and they who pa­tronise 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. in­stead 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 pas­sages in the Revelation which we have al­ready produced as plainly expressive of the Son's coequal majesty with the Father, Gro­tius 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 [Page 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 sup­pose 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 be­come unapt and feeble in its application, [Page 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 con­fidence, that Jesus Christ cannot be an object of divine worship, because in that excellent form of address to the Deity which he re­commended 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 per­sons 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 there­fore 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 mani­fest from the nature of the thing, and from St. Luke's account of this matter. It came [Page 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 Ascen­sion, 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 him­self of no reputation, &c. ^‡This text is often quoted as asserting the true Divinity of our Saviour. I am therefore concerned to deliver [Page 191] it from the construction which the Arians with much assurance put upon it; and which many amongst ourselves have, I think, very un­warily admitted; subjecting themselves there­by to the necessity of having recourse to a hack­neyed, and after all mere verbal distinction be­tween self-existence and necessary existence, in or­der 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 im­puted consequences? Why, says Dr. Water­land, ‘this interpretation of the text (sup­posing 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 ever­blessed Trinity.’ Dr. W. observes, that the whole passage in Novatian, rightly un­derstood, [Page 192] affords a strong proof of the co­equality of the two Persons; and that it is quoted accordingly by Dr. Whitby in his trea­tise 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 can­not 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 pro­per reading. For, not to insist on one cir­cumstance in its favour, which is the non­agreement of the several interpretations of the learned Gentlemen above-mentioned, it deserves to be noted, that though the phrase [...] would admit the construc­tion contended for, yet the context will be found absolutely to revolt against it. Grant­ing the phrase being in the form of God to be [Page 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 expres­sions; and consequently as importing an in­tire equality with God. But herewith the construction of Novation, and of the Arians, not to say of Dr. W. himself, is totally in­compatible. 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 Bap­tism; 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 distin­guished the Father from the Son and the [Page 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 uni­ties, 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 Fa­ther, 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 re­gard 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.

[Page 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 poten­tate, 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, in­dependently 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 humi­liating tendency, and seem to import the in­feriority 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 [Page 196] Christ, though it had been on certain occa­sions not barely intimated, but in plain terms asserted by him, was not uniformly mani­fested 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 un­settled 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 manifes­tation of the great mystery of the Gospel was reserved for the day of Pentecost; before which consideration a thousand difficulties [Page 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 inter­pretations, than the Father of the Christian [Page 198] Church, or, if the original word had been rendered the cause, or the origin, instead of the beginning, as with very sufficient war­rant 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 ex­pression, 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 incomprehen­sible 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, [Page 199] neither the Son, but the Father. ^*In our Sa­viour'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 Fa­ther, and to my God, and your God. ^†These words contain a proper and natural commis­sion 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 ac­complishment of what he had frequently foretold and promised them under the cha­racter of the Messiah; but it was neither ne­cessary 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 [Page 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 media­torial 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 in­deed 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 consumma­tion of all things, but was not so BEFORE; or, that he was greater in his human cha­racter 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 [Page 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 per­fection of essence and attribute, the comple­ment 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 pa­rallel ones, we are to understand the gifts and graces of which the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost is the dispenser. If this interpretation [Page 202] be not admitted, we may with equal pro­priety and justice call in question the perso­nality 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 at­tempts, 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. ^**

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 re­quire.

I might insist that the great doctrine before us is virtually at least contained in my text: [Page 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 con­duct [Page 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 Scrip­ture, 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 de­manded, and heresies multiplied.

Let us enquire then, whether the doctrine of the Resurrection, as it is delivered in our [Page 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 autho­rity. 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 ex­ploded, as absolutely ridiculous, or chimeri­cal. We are assured Zoroustres taught the doctrine of the resurrection among the antient Persians, as he himself derived it most pro­bably from the Jews, with whom he had communications. Grotius, who, with res­pect to this article at least, was not of doubt­ful mind, in proof of the admissible possibi­lity 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 [Page 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 dispensa­tion. This appears from the following pas­sage. ‘That this, i. e. the doctrine of the re­surrection, is no other than fables of the ANTIENTS is, says he, the pretence of unbelievers.’ And indeed his learned translator remarks in his Preliminary Dis­course, that some of the Pagan Arabs be­lieved 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 Trini­ty; and in particular that the people of Ceylon believe the Resurrection of the Body. ^*

[Page 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, accord­ing 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 founda­tion in the hope of the promise made unto the Fathers: tho' when, where, or in what man­ner, he mentions not. And certain it is that the Pharisees, the straitest and most [Page 209] considerable Sect among them, not only en­tertained this notion with seriousness, but contended for it with vehemency; as ap­pears from the violence of opposition be­tween them and the Sadducees, who as stre­nuously 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 [Page 210] had her. ^*The argument herein implied is indeed perfectly ridiculous, and grossly car­nal; and is exposed accordingly by our blessed Lord in his reply to it: but it unde­niably supposes the resurrection of the bodies of these same brethren and their wife, agre­ably 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 marri­age, but are as the angels of God in heaven. All this is abundantly confirmed by our Saviour's own argument immediately follow­ing. 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 scripture­history, unless we suppose the re-union of the souls and bodies of Abraham and Isaac, &c. in the resurrection; and that our Sa­viour [Page 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 ex­pressed himself in a very different manner upon the occasion. Our Lord's meaning is yet more fully discovered by St. Luke's ac­count 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 resurrec­tion at the last day. ^*Now that Martha be­lieved 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 evi­dent enough from this consideration; that, though she appears to have been doubtful of the possibility of his resurrection at that time, [Page 212] and in so extraordinary a way, Lord, says she, by this time he stinketh, and this notwith­standing her avowed belief that whatsoever our Saviour would ask of God, God would give it him, and his declaration that he was him­self 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 there­fore we may justly presume they were per­suaded 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 Je­sus, said unto his servants, as the Evangelist acquaints us, this is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty [Page 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 his­tory 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 evi­dence we have plenty in the sacred volume. I will only produce one piece more of Gos­pel-history, in presumptive proof that Gen­tiles as well as Jews understood by a resur­rection what we do at this day. St. Paul concludes his discourse to the Athenians with insisting on the certainty of a future judg­ment 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, [Page 214] from the dead. And when they heard of the re­surrection of the dead, says the historian, some mocked; but others said, we will hear thee again of this matter. ^*Now St. Paul's audi­ence consisted chiefly of Stoics and Epicu­reans; and the latter most undoubtedly were the party that derided the doctrine which the former did not conceive to be altogether ex­travagant, or ridiculous. But had the Apos­tle meant only to inculcate the general doc­trine of a future state, the Stoics in all pro­bability 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 Transfigura­tion, 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 [Page 215] from the dead, they kept that saying with them­selves, 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 con­siderations; 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 Je­rusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be ac­complished. [Page 216] For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully in­treated 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 ob­viate 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 ex­tremely free with Omnipotence, and in fact only begs a question instead of satisfying it. Besides, this expedient will appear to be hea­vily encumbered with strange inconveni­ences; [Page 217] to speak much less harshly of it than perhaps in justice I should. When a finite understanding has laid the line which infi­nite 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 how­ever 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 com­mon 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 [Page 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 Apos­tles 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 re­member in any place of the New Testa­ment, (where the general resurrection at the last day is spoken of,) any such ex­pression as the resurrection of the body, much less of the same body. I say, the general resurrection, &c. because where the resur­rection of some particular persons presently upon our Saviour's resurrection is men­tioned, 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 [Page 219] of speaking of this resurrection, the passage itself gives a reason in these words, ap­peared to many; i. e. those who slept, ap­peared, 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 pro­bable they were such as were newly dead, whose bodies were not yet dissolved, &c.’ ^*

There is, I persuade myself, little or no­thing 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 oc­casions. But because this great writer may possibly be still thought by some to have hit [Page 220] upon an expedient, which happily helps him out of embarassment, in the stale distinction between a particular and the general Resur­rection, 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 im­partial 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 quick­eneth whom he will. ^§These texts will be sufficient for my present purpose. Let us consider them separately a little. Now is [Page 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 ob­serve, 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 sig­nified 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 resurrec­tion. The former part of this verse has some obscurity in it, which may be liable to va­rious 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 how­ever [Page 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 re­surrection 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 fa­shioned like unto Christ's glorious body. Would it not be prima facie ridiculous to attempt tor­turing the passage to any other sense?

Though what has been here offered can, I think, scarcely fall short of bringing convic­tion to a mind open to it, yet it will be greatly corroborated by other passages and particulars, and especially by the doctrine [Page 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 por­tion 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 per­sons 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 mo­ment, [Page 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 im­mortality; 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 mo­difications, 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 [Page 225] ones, God is able to use for the repro­duction of bodies; of which the necessary constituent parts may be preserved consis­tently with numberless changes from the cradle to the grave, and after death.’ Our great Creator at least knows what pro­perly constitutes identity much better than we can tell him; and therefore without en­tering fully into the state of the controversy as maintained long ago by Dr. Stilling fleet and Mr. Locke, (which would be little bet­ter 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 un­worthy 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 [Page 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; be­cause 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 Lord­ship 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 sub­stance being raised but what hears his voice, but what, being called, comes out of the grave; and no other substance com­ing 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 [Page 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 con­stituent parts of man, as of the acts or ope­rations 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 in­discriminately, not only in ordinary discourse, but in correct composition. The soul per­ceives 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 be­fore the judgmentseat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, accord­ing to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. To which his Lordship subjoins this question: CAN THESE WORDS BE UNDER­STOOD [Page 228] OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL SUB­STANCE BUT THAT BODY IN WHICH THESE THINGS WERE DONE? ‘A man, Mr. L. answers, may suspend his deter­mining 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 suf­fers, 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 [Page 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 modi­fications; 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 ar­guing 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 [Page 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 in­fers in these words annexed; AND CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT, WHETHER HIS BODY WAS THE SAME MATERIAL SUB­STANCE 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, be­cause 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.’ ^*

[Page 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 recon­ciled a text or two ^*to his favourite tenet, which have been generally referred to the re­ceived doctrine. But shall plausibility be ob­truded upon us for demonstration? Shall it overturn the credit of other interpretations [Page 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 subti­lization? 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 imagi­nation. It is true, Dr. S. with all the ef­frontery of quackery, would make us believe his dose may be taken without any sort of in­convenience. 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 [Page 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 consci­ousness 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 [Page 234] body, with what shadow of sense is this styled a resurrection? Or, if there is sense and pro­priety 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 con­scious person's being restored?’ Restored! From whence? Or to what? (ee) In short, whatever becomes of man after death, what­ever 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 inconsis­tences, and assert paradoxes sooner than be­lieve as the Church would have them. (ff)

This notion of a thinking person's being re­stored does indeed correspond well enough with an opinion maintained with much ear­nestness some years since by certain Divines, ^*who held, that during the state between death and the last day, the soul will sleep, as [Page 235] it were, and all the rational powers be sus­pended. 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 restora­tion of the Soul to its powers, &c. and the re­surrection of the dead, are very different things.

Again: if we believe the Apostle's ac­count, 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 sup­pose 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 Apos­tle's illustration of the doctrine before us by the similitude of seed sown, which is not quickened except it die, convey the least idea [Page 236] of a soul's awaking from sleep, and in a mo­ment 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 incorrup­tion. 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 puri­fied; 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.

[Page 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 Apos­tle. The author of the Epistle to the He­brews 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 Apos­tle 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 resur­rection of the dead we are only to understand [Page 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 im­mortality 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 af­firmed the flesh to be incapable of incorrup­tion. 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 con­verts 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 con­founded figure with letter, or a type with its antitype.

[Page 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 ac­cordingly.

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 ap­pear.

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 con­fessed, 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 enlarge­ment on which fabulous wonder has drawn a charge of ungenuineness on the Epistle it­self. [Page 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. Cle­ment's doctrine, or on the pious zeal with which he maintained it. The reality of the doctrine is in no wise affected by the whim­sicalness, 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 Philip­pians.

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 [Page 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 resurrec­tion; and not any particular modus of it, or the resurrection of the flesh: vide Barna­bas, 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 [Page 245] of the resurrection [...], from the dead; but he never mentions any thing of a re­surrection 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 re­surrection 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, be­cause 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 occa­sionally does; if this be the case, equivoca­tion shall hereafter pass for argument, and dogmaticalness for demonstration.

[Page 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 opi­nion, 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 resurrec­tion might be.’

Will it follow then that the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh was purely the personal, or philosophical notion of Justin [Page 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 per­sons, and not the common doctrine, or be­lief of the catholic Church. This must fol­low upon Dr. S's own principles. For he has himself remarked in his preface, that ‘it is highly probable these, (referring to doc­trines 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 in­deed 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 [Page 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 considera­tion. What matters it to us when it was thought necessary to be required of the mem­bers of the Church of Christ openly to pro­fess they believed as the Apostles and primi­tive 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 man­ner. 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 [Page 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 at­tempt to slip out of this difficulty by saying, as the Enquirer does in the following words, [Page 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 sen­timent 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 resurrec­tion; the heathens objecting to the possibi­lity of it, and the CHRISTIANS endea­vouring to answer the objections they met with. The enquiry, says he, was, whe­ther 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 [Page 251] flesh which we now bear about us, was to be raised up again? The WRITERS of that time still extant contended for the re­surrection 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 ima­gine to be true, was not instantly to be professed as an article of faith, necessary to be believed in order to Baptism.’ And af­terwards 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 philo­sophers 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 no­tion; and taught, that it was no ways be­yond the power of Almighty God to restore to every one the flesh he once had.’ ^* (ii)

[Page 252] Now I desire to observe, in the first place, that these philosophers objected to the resur­rection from the common topics just men­tioned 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 hea­thens, and by the WRITERS of that time, we are to understand only a few PRIVATE PER­SONS who maintained an extraordinary opi­nion; 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, [Page 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 un­doubtedly 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 fa­thers 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?’ An­swer, he shall restore them to life, who produced [Page 254] "them the first time." (kk) The whole system of Mahometism is, you well know, a super­structure raised upon the foundations of Ju­daism 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 ex­tremity of zeal, the unity of the Godhead; and at the same time not to put the Chris­tians 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 Maho­met, the least that can be inferred from the [Page 255] perspicuity with which the doctrine of the resurrection is taught and enforced in the Koran, is that he conceived it to be suffici­ently reconcileable with the common reason and apprehension of mankind; at the same time that, from this among other particu­lars, we must see, and must desire its adver­saries to take notice, that it is not a doc­trine 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 pri­mitive authority, abundant reason have we to hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; in nothing dismayed by adver­saries who trifle with us upon the most se­rious 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 ac­knowlege Jesus Christ to be the Creator of the world though all things were made by him; [Page 256] or that he made satisfaction for sin, though he was sacrificed for us, and gave his life a ran­som 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 Gos­pel 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 be­lief; or, in other words, must not expect to make converts to Christianity, till we cease to be Christians? And indeed so in­considerable are the impediments to a spiri­tual coalition between the followers of So­cinus and the disciples of Mahomet, that, ac­cording to information given us by writers of credit, terms of union and amity were ac­tually 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, [Page 257] we may readily enough comprehend; but there seems to be something unaccountably romantic in an attempt to compromise mat­ters as it were with the author of our faith by accommodating these truths to the human understanding.

But whatever may be the views, or what­ever the claims, or whatever the pretences of Latitudinarians in general, the notion of a Creed, or a system, or an establish­ment 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 cir­cumstantial, 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 Atha­nasian Creed, than against that of Dr. S. This author not only admits but refers to an original Creed, which he observes has been [Page 258] enlarged "as circumstances arose," or oc­casions called; though that it has been en­larged 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 esta­blishment whatsoever can in any tolerable sense be said to invade the right of private judgment in matters of religion; because Creeds, formularies, institutions, and ap­pointments 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 peo­ple of no religion at all. (nn) ‘Not Heretics only, says the great Chillingworth, but Ro­mish [Page 259] Catholics also, set up as many judges, as there are men and women in the Chris­tian world. For do not your men and wo­men 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 Pro­testant 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 satis­faction, 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 [Page 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 in­stances 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 nu­merous sects and parties into which this Re­formation 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 cer­tain, her requisition of assent to her public offices, and of subscription to her articles, the measure of just policy, and common pru­dence for her security, are no more to be re­garded [Page 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 con­sistent. But is not the inference drawn from the acknowleged right of private judgment by a late famous author, and his associates, al­together chimerical, and totally incompre­hensible? Their inference is, that every in­dividual Christian may, if he thinks fit, with­draw himself from all the Churches upon the face of the earth, stand absolutely single in the profession of his faith, or, as this au­thor expresses it, be a Church to himself. ^*And is not this in effect to assert, that a Church may be formed without a communion, with­out government, or ministry; without a pos­sibility of being infected with heresy, or di­vided by schism? Is it not to all intents and purposes to aver, that a society may subsist without members, without establishment, or [Page 262] constitution? We deny not that a man may judge he has a claim to this spiritual inde­pendence; and indeed our principle supposes him so to judge; but then we must beg leave to think in our turn, that he is grossly mis­taken 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 assu­rances of superintendency, support, and pro­tection 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 ne­cessarily 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, [Page 263] or the faith, &c. they undoubtedly speak of the truth embraced, and the faith professed by all sound Christians; and when St. Paul ex­horts 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 lodg­ed 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 [Page 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 nei­ther 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 Pro­testants 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 mas­ters of the understandings, and the consci­ences of their followers; and accomplish that by indirect artifice which they load us with obloquy for doing under the sanction of law­ful authority? The fact is, in case of supe­riority, [Page 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 authorita­tive constitutions; i. e. by those very means and methods against which it now so vehe­mently 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 fra­mers 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-GOVERN­MENT, 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 co­lourings of certain authors, who plausibly [Page 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 eccle­siastical notions: we find them after all their efforts and struggles to climb over the pale of the Church, unwarily, or rather unavoid­ably 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, with­out building it entirely upon what appears right to his own judgment, such as it is, after his best endeavours for INFORMA­TION.’ 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 privi­leges be as sacred, or consciences as tender [Page 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 de­part both from protestant and Christian prin­ciples; 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 inhu­manity of persecution afforded to every think­ing mind a very strong argument of the cor­ruption of that Church in which it was countenanced; it frightened men into their Senses; it helped to open their understand­ings; 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 [Page 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 abun­dantly 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 cre­dited, we are relapsing gradually into Po­pery, both in our doctrines and our prac­tices. 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, edg­ing 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 [Page 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 offend­ed, not by the discipline, but by certain doc­trines of the Church of Rome, which we hold in common with her, (even the doc­trines 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 [Page 270] profusion of spleen, malevolence, and ran­cour with which so many pages, of the Con­sessional, and of other treatises are shamefully defiled. But for these doctrines, I am tho­roughly persuaded, the reasonableness, and utility, not to say necessity of Church-esta­blishments, 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 in­vective. An affected zeal for reformation, and an avowed anxiousness for the revival of gospel simplicity, have a verv ingratiating ten­dency with the bulk of mankind. Liberty of conscience, Freedom of sentiment, (qq) eccle­siastical [Page 271] tyranny, violence of bigotry, arbitrary injunctions, spiritual impositions, &c. are, I grant, expressions sufficiently sonorous and amusing, and may pass with many for argu­ment; though at the same time, looseness of principle, stubbornness of schism, rankness of heresy, arrogance of self-sufficiency, perverse­ness 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 eccle­siastical system; nothing that might reason­ably be retrenched; nothing that could pos­sibly 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 constitu­tion. (rr) Men may be, and we find them to be bigots in the cause of infidelity; nor [Page 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 li­centiousness. 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 pos­sibly 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 spiri­tual state. In general however, under a con­viction that we are ourselves in the good and the right way, it will be our duty, as Mem­bers [Page 273] of the Church to wish, and as Christi­ans to pray, that God would ‘have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Here­tics; 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.’