A tract on the law of nature, and principles of action in man: By Granville Sharp.

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- [indexes]

- INDEX OF THE TEXTS referred to in the foregoing Work.

- INDEX OF THE Various TOPICS discussed in this Work.

- INDEX OF THE Different AUTHORS referred to.

- ERRATA.

A TRACT ON THE LAW OF NATURE, &c.

I HAVE neither leisure nor abilities to undertake a regular definition of the Law of Nature, with all the doctrines usually ranked under that head: and indeed, if I had both leisure and abilities, I should want inclination; because such a work would unavoidably become voluminous, on account of the variety of authors necessary to be mentioned, who have treated the subject with different views: and as all science is vain, which is not reduced to practice, so the more voluminous any subject is rendered, the less it can be useful, on account of the increased difficulty of communicating it to the generality of readers. I have therefore confined my tract to such general remarks on the subject, as are most necessary for the observation of my countrymen at large, with respect (more particularly) to one point, viz. the Illegality of reducing or subjecting mankind to involuntary servitude, either under political or private dominion: as all pretensions to an unlimited authority of any man or men over others, are contrary to Natural Equity and the Laws of God, as well as baneful to mankind in general; which effect is unhappily demonstrated by the numberless instances of unnatural oppression now prevailing to the destruction of mankind, in almost every part of the world. I have already shewn in my answer (1) to the Reverend Mr. Thompson (an advocate for the African slave trade) that the Jewish constitutions were not strictly consistent with the Law of Nature in all points; and, consequently, that they are not to be considered as the rule by which lawyers and casuists may safely determine "what is, or what is not, according to Nature."

The Law of Nature has been variously represented; but all the best writers, both ancient and modern, agree in adopting that maxim of the Civil Institutes (2), which declares involuntary servitude, or slavery, to be "contrary to the Law of Nature:" this rule is commonly understood as applicable only to domestic slavery; but it is equally true when applied to political oppression, or the exercise of an unlimited dominion over a whole nation. Some few authors indeed have been so unreasonable, as to assert that "there is no such thing as natural Law;" but they are properly censured by the learned Baron Puffendorf, in his "Law of Nature and Nations." Book 2. Chap. 3.

He particularly mentions the argument of Carniades as contracted by Lactantius to the following effect.

"That men first instituted Laws to secure and promote their own advantage, &c. but that there was no such thing as Natural Law in the world," &c. p. 104.

Such doctrine is certainly very convenient for Tyrants and Slaveholders of every degree, who must otherwise remain without excuse, whenever "the Law of Nature," and "the Common Rights of Humanity," are urged against them: it is therefore necessary for them, either to misrepresent the Law of Nature (as the Reverend Mr. Thompson has done), or else (like Carniades) utterly to deny its existence. This latter method has been also adopted by some modern advocates for Slavery, who, in private discourse on this subject, have declared, that they esteem "the Law of Nature" to be no other than their natural propensity to pursue their own heart's desire of profit or pleasure: and this they call "natural Liberty;" though it certainly is the most unnatural Tyranny: for when the immutable necessity of reciprocal consideration is forgot, or set aside, there can be no safety among men, and consequently no natural Liberty: we must, therefore, submit ourselves to be the servants of law, in order to be truly free; according to the excellent observation of Cicero. "Legum denique idcirco omnes Servi sumus, ut liberi esse possumus." Tom. 2. p. 208. (3). We may learn from the histories of all nations, that Lust, Avarice, Pride, Revenge, Love of Power, Jealousy, &c. are Principles of Action, which unavoidably produce oppression and wrongs, to the destruction of the human species, in all places where will and pleasure (whether in political or private dominion) are supreme; or whenever Self-love and Private Interest become entirely predominant among men. That Self-love is predominant with the generality of mankind is but too apparent; yet we are not, therefore, obliged to admit that "Self-love" is "the universal principle of action;" though an eminent and learned law-writer has (with very good intentions, as his argument proves) thought proper to give it that title.

"Honesty (indeed) is the best policy," even for a selfish man to pursue; and, it is certain, that the solid attainments of virtue and justice afford a real and substantial satisfaction, which in the end, most amply fulfils the purposes of Self-love.

But though Virtue and Honesty are thus favourable to Self-love in their natural effects, yet this, by no means, proves that Self-love is the motive of all virtuous and honest men; or that it is the "universal principle of action:" for, if that were really the case, many of the most amiable virtues must be esteemed mere empty names. There could be no true Generosity or Benevolence; no Disinterested Goodness of heart; no sincere Natural Affection between parents and their children, husbands and their wives, brethren, friends, &c. whereas history affords many undoubted instances of Self-love being lost in the superior affections, natural to generous minds, in all these different degrees of connection; but it is needless to recite them, since, even in the brute creation there are natural (3) affections superior to Self-love.

The common hen is so inflamed with Natural Affection, and anxious care for her tender brood, that she seems to have as little sense of Self-love in time of danger, as of her own weakness; for she will boldly fly in the face of every invader (except man) however superior in size or strength to herself.

The timorous cow, it is said, will attack the fiercest tyger, when her calf is by her side. Many instances of very extraordinary Affection in dogs to their masters have been well attested. Those faithful animals have sometimes been known to lose all sense of danger to themselves in the necessary defence of their owners. And the very swine discover such a Natural Affection and real sympathy for their brethren of the sty, whenever they hear their cries of distress, that their example ought to shame the depraved part of mankind (imperial tyrants and royal robbers, who extend their dominion by breach of faith, unlawful invasion, murder and rapine, as also those petty tyrants and destroyers of mankind the African traders, and American slaveholders) lest the affectionate brute, notwithstanding his sensuality, should seem, on comparison, a more generous, and therefore a more noble animal than that Man, who stifles all Natural Affection, Fellow-feeling, and Charity to his kind, merely for the sake of acquiring power, or worldly profit to himself; and surely a time will come, when all such offenders against the Law of Nature (who prefer the wages of unrighteousness to the natural dictates of Humanity and Conscience) will have reason to esteem the lot of the most contemptible brute infinitely more eligible than their own!

Now, as it appears that "Self-love" is not the "universal Principle of Action" even in brutes, much less ought it to be esteemed so in mankind, because the human soul (besides the Natural Affection which men ought to have in common with other creatures) is endowed with a much more noble principle, or motive to good actions, I mean Reason, or that "Knowledge of good and evil," which we inherit from our first parents, and which they unlawfully took upon themselves, at the instigation of their spiritual enemy, that they might thereby be rendered accountable for all their actions, and, through Knowledge (4), become guilty before God!

The history of that fatal transaction demands our most careful consideration, since all mankind are particularly affected by it! And surely the principles of our own Nature are subjects of enquiry infinitely more important to us, than all the other branches of natural Philosophy; and yet perhaps they are less examined by men of science, and consequently are less understood, than any other! but in vain is the most accurate knowledge of plants, drugs, fossils, and minerals; or of the exact revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the nature and properties of all the elements, &c. if the philosopher is unacquainted with himself (5), and the properties and state of his own soul, which is too often the case! Knowledge, in all the former particulars, is indeed honourable and praise-worthy, but, in the latter, it is indispensable; for when men, through ignorance of the compouna Nature of man, slight the common means, which God has revealed, to guard their minds against intellectual deceptions, they are sure to be perverted in their principles, to the imminent danger both of body and soul! Such an one, probably, thinks himself too judicious a critic to admit the Mosaic account of the subject now before us, viz. the Fall of Man; at least in the literal sense of the text: so that the doctrines, which I propose to collect from it, will have very little weight, I fear, with men of that stamp. Nevertheless, as there are many doctrines in other parts of Scripture, which corroborate the literal meaning of that relation, and as there are also several circumstances discoverable in the Nature of Man, which cannot otherwise be reasonably accounted for, I must beg my readers to excuse me, even if they think me too prolix in my examination of that part of the sacred history, which I conceive to be absolutely necessary for the obtaining a true practical idea of the Law of Nature, and the Principles of Action in Man.

God delivered a clear and express Law to Man before the fall;—‘but of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it: ’ and then follows the denunciation of punishment;—
for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely DIE.
Gen. ii. 17.

This was the first and only penal Law; A FORFEITURE OF LIFE! And though we find afterwards, that the declared punishment was not immediately executed according to the letter (that is, the penalty of death was not inflicted on the day of the transgression, as it seemed to be at first ordained) yet this affords no just exception against the truth and propriety of the relation.

The same ALMIGHTY BEING, who had a right (as all things are his own) to prohibit the action above-mentioned, and to assign a punishment for disobedience, had certainly a right also to respite, or postpone, or even to remit (if he had been pleased to do so) the execution of the Law which he himself had ordained. But for the present it is sufficient to remark, that the nature of the penalty had been clearly revealed to our first parents, and was as clearly understood by them, so that they were sufficiently sensible of their obligation to observe the said Law, previous to their breach of it: which plainly appears by the speech of the woman to the tempter, viz. ‘But of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, GOD hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. ’

After so clear an acknowledgment of the divine precept, the act of taking the fruit (which otherwise in itself would, probably, have been no crime) was certainly a wilful sin of a very heinous nature, being a gross contempt of God's word, for which our first parents very justly incurred the penalty of death, which, they were previously told, must be the consequence of disobedience.

They had received this caution even from God himself, whom they knew to be their Maker and Supreme Lord; and yet the unwary woman unhappily listened to an assertion, that was absolutely contradictory to her Creator's word, and thereby drew upon herself, and all her descendants, the irrevocable doom to labour!—pain!—and mortality!

Perhaps the haughty philosopher will now be ready to arraign the justice of the divine decree, which involved the innocent progeny (that is, innocent with respect to this particular crime) in the punishment of their guilty parents; but if he will patiently follow me through this examination of Human Nature, he will, perhaps, be able to form a better idea of the Nature of original Sin, and of the cause of its being intailed (or rather the effects of its being intailed) on all the descendants of Adam. For the immediate effect of that original Sin of our first parents, was the acquisition of an additional faculty (even of a divine attribute) to the Nature of Man, which of course descends from these original stocks by natural inheritance to all their progeny, and thereby inevitably involves them all in the same condemnation; the manner of which shall be more particularly explained hereafter. This very ancient example of punishment for a contempt of God's word (the direful effects of which, labour, pain, and mortality, are ever before us) should teach mankind the extreme danger of paying attention to any doctrines and interpretations of Law or Religion, that have the least tendency to oppose or contradict the literal or most obvious meaning of God's word; for the efforts of our spiritual Enemy are never more baneful, than when he is pleased to assume the office of a commentator on the Laws of God; in which character he is frequently discoverable; for though he does not now present himself outwardly or apparently, as at first, in the assumed shape of a serpent, yet the venom of his doctrines is too often sufficiently distinguishable, both in the writings and discourses of men! And it is remarkable, that his first attempt against mankind should be in the capacity of a critick on the Divine Law! The influence of spiritual enemies is indeed a distinct Principle of Action in Man, which shall be more particularly mentioned in the course of this Tract.

But to return to the first fatal instance, before-mentioned, of Satan's success, in misleading mankind, which occasioned another distinct Principle of Action in Man.

It appears that the Tempter was well well acquainted with the true nature and effects of the forbidden fruit, which he declared, indeed, but not without uttering, at the same time, a notorious falsehood. ‘Ye shall not surely die (said he) for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof’ (viz. of the fruit taken from the tree of knowledge)
then your eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gods, knowing Good and Evil.
Gen. iii. 4, 5.

Now this acquisition of Knowledge, which the Tempter promised, was really such as he represented it, viz. a Divine Attribute ("Ye shall become as gods, knowing Good and Evil;" so that, in this one respect, indeed, his intelligence was true: for the inspired historian has recorded also the words of God himself to the same effect:—
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know Good and Evil.
(Chap. iii. 22.)

But truth is much more deceitful and dangerous, even than falsehood itself, when, for the purpose of misleading, it is maliciously blended with the latter; for notwithstanding the Deceiver's flattering assurance to our first parents, that they should "not die;" yet in the very day (as it seems) of their transgression, they heard the tremendous sentence of misery and death pronounced against them! and though it was not then finally executed, as they had reason to expect it would, according to the tenor of the Law before declared, on which the judgment was founded, (for God never judges men without Law, like the arbitrary princes of this world) yet the said Law, by which their lives were expressly forfeited, was sufficiently fulfilled by the condemnation of the transgressors (on the very day of their offence) to mortality; whereby their once immortal bodies were rendered continually liable to diseases, injuries, misery, and death, as the bodies of all their descendants have ever since been! and they were no longer entitled even to the food necessary for the support of their poor mortal bodies, without severe labour, care, and assiduity! —
Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow (6) shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.—In the sweat of thy face
(said God to his guilty creature man)
shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.
(Gen. iii. 17, to 19.)

These have ever since been the conditions of human life; and though some men, who have store of worldly goods, endeavour to cast away care, and seem to live in a state of opposition to this general rule, yet they only deceive themselves; for no descendant of Adam, be he ever so rich, has any right to eat the bread of idleness; nor can he do so without offence against his own soul, as well as against this universal ordinance of God.—If Providence has afforded him wealth and leisure, he is accountable for both; being only a steward for life; after which, the performance of his duty to God, to his country, to his neighbours, nay, to mankind in general, his brethren of the universe, will be strictly scrutinized, and punished in proportion to the degree of his wilful neglect and disobedience; since nothing is more clearly revealed, than that all mankind lie under an indispensable obligation to improve their talents for all these duties, as well as to use them whenever there is an opportunity; so that the man who neglects to employ, in these services, a due portion of that leisure, which his rank, or situation in life affords him, may justly be said to mispend his Master's time, for it is not his own: and such an one must inevitably suffer with the "unprofitable servant," described in the Gospel, who neglected to improve his talent;—
Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness!—There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matt. xxv. 30.

See the whole parable from the 14th verse, whereby it plainly appears, that mankind are laid under an indispensable necessity to improve their respective natural talents, to the best of their power, for their Lord's service.

The affluence, and unemployed leisure, therefore, of many persons, whom we daily see amongst us, afford no just exception to God's general ordinance concerning the hard conditions of human life. It is almost too obvious to be mentioned, that riches and hereditary honours procure no exemption from the most material part of that sentence, viz. "to dust thou shalt return!" And that the time and manner of that returning to the dust, or to the ground, is equally unknown to the rich and to the poor, though to both equally certain: so that no man, not the greatest or most independent, can claim even a single day before-hand as his own: ‘I will say to my soul’ (saith the rich man in the parable)
Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years: take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, THIS NIGHT THY SOUL SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THEE; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?
Luke xii. 19, 20.

Wherefore, with respect also to the other part of the punishment for the original sin (viz. the doom to labour) let those men, who think themselves exempted, by their rank and fortunes, from the necessity of employment; who think they have a right to spend their time, as well as their money, just as they please, for their own amusement and mere self-satisfaction; and seem to enjoy leisure and ease, as if God's general ordinance to all mankind had been partial, or of none effect! Let such men, I say, be reminded of the alarming dreadful sentence pronounced by "the Lord of the vineyard" in the parable.
Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none: cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground (7)?
How absurd therefore is the pride of those men, who value themselves on account of territorial authority (whether publick or private) and yet live as if the importance, which they assume in right of landed possessions, or hereditary rank in life, might of itself be esteemed a sufficient merit without the cultivation of any other! But let them remember, that there is a
Lord of the vineyard (8),
to whom all things belong (9), and to whom a strict account must be rendered of every trust (10), and of every possession, whether of lands, or of governments: so that the dominions and estates of all temporal lords and landowners (be their right of tenure ever so unexceptionable among men) are yet so far from being their own, that even they themselves, whenever they acquire a habit of mispending their time and wealth, are justly esteemed as INCUMBRANCES upon that very ground, in which all their imaginary consequence is planted! Now, shall we envy the rich man's enjoyment of unemployed leisure, if this be the consequence? Far better had it been for such a person to have endured, with the meanest labourer, the common lot of man, and in the sweat of his face to have eat his bread (11), than thus to have lived an unworthy exception to the general decree, thereby rendering himself in the sight of God, as one that ‘cumbereth the ground!’ It would be well for mankind, if the consideration of this sentence might be esteemed also a general Principle of Action; but, alas! we are all too apt to mispend our time in some degree; yet it is a failing to which the rich are more particularly liable. They are not compelled by necessity, like other men, to think for themselves; and from thence a fatal, inconsiderate notion is too apt to prevail among them, viz. that their time is their own; and therefore, as they presume upon a supposed right to spend their leisure, according to their own Will and Pleasure, they necessarily mispend their substance also, for which they are equally accountable; and as riches are also the ordinary means of procuring the sweets and enjoyments of life, they are, consequently, a continual source of temptation, as well to acquire them unjustly, as to expend them improperly. From hence, probably, arises the extreme danger of riches to the spiritual welfare of mankind!
Verily I say unto you (said our Lord) that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of GOD,
Matth. xix. 23, 24.

Go to now, ye rich men,—weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you!
James v. 1.

—
Son, remember that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luke xvi. 25.

It is, nevertheless, through the additional faculty before-mentioned, which human nature acquired by the transgression of our first parents (viz. the Knowledge of Good and Evil) that Sin is imputed to us, whether we be rich or poor.

Our spiritual Enemy envied the happiness of mankind in their original state; and, therefore, artfully led them to the criminal usurpation of forbidden Knowledge, that they might, thereby, be rendered accountable to THE ETERNAL JUDGE for all their thoughts, words, and actions; and, through Knowledge, become guilty before GOD, and continually subject to Sin and Death! For this divine Knowledge obliges us (howsoever we act) to approve, at least, of virtuous actions, and to condemn vice; so that, when men transgress, it is, for the most part, knowingly, or wilfully: and as
the strength of Sin is the Law (12),
so the guilt of every criminal action is with justice imputed to us, because we have wilfully offended against this natural Light, or LAW in our hearts, by which we ought to have known how
to refuse the evil, and chuse the good.
Isa. vii. 15.

The Gentiles, without the knowledge of Scripture, nevertheless acknowledged this principle. "Law" (according to Cicero) ‘is a supreme Reason planted in nature, which commands what ought to be done, and prohibits the contrary;" and he affirms, that "the same Reason, when it is established and perfected in the mind of man, is Law. ’

"Lex" (says he, in his first Book de Legibus)
est Ratio summa, insita in Naturâ, quae jubet ea quae facienda sunt, prohibetque contraria. Eadem Ratio, cum est in hominis mente confirmata et confecta, Lex est.
See Tom. 4. of his Works, p. 219.

(13).

Here the enlightened Heathen writer plainly acknowledges the Principle as natural to Mankind (—‘Ratio summa, insita in Naturâ ’) and yet esteemed it, at the same time, a divine Attribute, by some means imparted from GOD (—‘recta, et a numine Deorum tracta Ratio’) though he might probably be unacquainted with the occasion of its being engraffed in Human Nature. He mentions this Attribute again, in his second Book de Natura Deorum, where he speaks of Prudence, or the choice of Good, and rejection of Evil, ‘as a universal Law common to God and Man. ’

Sequitur ut eadem sit in his, quae in genere humano, ratio, eadem veritas utrobique sit, eademque Lex; quae est recti praeceptio, pravique depulsio. Ex quo intelligitur, prudentiam quoque, et mentem á Diis ad homines pervenisse, &c.
(Tom. 4. p. 157.)

And in his first Book de Officiis, he more particularly defines the Law of Nature in Man, by describing the double bias of soul, viz. Appetite and Reason, and instead of laying down Appetite, or the Pursuit of Happiness, as the Rule of Obedience (which some very eminent and learned lawyers have done) he wisely reverses that rule, and thence forms an unexceptionable Rule of Action, viz. that Reason must rule, but Appetite obey. See his own words:
Duplex est enim vis animorum, atque naturae: una pars in appetitu posita est, quae est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Graecè, quae hominem huc, et illuc rapit: altera in ratione quae docet, et explanat, quid faciendum, fugiendumque sit. Ita fit, ut Ratio praesit, Appetitus vero obtemperet.
Tom. 4. p. 248.

He also clearly describes this natural instinct, ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ under the title of Common Sense, "Communis Intelligentia," and lays it down as the Law, or Rule of Nature ("Naturae Norma") for distinguishing good Laws (14) from bad, right from wrong, and honourable from base, which certainly is a much safer Principle to rely on than "Self-love."

Atqui nos Legem bonam à mala, nulla alia nisi Naturae Norma dividere possumus. Nec solùm jus et injuria à natura dijudicatur, sed omnino omnia honesta, ac turpia. Nam et COMMUNIS INTELLIGENTIA nobis notas res efficit, easque in animis nostris inchoavit, ut honesta in virtute ponantur, in vitiis turpia. Haec autem in Opinione existimare, non in Natura posita, dementis est.
De Legibus, Lib. 1. Tom. 4. p. 222.

(15). And the Apostle Paul has also given a strong testimony concerning the power and influence of this instinct, or first Principle planted in human Nature.

He informs us, that some men, who had not the written Law of God, were, nevertheless, capable of doing by Nature (or Instinct) the things contained in the Law—
For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves (16); which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness
(or the conscience witnessing with them) ‘and their thoughts the mean while’ (or between themselves)
accusing, or else excusing one another; &c.
Romans ii. 14, 15.

This necessarily implies a natural Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, so that this divine faculty, or instinct in the Nature of Man, seems plainly to be the grand Principle, whereby men, who have
not the Law, are a Law unto themselves.
(Rom. ii. 14.)

And this I apprehend to be, properly, ‘THE LAW OF NATURE’ in MAN, the Law written on our hearts, or the Conscience, which bears witness with us, as the Apostle declares in the following verse:—Our ‘thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing us; ’—for there are few men so bad, as not to have been, at some time or other, sensible of remorse, through the accusation above-mentioned of their their thoughts, or Conscience. For what are these thoughts which accuse and excuse, but Conscience itself; that is, the very same Principle, only differently expressed by the Apostle, for the sake of explanation? And again, this Conscience, which bears witness, is not a different, or distinct Principle from ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ but only another name or mode of expressing the same Principle; or if it be so defined by some writers, as to appear in any degree different or distinct from the latter, it cannot, at most, be otherwise esteemed than as a different effect of that same Divine Knowledge: and the like may be said of Sinderesis (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) as well as of ‘the Law of Reason;’ both of which some authors have treated as distinct Principles from Conscience, notwithstanding that all these separate heads, Sinderesis, Reason, and Conscience, are necessarily resolved into one single principle or foundation, viz. "the Knowledge of Good and Evil," to which the enquirer is naturally led, in attempting to define them; for indeed this same identical Principle or Power is equally attributed to them all. ‘ Sinderesis ’ (says the author of Doct. et Student) ‘is a natural Power of the soul, set in the highest part thereof, moving and stirring it to Good, and abhorring Evil ’ (17). What is Sinderesis therefore, when thus explained, but the natural Knowledge in Man to reject the Evil, and chuse the Good? REASON is also explained by this celebrated author to the same effect:—
After (or according to) the Doctors—Reason (says he) is the power of the Soul that discerneth between GOOD and EVIL, and between GOOD and BETTER, comparing the one with the other: the which also sheweth virtues, loveth GOOD, and flieth VICES (18).

In the beginning of the Chapter, he expresses himself, as if he supposed that Man was indued with this divine faculty of Reason before the fall, even at the time "when he was created (19);" a doctrine which, certainly, is erroneous. That our first parents received from God, when they were first created, a due proportion of Reason suited to their original condition, is not to be doubted; but there is no authority whatever to warrant the supposition of their being at first indued with that Perfection of Reason, that Attribute of a Divine and Spiritual Nature, which afterwards became natural to Man; though the worthy author apparently means this supreme degree of Reason, when he tells us, that Man, by the gift of Reason, is
made like to the dignity of angels (20), discerning truth from falsehood, and Evil from Good;
whereas it appears very plainly from the Scriptures, that this Perfection of Reason was afterwards acquired by unlawfully eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; for it is plain, that the desire of acquiring Knowledge was part of the temptation to trangress: ("a tree to be desired to make one wise," said the deluded Woman) and it was not until they had both of them eaten the forbidden fruit, that God said,
Behold, the Man is become AS ONE OF US, to know Good and Evil;
(Gen. iii. 22.)

thereby plainly alluding to the Knowledge then newly acquired by the forbidden fruit; and they were driven out of the garden, we are expressly told, to prevent a further acquisition to the Nature of Man, viz. ‘lest he put forth his hand, and take (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ALSO of the tree of Life, and eat and live for ever;’ and therefore it is certain, that Man was not enlightened by the Divine Law of Reason within himself, when he was first created; or at least not with so great a share of it, as has since been justly attributed to Human Nature.

The third article which I have before mentioned, as a principle necessarily included in that divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, which our first parents unlawfully took upon themselves, is CONSCIENCE; and the ingenious author of Doctor and Student, before quoted, in describing the meaning of the word Conscience, has accordingly explained it exactly as if he had been defining the true purpose of the former Principle, the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil. ‘So God’ (says he)
has placed Conscience in the midst of the rational soul, as a light by which it should discern what it ought to do, or ought not to do (21).
This is exactly the purpose of "the Knowledge of Good and Evil," viz. that we should use it ‘as a light to discern what we ought to do, or ought not to do;’ or, in Scripture words, that we
may know to refuse the Evil, and choose the Good.
Isa. vii. 15.

and again in the 16th verse.

From what has been said, it must appear, that Conscience, Reason, and Sinderesis, though sometimes treated as distinct Principles, are nevertheless essentially founded on one Great Principle, viz. the Divine Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL; and when our first parents, contrary to the commands of God, took that Knowledge upon themselves, the immediate effects of it were the most pungent workings of Conscience! They were conscious of their disobedience to God! Conscious of their shame and nakedness! Conscious that the Divine Justice must pursue them, so that they would have even hid themselves, had it been possible, from the presence of their Almighty Creator! But how vain was the attempt to fly from God's universal presence (22), when they could not even separate themselves from the anxious warnings and forebodings even of their own Consciences! For Conscience maintained its new habitation in their throbbing breasts, attending them in their most secret retirement with a stinging remembrance of their disobedience and ingratitude! And as the wilful taking of Conscience upon themselves was the cause of all their misery; so the effect of that one fault was the entailing Sin and Death on all their descendants (who by the Laws of Nature must, necessarily, partake of that Nature which their parents so unhappily assumed) for thus—‘by one Man Sin entered into the world’ (as we are informed by the great Apostle of the Gentiles) ‘and Death by Sin; and so Death passed upon all Men ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in or through whom ‘all have sinned. For until the Law ’ (that is, even before the written Law of Moses)
Sin was in the world: Also (23) Sin is not imputed when there is no Law. But (24) Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, &c.
(Rom. v. 12. to 14.)

Apparently meaning, that as ‘ Death ’ (which was the effect and punishment of imputed Sin) ‘ reigned from Adam to Moses,’ (that is, "until the Law," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) so we ought to conclude, that some sort of Law, previous to that of Moses, preceded Sin, as Sin preceded Death, viz. (‘as Sin hath reigned unto Death,’ see ver. 21.) for otherwise Death could not have reigned before the written Law; and consequently the Law, to be understood, by which "Sin entered into the world," and by which "Death passed upon all," and "reigned from Adam to Moses," was the Law of internal Knowledge, or Conscience, by which all Men, from the time of our first parents (Christ alone excepted) are convicted Sinners! For as the Ways of Man are not equal to his assumed Knowledge, he is thereby rendered guilty, and obnoxious to the eternal Justice of GOD,
in whose sight shall no man living be justified!
(Psal. cxliii. 2.)

Hence a temporal DEATH, or departure from this world, is not the only fruit of Sin, but there is also a
certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, &c.
(Hebrews x. 27.)

, the sense of which is so deeply imprinted on the human Conscience, that even the most hardened offender is, at some time or other, affected with it; otherwise Sin could not be esteemed "the Sting of Death"—For if the natural light of Human Reason would permit men to indulge themselves with a positive assurance, that Death is really the last period, or final dissolution of their existence, the Consciousness of Sin would not encrease the Fear of Death, and could not, therefore, with propriety be esteemed "the Sting of Death." Death is, indeed, the King of Terrors; and Nature shrinks at its approach! But the anguish of the guilty and unbelieving soul springs from a deeper source than Death! viz. the dread of what must follow it! This is a further effect of Reason and Human Knowledge: for though a man refuses to be bound by the eternal Laws of Reason, yet Reason will inform him of his guilt, and its deserts, and vindicate her injured Laws by dreadful expectation! for the very Devils believe and tremble! (James ii. 19.)

Horrible gloom! when Reason sees no ground for hope!—Thus Conscience, though not obeyed, is Conscience still; and a time, we know, will surely come, when men shall ‘begin to say to the mountains,’ fall on us; and to the hills, cover us (25)! (Luke xxiii. 30.)

Death, therefore, it is manifest, is not the only object of the sinner's fear, or men would never seek a hiding-place in what must be their graves, by wishing to be buried under the very mountains and hills, with the vain hope of secreting themselves from the wrath to come! —And who is free from sin?—In the sight of God
shall no man living be justified.
(Psa. cxliii. 2.)

And
without shedding of BLOOD is no remission.
(Heb. ix. 22.)

Wherefore it is manifest, that the BLOOD of every man is forfeited before God!—But the Almighty was graciously pleased to accept the BLOOD of animals (probably as an acknowledgment of that forfeiture, and as a type of a future and more effectual redemption) to atone for human guilt—‘For the life of the flesh’ (said God to Moses) ‘is in the BLOOD: and I have given it to you upon the altar, TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT for your souls:’ for
it is the BLOOD that maketh an ATONEMENT for the SOUL.
(Lev. xvii. 11.)

But as the Necessity of Redemption is thus obvious, so the means of obtaining it has been as clearly revealed: and therefore the same innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, which has rendered us obnoxious to GOD'S Eternal Justice through disobedience, will lead us (if we use it as we ought) to repentance and amendment; and consequently to reconciliation and eternal happiness, through that more effectual propitiation and redemption, to which all mankind are invited by the Redeemer himself, who is ‘ the WAY, and the Truth, and the Life: ’ as
no man cometh unto the Father, but by him.
(John xiv. 6.)

‘For if through the offence of ONE’ (our first parent Adam) ‘MANY be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, (which is) by ONE Man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto MANY. And not as (it was) by one that sinned (so is) the gift; for the judgment (was) by one to condemnation, but the free gift (is) of many offences unto justification,’ &c. (See the contrast as carried on by the Apostle Paul, in the 5th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans.)

Men seldom fall indeed into any very gross offence against the Eternal Law, till they are initiated, as it were, by lesser crimes; and have gradually stifled the natural restraint of the innate Knowledge or Conscience before described; and then they are no longer worthy to be called Men, being more properly Brutes; because Conscience, or the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which should distinguish the Nature of Men from Brutes, doth no longer influence their actions.

The state, indeed, of such unhappy men is worse than that of brutes; because there is still another capital distinction in their nature, which wicked men cannot cast off, as they do Conscience! they have a living Soul, which must, inevitably, be accountable for all their actions, as I have before remarked; and, therefore, when they prefer the temporal gratification of their passions (whether of Pride, Love of unlimited Power, Avarice, Lust, Hatred, or Selfishness) to the eternal welfare of their souls, they may be said to sell themselves for nought; because all unlawful passions are increased, instead of being satisfied, by indulgence; so that there is no Bondage so wretched as that of Sin (26); no Slave so truly miserable, as the man who is a Slave to his Passions (27). And, therefore, when we are endeavouring to trace out ‘the Law of Nature, and Principles of Action in Men,’ it would be unreasonable to search for it among Slaves (I mean those that are Slaves to their passions) because such MEN are not their own masters, and consequently are not worthy the name of MEN. It would be neither just nor charitable to draw our conclusions concerning the Nature of Man from that depraved state of Human Nature, wherein the proper and natural distinction of Manhood (the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL, which we naturally inherit from our first parents) has lost its influence!

No MAN, indeed, is perfect; neither are ALL MEN depraved; and though the depraved state of man may, perhaps, be most general, it, certainly, is not universal; and therefore ‘the universal Principle of Action in Man’ is not to be drawn from thence. But it will be still much more profitable for us to remember (when any Rule of Obedience is proposed as an universal Principle of Action) that it is not so much our business or interest to trace out what REALLY IS "the universal Principle of Action," as what it OUGHT TO BE. I have already produced the testimony of the most learned and able lawyer among the Heathens, that ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ is an universal Principle, natural to mankind; and he so far esteems it as "a Rule of Obedience," that he lays it down as the foundation of Law. ‘For Law (says he again in another place) is nothing else but right and divinely inspired Reason, commanding what is honest, and forbidding the contrary ’ (27). But a modern, though very learned and respectable, law commentator, has referred us to a different Principle, as a "Rule of Obedience," which is very liable to be misunderstood: he informs us in page 41, vol. 1. that the Creator ‘has graciously reduced the Rule of Obedience to this one paternal Precept,— That Man should pursue his own Happiness. ’ "This," (says he) ‘is the foundation of what we call Ethics, or natural Law.’ Yet, in justice to the worthy author, it must be allowed, that the Happiness, which he speaks of, is not selfish, partial, or sensual Happiness (for that would be a very improper subject for a "paternal Precept") but ‘real Happiness,’ and ‘substantial Happiness,’ as he further expresses himself in the same page; and no Happiness can be "real," or "substantial," which is not lasting; so that it is plain this eminent writer means that lasting and ‘substantial Happiness’ alone, which arises from Obedience to the will of God: for the Knowledge of which he refers us, at the same time, to the Holy Scriptures. See the following page 42.

Yet even such "substantial Happiness" can only be called an effect, of which a conscientious Obedience to the will of God is one of the causes; but the primary cause, or motive to that Obedience in good Men, is still different from both; and yet none of them can be the proper foundation of Ethics, or natural Law.

The learned author has himself assigned a more probable foundation in the preceding page, to which perhaps he might mean to refer by the pronominal adjective "This," in the sentence which immediately follows his ‘one paternal Precept,’ (viz. ‘ This is the foundation of what we call Ethics, or natural Law’) for he observes in p. 40. that, ‘CONSIDERING the Creator only as a Being of infinite Power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever Laws he pleased to his creature Man, however unjust or severe. But as he is also a Being of infinite Wisdom, he has laid down only such Laws as were founded in those relations of Justice that existed in the nature of things, antecedent to any positive Precept.—THOSE RELATIONS of JUSTICE,’ then, on which the other Laws are founded, are properly THE FOUNDATION. And "these" (the learned writer himself tells us in the following sentence) ‘ are the eternal, immutable LAWS of GOOD and EVIL, to which the Creator himself, in all his dispensations, conforms; and which he has enabled Human Reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.’ Thus THE FOUNDATION is clearly laid down, and there is no occasion to assign any other Motive of Obedience to the several Laws on this Foundation, than what is mentioned in the same sentence, viz. Human Reason, by which men are enabled to discover ‘these eternal and immutable Laws of Good and Evil. ’ For the Knowledge of what is Good, or what is Evil, is surely a sufficient Motive for chusing the one, and rejecting the other; because Good, when known, is as truly amiable in itself, as Evil is detestable and frightful; so that the former most naturally engages our preference, without any other Motive than this natural Knowledge of their respective qualities.

Sinister Motives do, nevertheless, too frequently prevail, through the extreme frailty of Human Nature, which engages the greater part of mankind in the pursuit of temporal Interest, or partial and sensual Happiness!

So that, if the learned commentator had mentioned Self-love, as the general, instead of the ‘universal Principle of Action,’ I should not have thought myself obliged to have taken particular notice of that part of his work.

Several reasons may be assigned why it cannot be admitted as the ‘universal Principle of Action.’

And, first, Because the most worthy actions, as I have already observed, are frequently occasioned by a more generous motive than Self-love.

Secondly, Because bad men are sometimes prompted to good actions, through the influence of their own natural Knowledge of Good and Evil, when the occasion happens not to interfere with their particular views of private Interest, or their predominant Passions (28): for, if this was not the case, it is obvious (considering the great multitude of selfish men in comparison of the Just) that society could not exist.

And, thirdly, Because bad actions, which most abound, manifestly tend, even in the opinion of the offenders themselves, to defeat the most essential purposes of Self-love; for the most hardened sinners are conscious, through their innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, that their unlawful temporary gratifications tend to deprive them of their "real" and "substantial happiness," viz. Eternal Salvation; for if they had not this Consciousness of Evil, there could be no such thing as presumptuous sin.

Self-love, however, under proper restrictions, is certainly a main branch of the Law of Nature; and, though it cannot be admitted as the ‘universal Principle of Action,’ is nevertheless an universal Principle; but it cannot be admitted as a "Rule of Obedience," because there are many occasions when it ought to be superseded by more noble Motives to Action.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is also an universal Principle in Man; though it is still much farther from being ‘the universal Principle of Action’ than "Self-love;" and indeed my present attempt is not to prove what is the ‘universal Principle of Action,’ but only what it ought to be, as I before remarked; being convinced, that ‘the one paternal Precept’ laid down by the learned Law Commentator (though certainly with good intentions, and probably with good authority from other Law Writers) as the "Rule of Obedience," (viz. ‘ that we should pursue our own Happiness’) is very defective; because the very Rule itself requires a multitude of other Rules to restrain it within due bounds, and curb the Self-love of individuals for the benefit of society.

Nothing is so liable to be misunderstood as "our own Happiness;" for when Self alone is the object, Self-love can imply nothing but Partiality and Self-preference; so that such ‘a Rule of Obedience’ is liable to afford a handle of excuse for actions of mere Self-gratification, to which the learned and worthy author (or, perhaps, rather the adopter) of the hypothesis would be entirely averse: a Slaveholder, for instance, might alledge, that he ‘pursues his own Happiness,’ by extorting the unwilling service of other men, because he is thereby enabled to maintain himself and family, not only comfortably, but elegantly; and that the maintenance and support of the sugar islands, and consequently the happiness of his wealthy neighbours, depends upon the employing of slaves; so that social benefits do also arise from it: and he will likewise alledge, that he is obliged by ‘Self-love’ to persist in the measure, because he cannot maintain the same Happiness and comfort by any other means; so that he does not act contrary to ‘the Law of Nature, or the "Rule of Obedience,"’ as laid down by the most eminent writers on the subject!

Thus the "paternal Precept" (as it is called) of pursuing our own Happiness, may lead men to form a false estimate of necessity (or what they may think themselves obliged to undertake, from their particular situation in life) and will afford them the like excuse for any other vice, on which a man's temporal subsistence depends.

It is therefore an oblique Rule, which insensibly declines into mere Self-gratification, or private Interest, which is the bane of Equity and Justice; so that Self-love can no otherwise be admitted as a Rule, than for the purpose of measuring the due proportion of that Love which we owe to the rest of Mankind, agreeable to a real "paternal Precept" that will never deceive us;
Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself.
Lev. xix. 18.

This excellent maxim of the Old Law is strongly enforced and recommended in the New Testament, which shall hereafter be shewn: nay, the very Heathens, it seems, were not entirely ignorant of this Divine Precept; for the favourite maxim of the Emperor Alexander Severus was much to the same effect, according to the report of Lampridius, quoted by the learned Joseph Mede, Book 3. p. 550. viz. ‘ Quod tibi fieri nonvis, alteri ne feceris." "Do not to another, what you would not have done to yourself.’ Neither has the doctrine been overlooked by the writers on the Law of Nature. Hobbes very judiciously refers us to this Rule of Obedience, ‘for the easy knowledge of what the Law of Nature dictates.’ ‘ When a Man doubts’ (says he) ‘ whether what he is going to do to another be agreeable to the LAW OF NATURE, let him suppose himself in the others room. ’ ‘For by this means’ (continues he) ‘when Self-love and the other passions, which weighed down one scale, are taken thence, and put into the contrary scale, it is easy to guess which, way the balance will turn’ And Baron Puffendorf (30) remarks thereupon, that —‘this is no other than the great rule prescribed by our Saviour himself, of doing to Men as we would be done by. ’

The learned Baron, nevertheless, remarks in the following paragraph—‘that this Precept cannot be esteemed a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature; since it is only a corollary of that Law, which obliges us to hold all Men equal with ourselves; and therefore may be demonstrated à priori. ’ But howsoever it may be capable of being demonstrated, yet this is no just objection to Hobbes's excellent rule for knowing,— ‘what the Law of Nature dictates;’ especially as the learned objector seems, afterwards, to have sought in vain for a more ‘fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature:’ for I cannot find, that any thing, he has afterwards proposed, is at all worthy to be compared with it, either as ‘a Foundation, or a "Rule of Obedience."’

Nevertheless, in justice to the learned Baron, I must observe, that he has well defended this general Rule against the objection of Dr. Sharrock.

‘Dr. Sharrock is of opinion’ (says he) ‘that this rule is not universal, because, if so, a judge must needs absolve the criminals left to his sentence; inasmuch as he would certainly spare his own life, were he in their place: I must needs give a poor petitioner what sum soever he desires; because I should wish to be thus dealt with, if I was in his condition: or I must clean my servants shoes; because I require him to clean mine.’

‘But the rule’ (says the learned Baron)
will still remain unshaken, if we observe, that not ONE Scale only, but BOTH are to be considered; or that I am not only to weigh and examine what is agreeable to me, but likewise what obligation or necessity lies on the other person, and what I can demand of him, without injuring either of our duties.
Book 2. Chap. 3. p. 109.

Neither does the Baron's own objection, which immediately follows, in the least affect the propriety of Hobbes's rule ‘for the easy Knowledge of what the Law of Nature dictates:’ for though the nature of a Rule, or Principle of Doctrine (differing from active Principles) be such as to induce the necessity of supposing a prior Principle, or Instinct in man, whereby he may be enabled to suggest, adopt, approve, or obey this or any other Rule (which seems to be the reason of the Baron's refusing to acknowledge this excellent rule, as ‘a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature’) yet the learned Baron himself has multiplied the difficulty, by assigning still another Rule, or mere Principle of Doctrine (viz. the holding all Men equal with ourselves) as the foundation of this Rule, instead of a real first Cause, such as the immediate Inspiration of God; the Revelation of his Will in the Scriptures; or the natural and divine Instinct of KNOWING GOOD and EVIL. For whether the Precept is inculcated and made known to Man by Divine Revelation, immediate, or scriptural, or merely by the natural Instinct in Man, of knowing Good and Evil, it may nevertheless be justly esteemed ‘a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature.’

The Jews and Christians, indeed, are taught the value and importance of this Precept by the Holy Scriptures, yet this is not the only means of its being known and received among men as ‘a Rule of Obedience;’—for, besides the example which I have already given concerning the Emperor Alexander Severus, it appears that the Gentiles, in every part of the world, have demonstrated a sense of this Precept, without the assistance of Scripture: not only the ancient Greeks and Romans, but the remote inhabitants of China and America: of which a few examples are here subjoined from the additional notes of the translator of Puffendorf, p. 109. viz. ‘Aristotle’ (in Diogenes Laertius, Lib. 5. Segm. 21.)
being asked how we ought to behave ourselves towards our friends, answered, as we wish they would behave themselves towards us.
Lib. 2. tom. 2.

Quod quis juris in alterum, &c.
Seneca de Ira, Lib. 3. c. 12.

‘Let us suppose ourselves in the same circumstances as the person with whom we are angry: That which now puts us in a passion is only the wrong opinion and estimate of ourselves: We are unwilling to SUFFER what we are willing to DO. ’ ‘'Tis a saying of Confucius ’ (in Marcinus's Hist. Sin. Lib. 4. c. 25.)
Never do to another what you are unwilling to suffer from him. The same Precept was made use of by Ynca Manco Capac, the founder of the Peruvian empire; in order to the reducing his subjects to a life of civility.
De la Vega, L. 1. c. 21.

Thus it appears, that not only the Heathen nations of Europe, but also the distant uninformed inhabitants of China and America, were endued, by their innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, with general ideas of that most excellent Precept which CHRIST himself has declared to be the true Christian RULE OF ACTION: and which, therefore, may justly be esteemed ‘ a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature, ’ viz. —‘All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets, ’ Matt. vii. 12. See also Luke vi. 31. The meaning and apparent intention of this GOLDEN RULE is exactly the same, in effect, as the other great commandment of the Law, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;’ so that all persons, who carefully examine these and other parallel texts, must necessarily be convinced, that the command to love our neighbour as ourselves is the ‘ONE PATERNAL PRECEPT,’ or rather, I should say, the ONLY ‘ PATERNAL PRECEPT to which the Creator has graciously reduced the Rule of Obedience,’ since by the highest authority we are assured, that the equitable rule of ‘ doing to others, as we would that men should do unto us;’ or, in short, to love our neighbour as ourselves, ‘IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS;’ which implies as much as if our Lord had said, This is the Spirit, or FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LAW, and contains the Sum and Essence of all other Laws! The testimony of the Apostle Paul is nearly to the same effect—‘ For ALL THE LAW’ (says he)
is fulfilled in ONE WORD, even in this, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF.
(Gal. v. 14.)

Which might well be paraphrased as follows: ‘ALL THE LAW IS FULFILLED IN ONE WORD;’—for ‘the Creator’—‘has graciously reduced the Rule of Obedience to this one paternal Precept’ (not,—‘ that Man should pursue his own Happiness;’—but)— ‘EVEN IN THIS, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF;’ so that no other "paternal Precept" can possibly be received as a general Rule of Obedience for all occasions except this alone; which must, therefore, be acknowledged as the fundamental Rule, both of Natural and Revealed Law. Concerning this Golden Rule of Action, I have wrote a separate Tract under the title of the Law of Liberty, or Royal Law, to which I must beg leave to refer my readers for further remarks on that head.

Having now proved, I hope, that this ‘FUNDAMENTAL AXIOM OF THE LAW OF NATURE’ ought to be ‘THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN MAN,’ I can more safely resume my discourse concerning ‘Principles of Action’ in general. It has already been shewn, that ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ is ‘ an universal Principle’ in Man, as well as Self-love. But I must now remark, that the former has the following essential difference from Self-love as an universal Principle, viz. that it is never superseded, like the latter, by any just Motive of DUTY (though it is often violated in breach of DUTY through human Frailty); for all just Motives of DUTY are perfectly consistent with it, and influence the heart under its direction and guidance, and even the most noble Motive to Action (independent of Inspiration, or immediate Revelation) is so far from superseding the natural "Knowledge of Good and Evil," that it may, more properly, be esteemed an exertion of it: for instance, by a due exertion of ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ we promote the very first Principle of all Duty, as it is the first great commandment, viz. The Love of God; for if we have ‘Knowledge to chuse the Good, and reject the Evil,’ the same Knowledge must incline us to prefer the Author of all Good (when revealed to us) and his Commandments before every other consideration; for so Abraham's Obedience in attempting to sacrifice his son, was rendered acceptable to God: he knew his Maker and supreme Lord by unquestionable Revelation; and, therefore, justly concluded, through his natural ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ that the Command of God ought to supersede all natural Affection, and Self-love; so that this was an Effect of Reason, which seemed to counteract even the Principles of Reason itself, by dissolving all the ties of Nature! But the Patriarch thereby gave an ample proof of a sincere Faith, and of an unfeigned Love to his Creator.

By what Principle of Action also was Moses induced (though the meekest of Men) to remonstrate to his Creator, when the Divine Indignation was declared against the Ingratitude and Wickedness of the children of Israel, in worshipping the molten calf during the time that Moses continued in the mount to receive the Law? God said to Moses—‘I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people: now therefore LET ME ALONE, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LET ME REST, ’ that is, from your intercessions)
that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may CONSUME THEM: and I will make of THEE a great nation.
Exod. xxxii. 9, 10.

Now, if "Self-love" had been "the universal Principle of Action," Moses would not have declined the acceptance of such a distinguished honour, when tendered to him even by the ALMIGHTY LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, whose right of disposal could not justly be called in question! But the faithful minister of the Israelitish commonwealth did not seem to entertain the least sense of that imaginary "paternal Precept" mentioned above, ‘that Man should pursue his own Happiness:’ for his answer on that occasion proves, that he was actuated by a Principle infinitely superior to Self-love; I mean a true and unfeigned Zeal for the Glory of God, arising from a right use of his natural discretion, or ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ which directed his choice, and enabled him to set aside all consideration of SELF, or private worldly Interest, when he thought the circumstances of the proposition seemed likely to affect the honour of GOD in the misinformed opinion of the Egyptians and other Heathen. For he ‘besought the Lord his God,’ (though God had previously forbid him, saying, "LET ME ALONE") ‘and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of EGYPT, with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the EGYPTIANS speak and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath’ (said Moses to the ALMIGHTY) ‘and repent of this evil against thy people.’ And he also claimed the promise by which GOD had absolutely bound himself to the Patriarchs—‘To whom (said Moses) thou swarest by thine OWN SELF, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed,’ &c. And the text immediately, informs us, that
the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
(Exod. xxxii. 7. to 14.)

Thus God was pleased to manifest his regard and consideration even for Human Judgment!—even for the opinion of a mere Man, when founded on Reason, and other just Principles, such as mankind are capable of exerting! And shall earthly monarchs, then, presume to despise any reasonable remonstrance of their fellow men—of their equals in every other respect, except that of a delegated office, when it is apparent that even the SUPREME LORD, and MAKER OF ALL THINGS, has condescended to hear and graciously receive a remonstrance from his Creature Man! Nay, and that repeatedly on various occasions! The like remonstrance was also made by Moses, when God declared his anger against Israel, for murmuring at the report given of the promised land; and for proposing to return into Egypt; and also for attempting to stone Joshua and Caleb, who had endeavoured to appease, and convince them of their error. See the 14th Chapter of Numb. ver. 7. ‘And the LORD said unto Moses, how long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will MAKE OF THEE ’ (said GOD to Moses) ‘a greater nation, and mightier than they.’

But the noble Principles (far superior to Self-love) by which that Great Minister of State generally regulated his conduct, once more prevented his, acceptance of the glorious promise, even though tendered by his Maker! His sincere regard for the Glory of God, agreeable to the first great Commandment, made him jealous that the Heathen nations should falsely conceive, that the LORD JEHOVAH was not able to bring his people (the Israelites) into the land which he "sware unto them;" so that his Zeal for the Glory of God was, manifestly, the principal Motive of his answer on that occasion (31). And though a natural Affection (or brotherly Love) for his countrymen might, probably, be also included as an additional Motive to his intercession (worthy our imitation) yet his "own Self-love" was, manifestly, quite out of the question; since he might have attained for himself the highest pitch of worldly glory, without forfeiting his real or eternal Happiness by such an acquisition; for as the offer was made by ‘the God of the Spirits of all Flesh,’ the acceptance of it could not have been imputed to him as sinful; though the contrary behaviour was apparently more agreeable to the will of the Almighty, who was pleased to signify his approbation of Moses's remonstrance and intercession, by declaring to him—‘I have pardoned according to thy word.’ Numb. xiv. 11. to 20.

Also upon the rebellion of Korah, related in the 16th chapter of Numbers, when God spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying,—‘ Separate yourselves from among this congregation, THAT I MAY CONSUME THEM IN A MOMENT.’ Yet these two great leaders of Israel were so little actuated by that imaginary ‘universal Principle of Action’ SELF-LOVE, that they were entirely regardless of their own danger, notwithstanding the divine warning, and seemed to have no other care, but that of endeavouring to save their brethren from GOD'S wrath; for it does not appear, that they retreated, or separated themselves ‘from among the congregation,’ as they were expressly directed, but only "fell upon their faces," and exerted the powers of Human Reason in the following short remonstrance to their Maker—‘ O GOD, THE GOD of the Spirits of all Flesh, shall ONE MAN SIN, and wilt thou be wroth with ALL THE CONGREGATION? ’ Numb. xvi. 20—22.

The like Remonstrance, founded in sound Reason and natural Equity, had once before been made even to the Almighty himself, by his faithful Servant ABRAHAM, when God condescended to reveal to him the awful decree of Divine Vengeance against the populous cities of the plains of Sodom.

—‘Wilt thou also destroy the Righteous with the Wicked?’ (said Abraham (32) ‘—shall not the LORD of all the earth DO RIGHT? ’

Thus a due exertion of right Reason demonstrated the Dignity of Human Nature, and the examples, just mentioned, sufficiently prove, that THE ALMIGHTY requires his Creature Man to judge of Right and Wrong, and to form and declare a sound Judgment upon the eternal Principles of Justice and Righteousness, agreeable to that Divine Knowledge with which the Human Mind is most certainly endowed.

Though Abraham and his descendants, Moses and Aaron, knew that they could not exist, even a single moment, without the immediate protection of Divine Providence, yet they thought it their duty to remonstrate even to their CREATOR on the eternal Principles of ‘Justice and Judgment!’

THE ALMIGHTY SEARCHER OF HEARTS knew beforehand what they would say, and the propriety of their future answers; and, therefore, undoubtedly afforded them these extraordinary opportunities of proving to all mankind their Knowledge of Good and Evil, as well as their Faith and entire dependence on the eternal "Justice and Judgment" of the Divine BEING, that these clear examples of the Knowledge and Dignity of Human Nature, as also of the regard and consideration which even the great Author of that Nature was graciously pleased to manifest, on those occasions, towards the mental Faculties of his Creature Man, might be recorded to the end of time!

Concerning the Spirit of ‘Justice and Judgment’ with which Abraham was endowed, God previously declared —
I know him, that he will command his children, and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do JUSTICE and JUDGMENT, &c.
(Gen. xviii. 19.)

So that Abraham's Remonstrance, wherein he appealed to "the JUSTICE and JUDGMENT" of GOD, was apparently agreeable to the foreknowledge and expectation of the Almighty, as well as the other Remonstrance of Abraham's descendants, Moses and Aaron. For these extraordinary exertions of Human Reason, in appealing to the Divine Justice, were so far from being offensive even to THE SUPREME AND ETERNAL SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE, that, on the contrary, he clearly manifested his approbation by the gracious manner in which he accepted and answered these human petitions! He condescended to satisfy the righteous and just Spirit of ABRAHAM, by an assurance, that even "if ten righteous persons" only could be found amongst the wicked nations in the plains of Sodom— ‘I will not destroy it’ (said he) ‘for the tens sake’ (33). And to the Remonstrance of Moses and Aaron (the descendants of the just ABRAHAM) the like favourable attention was paid by ‘the God of the Spirits of all Flesh:’—for as their petition was offered up in behalf of the whole Congregation (viz. that they might not suffer for the fault of one or a few persons) God condescended to spare the Congregation, though they had justly incurred the forfeiture of life by joining (34) the haughty and factious princes of Israel in open rebellion to the Divine Ordinances, contrary to the clearest evidence of all their senses! For Moses, on offering up this short petition, was immediately directed to separate the Congregation from the more notorious offenders—‘Speak unto the Congregation, saying,—Get ye up from about the tabernacle of KORAH, DATHAN, and ABIRAM.—And MOSES rose up, and went unto DATHAN and ABIRAM; and the Elders of Israel followed him. And he spake unto the Congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.’—And accordingly all persons, that had grace sufficient to repent of their connections with these wicked men, —‘Gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side:’ And immediately afterwards God was pleased to justify Moses, and to demonstrate the truth of his Divine Mission, by a tremendous and unusual example of Vengeance (35) upon the hardened offenders and their families! (Numb. xvi. 1. to 40.) And this being done in the presence of the whole Congregation, (then a populous nation) the evidence of it (which is handed down to us by their descendants, the Jews, and has also been confirmed, from time to time, by other instances of Divine Vengeance upon the same nation) was thereby rendered incontestable!

Nevertheless, the very next day, ‘all the Congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses, and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord.’—This further rebellion having once more provoked the Divine Justice, the cloud covered the tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord appeared! And Moses and Aaron were once more commanded to separate themselves from the Congregation, that a National Vengeance might take place!—‘ Get you up from this Congregation ’ (said the Almighty) ‘ that I may CONSUME THEM AS IN A MOMENT.’ Nevertheless, these two worthy Ministers of God discovered no sense of fear for themselves, whilst the national danger demanded their endeavours in behalf of their brethren; and therefore, instead of separating themselves, as they had been once more commanded, they, once more, ‘FELL UPON THEIR FACES,’ to implore the Divine mercy and forgiveness of the national iniquity; so that Self-love was manifestly superseded by Patriotism and brotherly Affection! And as the plague was already begun among the people, the mediation of these two men was so far favoured by the God of Israel, that Moses was inspired with wisdom and presence of mind to instruct his Brother Aaron how to ‘make an atonement for the people’ by the burning of incense— And accordingly Aaron ‘stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was staid.’ Numb. xvi. 41—48.

These are unquestionable examples to demonstrate, that "Self-love" is not "the universal Principle of Action."

Upon a former intercession also of Moses in behalf of his ungrateful countrymen, he permitted his natural Affection for them, to carry him (seemingly) far beyond the bounds of Reason and Moderation, in his expressions to the Almighty (36); even so far as to wish, that he himself might be blotted out of God's Book (36), if the sin of the people was not forgiven! So that Self-love is by no means ‘the universal Principle of Action.’

The affectionate Apostle Paul seemed also equally anxious for the eternal welfare and prosperity of the same great Nation; and he expressed the like unbounded Love towards them, by one of the strongest hyperbolical expressions (as Mr. Burkitt calls it) that he could possibly have chosen for that purpose.—‘I could wish’ (says he)
that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren my kinsmen according to the flesh.
(Rom. ix. 3.)

And though the Apostle, by the words—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might perhaps mean to refer only to that anathema of temporal misery and destruction denounced by Christ himself, against Jerusalem, and the unbelieving Jewish nation, for their open rejection of the Gospel (37); yet it is manifest, that the affectionate and truly patriotic Apostle would have been ready to suffer every kind of temporal misery, and even to lay down his Life for the refractory Nation, if he could thereby have averted the approaching vengeance from his countrymen, and restored them to Grace and the promised Privileges of the Gospel, to which they had been the first invited of all other nations! And therefore we cannot surely conceive, that ‘the Principle of Action,’ or Motive to such a declaration, was Self-love.

The disinterested Principles of this Apostle are evident also from some other expressions, and especially from that in his Epistle to the Romans, (v. 7.) viz. ‘—peradventure for a good Man ’ (says he) ‘some would even dare to die; ’ which idea totally excludes the Principle of Self-love. But though the Apostle's Expressions sufficiently prove that Self-love was not his Principle of Action, yet the same was more effectually demonstrated by his Life and Practice!

And again, When we read of JONATHAN'S inviolable Friendship towards DAVID, can we conceive, that he was actuated, by Self-love? We cannot mention that Principle without injustice to the generous character of that truly noble Prince, unless we speak of it comparatively, to shew, that his Friendship and brotherly Love was equal to it; for the Scripture repeatedly informs us, that he loved DAVID "as his own Soul."

It was not an unreasonable Friendship; he was well convinced of the Merit and Virtue of DAVID; for on these he founded his Love; and he had too much Virtue himself to violate a reasonable Friendship, even though his own private Interest and very Inheritance was at stake!

These points were most earnestly pressed upon him with all the authority that an anxious worldly-minded father could possibly assume, and yet without effect—‘As long as the Son of Jesse liveth upon the ground’ (said Saul to Jonathan) ‘thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom; wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.’ Now, if Self-love had been the Principle of Action with JONATHAN, he could not have greater temptation! But he knew how ‘ to refuse THE EVIL, and CHUSE THE GOOD,’ and would not, therefore, submit (like modern statesmen) to the wretched policy of doing "Evil that Good might come!"— Honour and Justice were his ‘Principles of Action;’ and he was willing to risque, not only his worldly dignity and state, but his life also, rather than injure and forsake an innocent man! ‘Wherefore shall he be slain?’ (said he) ‘What harm hath he done?’—And when he found that his father persisted in his base resolution, he was filled with honest indignation; and, as the text informs, ‘ rose from the table IN FIERCE ANGER’ —not on account of his father's injurious behaviour to himself, in attempting to kill him with a javelin, but because ‘ he was grieved FOR DAVID’ (says the text) and that
his father had done him shame.
See 1 Sam. xx. 31. to 34.

And again—Was David, King of Israel, actuated by Self-love, when he tendered his own Life, to save the Lives of his Subjects, praying God to ‘Let his hand be against him, and against his father's house,’ instead of the nation in general?

Surely his Principles of Action were very different from Self-love, or from that imaginary PATERNAL PRECEPT of "seeking his own Happiness!"

His Conscience probably informed him, that he was guilty before God in having numbered the Israelites, to satisfy some vain or presumptuous curiosity concerning the Strength of the Nation, at a time when his whole confidence and hope of success against his enemies ought to have been placed in GOD alone; and he would perhaps then recollect, that the same sinful Presumption within himself, which had occasioned the undertaking, had also occasioned (38) the neglect of that tribute or offering to God, which, in the Law, is expressly enjoined to be given as a ransom for the Soul of every individual of that nation, whenever they should be numbered, viz. half a shekel for every one: ‘When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, after their number’ (said GOD to Moses) ‘then shall they give EVERY MAN A RANSOM FOR HIS SOUL UNTO THE LORD, when thou numberest them: that THERE BE NO PLAGUE among them when thou numberest them,’ &c. See Exod. xxx. 12. to 16.

REASON and CONSCIENCE therefore taught him, that he himself was the principal aggressor; and these just Principles, joined to a patriotic Regard for the Preservation of his Countrymen, certainly induced him to present himself to God as the proper victim of divine Vengeance!—For
DAVID spake unto the LORD, when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said—Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? Let thine hand, I pray thee, BE AGAINST ME, AND AGAINST MY FATHER'S HOUSE, &c.
2 Sam. xxiv. 17.

It would, surely, be highly absurd to attribute so pathetic and penitent a declaration to the Principle of Self-love (39). The Monarch of Israel was actuated by a much less reasonable ‘Principle of Action,’ (and still very opposite to Self-love) when he uttered that bitter lamentation for the death of his wicked, rebellious, and incestuous Son Absalom —‘Would to GOD ’ (said he) ‘I had died for thee my Son!’

NATURAL PATERNAL AFFECTION was more powerful in this case than REASON; and every other Principle of Action, even Self-love (which is also a natural Affection, and generally very potent) was entirely superseded by it: for the King most earnestly wished, that he himself had died, instead of that unnatural wretch, who (he was well aware) ceased not, whilst he lived, to plot his father's ruin, being an enemy (he well knew) that was implacable, that was restless, and impatient to deprive him, not only of his kingdom, but of his life; and had already violated his bed, in the most publick and shameless manner, with the detestable crime of incest!— There was no room to hope for the reformation of a wretch that had so entirely lost all distinction between GOOD and EVIL!—No gleam of happiness for his injured father, but in his death!— And yet paternal Affection compelled the latter to esteem even his own death preferable, if he could thereby have prolonged the wretch's life!—‘O my Son Absalom, my Son, my Son Absalom!— Would to God’ (said he)
I had DIED FOR THEE, O Absalom, my Son, my Son!
2 Sam. xviii. 33.

Thus it appears that SELF-LOVE is by no means ‘the universal Principle of Action,’ since there are other Affections, which sometimes supersede it, and become the leading Principles of Action.

A certain noble Author of the last century, in a work, intituled ‘A View of the Soul,’ has several chapters concerning the Power and Influence of the Affections over all the other natural faculties, Reason itself not being excepted: and in one chapter he attempts to prove, ‘that some Affection is the substantial Part of the Soul’ (39). But though the Affections are certainly to be esteemed "Principles of Action," yet they cannot at any rate be admitted as ‘Rules of Obedience’ (as I have before observed concerning the Affection of Self-love) because the generality of Mankind are more liable to be influenced by evil, misplaced Affections, than by those which might tend to their real Happiness.

The Affections of the avaricious Man, for instance, are all subordinate to his Affection for amassing temporal wealth: —he may love his wife and children, perhaps, when the natural Affections of the husband and parent do not interfere with his predominant passion for riches; but, whenever they do, the wretch loses all feeling for his own flesh and blood, and will eagerly sacrifice to MAMMON the peace of his family, and the happiness of his beloved children, even in the most material circumstance of their lives! And though such a wretch is sometimes influenced, indeed, by the more general Principle of Self-love (that is, whenever the consideration of Self happens to fall in competition with his duty to other men) yet even Self-love itself must yield to the Love of Hoarding, since it is the well-known characteristic of the Miser to withhold all the comforts of life, even from HIMSELF, in order that he may indulge his unreasonable Affection for amassing wealth; which Depravity, if not assiduously and carefully checked in time, will most surely increase with age, till it becomes inveterate and irresistable, and entirely enslave its wretched Votary!

It would be well for such men, if they deprived themselves only of temporal comforts; but, alas, AVARICE defeats SELF-LOVE, even in its most important concern, Eternal Welfare. ‘Go to now ye Rich Men, weep and howl of your miseries that shall come upon you.’ James v. 1. Compare this with what has already been mentioned in pages 23—30.

The depraved Appetites and Affections of Drunkards and Gluttons are also PRINCIPLES OF ACTION, which are frequently too powerful both for Reason and Conscience, and even for Self-love! for they too often lead Men with their eyes open to certain destruction, even though they are warned by the clearest Conviction and Foreknowledge concerning the inevitable consequences of their respective vices! Diseases, misery, and death may stare them in the face, and mark them, by their gradual approaches, as the unfortunate victims of these criminal indulgencies;—but how seldom do they deter! Nay, the certain expectation even of eternal damnation is not sufficient to reform them; and the learned Dr. Hales has produced an example (40) concerning Drunkards, to prove that they would go on, even though they should see Hell-Fire before their eyes!

The depraved Affections for every other vice, as Lust, Gaming, &c. are equally capable of supplanting the universal Principles of Self-love and Common Sense; and do frequently carry Men headlong to destruction, when it is impossible but that they must have foreseen the necessary consequences of their inordinate pursuits!

How carefully therefore ought Mankind to guard themselves against every unlawful Affection; and strenuously to resist them, whenever they occur, lest any undue Affection should become the reigning Principle of Action, and lead the poor enslaved mortal to eternal destruction! ‘From whence (come) wars and fightings among you? (Come they) not hence, (EVEN) OF YOUR LUSTS, THAT WAR IN YOUR MEMBERS? Ye LUST, and have not: ye KILL, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ASK NOT. Ye ASK, and receive not, because ye ASK AMISS, that ye may consume it upon your LUSTS. Ye ADULTERERS and ADULTERESSES, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?’ James iv. 1—4.

But many actions which may seem apparently to have been occasioned merely by corrupt Affections, are nevertheless promoted by a more latent cause: I mean the Inspiration or Influence of the spiritual Enemies (41) and Deceivers of Mankind, which must also be reckoned amongst the various Principles or Motives to Action; because nothing can be more certain, than that these incorporeal MALIGNANT BEINGS take a most dangerous advantage (though unperceived) of all immoral carnal Affections in unguarded worldly Men; and do thereby lead the unwary and careless Liver into the most detestable Slavery (42), that they may dishonour the work of God, and prepare the deluded Mortal for eternal shame and punishment!

The amazing power and force of the unlawful Affections, which I have already described, cannot reasonably be accounted for, on any other Principles. We have no right, however, to murmur at God's permission of spiritual Temptations (whereby the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, presumptuously assumed by Man, is proved and tried) especially as the Almighty has mercifully been pleased to give us the most ample warning throughout the Scriptures of our continual danger; insomuch that the Christian Church hath generally made the necessary resistance to Evil Spirits an express Article of the Baptismal Vow, viz. To ‘renounce the Devil and all his Works.’ Nevertheless, the unreasonable Heresy of the Sadduces (who were the Deists of ancient times) not only subsists to this day, but seems even to prevail in a most dangerous degree; for there are many people amongst us, who profess to believe the Scriptures, and yet affect to disbelieve the existence of those malignant spiritual Beings, commonly mentioned and signified under the name of "the Devil," though the Scriptures afford the clearest testimony concerning them: but our modern Sadduces endeavour to explain all texts, wherein Devils or Evil Spirits are mentioned, as mere customary figures of speech expressive of some Evil Affections, and sometimes of mere bodily Disorders (43). Howsoever plausible this kind of sophistry may appear, where applied to some few particular passages, yet there are others so clear in the literal expression, and so well guarded by the scope or intention of the subject delivered in the context, that it is impossible to wrest them from the obvious literal meaning, without perverting all the rules of grammar and common sense.

We are most carefully warned by the great Apostle to the Gentiles, to be upon our guard against these powers of darkness.

‘Put on the whole Armour of God,’ (says he) ‘that ye may be able to stand AGAINST THE WILES OF THE DEVIL. For we wrestle not with FLESH and BLOOD, but against PRINCIPALITIES, against POWERS, against THE RULERS OF THE DARKNESS OF THIS WORLD, against spiritual Wickedness in high places.’ Eph. vi. 11, 12.

In the same Epistle (iv. 27.) the Apostle still further warns the Ephesians against the SPIRITUAL ENEMY. ‘Neither’ (says he) ‘give place, to the DEVIL. ’ And, in his 2d Epistle to the Corinthians (ii. 10, 11.) he signifies his forgiveness to some offending person (probably meaning that fornicator whom he ordered in the 1st Epistle (Chap. 5.) to be excommunicated. He says, ‘for your sakes (forgave I it) in the person (or in the sight or presence) of Christ; lest SATAN should get an advantage over us: for we are not ignorant of his Devices.’ The Apostle James also warns us upon the same points: ‘Resist the Devil’ (says he) ‘and he will flee from you.’ (iv. 7.) And the Apostle Peter is still more particular in his advice on this head—‘Be sober, be vigilant;’ (says he) ‘because your Adversary THE DEVIL, as a roaring Lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. Whom RESIST steadfast in the faith,’&c. 1 Pet. v. 8.

The same Apostle also tells us, that
GOD spared not THE ANGELS that sinned, but cast them DOWN TO HELL, and delivered them into CHAINS OF DARKNESS, to be reserved unto Judgment.
(2 Pet. ii. 4.)

The Word which is here translated "down to HELL," viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (‘down to Tartarus, ’ or ‘ in Tartarus;)’ is derived from the Greek verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Terreo, to dread, or be in Terror; so that even if Tartarus, or Hell, does not signify a real Place (44), it signifies, at least, an actual State or Condition of extreme Terror and horrible Darkness, in which even SPIRITS may be involved, or (as it were) bound; for the Apostle, by the idea of Darkness here expressed, may perhaps allude to a total Exclusion from the Light, Comfort, and Influence of the Divine Grace, or an entire Withdrawing of the glorious CREATOR'S Light and Spirit, by which Exclusion or Withdrawing, the wilful Reprobacy of these rebellious Angels might, probably, have been fixed upon them, as an indelible stain of infamy, to mark them for future punishment, and to exclude them from all hope of escaping the Divine Justice! So that those Spiritual Beings, which once were glorious in their Nature (being created "Angels of Light") have rendered themselves most inglorious and detestable, by misusing that Liberty, in which the benevolent Creator had placed them; for they
kept not their first Estate (45), but
wickedly withdrew themselves from "their own Habitation," and have thereby been the wilful Authors of their own disgraceful and depraved Nature (the Diabolical Disposition); which is founded only in their own voluntary wickedness;
for GOD IS NOT (the Author) OF CONFUSION (46), BUT OF PEACE.
(1 Cor. xiv. 33.)

‘God cannot be tempted with Evil, neither tempteth he any Man,’ or rather, he tempteth NONE, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) no Beings whatsoever, (James i. 13.) and—‘Out of the Mouth of the Most High proceedeth not EVIL and GOOD? ’ (Lam. iii. 38.) so that as Iniquity can have no Fellowship
(47)
with GOD, these Apostate Spirits have, of course, been totally excluded from every Ray of the Divine LIGHT; whereby, instead of continuing Angels of Light, as at first created, they are become totally dark, and opposite in every Principle to the LIGHT, Goodness, and Mercy of THE ALMIGHTY; so that they may now be called, with propriety, ANGELS of DARKNESS; for tho' they sometimes deceitfully assume the opposite character (48), in order to deceive the unwary, yet their Power is only of Darkness (49), being bound (as it were) in the dark Chains (50) of their own Iniquity or Reprobacy—in the "everlasting Chains" of horrible Darkness (51), whereby they are effectually "reserved for Judgment," without being deprived of that activity, in exercising the malignity of their fixed reprobate Principles, and proneness to do Evil, which the Scriptures in many other passages attribute to them. For without some such supposition, how shall we reconcile the above-mentioned text of the Apostle Peter, as also that which is parallel to it in the Epistle of Jude, (wherein the fallen Angels are represented as bound ‘in everlasting Chains under Darkness unto the Judgment of the Great Day)’ (52) with those other texts before quoted from the Apostles Paul, James, and Peter, concerning the Activity and Vigilance of Diabolical Spirits.

The Apostle Paul, as I before remarked, warns us of ‘the Wiles of the DEVIL, ’ (by which word, in the singular number, is commonly understood the Prince
(53)
, or Chief of the fallen Angels), and tells, that ‘we wrestle not against FLESH AND BLOOD, but against PRINCIPALITIES, against POWERS, against the Rulers of the DARKNESS of this World, &c. ’ Eph. vi. 11, 12.) being a clear declaration of the Agency and Activity of these invisible Spiritual Beings.

Again, the Apostle James tells us, to ‘resist the DEVIL, and he will FLEE from us;’ which excludes every idea of his being actually bound in chains of confinement. And the Apostle Peter represents him as ‘a roaring Lion, that WALKETH ABOUT, seeking whom he may devour;’ which absolutely forbids the belief of a local confinement in any one place: so that the Chains of Darkness in Tartarus may very well express such a total Darkness of Apostacy and absolute Reprobation, as I have supposed, wherein the disobedient Angels are bound and reserved for the day of Vengeance; for
THE EVERLASTING FIRE (54) prepared for the DEVIL and HIS ANGELS;
(Matt. xxv. 41.)

being marked and distinguished from other Spirits by their confirmed propensity to Evil, and their continual opposition to every good Principle; which renders their final condemnation to that "everlasting Fire" inevitable; for "the DEVILS also believe and tremble:" (James ii. 19.) by which, it seems, they foreknow their own certain condemnation, like those abandoned. Human Sinners, who ‘sin WILFULLY after (they) have received THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH; ’ to whom
there remaineth no more Sacrifice for Sins, but a certain fearful LOOKING FOR of Judgment and fiery Indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries.
Heb. x. 26, 27.

This clear description of Human Reprobacy opens to us a very probable idea of the Angelic Reprobacy, or the mode whereby the Nature of Devils was first occasioned; and at the same time proves, that Men are equally liable to fall into the same lamentable Degeneracy and horrible Apostacy from God, and thereby may become a sort of Devils (55), but indeed, of a very base and inferior order: for though they may be EQUAL, perhaps, IN WICKEDNESS (when the restraining Power of Conscience, or the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, is entirely effaced, or withdrawn from them) yet they must remain as much INFERIOR IN POWER and ABILITIES, as Human Nature is inferior to the created Part of Devils, I mean the Angelic Nature; for the Scriptures inform us, that ANGELS
are GREATER in Power and Might;
(2 Pet. ii. 11.)

and consequently must retain a GREATER proportion of both, (i. e. Power and Might) even in their fallen State, than reprobate Men.

The Devils, or Satanical Spirits, are constantly represented in the Scriptures to be as diametrically opposite in their Nature to the infinite Goodness of GOD, as Darkness is to Light (56); as Falsehood

Ye are of your Father the DEVIL, &c. When he speaketh a LYE, he speaketh of HIS OWN: for he is a LYAR, and the Father of it. John viii. 44.

is to Truth (58); as implacable and unprovoked Malice (59) is to everlasting Mercy and Love
(60)
! And, therefore, as they were really "Angels" in "their first Estate," so entire a change in their very nature may fairly be accounted as "Chains of Darkness"—of horrible Darkness! wherewith they are bound, as it were, and reserved for eternal Judgment, without hindrance or impediment to their natural activity in promoting Evil, as far as God is pleased to permit, in order to prove the Faith of Mankind; as in the severe trials of Job's patience, and also in the temptation even of our Lord himself, which cannot be otherwise understood than in a literal sense; for CHRIST in his Human Nature, not only overcame those extraordinary exertions of the Devil's power, related by the Apostle Matthew (Chap. 4.) and the Evangelists Mark (Chap. 1.) and Luke (Chap. 4.) but was also ‘in all points tempted like as we are (yet) without Sin.’ Heb. iv. 15.

And our Lord also declared the earnest wish and activity of the Spiritual Enemy to overcome the Faith of the Apostle Peter—‘Simon, Simon’ (said our Lord)
Behold, SATAN HATH DESIRED (to have) YOU, that HE MAY SIFT (you) AS WHEAT: but I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Luke xxii. 31, 32.

This is a clear Revelation that Human Nature is really liable to the impulse and temptations of wicked Spirits (61), which will certainly prevail over us, and become the Principles of Action, if we are not careful and vigilant to resist them as we ought: for Christ did not forbid the Tempter from using his endeavours against Peter, but only prayed, that THE FAITH of the Apostle should not fail; whereby he has taught us, that a sound and stedfast FAITH (for which WE ALSO are bound to pray) will sufficiently enable us to resist the POWERS OF DARKNESS.

But when Men disbelieve the very existence of those active Spiritual Adversaries, how should they be upon their guard to resist their influence? For Unbelief in the existence of Spiritual Beings will certainly be promoted, even by the DEVILS themselves, in all places whereever they can gain advantage by it, and especially wherever Scepticism, Deism, and the groundless notions of the Sadducees, are openly set up in opposition to the clear testimonies of revealed Religion, and the true Faith: for in all such places, it is obvious, that the interest of Satan's empire will be promoted by a disbelief of his existence; and consequently, that the Angels of Darkness will, in such places, most carefully abstain from every outward and visible demonstration of their agency and power among Men. Whereas at other times, and in other places, where ignorance of a contrary nature has prevailed, and Men have been subjected to superstitious terrors, by neglecting the only proper object of their confidence, in such places, I say, the Agency and Interference of DEMONS with Mankind have ever been notorious and manifest; of which the histories of all Heathen nations bear ample testimony.

The uniformity of Demon Worship, in all parts of the world, before the preaching of the Gospel, affords also a clear proof of the worldly Empire of Satan; for though Devils were worshipped under various names, and various figures, yet there was a constant uniformity in all such particular points as tended most to the Destruction of Mankind, or to lead Men to the most direct opposition to the revealed Laws of God, whereby the universal Author or Promoter of such baneful devices was clearly discoverable; the same being for the most part contrary to the Nature of Man, and such, therefore, as could not naturally proceed from Man alone.

Hence we may plainly account for the universal adoption of Human Sacrifices amongst all Heathen Nations! Some of these deluded people withheld not even their own offspring from their Spiritual Deceiver; the spilling of Human Blood being most grateful to that Being, who "was a MURDERER from the beginning "(62). Hence we may also account for the Cuttings in the Flesh for the dead, and the marking or tattooing of the skin, which still prevails amongst the African and American nations, and the present uninformed Islanders of the South Seas, as much as it formerly did amongst the Picts, and other more ancient Heathens; for their marks in the flesh were certainly intended by the Spiritual Deceiver, as a sort of Dedication to himself (63), and as an affront to the Divine Creator, who formed Man without any such unnatural distinctions, and expressly commanded in his revealed Law.—‘Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,’ (or rather FOR THE SOUL) ‘nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord’ (that is, JEHOVAH, the only eternal BEING.) Levit. xix. 28.

And as the "forbidding to marry" is declared in Scripture to be ‘a Doctrine of Devils’
(64)
; so we accordingly find, that amongst the ancient Heathens there was an order of Nuns or Priestesses (called Vestal Virgins) that were bound, contrary to Nature, in vows of CELIBACY; and amongst the Heathen Tartars, Chinese, and other idolaters, even to this day (65), there are distinct orders of Men, it seems, as well as Women, laid under the same unnatural restraint through the instigation of their spiritual Adversary (66); and yet the same Deceiver promoted, almost universally amongst the Heathen, as a sacred Rite, the promiscuous use of Woman, in order to draw Men by their natural Lusts to join the superstitious Congregations of his Worshippers.

Of this kind were the Rites of Venus among the Greeks, Romans, and (more particularly among) the inhabitants of Cyprus (67); the shameful Rites of Astarte (whom the Heathens called Queen of Heaven) in her temple at Byblus (68): Those of Thammuz (69) (or Adonis) among the Phoenicians, Syrians, and Apostate Jews: Those of Tanais, or Anaitis, among the Armenians (70): And those of MYLITTA, the Aphrodite, or Venus of the ancient Babylonians, and more Eastern nations, at whose shrines women of all ranks, even of the first quality, were required once in their lives to prostitute themselves (71). The impious Rites of BAAL-PEOR (whereby many of the Israelites were ensnared by "the Council of Balaam" (72) seem to have been of the same kind (73); and to increase the temptation to Demon worship, it appears that the women of the first quality, among the daughters of Moab and Midian, were not exempted from that most disgraceful and pernicious pollution, baneful both to body and soul: for the Midianitish woman, that prostituted herself to Zimri the Simeonite (and was killed, together with her captivated Israelitish paramour, by Phineas) is expressly declared to have been the daughter of Zur (74), who was ‘HEAD OVER A PEOPLE, and of a CHIEF HOUSE in Midian. ’ (Numb. xxv. 15.) And he is mentioned afterwards as one of THE KINGS of Midian. (Numb. xxxi. 8.)

Thus "the Council of Balaam" promoted the service and worship of Devils; and this should warn us of the extreme danger of yielding to the crime of Fornication, which, in all ages and nations, has been used as a snare to vilify mankind, and enslave them to Spiritual Adversaries: for as THE FORBIDDING TO MARRY is unquestionably THE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS (see p. 156 preceding) whereby those, who devote themselves to such unnatural commands, fall under more severe Temptation to FORNICATION (75), so, on the other hand, FORNICATION is reciprocal in its effects, by being one of the most baneful obstacles to lawful and virtuous MARRIAGE, and, consequently, to the increase and multiplication of mankind: but this, bad as it is, is not the worst consequence of habitual FORNICATION; for men, being thereby drawn away from the service and worship of their Creator, are gradually led to greater crimes, whereby their minds are more and more darkened, like those of the fallen Angels, until they are totally deprived of the Light and Image of their Creator, and lose both temporal and eternal Happiness!

When Men are IN BONDAGE to their own Lusts, there is no doubt but that Satan has already "got an Advantage" over them; and, by their Lusts, and unrestrained Affections, does hold them IN BONDAGE also to himself! So that a Man cannot free himself from Spiritual Bondage, without forsaking and repenting of his favourite sins; for we can have no direct idea of resisting the Devil (as the Scriptures command us) but that of resisting Evil, wherever we perceive it, whether in thoughts, words, or actions. But when Men entirely neglect this necessary resistance to Evil, they are sure to be led on from one vice to another, till the two before-mentioned natural and universal Principles in Mankind, intended for their Preservation, viz. Common Sense (or Reason) and Self-love, have lost their influence: for the Actions of of a great part of Mankind cannot be accounted for upon any other Principle than that of a lamentable BONDAGE to the SPIRITUAL ADVERSARY, who leads them to actions that are clearly contrary to Self-love and Common Sense, and contrary even to any probable gratification that might afford a Temptation to Human Beings!—to actions that apparently tend to their own everlasting destruction!

How common is it for Men to lift their hands against their own life, and deliberately to exclude themselves from all possibility of repentance? It must be allowed indeed, that real Madness, or Lunacy, and other natural distempers and frenzies, are frequently the Principles of Action which occasion Suicide; but we have too many instances of deliberate Self-murder, wherein no such natural causes can with justice be alledged, though generally assigned by the coroner's juries, through a false notion of mercy, which inclines them to adopt the erroneous maxim, that ‘all Men are mad who kill themselves.’ But nothing is more false!

If the Brute Creation were equally liable to voluntary deaths, Suicide might with more probability be attributed to natural causes only, as they are almost equally liable to distempers; but herein appears a capital distinction between Human Nature and that of Brutes. None of the BRUTE CREATION ever violate the universal Principle of SELF-LOVE, which the Divine Author of Nature has given them for their preservation! And though MAN is also endowed with the same Principle, as I have already shewn, yet the very BRUTES make so much better use of it than MAN, that in them we distinguish the same Principle, even by another name, and call it INSTINCT—an INSTINCT of Self-preservation—an Instinct, because it is never violated. How are we to account for this seeming Superiority in the BRUTES? Why should HUMAN NATURE be more subject to Depravity than they are? MAN, who, in addition to that natural Light with which he was endowed at the time of his Creation, has since acquired an additional power of discernment and prudence for his preservation, even a Divine Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, that he ‘may know how to refuse the EVIL, and chuse the GOOD; ’ and yet is in general infinitely more depraved than the very BRUTES! Let any reasonable Man consider how impossible it is, by natural Causes, to account for so extraordinary a circumstance! That MAN, endowed with such a Superiority of Knowledge for SELF-PRESERVATION, and also endowed with Self-love in common with the rest of the Creation, should yet be subject to such monstrous Depravity, as to lose all sense of both, while the BRUTES are never known to violate that universal Principle, Self-love! except it be for a reasonable Cause, that they risk their own Lives in defence of their young, to preserve their species, or through gratitude, as Dogs will defend their masters, which surely is no Depravity! To what extraordinary cause then shall we attribute this very singular superiority of BRUTES in a circumstance so necessary to happiness. The cause is obvious, BRUTES have never been subject to spiritual Delusions, or to be actuated by infernal Spirits, since the time that the Serpent deceived our first parents!

There is no instance, I believe, since that time, of BRUTES being really actuated by evil Spirits, except one; and that was (be pleased to observe) by express Permission of our LORD himself, viz. when the Devils entered into the swine by the lake of Gennesareth. For it appears, that the Demons had no power to enter into the animals, till our Lord had expressly granted it: for—‘the Devils BESOUGHT HIM, saying, If thou cast us out, SUFFER US to go away into the herd of swine, and he said unto them, Go.’ THE PERMISSION being thus gained, the animals immediately acquired a new "Principle of Action," too similar to that which actuates poor abandoned sinners among MEN (as when the Devil entered Judas, and led him, not only to betray his Lord, but to punish the horrid treason with his own hands, contrary to every conceivable Natural Principle of Action) so the unhappy Brutes by Gennesareth were no sooner subjected, like Mankind, to the Bondage of infernal Spirits, than they immediately lost that Principle of Self-love, which in them (because never violated but at this particular time) is called Instinct; and by the immediate consequence of that loss, they have afforded us a notable example of the baneful effects of Diabolical Inspiration (76), to which at all other times Mankind alone are subjected;—for ‘behold’ (says the text)
the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
Matth. viii. 28—32.

Thus the Influence of EVIL SPIRITS became, manifestly, a Principle of Action in the poor Brutes, which overpowered their ‘Natural Instinct of Self-preservation,’ and hurried them headlong to destruction; and the cause being known, it is very natural to conclude, when we see similar Effects in Human Beings, that the same "Principle of Action" may perhaps have produced them; especially if there be no previous circumstances of Distemper or Distraction, which may leave room to hope, that another Cause might reasonably be assigned. And as the example also shews us, that Devils have no power to enter Brutes without express Permission of the Creator, let us, by a comparative consideration of our own bodies, learn to be continually upon our guard against the devices and instigations of our spiritual Enemies, always remembering, that they need no such express Permission from God to enter the Human Body; or rather, that God has already lodged the Power of permitting or resisting them, entirely in the Human Breast; since we are by Nature continually liable to receive the Inspiration of the Devil and his Angels as a "Principle of Action," if we neglect the necessary Resistance commanded in the Scriptures; and consequently, that they already have Permission from God to enter all Human Beings, I mean all those as are capable of discerning between Good and Evil, and do not reject the Evil as they ought, according to that Divine Knowledge which we inherit from our first Parents!

This Peculiarity in our Nature is therefore apparently the reason why Spiritual Adversaries are permitted by the Almighty to approach Mankind, though they have no such general Permission with respect to the rest of the animal Creation. But Man took the Knowledge of Good and Evil upon himself, contrary to the express commands of God, as I have before remarked; and therefore we have no right to murmur at the Permission which God has granted to ‘the Devil and his Angels,’ to take possession of all unguarded Souls, which unhappily yield to their suggestions and temptations, without resistance or repentance; and more especially we have no right to murmur (I say) at this Permission, if we consider that God has given us fair warning of our continual danger and warfare with the Principalities and Powers of Darkness; as the Holy Scriptures plainly inform us, that we are continually liable to Satanical influence; and that the DEVIL will get an advantage over us, if we do not resist him as we ought!—In this necessary Resistance, and the objects of it, consist the principal exercise of that assumed Knowledge of Good and Evil, for which we are accountable; viz. we know Evil from Good, and consequently know when we ought to resist; but if we do not resist, then we have chosen the EVIL, and (in whatsoever mode the EVIL is manifest) have given Advantage to the Devil, and submit ourselves to his Bondage. The Choice therefore, which is set before us, amounts to this—Whether we will chuse
the Kingdom of God, and his Righteousness,
(Mat. vi. 33.)

and cheerfully assent (as the dignity of Human Nature requires) to that ‘perfect Law of Liberty,’ which Christ has tendered to us for the regulation of our conduct towards all Mankind, as well as for Self-preservation? or—Whether we rather prefer the Empire of SATAN, the spiritual Enemy, for the sake of those temporal gratifications and vile indulgences, by which he holds Men in Bondage, through their carnal affections, till they become personal Enemies, even to themselves!

The assumed Principle of ‘knowing Good and Evil,’ will undoubtedly induce all Mankind most readily to CHUSE
the Kingdom of God, and his Righteousness;
(Mat. vi. 33.)

but this is not a CHOICE to be made merely once in our lives, but to be continually maintained, or the prudent CHOICE will avail nothing! Are not Men in general bound by a solemn oath in the outward rite of Water-Baptism, thus to maintain that prudent CHOICE which they publickly profess? And yet how little do their practices in general correspond with such a resolution! Surely,
the Mammon of Unrighteousness,
(Luke xvi. 9.)

‘the PRINCE of this World,’ that had been
cast out,
(John xii. 31.)

‘the Principalities, Powers, and Rulers of the Darkness of this World, (not FLESH AND BLOOD) ’ with whom we have to WRESTLE, do apparently prevail over a great multitude in every rank of life! For, ‘this is the Condemnation, that Light is come into the World, and Men loved DARKNESS rather than LIGHT, ’ (a lamentable Choice! a shameful prostitution of the Knowledge of Good and Evil! but the Apostle assigns the reason) ‘because,’ (says he)
their Deeds were EVIL. For every one that doeth EVIL, hateth the LIGHT, neither cometh to the LIGHT, lest his Deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth the Truth, cometh to the LIGHT, that his Deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought IN GOD.
John iii. 19. to 21.)

Let us therefore be upon our guard, and
put on the whole Armour of God, that (we) may be able to stand against the WILES OF THE DEVIL.
(Ephes. vi. 11.)

But though Human Nature is thus liable to the Influence of ‘the Devil and his Angels,’ let us remember at the same time for our comfort, that it is equally capable of being actuated by DIVINE INSPIRATION; and that Mankind (in the glorious FREEDOM of the Gospel) are equally left to their CHOICE for the admission of that supreme Good, "THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST," to regulate their Principles of Action in all cases, as they are for the admission of the contrary Spirit, ‘the Prince of Darkness!’ For the Promises of CHRIST relating to that heavenly Gift are clear and absolute, and are tendered to all Mankind without exception, that they may exercise their natural Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, in CHUSING, ACCEPTING, and continually CLAIMING them, if they really prefer "the Kingdom of God" to "the Kingdom of this World!" Here is true Freedom! a Charter of inestimable Privileges!
ASK, and it shall be GIVEN YOU; SEEK, and ye shall FIND; knock, and it shall be OPENED unto you, &c.
(Mat. vii. 7.)

And again, "All things whatsoever ye shall ASK IN PRAYER, believing, ye shall receive." (Mat. xxi. 22. and Mark xi. 24.) And after these general promises, our Lord appealed to the common Sense of his hearers concerning the efficacy of a son's request to a natural Father, to obtain things that are necessary for him; and concludes thereupon —
If ye then being EVIL, know how to give GOOD GIFTS to your Children: HOW MUCH MORE shall your heavenly Father GIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT to them that ASK HIM?
(Luke xi. 9. to 13.)

So that every Man, who devoutly, and with due Faith, claims that glorious GIFT according to the Promise, and with such a disposition of mind as the Scriptures require, will undoubtedly receive it, "for he is faithful that promised." Heb. x. 23.

I am well aware how uncommon it is to introduce these religious topicks into Tracts of Law, but as the Divine Influence of THE HOLY SPIRIT upon Mankind may certainly be esteemed the supreme "Principle of Action in Man," I am obliged, by the nature of my subject, to cite some testimonies concerning the general effect of that heavenly Gift, to which all Mankind are entitled; for such is the compound Nature of Man, that Enquiries concerning ‘Human Nature,’ and ‘the Principles of Human Actions,’ cannot be fairly and carefully defined, without a careful examination of this Human Claim to DIVINE INSPIRATION; nor indeed without a careful warning also against that very opposite and foreign Spiritual Influence, which is equally liable to alter Human Nature, and become ‘the Principle of Action;’ which I hope I have already sufficiently proved from Scripture. And therefore with respect to the former, viz. the inestimable Claim to Divine Inspiration which we hold in CHRIST, it is proper to be remarked, that the peculiar and necessary Effect of that glorious and heavenly Gift, is a total change in the Nature of Man (from his fallen State, before described, to ‘A NEW CREATURE’) by a Regeneration or New Birth through THE SPIRIT; to which God has also been pleased to annex (as necessary on our first publick Admission to the Claims and Privileges of the Gospel) an outward visible Sign also, or typical Washing with Water (77); by which we bear a publick or outward testimony of that true Faith, which alone can qualify our claim to the promise.

Thus Man, through the privileges of the Gospel, becomes "A NEW CREATURE," (2 Cor. v. 17.) and partakes even of THE DIVINE NATURE, if his own earnest and sincere endeavours are not wanting; for the Apostle PETER has expressly declared, that this is one of the effects of our Lord's most gracious promises.
Grace and Peace be multiplied unto you (said the Apostle) through the Knowledge of GOD, and of JESUS OUR LORD, according as his DIVINE POWER hath given unto us all things that (pertain) unto Life and Godliness, through the Knowledge of him that hath called us TO GLORY and VIRTUE: whereby are given unto us EXCEEDING GREAT AND PRECIOUS PROMISES; that by these ye might be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE (ΚΟΝΩΝΟΙ) having escaped the Corruption that is in the World through Lust.
(2 Pet. i. 2. to 4.)

Hence the Dignity and Superiority of MAN over the rest of the visible Creation is manifest! We not only possess, by natural Inheritance from our first Parents, a DIVINE ATTRIBUTE (as I have already shewn in the former part of this Tract) viz. the Knowledge of Good and Evil; but also, by a right use of that Knowledge, in CHUSING and preferring the Good, and in REJECTING and resisting the Evil, we are capable also (through CHRIST) of PARTAKING "even of the DIVINE NATURE;" so that if we consider this most extraordinary Privilege, which is tendered to us on the one hand, and that deplorable Condition on the other hand, which we shall probably fall into, if we neglect it (viz. the partaking of the Diabolical Nature by the inspiration of the Devil and his Angels; to which, as I have already shewn, we are continually liable, if we do not watch, and resist); it must be be evident that MAN is either the most glorious, or the most miserable and base of all other Creatures!

Surely the consideration of these things ought to humble the pride of those inconsiderate persons, who, on account of mere temporal honours, and worldly possessions, are so lifted up above their brethren, as to forget that they have no natural Precedency; but expect that the multitude of inferiors in fortune should implicitly submit to the will of the worldly superior, in all things; and who also seem to lose all sympathetick concern, all sense of fellow-feeling for the wants and sufferings of their poor dependants, as if they sprung from a different Stock, and were not of EQUAL DIGNITY in the SIGHT OF GOD!

But, alas, PRIDE is a Principle of Action, which occasioned the Fall even of SATAN himself (78), and of his Angels, and is equally pernicious to Human Nature; for it renders MANKIND more liable to forfeit that glorious Liberty, those inestimable Privileges, which I have before described, than any other vice! And the reason is plain; for THE PROUD MAN, of all others, is most liable to neglect that "ROYAL LAW," which I have already mentioned—that GOLDEN RULE, by which their notions of political government, and their behaviour to all Mankind, ought to be regulated; for if he was not guilty of this neglect, he would necessarily cease to be PROUD, he would cease to be uncharitable; he would cease to be an Advocate for arbitrary Power, either in political Despotism, or in domestick Slavery, both of which now unhappily prevail almost throughout the whole world! for even the enlightened English Nation is no longer qualified to censure the unnatural Oppression of the Peasantry and lower orders of people in Russia, Poland, France, some Part of Germany, and in many other States, which are commonly called Christian; since the English Government have publickly favoured, and do continue to encourage the most abominable Oppressions that ever disgraced Mankind; I mean the AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE carried on from England, and THE TOLERATION OF SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH COLONIES! Let the Advocates for these Oppressions seriously and carefully consider the DIGNITY and EQUALITY of HUMAN NATURE, which I have described, as well as their own STATE OF PROBATION in this life, and the Forfeiture of inestimable Privileges to which they are continually liable, and I trust they will become sensible of their danger!

But, alas, there are many other causes of failure, which tend to deprive Mankind of that glorious and eternal Dignity, for which ALL MEN should be candidates: for besides the ordinary temptations of worldly Pleasures (79), which draw the bulk of Mankind from considering the true means of obtaining the glorious promises of the Gospel, how often are the minds of Men puffed up with Self-sufficiency, and the PRIDE OF HUMAN LEARNING, and too often even with SPIRITUAL PRIDE, whereby they suffer themselves to be perverted through the deceitfulness even of their own sophistry!

How can such Men avail themselves of the glorious Promise of DIVINE INSPIRATION, as "a Principle of Action," if they form to themselves a Mode of believing, which is totally different from "the Faith once delivered to the Saints?"

Perhaps they will say—‘We do ask the assistance of God's Holy Spirit, and have as good a Right as others to suppose that God's Promise is fulfilled in us;’ nevertheless they must allow, that FAITH is necessary for those who ASK; and how can Men be said to have the NECESSARY FAITH, who form to themselves notions of God's HOLY SPIRIT, which are totally inconsistent with the DIVINE NATURE?

How can we conceive that
the SPIRIT OF GLORY and OF GOD
(1 Pet. iv. 14.)

‘ resteth upon ’ those who wickedly esteem that glorious and
Eternal Spirit
(Heb. ix. 14.)

no otherwise than as a created Being, and a mere ministering Spirit; and who refuse to join in that excellent Form of Prayer, the Litany of the Church of England, merely because THE HOLY GHOST is, therein, addressed AS GOD? Is not this to do "despite unto THE SPIRIT of Grace? (Heb. x. 29.)

These Men may pray for the HOLY SPIRIT, indeed; but, with such erroneous conceptions of that GLORIOUS GIFT, it is impossible that they should RECEIVE that eternal "SPIRIT OF TRUTH," till they have sincerely repented of their horrid blasphemies, and humbled their own haughty Spirits to receive the plain information of the Scriptures; for if our Belief in the HOLY TRINITY were set aside, the greatest part of those sacred Writings would become utterly unintelligible to us; because they must, in that case, seem to contain the grossest contradictions, as there are passages, which, without that necessary doctrine, would surely appear inconsistent with grammar and common sense! The doctrine of the HOLY TRINITY is expressed in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England in such guarded terms, as cannot easily be misconstrued and perverted: and though a certain set of men may pretend to found their objections to the Church of England on some other Articles of less moment, yet I am thoroughly persuaded, that the said guarded Terms, concerning that ONE necessary Doctrine, are the principal causes of offence to many of those mistaken Clergymen, who lately petitioned Parliament that they might be exempted from Subscription (80) to the Articles of the Church of England. But as a right Faith must seal and authenticate our claims to the inestimable privileges and immunities of the Gospel, and as the true Dignity of Human Nature cannot be attained without the Divine Assistance, and the Inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, whereby Men are made partakers (as I have already shewn) of the Divine Nature, some knowledge of the latter (so far as the Almighty hath been pleased to reveal himself to us) is absolutely necessary for those Persons who desire to be acquainted with the Law of Nature, and ‘the Principles of Action in Man:’ and therefore some observations relating to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, are by no means foreign to the subject and intention of this Tract. But it is an awful mystery, that must be received more by Faith in what God has been pleased to reveal to us, than by Human Comprehension. The finite understanding of the NATURAL MAN
(81)
cannot, in this life, conceive an adequate idea of that glorious and eternal BEING, which in every attribute is infinite perfection! Nay, even if we had a perfect Knowledge of that which is now so far above us, yet no language could supply words, no rhetorical figures of comparison could be found to express that Knowledge! and it would, therefore, remain unuttered, in these lower Regions, like those "unspeakable Words" which were heard by the Apostle Paul when he was "caught up into Paradise!" 2 Cor. xii. 4. For—
To whom will ye liken God?
(said Isai. xl. 18.)

‘or what Likeness will ye compare unto him?’

But a time will come, when we shall know, even as we are known
(82)
. This expression to KNOW, even as we are KNOWN, implies a perfect Knowledge of that eternal Being, which is infinite in Knowledge, in Power, in Majesty, in Glory, &c.—And therefore a more exalted State of Happiness cannot be conceived, than that which a perfect Knowledge of GOD must afford!—A Happiness to be expected only in Heaven, when Human Nature shall have put on Incorruption and Immortality
(83)
. But though we can neither attain, in this life, a perfect Knowledge of God, nor that perfect Happiness which results from it, yet it is our duty to improve and cultivate our limited Knowledge concerning the Divine Nature, as far as God has been pleased to reveal himself to us in the Scriptures; for so FAR the Knowledge is undoubtedly necessary to MAN, even in this life, or otherwise, we may be assured, the Revelation would not have been made, in the Scriptures, ‘by Inspiration of God’ (84), who cannot act in vain! Let us therefore earnestly desire to partake of that necessary Knowledge, and let us look into the evidences of it with the most awful reverence, and the most humble submission of our FAITH to the Word of GOD; lest through any improper conception of the Divine Nature, we should unhappily fall under a similar condemnation to that of Eliphaz, and his two friends, who visited Job—‘My Wrath’ (said JEHOVAH) ‘is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me’ (the thing that is)
right, &c.
(Job xlii. 7.)

When Moses desired to see the Glory of JEHOVAH (saying, ‘I beseech thee shew me THY GLORY ’) he was answered by the Almighty,
Thou canst not see my Face: for there shall no Man see me and live.
(Exod. xxxiii. 18.20.)

We must therefore limit our ideas of those appearances under which God revealed himself to the Patriarchs, and to Moses;—for the Gospel expressly informs us, that ‘no Man hath seen God at any time’ (but the Evangelist immediately adds with respect to the Messiah) ‘the only begotten Son, which IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, he hath declared.’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) That is, hath clearly declared or shewn the Father, or, as Mr. Leigh has remarked upon the Word in his Critica Sacra—id est (says he) Nobis ad ejus veram cognitionem eruendam Dux et Auctor fuit, &c.

This is further explained by the declaration of our Lord himself—
He that hath SEEN me (said our Lord) hath SEEN the Father; &c.
(1 John xiv. 9.)

Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (85).
(ib. ver. 11.)

Not that any Man hath SEEN the eternal Being (or JEHOVAH) I mean the Divine Nature
(86)
, in which the Son of Man (even while ON EARTH) was and is in the Bosom of the Father, (and in which now that he is ascended into Heaven) he is always with his Church ON EARTH, though he ‘sat down’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which plainly implies a personal Residence)
on the Right Hand of the Majesty on High;
(Heb. i. 3.)

—for "GOD is a Spirit," and cannot be seen by Human Eyes (86),
though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being.
(Acts xvii. 27, 28.)

But Christ being
the Image of the INVISIBLE GOD (87), in whom all Fulness dwelleth,
(Coloss. i. 15—19.)

for in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the GODHEAD BODILY, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or personally!
(Coloss. ii. 9.)

‘Who being the Brightness of his Glory, and express Image of his’ (that is, God's (88) Person (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉)
and upholding all Things by the Word of his Power,
(Hebr. i. 3.)

in him alone, therefore,
who is the Image of God,
(2 Cor. iv. 4.)

can GOD be seen! and in him alone could be fulfilled that ancient Promise to the Jewish Nation, that they should SEE THEIR GOD: —
O Zion, that bringest good Tidings, get thee up into the high Mountain: O Jerusalem, that bringest good Tidings, lift up thy Voice with Strength: lift (it) up, be not afraid; SAY UNTO THE CITIES OF JUDAH, BEHOLD YOUR GOD!
Isaiah xl. 9.

Compare this with the Context in the same Chapter. The Divine Person, whom "THE CITIES OF JUDAH" are here called upon to BEHOLD, was afterwards (agreeable to this prophecy) particularly pointed out by John the Baptist, to "the Cities of Judah (89), and the Office of that faithful Harbinger, or Forerunner, in proclaiming the Advent as well as the Dignity of the Divine Person, that was ‘to be seen, or made manifest to Israel,’ is as distinctly foretold in the 3d and 5th Verses of the same Chapter. ‘The Voice of him that crieth in THE WILDERNESS ’ (for the Wilderness was the appointed Place of John's Ministry) ‘Prepare ye the Way of the LORD ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "the Way of JEHOVAH") ‘make straight in THE DESERT ’ (once more alluding to the Place wherein the Messiah was first proclaimed by his inspired Harbinger) ‘a Highway for OUR GOD! ’ And again, ‘the Glory of THE LORD ’ (i. e. "the Glory of JEHOVAH," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘shall be revealed, and ALL FLESH SHALL SEE (it) TOGETHER, ’ &c. This latter Sentence was fulfilled only in part, when "the Voice in the Wilderness" proclaimed the Messiah, saying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God,’ &c.—for though Jerusalem, "and the Cities of Judah," then beheld their GOD in the Person of the Son of God (90), and saw the Glory (91) of Jehovah, that was promised to be revealed, without perceiving it, agreeable to another Prophecy of Isaiah (
in SEEING ye shall SEE, and shall not PERCEIVE (92), chap. vi. 9.) yet all Flesh did not then SEE him together!
Succeeding Generations, indeed, may be said to see, and also to perceive the Glory of Jehovah, that is, with the Eye of Faith in the scriptures: but the prophecy will most certainly be literally and universally fulfilled AT THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, when
ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH shall SEE THE SON OF MAN coming in the Clouds of Heaven, with Power and GREAT GLORY.
(Matt. xxiv. 30.)

For then "THE GLORY OF JEHOVAH" will be so revealed, that ‘ALL FLESH SHALL SEE (it) TOGETHER,’ even those Men shall see, that now presume to deny the Divine Nature of our Redeemer, and refuse to worship him; for
BEHOLD, he cometh with the Clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and they (also) which pierced him.
Rev. i. 7.

‘This is he’ (said the learned Bishop Chandler, speaking of the Divine WORD (93), which was in the Beginning with God, and was God, and made all Things) ‘who in time’ (says he)
was made Flesh, and is called JESUS (94), and CHRIST, as he is indeed the Fountain of Life and Light to every Being that partakes of either, &c.
(Serm. before the King in 1718. p. 21.)

‘Sometimes he is indeed treated’ (says the same learned Writer, p. 15.) ‘as an Angel, or Messenger; but even then is so distinguished from all other Angels, in respect of Majesty, Autority, and Power, or dignify'd with the incommunicable Title of JEHOVA, that they had not the least Thought of his being a meer Angel,’ &c.

The Eternal WORD, though he was in the Beginning with GOD, and was GOD, yet under the Dispensation of the Gospel (that he might restore the lost Dignity of fallen Man) became the Angel, or MESSENGER of GOD; that is, of Jehovah Tsabaouth, the Lord of Hosts. For He was—‘the Messenger of the Covenant,’ foretold by the Prophet Malachi, and being also Lord of Hosts himself, he sent another Messenger before his Face to prepare his Way—"BEHOLD, I" (that is, I JEHOVAH TSABAOUTH, or Lord of Hosts, see the End of the Verse) "will send MY MESSENGER" (that is, John the Baptist (94)) ‘and he shall prepare the Way before me’ (that is, before the Divine WORD, which, being included in the Unity of JEHOVAH, then spoke to the Jews under the Title of LORD OF HOSTS) "and THE LORD" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 THE ADOUN (95), or supreme Lord) "whom ye seek" (whom the Jews were taught by their Prophets to expect)
shall suddenly come to HIS (96) Temple, even THE MESSENGER
(or Angel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Malach, from whence the Prophet Malachi himself was also named)
OF THE COVENANT, whom ye delight in: Behold, he shall come, saith the LORD OF HOSTS.
Malachi iii. 1.

Thus it appears, that the Messenger (whom our Lord himself declared to be John the Baptist) was to be sent to prepare the Way before JEHOVAH OF HOSTS, the same Divine Being who SPOKE by the Prophet, ‘Behold, I will send MY Messenger, and he shall prepare the Way before ME. ’ But our Lord himself, in referring to this Passage, varies a little from the Original, by making a Distinction of Persons between the Lord (or Jehovah of Hosts) who spoke, and the Divine Person before whom the Messenger was to prepare the Way—
Behold, I send MY Messenger before THY Face, which shall prepare THY Way before THEE.
Matt. xi. 10.

This Variation from the first to the second Person, from my to thy, and from me to thee, proves that Christ (for it cannot be applied to any other but Christ and Jehovah) was indeed the Person before whom the Messenger, John, was to prepare the Way; and the original Text (which undoubtedly is also a true Reading in this Place, as it perfectly corresponds with all the ancient Versions) proves at the same time, that the Way was to be prepared for Jehovah, who said, Behold, I will send MY Messenger, and he shall prepare the Way before ME; and consequently it appears, by comparing both Texts, that CHRIST is included in the Eternal Being JEHOVAH. The Socinians endeavour to evade this Testimony of the Scripture concerning the Divine Nature of the Messiah, by supposing that he is called Jehovah only in a relative Sense, as being the Prophet, or Ambassador of JEHOVAH, the Representative being named for the Principal. In like manner, for Instance (say they) as he that despiseth Christ's Messengers, is said to despise Christ himself; and he that despiseth him, despiseth also him that sent him. Luke x. 16. And he that lied to the Apostles, lied to God. Acts v. 4.

In these and such like Passages, indeed, the relative Sense is manifest; and it may also, in a certain degree, be admitted in the Construction of the Text in question, but yet not so as to favour the Socinian Argument in the least respect whatsoever.

The Prophecy, for instance, concerning the Messenger therein mentioned (of whom JEHOVAH said,—"he shall prepare the Way before ME) was fulfilled in the Person of John the Baptist, as our Lord himself declared (see Note in p. 227.); and therefore, according to the Socinian Method of Argument, it might indeed be said of those worldly Men, who despised that extraordinary Messenger of Jehovah, and neglected the Doctrine of Repentance, which he enforced; that they, in so doing, despised the Lord Jehovah, by whom this Messenger was sent; and, on the other hand, those Jews, who readily received John's Doctrine of Repentance, and attended diligently to his Instructions, may, in the like relative Sense, be said to honour Jehovah, by paying due Respect to his Messenger. But a mere relative Honour, such as might lawfully be given to the Messenger of Jehovah, will bear no Comparison with the Honour that is due to Jehovah himself:—the latter must be supream Honour and Worship, whereas the former amounts only to Respect, Attention, and good Offices, for whatever is more than these must lead to Idolatry; so that the Comparison can be carried no farther.

A Messenger of Jehovah cannot, therefore, merely as such, be allowed the Name of JEHOVAH, because this would entitle him also to the Honour that is due to JEHOVAH alone; so that when Jehovah said, ‘MY Messenger ’—‘ he shall prepare the Way BEFORE ME,’ he must mean (if Language has any Use) that the Messenger was to prepare the Way for the Advent of Jehovah himself, who could not be said to come in the Person of any Messenger, or Ambassador whatsoever, except in one of the Divine Persons that are manifestly included in the same Eternal BEING, and consequently are entitled to the Honour and Worship, as well as to the Name, of JEHOVAH! This glorious Title JEHOVAH is no where in Scripture attributed to any Person whatever, that is not thus included in the Unity of the Godhead, neither can it be without Blasphemy (so that the Socinian Argument must fall to the Ground) because it is the distinguishing Title of the supreme Divine Nature!—
Thou, whose Name alone (is) JEHOVA (art) the most High over all the Earth.
Psal. lxxxiii. 18.

or it should rather be rendered, as we find it in the old English Versions—Thou whose Name is JEHOVAH, art ONLY (or alone) the most High, &c.

This Division of the Sentence is agreeable to all the ancient Versions, except the Syriac; but, in either way of translating, the Name of JEHOVAH is manifestly given as the distinguishing Title of the supreme GOD; and cannot therefore be attributed to any Person whatever, that is not truly God, because the said Distinction would be destroyed, if the Name was ever used merely in that relative Sense for which the Socinians contend: Proper Names, indeed, were frequently formed or compounded with that Holy Name, by having it prefixed, or postfixed, to some other Word, apparently with an Intention to distinguish the Servants of JEHOVAH
(97)
; but the peculiar and incommunicable Name itself has never been mentioned by any of the Sacred Writers in such a manner, as to refer us either in direct Terms, or by necessary Implication, to any other Persons whatsoever, besides those of the Holy Trinity; and, on the other hand, with respect to Christ, it is not only the Name of JEHOVAH that is referred to him by the necessary Interpretation of several incontestable Passages of Scripture; but also the Power (98), the Honour (99), and the Glory of Jehovah (100): so that the Socinian Evasion before-mentioned is as vain as it is wicked, whenever it is applied to those Passages of Scripture wherein the Name of Jehovah is attributed to that Divine Person,
in whom dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead, bodily!
Coloss. ii. 9.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 JEHOVAH is the proper and essential Name of ALMIGHTY GOD, because it, in some degree, expresses his Eternal Being or Existence, being a compound Word, including different Tenses or Times of the Hebrew Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 TO BE, or rather (as it is the Preterperfect Tense, signifying HE WAS; from whence is formed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Participle as well as Present Tense, signifying, according to Buxtorf's Concordance (though, in his Lexicon, he renders it also FUIT) ‘ens, es, est;’ being, thou art, he is; to which the prefixed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the true characteristic Letter of the Future Tense (shall or will be), is also added to form the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 JEHOVAH; so that this mysterious and awful Name seems to express ALL TIME, or ETERNITY; as if, for instance, a Word was to be compounded of three different Tenses of the Latin Word esse, to be, viz. est, fuit, erit (he is,—he was,—he shall be) yet so as to include the Sense of all three, and consequently to denominate in one single Word an Eternal BEING, that ever did, and ever will, EXIST.—And such seems to be the Interpretation of the glorious Name JEHOVAH, according to the Opinion of the most learned in the Hebrew Tongue, viz. "ENS, EXISTENS AB ETERNO ET IN ETERNUM," A BEING existing from all Eternity and for ever. This is the Sense which the learned Buxtorf has quoted in his Hebrew Lexicon from the famous Jewish Rabbin Aben Ezra, and he cites also the Authority of several others of the most eminent Jews much to the same Purpose (101). But, as the Words of Holy Scripture are best interpreted by Holy Scripture, he refers us at the same time to a Text in the Revelations, wherein the Apostle John addresses the Seven Churches of Asia in the NAME OF GOD, which is there clearly expressed in the same Sense that the Jews (as I have before remarked) have attributed to the Hebrew Name JEHOVAH, and seems therefore to be the true Interpretation of it.—"Grace be unto you, and peace from him, which IS, and which WAS, and which IS TO COME, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rev. i. 4. In like manner the four Beasts, or rather living Animals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which in the Revelations represent the Hosts or Armies of Israel, by the Figures of those Animals which were borne on the Standards of the four principal Tribes in their Encampments round the Tabernacle) ‘rest not Day and Night, saying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; which WAS, and IS, and IS TO COME, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rev. iv. 8. So also the four and twenty Elders, which sat before God on their Seats, fell upon their Faces and worshipped God, saying, We give Thanks to thee, O LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, which ART, and WAST, and (WILT BE, or) ART TO COME, ’ &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rev. xi. 16, 17.

This Eternal BEING, which has been pleased to reveal himself to us in such clear and comprehensive terms, is the same Almighty JEHOVAH that is mentioned in Genesis (xiv. 22.) in the highest terms of Power and Glory— ‘the Lord’ (in the original JEHOVAH) ‘the most high God, the Possessor of Heaven and Earth.’ The same Eternal BEING, or JEHOVAH, is also called "JEHOVAH, GOD OF ISRAEL," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Exod. xxxii. 27. Joshua vii. 19. xiii. 33. xxii. 24. Judges xi. 23, &c. He is also called ‘JEHOVAH, the GOD OF GODS,’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in Joshua xxii. 22. where we find this glorious title twice expressed in the same sentence: ‘The LORD (or JEHOVAH) God of Gods; THE LORD God of Gods, he knoweth,’ &c. And therefore, as the LORD, or JEHOVAH, mentioned in these several texts, is undoubtedly THE SUPREME GOD, we are naturally led to attribute the same Divine Excellence, and supreme Dignity, to the glorious name JEHOVAH, wherever it occurs in other parts of Scripture, because there is but ONE JEHOVAH! "Hear, O Israel!— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —"The Lord," (or Jehovah) "our God (is) ONE LORD" (viz. ONE JEHOVAH—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and thou shalt love JEHOVAH with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might, &c.
(Deut. vi. 4, 5.)

Thus the Unity of God is proved to be an indispensable article of our Faith! And yet we are equally bound to acknowledge, that Three Divine Persons are comprehended in that One, Almighty and Eternal BEING, or JEHOVAH!— because this glorious name is clearly applied, in the Holy Scriptures (even in those of the Old Testament) to as many distinct Persons; who are, therefore, to be esteemed equal, or ONE, with the supreme God, as
Jehovah our God (is) ONE JEHOVAH!
Deut. vi. 4.

For though we are bound to acknowledge a manifest subordination with respect to the merciful and gracious OFFICES of Redemption and Sanctification, whereby Two of the Divine Persons are particularly distinguished in Scripture, yet we are obliged, at the same time, to believe, that the several Divine Persons are of One and the same Eternal and Almighty EXISTENCE with respect to that incomprehensible BEING, or Divine Nature, wherein their Unity consists; because the contrary Doctrines of those Men, who deny that OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and THE HOLY GHOST, partake of the same Divine Nature with THE FATHER, do manifestly and necessarily include the supposition of a superior and inferior order of DIVINE EXISTENCE (for that all the Three Persons have Divine Existence and Divine Attributes cannot be denied, without setting aside the whole tenour of the Holy Scriptures) which EXISTENCE could not, without absurdity, be called one and the same, but must necessarily be esteemed several, or separate and different, if the least degree of Inequality with respect to the Divine Nature be admitted; and therefore such Doctrines are totally inconsistent with our indispensable Belief in the Unity of God, whatsoever those mistaken people, who call themselves Unitarians, may think!

But a due regard to these two necessary distinctions, viz. the Equality and Unity (as there is but ONE GOD) of the THREE Persons with respect to their Divine Nature, and the revealed subordination of TWO of them with respect to the merciful and gracious OFFICES of Redemption and Sanctification, whereby they are personally distinguished and made known to us in Scripture;—a due regard to these two necessary distinctions (I say) and to the proper application of the several texts by which both are respectively proved, will clearly demonstrate (at least to all Men who sincerely ask and seek the knowledge of Truth, as Christ has commanded) that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as received by THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, is strictly consistent with the indispensable doctrine of Scripture before-mentioned concerning the Unity of God.

That there are Three distinct Persons in that One ETERNAL BEING, or JEHOVAH, is clearly revealed in Scripture; for each Person is occasionally mentioned under that distinguishing and peculiar Name of the Supreme God.

And first, with respect to the first Divine Person in the Holy Trinity.— In the 42d chapter of Isaiah, the Divine Person, whom the Prophet represents in the 6th verse, as speaking in the name of Jehovah, is clearly distinguished from the MESSIAH and HOLY SPIRIT; and though it may seem a needless work to produce any proofs that the Almighty Father,
THE GOD and FATHER of our Lord JESUS CHRIST (102),
is truly JEHOVAH (which no Man will deny) yet I propose to recite some parts of this chapter, in order to prove the clear distinction of Persons and their Offices, as revealed even in the Old Testament.—‘Thus saith GOD JEHOVAH, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and Spirit to them that walk therein: I JEHOVAH have called THEE ’ (apparently meaning the MESSIAH)
in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, and for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, (and) them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. I AM JEHOVAH; that (is) MY NAME: and MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, &c.
Isai. xlii. 5—8.

These words of JEHOVAH are manifestly addressed to the MESSIAH, as a distinct Person, in his mediatorial Office of Redeemer; and the Divine Person, who thus addresses the Messiah, is manifestly the same that speaks in the first verse of the same chapter, and mentions both THE MESSIAH and the HOLY SPIRIT in that one sentence as distinct PERSONS FROM HIMSELF, and under different and distinct characters or offices of the Christian Dispensation, suitable to the nature of that extraordinary prophecy concerning the future Redemption of Mankind! ‘Behold, MY SERVANT, ’ (apparently meaning the MESSIAH in his state of humiliation as SON OF MAN) ‘whom I uphold; mine Elect (in whom) my Soul delighteth; I have put MY SPIRIT upon HIM: ’ (Here the Three Persons are distinctly expressed)
He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles! He shall not cry, not lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, &c.
Isai. xlii. 1—3.

Thus we find the Office of THE MESSIAH particularly described in this chapter, as well as the descent of THE HOLY SPIRIT upon HIM: and this is expressly foretold by the Lord JEHOVAH, who speaks of himself distinctly from the other two; so that the distinction of Persons is hereby clearly manifested.

Secondly, The glorious Name of the supreme God JEHOVAH, is plainly attributed, in the 40th chapter of Isaiah, to the Second Person, the Divine Messiah, in his Pastoral Office, as ‘Shepherd of Israel.’

The peculiar Harbinger or Forerunner of the Messiah is described and foretold in the third verse, as the Forerunner also of JEHOVAH—‘The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the WAY of the LORD ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 THE WAY OF JEHOVAH)
make straight in the desert a HIGHWAY for OUR GOD.
(3d verse).

And John the Baptist, in whom alone that prophecy could be fulfilled (as I have shewn more particularly in my Tract on Prophecy (103)) declared the identity of the Divine Person whom he preceded in the world, and whose WAY he was SENT TO PREPARE, saying,—
He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the HOLY GHOST, and with Fire.
Matt. iii. 11.

— And afterwards, when the Priests and Levites (those that were sent from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who art thou’) questioned him, saying,
Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that CHRIST, nor ELIAS, neither that PROPHET? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: BUT THERE STANDETH ONE AMONG YOU, whom ye know not; HE IT IS, WHO, COMING AFTER ME, is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose. &c.
John i. 19—27.

And "the next day" he bore full and express testimony to the identity of the Divine Person that came after him, whose WAY HE PREPARED—‘John seeth JESUS coming unto him, and saith—BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, which taketh away the sin of the world. THIS is HE of whom I said, AFTER ME COMETH a MAN, which is preferred before me; FOR HE WAS BEFORE ME. And I knew him not: but that he should be MADE MANIFEST to ISRAEL, therefore I am come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw THE SPIRIT DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN like a dove, and IT abode upon HIM. And I knew him not: but HE that sent me to baptize with water, THE SAME said unto me’ (now mark again the clear declaration of Two Divine Persons, separate and distinct from the Divine Being now represented as speaking) ‘ UPON WHOM thou (John) shalt see THE SPIRIT descending and remaining on HIM, the same is HE which baptizeth with THE HOLY GHOST. And I saw’ (said John) ‘and bare record that THIS is the SON OF GOD. Again, the next day after, John stood, and two of his disciples; and’ (bore the like testimony to the Divine Person, WHOSE WAY he was sent TO PREPARE; for)
looking upon JESUS as he walked, he saith— BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD!
John i. 29—36.

Thus John declared himself to be the peculiar, Harbinger (as I have said) of the SON OF GOD; so that the name of JEHOVAH (whose WAY, in the prophecy, he is expressly said to prepare) must necessarily be attributed to the Messiah, to whom afterwards this long expected preceding Messenger did personally apply the prophecy.

THE VOICE OF HIM that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye THE WAY OF JEHOVAH, make straight in the desart a highway for OUR GOD,
(Isai. xl. 3.)

And the Divine Person, for whom THE WAY was to be thus prepared, is so distinctly described by his Advent, and Pastoral Office, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th verses of this chapter, that the proper application of the glorious titles therein mentioned, cannot be mistaken, at least by those who sincerely seek after truth! ‘O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain: O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength: lift (it) up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah,— BEHOLD YOUR GOD! ’ To the fulfilling of which in Christ the Apostle Paul (as I have already shewn) bears ample testimony, saying, ‘ GOD is as manifest in the flesh,’ &c. (104). And again,
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Coloss. ii. 9.

So the Apostle John, "The WORD was GOD," &c. "All things were made by him," &c.
And the WORD was made FLESH, and dwelt among us, and we BEHELD HIS GLORY, the GLORY, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John i. 1—14.

See notes in p. 222—224. But to return to the Prophet.

‘Behold’ (said he) ‘the LORD GOD ’ (that is, ADONI JEHOVAH, or the Lord Jehovah) ‘ 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 ’ (the peculiar Office of the Messiah, who himself declared, ‘I am the GOOD SHEPHERD. The GOOD SHEPHERD giveth his life for his sheep,’ &c. John x. 11.) "HE" (said the Prophet)
shall gather the Lambs with his arm, and carry (them) in his bosom, (and) shall gently lead those that are with young.
(Isai. xl. 3—11.)

It is surely the REWARD and WORK of the MESSIAH in his Pastoral Office, that are here so distinctly foretold; and therefore the Adjective HIS, and the Personal Pronoun HIM (both expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Original, and so often repeated in these verses) as also the Personal Pronouns HIM and HE must necessarily be referred, by the plainest rules of grammar, to the Personal Nouns (THE LORD GOD, or ADONI JEHOVAH) which immediately precede them, and by which the Holy Spirit has marked the supreme or equal Divinity of the Messiah with the Father, and that he is really JEHOVAH and GOD beyond all possibility of contradiction!

Before the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, or WORD OF GOD (that is, before he
was MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us
John i. 14.

) God revealed himself to the children of Israel, not only by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (JEHOVAH, signifying Eternal Existence, by including the characteristical letters of the Present, Preterite, and Future Tenses, as I have already shewn) but also by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A-hi-ah, which is the same verb of Being or Existence, with the sign only of the Future Tense, signifying, I WILL BE (105): and when the Son of God was personally present on earth, in our HUMAN NATURE, as a Descendant of Abraham, he asserted his pre-existent state, by giving himself a similar title of Eternal Existence, though in a different Tense; for he used the Present Tense alone, without any characteristical Letter of the Future, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I AM, instead of, I WILL BE (as the promises respecting his own Person were accomplished by his PRESENCE, which, as he himself also promised, will continue to the end of the world (106) ‘ Before Abraham was, ’ (said our Lord) ‘I AM.’— (John viii. 58.) This expression (if the occasion of its being made be duly conconsidered) cannot be made to accord properly with its context in any other sense than as a reference to Christ's Eternal Existence; and, as such, it manifestly corresponds with the meaning of the glorious Name JEHOVAH.

The purpose of our Lord's argument was, certainly, to declare his pre-existent State of Glory, in answer to the Jews, who said—
Art thou greater than our Father Abraham, which is dead? &c.
(John viii. 53.)

—‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?’ So that his immediate answer—‘ Before Abraham WAS, I AM,’ must necessarily be understood in the sense which I have mentioned.

He had, a little time before, told the Jews, who disputed with him, ‘I proceeded forth’ (said he)
and came from God.
(v. 42.)

The expression in the original Greek has a much deeper meaning; it is not merely "from God," as in the common English translation; but out of God, EK 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — "OUT of GOD, I PROCEEDED FORTH," &c. which is much more expressive of that procession, which is commonly called the Eternal Generation of the SON, —of that Divine Person, who
is in the Bosom of the Father
(John i. 18.)

and
whose GOINGS FORTH (have been) from of old, from everlasting.
Micah v. 2.

Had not these Jewish unbelievers been blinded by their own wickedness, and worldly desires, they would have understood by the Prophets, that their Messiah, though he was to be a Descendant of Abraham, according to the promises, was yet to be one who had ETERNAL EXISTENCE, and consequently must be entitled to the incommunicable name of Eternal Existence, JEHOVAH; for he, ‘whose goings forth (have been) from of old, from everlasting,’ was the same of whom the Prophet Micah saith, that he should come out of BETHLEHEM EPHRATAH, "to be Ruler in Israel," viz. that Ruler, of whom the same Prophet foretold, ‘that they should smite the JUDGE OF ISRAEL with a rod upon the cheek.’ Compare the first and second verses of this chapter. And in the fourth verse the name of Jehovah is manifestly attributed to the same Divine Person.— ‘And he shall stand and feed’ (that is, "as a Shepherd," compare with Isaiah xl. ii.) ‘in the strength of JEHOVAH, in the Majesty of the NAMEof JEHOVAH his God.’ Compare this also with the Prophecy of Jeremiah concerning THE BRANCH from, the stock of JESSE—
And this (is) HIS NAME, whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jer. xxiii. 6.

His Eternal Existence, and Almighty Power, as GOD, were plainly declared by the Psalmist—
Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever.
(Psa. xlv. 6.)

This, as the Apostle Paul testifies, was said of the SON—‘But unto the SON ’ (he saith) ‘Thy throne, O GOD (is) FOR EVER AND EVER: a Scepter of Righteousness (is) the Scepter of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved RIGHTEOUSNESS ’ (which accords with the Name of the Divine Branch, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS)
and hated iniquity; therefore God, (even) thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
(Heb. i. 8, 9.)

In the latter part of this sentence, indeed, the Prophet manifestly alludes to the inferior Nature (THE NATURE OF MAN) which this Divine Person was to assume, for the Angels were not HIS FELLOWS; but Men:—it was Human Nature alone that was to be exalted and restored by that peculiar union with the Divine Nature in Christ, whereby all Mankind are rendered FELLOWS and BRETHREN to him
that is ready to judge the quick and the dead,
(1 Pet.iv. 5.)

and may thereby become (if their own negligence and wilful abuse of God's gifts do not prevent them) even FELLOW HEIRS (Eph. iii. 6.)
Heirs of God, and JOINT HEIRS with Christ:
(Rom. viii. 17.)

who is
the Heir of all things,
Heb. i. 2.

—‘For verily he took not on’ (him the nature)
of ANGELS; but he took on (him) of the SEED of Abraham.
Heb. ii. 16.

And accordingly the same Apostle calls him
the first-born among many BRETHREN,
Rom. viii. 29.

and informs us also, that
it behoved him to be made like unto (his) BRETHEN, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things (pertaining) to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb. ii. 17.

But the Apostle, nevertheless, amply proclaims the Eternal Existence and Divine Nature of that Person, mentioned in his quotation from the 45th Psalm, who was to be anointed above HIS FELLOWS; for he immediately afterwards quotes another Psalm (viz. cii. 25—27.) to assert the ETERNAL DIGNITY AND POWER of the same Person—
And thou, LORD (105), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as doth a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Heb. i. 10, 11, 12.

—So that our Lord was really in his Being, or Existence, what the same Apostle seems to apply to his Doctrine,
JESUS CHRIST the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.
(Heb. xiii. 8.)

For it was He, who said,
Fear not; I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST: (I am) He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death.
(Rev. i. 17, 18.)

—Thus it appears, that our Redeemer was not only JEHOVAH in Name, but in Effect or Reality also, if the true meaning of that title be considered, as his being THE FIRST and THE LAST, demonstrates his Eternal Existence and Power as much as the Name of JEHOVAH.—Compare the last-mentioned text with the exhortation of GOD by Isaiah (xli. 10.) to his people Israel—‘ FEAR THOU NOT; for I (am) with thee: be not dismayed; FOR I (am) THY GOD: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my RIGHTEOUSNESS. ’ And again, in the 13th and 14th verses, ‘For I the LORD (or JEHOVAH) thy GOD, will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, FEAR NOT, I will help thee. FEAR NOT, thou worm Jacob, (and) ye men of Israel: I will help thee, saith THE LORD ’ (i. e. JEHOVAH) ‘and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.’ And this LORD, or JEHOVAH, who here declares himself to be THE GOD of Israel, proclaims his own ETERNAL EXISTENCE near the beginning of the same chapter (viz. 4th verse) in the very same terms that were used in the Revelations by him ‘THAT LIVETH, AND WAS DEAD’—‘Who hath wrought and done (it) ’ (said JEHOVAH by Isaiah) ‘calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord (JEHOVAH) THE FIRST, and WITH THE LAST, I (am) HE. ’ And also in the 44th chapter, ver. 6. ‘ Thus saith the LORD (JEHOVAH) the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD OF HOSTS (JEHOVAH TSABAOUTH) I (am) THE FIRST, and I (am) THE LAST; and beside me (there is) no God. ’ See also Isai. xlviii. 12. wherein we find that ‘the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts’ (mentioned in the 2d verse) declares his Eternal Existence in the very same terms used by Christ in the Revelation, viz. ‘I (am) THE FIRST: I ALSO (am) THE LAST’— and as it has already been shewn, that the true meaning of the title JEHOVAH is nearly to the same purpose, it is manifest that Christ is JEHOVAH in effect, as well as in name!

He is JEHOVAH also in power and glory—‘Who have declared this from the ancient time?’ (said Isaiah)
(Who) hath told it from that time? (Have) not I JEHOVAH? and (there is) NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; A JUST GOD, and A SAVIOUR: (there is) none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth: for I (am) GOD 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and (there is) none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth (in) righteousness, and shall not return, THAT UNTO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TONGUE SHALL SWEAR.
Isai. xlv. 21—23.

Now let us see to whom this is applied by the Apostle Paul—‘For none of us’ (that is, no true Christian) ‘liveth to himself’ (says the Apostle)
and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto THE LORD; and whether we die, we die unto THE LORD: whether we live therefore, or die, WE ARE THE LORD'S. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might BE LORD both of the dead and living. But why dost thou JUDGE thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST. For it is written (106), as I live, saith THE LORD (107), EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us shall give account of himself TO GOD. Let us not therefore JUDGE one another any more, &c.
Rom. xiv. 7—13.

The reason here assigned by the Apostle for the illegality of JUDGING our Brother, is, that ‘we shall all stand at the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, ’ to whom he attributes the dignity of JEHOVAH, by maintaining in the preceding context, that he is THE LORD, to whom we live and die, &c. and by applying to him Isaiah's prediction of universal homage to JEHOVAH, as if Christ himself, in his pre-existent state, had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I JEHOVAH, &c.—‘Unto me every knee shall bow,’ &c.—And from this application of the Prophecy to the Person of Christ, the Apostle immediately draws a conclusion with a manifest reference to what he had before said of our standing at the Judgment Seat of Christ.—‘So then every one of us shall give account of himself to GOD. Let us not therefore JUDGE one another any more,’ &c.

From this whole quotation it appears, that when the Apostle asserts the dignity of Christ, as being THE LORD of us all—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that we live and die "UNTO THE LORD," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) he in effect applies to him the dignity of JEHOVAH, as that title is usually expressed in Greek by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, THE LORD. In the Septuagint tranflation we read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is,
Hear, O Israel, JEHOVAH our God, is ONE JEHOVAH.
Deut. vi. 4.

—And the same text is expressed exactly in the same words by the Evangelist Mark (xii. 29.) where he recites our Lord's answer to the question of the Scribe about the first (or chief) Commandment; for the Evangelist unquestionably substitutes the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Lord) in his Greek text for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Jehovah) in the original Hebrew, of which there are many more instances in the New Testament; so that from thence we are taught the true import and meaning of the title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ‘the Lord,’ as applied to Christ in the New Testament.

LORDS there are, indeed, many; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of as general use and application in the Greek Tongue, perhaps, as SIR in the English Tongue; but yet, whenever it is preceded by the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and has no express reference to any particular place, title, office, or temporal dignity, it must necessarily, in that case, be understood as a title of Supreme Dignity, because it is then applicable to no other Being, but that alone, which is most eminently the Lord (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) as being "Lord of all [*];" so that the title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, THE LORD (and many times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even without the article) is with propriety substituted in the Greek Scriptures (108) for the title JEHOVAH, in translations and quotations from the Hebrew original, wherein that Holy Name occurs!

It would take up too much of my reader's time (as well as of my own) were I to cite all the examples that may be found in the Greek Scriptures, of quotations from the Hebrew text, wherein the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Lord, is substituted for the Hebrew title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah: however, I have inserted in the preceding note a sufficient number (I hope) of examples from the Evangelists to demonstrate, beyond contradiction, the true meaning and importance of the Greek title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (LORD) when it is applied to GOD, or to CHRIST; for in that case, if there is any truth in the Evangelists, as faithful translators, it implies and expresses nothing less than the dignity of JEHOVAH! Exactly in this sense, therefore, we must necessarily understand the Apostle Paul, when he tells us, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 47.) ‘that the first Man (is) of the earth, earthy: the second Man (is) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—THE LORD, (or JEHOVAH) from heaven.’—The effect of this translation of mine will appear sufficiently justifiable, if it is compared with a parallel expression of John the Baptist recorded by John the Evangelist (iii. 31.)—‘He that cometh from above, IS ABOVE ALL ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘he that is of the earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven’ (the Apostle repeats his assertion) ‘ IS ABOVE ALL! ’ (110) &c.

Now it must be allowed that none, except
the God of Israel, whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
(Psa. lxxxiii. 18.)

can justly be said to be ABOVE ALL! —So that if THE MESSIAH was not truly GOD, and included with the Almighty Father and the Holy Ghost in the Eternal BEING, JEHOVAH, this expression (that he "IS ABOVE ALL") could not, with the least propriety, be so peremptorily and repeatedly applied to him! But as John the Baptist (who was sent to prepare the way of JEHOVAH, as I have already remarked) has positively asserted concerning him that ‘cometh from heaven,’ that he "is above all," we must necessarily conclude, that ‘the LORD FROM HEAVEN’ (the title applied to Christ by the Apostle Paul in the parallel text recited above) is a title of supreme Dignity, and implies as much as if the Apostle had expressly intituled the Messiah—"JEHOVAH from heaven;" for had this latter been literally expressed by some Prophet in the Hebrew tongue, the Apostle's words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would have been the regular Greek version of such an expression, which I have already proved by a variety of examples. (See pages 275—281.)

But Christ is not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, THE LORD (or JEHOVAH) from heaven, but he is also "the Lord of Glory" (111), one of the highest titles that can be conceived! So that if he were not really of one and the same Divine Nature with the Almighty Father, this title of Supreme Excellence, ‘THE LORD OF GLORY,’ could not be used with the least degree of propriety, especially as God (i. e. the LORD Jehovah) has declared to the Jews, that he will not give his Glory to another—viz.
I am THE LORD (i. e. JEHOVAH); that is MY NAME: and MY GLORY will I not give to another, &c.
(Isai. xlii. 8.)

—If Christ, therefore, is the ‘LORD OF GLORY,’ he must necessarily be esteemed ONE with the Father, in the Eternal BEING JEHOVAH!—Our Lord himself also declared, ‘I and the Father are ONE. ’—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (John x. 30.) and yet this very sentence, which asserts THE UNITY of the Father and the Son, expresses at the same time a manifest Distinction of Persons; which is also clearly demonstrable in almost every other page of Scripture; though the doctrine of the Unity of God is not less clearly laid down and inculcated throughout the Scriptures!

Our Lord has delivered this doctrine of his Unity with the Father, in various modes of expression; as—‘He that hath seen me (said he) hath seen the Father,’ &c. and
I am in the Father, and the Father in me, &c.
(John xiv. 9, 10.)

and yet the true nature and manner of that UNITY must still remain a Mystery, because a perfect knowledge of that Eternal BEING, which in every way is infinite, cannot possibly fall within the comprehension of our finite understandings (112)!

This doctrine is, nevertheless, a necessary part of our Faith; because the Scriptures contain such a proportion of evidence, really within the measure of Human judgment, as is sufficient to authenticate the whole, and demonstrate the Divine Mission of those Holy Persons, by whom they were, from time to time, delivered for our instruction: and therefore, as we are answerable to God for the use or abuse of that Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we inherit from our first parents (as I have already shewn in the beginning of this Tract) we cannot reject any part of the Scripture Evidence, without being guilty of such a manifest perversion and abuse of that hereditary Knowledge, as must render us highly culpable before God, and endanger our eternal welfare! We are bound, therefore, to receive even some things that we do not understand, for the sake of those things which we do understand; just as our Lord himself instructed Philip to believe this very doctrine of his UNITY WITH THE FATHER, for the sake of the mighty Works (113) which he had shewn him: for these, indeed, were evident to his senses, and could not be denied; and therefore, as the Divine Mission was so strongly authenticated, Philip was bound to receive the whole Doctrine of the Gospel, as delivered by Divine Authority, even though he did not comprehend it! And, in like manner, is every man indeed obliged to submit his judgment in receiving and acknowledging these revealed mysteries of our religion, for the sake of that substantial evidence which the Scriptures afford us of other Truth and Facts, which fall more immediately within the measure of Human Comprehension—‘ Believe me, that I am in the Father (said our Lord) and the Father in me, or else BELIEVE ME FOR THE VERY WORKS SAKE!’

But our Lord, nevertheless, condescended to illustrate this doctrine, in some degree, by a most interesting comparison, which relates, very materially, to the principal subject of this Tract, (THE NATURE OF MAN) because it informs us, at the same time, concerning that intimate Connexion with THE DIVINE NATURE, which HUMAN NATURE is rendered capable of acquiring, through the Divine Mediator between GOD and Man!

‘ Sanctify them, ’ (said that DIVINE MEDIATOR, when he prayed to his "HOLY FATHER" for his Disciples) ‘through thy Truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.’ (And who is this Logos, this Word, this Truth of the "HOLY FATHER," both under the Old and New Covenant, but our Divine Mediator himself? who immediately added) ‘As thou hast sent’ ME (said he) ‘into the world, even so have I also sent them’ (viz. the Disciples, as he had formerly sent the Prophets) ‘into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the Truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their Word; that THEY ALL MAY BE ONE ’ (which is the interesting comparison before-mentioned)
AS THOU FATHER (art) IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And THE GLORY which THOU gavest ME I have given THEM; that THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: I IN THEM, AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent ME, and hast loved THEM, as thou hast loved ME. FATHER, I WILL (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that they also, whom thou has given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold MY GLORY which THOU hast given ME: for thou lovedst me BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. O RIGHTEOUS FATHER, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare (it): that THE LOVE, wherewith thou hast LOVED ME may be IN THEM, and I in them.
John xvii. 17—26.

Here is a glorious declaration of the Dignity, to which God has been pleased to call MANKIND! And as the Unity of the Disciples, or true Believers, is thus clearly compared to the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, it is manifest that the doctrine of the last-mentioned UNITY (as far as the Scriptures have revealed it to us) is a topic necessarily included in the subject of this Tract—"The Nature of Man." But this Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON is not in all respects the same Unity, as that wherein the Church (or Congregation of Disciples and true Believers) is included with the Father and the Son [*]; though the Faithful undoubtedly partake of the Divine Nature by the HOLY SPIRIT, agreeable to the promises (see p. 200—202), and both CHRIST and THE FATHER are "IN THEM," as our LORD said—‘I IN THEM, and THOU in me,’ agreeable to what our Lord had once before declared—
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and MY FATHER will love him, and WE will COME UNTO HIM, and make OUR ABODE with him!
(John xiv. 23.)

Thus HUMAN NATURE is capable of being exalted and dignified, even in this life, notwithstanding the uncertainties and sufferings attending our worldly condition!

The Faithful, indeed, are ONE in the Father, and the Son, as our Lord prayed for them to his Heavenly Father, ‘that they all may be ONE (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) AS thou FATHER (art) in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE IN US, ’ &c. and again, that ‘they may be ONE, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE, ’ &c. but we must be careful to maintain the due distinction between the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, and the Unity of the Faithful in the Father and the Son! The latter is, indeed (in some respect or other) like the former, alike probably in that very circumstance alone of being in Unity— in Unity of WILL, of LOVE, and UNIVERSAL Benevolence, &c. for
GOD IS LOVE, and he that dwelleth IN LOVE, dwelleth IN GOD, AND GOD IN HIM, &c.
(1 John iv. 16.)

but it is not altogether the same Unity, wherein the Scriptures declare the Almighty Father and his Son to be ONE (as some Socinians have conceived) or it could not with propriety be compared with it! Like is compared with Like; but ‘Like is not the same,’ even to a proverb! In what respect the latter Unity may be like the former, I have already shewn by authority of Scripture: but THE HEAVENLY FATHER and HIS SON are ONE in many other respects, which cannot with the least degree of propriety be attributed to the Unity of the Church in Christ! The Son of God is ONE with his Almighty Father in Eternal Existence, in that BEING of Eternity, JEHOVAH! (See p. 258—275, &c.) They are ONE also in Power and Divine Attributes! The Son being expressly intitled
LORD OF ALL.
(See page 276.)

THE LORD FROM HEAVEN,
(page 283.)

THE LORD OF GLORY,
(p. 284.)

and is also declared to be
ABOVE ALL,
(p. 281.)

and
OVER ALL, GOD [*] BLESSED FOR EVER [†].
These are undoubtedly Attributes of the Heavenly Father (and many more shall hereafter be mentioned in the course of the argument) so that THE FATHER and THE SON are manifestly ONE in these several respects, and in many more, as there is but ONE GOD, or ONE JEHOVAH! But the Unity of the Congregation of true Believers, (that they are ONE in Christ, &c.) must be considered in a more confined sense: the true Believers are ONE glorious Universal Church, ONE Building, of which our Lord JESUS CHRIST is
the Foundation,
(1 Cor. iii. 11.)

the chief Corner Stone,
(Eph. ii. 20.)

"they are a Spiritual House," (1 Pet. ii. 5.) a Bride [*], (John iii. 29.) a Being of many in one [*], as the symbol of the Cherubim, four living Creatures in one, which moved with one Spirit, and represented the Hosts of Israel (see p. _____ ): and of course all those that are engrafted on that stock (the Olive-tree of Israel) through Christ [†], are in like manner esteemed ONE; because all distinctions of Nation, Rank, and Dignity, and even of Sex, are set aside in the true Church—
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ONE in CHRIST JESUS. And if ye (be) CHRIST'S, then are ye ABRAHAM'S SEED, and Heirs according to the promise.
(Gal. iii. 28, 29)

. Thus the Faithful are one in Christ, but surely not with Christ;—I mean, not with him, in the UNITY of Power, Glory, and Eternal Existence, wherein he and the Holy Ghost are (and ever were) included with the Almighty Father! The Unity of the Church is, indeed, in some respects (as I have shewn) LIKE the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, but it is not the same Unity, as the Socinians would insinuate [*]. In the Communion Service of the Church of England, indeed, mention is made of our Unity WITH Christ—‘We are ONE WITH Christ, and Christ WITH us,’ (see Exhortation at the time of the Celebration, &c.) but this has not the least reference to the Unity of Christ WITH the Father, but only to the declared Unity of the Faithful, who form that one Building, whereof Christ is the
chief Corner (Stone). In whom all THE BUILDING fitly framed together groweth unto AN HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of GOD through the Spirit.
(Eph. ii. 20—22.)

So that all faithful disciples are, undoubtedly, ONE in Christ (that is, ONE "Holy Temple [*]," or ONE Catholick Church) even as the Father and the Son are ONE: but it must appear from the several texts already quoted (if they are duly compared and weighed together) that the Unity of the Church in Christ, is not mentioned as the same Unity, wherein the Father and the Son are ONE (viz. One in Power, Glory, and Eternal Existence, or One GOD) but only as a resemblance or illustration, in some respects, of that DIVINE UNITY!—In some respects (I say) as being united in Will, or in Divine Love (as I have already shewn) or by the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT in each individual, through which the whole Congregation of the Faithful that are "builded together" in Christ, become "an Habitation of GOD," (see the text last quoted from Eph. ii. 20— 22.) but not in all respects, because there are many circumstances (some of which I have already mentioned) wherein the Unity or Fellowship of Christ with the Heavenly Father is infinitely transcendent, and such as cannot, without Blasphemy, be attributed to the redeemed Brethren, or those that are merely Members of the Church; so that the Socinian objection to the doctrine, which necessarily arises from the several texts, wherein the Father and the Son are declared to be ONE, is apparently unjust and false! May any other Man, but
the Man Christ Jesus,
(1 Tim. ii. 5.)

say as he did—
ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE?
(John xvi. 14.)

And again—"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father?" (John x. 15.) or, as Christ expressed himself to his Heavenly Father in Prayer —
And now, O Father, GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWN SELF, WITH THE GLORY which I had with thee before the world was?
(John xvii. 5.)

Thus Christ declares his right to be glorified with the Heavenly Father himself, which must mean, to be glorified with SUPREME GLORY, as it is the Glory of the Almighty Father, "the Glory which" the Son had with his Almighty Father "before the world was!" This glorious Person assumed the NATURE OF MAN, and for a time dwelt among men, that he might "fulfill all righteousness" (Mat. iii. 15.) even in his Human Nature, and thereby restore the lost dignity and privileges of that Nature;—‘the first Man (being) of the Earth, earthy;’ but
the Second MAN THE LORD FROM HEAVEN!
(1 Cor. xv. 47.)

Human Nature, therefore, is indeed exalted to eternal Glory, but that is only in, by, and through him, who alone is truly and essentially the "SON OF GOD," as well as the "SON OF MAN!" For he is ‘the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father’ (said our Lord)
but by me.
(John xiv. 6.)

The miserable state of fallen MAN is already described in the former part of this Tract. The means of retrieving our lost dignity remains still to be shewn. God has mercifully revealed to us these necessary means, and tendered them in the Scriptures to our Choice, that by a prudent use of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we may constantly prefer, and chuse the Good, earnestly claiming the promises of Divine Assistance; whereby we shall also be enabled to reject the Evil on all occasions, and effectually to resist the Spiritual Enemy, and maintain our integrity in the severest trials of our Faith; for
in all these things we are more than Conquerors through him that loved us.
(Rom. viii. 37.)

Thus the device of SATAN, in promoting MAN'S assumption of forbidden Knowledge, is compleatly turned against himself; for that very KNOWLEDGE, which (through his deceit and temptation) subjected all Mankind to SIN and Death, is now (through the mercy of God) become a proper Principle of Action (if we use it as we ought) to incline us to RIGHTEOUSNESS, and lead us to "the Tree of Life (114)! But we must remember, at the same time, that this Knowledge in Man is far from being of itself sufficient for these purposes! The dignity and privileges of Human Nature cannot be known, nor the manner of communicating them properly understood without a right Faith in the Dignity and Divine Nature of Christ, because, in his Promises alone, our title to those extraordinary Privileges is founded! ‘ Whatsoever ye shall ask IN MY NAME’ (said our Lord JESUS) ‘ that WILL I DO’ (a clear proof of his Divine Nature) ‘ that the Father ’ (said he) ‘ may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in MY NAME’ (said our Lord again)
I WILL DO IT, &c.
John xiv. 13, 14.

A right Faith, therefore, concerning the true Dignity of that Divine Person, in whose Name we hope to obtain the heavenly Gift of the Holy Ghost, is undoubtedly necessary; and we must "give him the honour due unto his Name," or the very mention of that Name, instead of intitling us to favour, would be an offence to God, who ‘hath highly exalted’ his only begotten Son,
and given him A NAME, which is above EVERY NAME: that at the NAME of JESUS every knee should bow, of (things) in heaven, and (things) in earth; and (things) under the earth: and that every tongue should confess, THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to THE GLORY OF GOD the Father.
(Philip. ii. 9—11.)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among Men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts iv. 12.

For as the Father raised up the dead, and quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
John v. 21.

In a preceding verse (viz. 17th) our Lord, in like manner, compared (with a seeming insinuation of equality) his own works with the works of his Father— ‘My Father worketh hitherto’ (said he) ‘and I work.’

The Father which worketh hitherto, was clearly understood by the Jews to signify the Almighty Father, the Worker or Maker of all things, and therefore they could neither brook the mention he made in the same sentence of his own working, nor the particular claim which our Lord expressed in that sentence to the Almighty Father as his peculiar Father, calling him My Father, instead of Our Father, as the common Parent or Creator of Mankind.

All this is plainly implied in the following verse; and ‘therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath,’ (viz. by his miraculous Works in healing the Sick, and doing good) ‘but said also, that GOD WAS HIS FATHER, ’ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (said that God was his proper or peculiar Father) ‘making himself EQUAL with God.’ For to call God his peculiar Father was justly esteemed by the Jews the same thing as making himself "equal with God," though they were unjustly incensed at it, through a want of due attention to the mighty Works (similar to those of the Almighty Father) to which Christ appealed, as a proof that he was really the Son of God!

That SUPREME HONOUR is therefore due unto THE NAME AND PERSON OF THE SON, our Blessed Redeemer, who, for OUR SAKE, took THE NATURE OF MAN upon himself, is manifest, because we are expressly commanded to honour the Son, even as we honour the Father; so that we cannot exceed—‘FOR THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN; but hath committed ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON: that all (Men) should honour THE SON, even as they honour THE FATHER, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ’). And again,
He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
John v. 22, 23.

To "honour the Son" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according as, or) even as they "honour the Father," would be idolatry, if the Son was not a Divine Person, really and truly God from all Eternity! Because the God of Israel, the Eternal and Everlasting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, and Creator of all things (115), at the very time that he promised this Glorious Redeemer ‘for a Covenant of the people, for a Light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the PRISONERS from the PRISON ’ (that is, from the bondage and slavery of Satan) ‘and them that sit in darkness out of the PRISON-HOUSE, ’ he immediately added in the very next sentence, ‘I am the LORD ’ (or Jehovah)
THAT IS MY NAME: and my GLORY will I not give to ANOTHER, &c.
Isai. xlii. 5—8.

It is impossible therefore, that the Supreme God, JEHOVAH, should ‘give his Glory,’ or require Men to honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, if the Son was another, or not in Unity or One with the Father in the Eternal Being of the One God; I mean, if he was not included in the One Eternal Divine Being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is but ONE (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One Jehovah) that is, UNITY ITSELF, and therefore incapable of different Degrees, or Inequality. ‘Hear, O Israel (said Moses) the Lord (or Jehovah) our God, is One Lord,’ or
ONE Jehovah.
(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Deut. vi. 4.

And yet we find, that this glorious Name of the One Eternal God of Israel; viz. Jehovah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is manifestly attributed, both in the Old and New Testaments (as I have already shewn), to the Messiah as a distinct Person from the Father; and therefore, when we read our Lord's expression in John xiv. 28. "My Father is greater than I," we must necessarily understand, that no comparative reference can possibly have been intended thereby, nor is to be made, concerning the Divine Nature, or Godhead, which certainly is but One, viz. "ONE JEHOVAH," as the text expressly declares, and consequently we must acknowledge with the Author of the Creed, commonly attributed to Athanasius, that ‘the Son is equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead,’ (viz. the One Eternal Being, or Jehovah) ‘though inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood,’ or his Mediatorial Office; for in some such qualified sense we must of course understand our Lord's expression in John (‘The Father is greater than I’) before-mentioned; for those Men, who venture to assert, that the Inferiority of the Son consists in his Divine Nature, must evidently suppose a Superior and Inferior Divine Nature, and consequently, that there are Two Divine Natures, which Idea the Scriptures expressly forbid—
(JEHOVAH, OUR GOD, is ONE JEHOVAH,
(Deut. vi. 4.)

—And therefore, as the Son is also JEHOVAH, we are bound by the Scriptures to believe, that he is of the same Divine Nature with the Father in that One Eternal Being, agreeable to what he himself has declared—
I and the Father are One.
(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) John x. 30.

And as the Plurality of Persons is clearly expressed in the latter text by the Plural Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are; so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One, evidently demonstrates the UNITY and EQUALITY of their Divine Nature; for it is no less evident from the context, that the said word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ONE, refers to the Being of God, or Jehovah, and was intended to express the Unity of their Divine Nature [*]. The Jews, it is plain, understood the expression in that sense, and immediately charged our Lord with Blasphemy— saying,—‘Because that thou, being a Man, makest thyself God.’ And though our Lord condescended to cite a passage from the Psalms, wherein the title of Gods is applied to mere Men, viz. ‘I said ye are Gods,’ in order to shew, that the Scriptures would not be broken by the consequence which they had drawn from his expression; yet he immediately after maintains the evident meaning of his first expression, as it was at first understood by the Jews, and, by a fair comparison, shewed his infinite superiority over them that were called Gods, in the Law, ‘If he,’ (said our Lord, meaning the Prophet David) ‘called them GODS, unto whom the Word of GOD came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am THE SON OF GOD? ’ And our Lord immediately added an incontestable proof of his being GOD [not merely in a confined, qualified Sense, like those Men called GODS in Scripture (116), but GOD also] in Effect and Power!—‘If I do not THE WORKS OF MY FATHER ’ (continued our Lord)
believe me not. BUT IF I DO, though you believe not me, BELIEVE THE WORKS: that ye may know and BELIEVE that the FATHER is IN ME, and I IN HIM.
(John x. 31—38.)

This reference to the Works of the Father, was a manifest appeal of Christ to the understanding of his hearers, concerning the peculiar manner in which he was really God, and of the same Divine Nature with THE FATHER, agreeable to the obvious sense of his first proposition—
I and the Father are One,
(ver. 30.)

—and the unbelieving Jews (notwithstanding their mental blindness, and hardness of heart, foretold by their own Prophets) as plainly understood, that the necessary effect of this argument was exactly the same upon the whole, that they at first apprehended; viz. that he ‘MADE HIMSELF,’ (i. e. declared himself to be really) ‘GOD,’ and therefore they immediately renewed their wicked persecution as at first; for ‘they sought again to take him,’ (says the text)
but he escaped out of their hand,
(ver. 39.)

My readers may perhaps think, that I prolong my work too much, and render it tedious, by inserting so many proofs concerning the Divine Nature of THE SON OF GOD; but alas! I find, that my labour on this point is become necessary! Many learned men, and some, even of my own particular friends, have unhappily overlooked that indispensable doctrine, and do not perceive, that the glorious Name JEHOVAH (the peculiar Name of THE ONE SUPREME GOD) is clearly in the Scriptures attributed also to the Son of God! And we cannot rightly understand the Nature and Dignity of MAN (which is my leading subject in this Tract) nor the true value of THE PRICE which was given for MAN'S REDEMPTION (as we
are bought with A PRICE,
1 Cor. vi. 20.

) unless we are truly sensible of the Nature and Dignity (as far as God has revealed it to us in the Scriptures) of that Divine Person, who took Human Nature upon himself, in order to restore the lost Dignity and Privileges of fallen MAN!

One of my learned friends (though a sensible and worthy man) amongst other arguments and quotations against my doctrine, remarks as follows.

‘ The Apostle Paul ’ (says he) ‘saith, in Ephes. i. 17—20. that’ ‘THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE FATHER OF GLORY’—‘SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND.’ ‘Hence’ (says my learned friend)
it necessarily follows that Christ is not Jehovah, but the Son of Jehovah.—God, who made the worlds by his Son, is the Father of Christ.
(Heb. i. 2.)

See likewise (says he) Isaiah xi. 2.—‘The Spirit of JEHOVAH shall rest upon him.’—‘ Also Isai. lxi. 1, 2.’ ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because JEHOVAH hath anointed me to preach,’ &c. ‘compared with Luke iv. 18. ’

Now that Christ is the Son of God, or (as my friend stiles him)
the Son of Jehovah [*],
every true Christian must readily allow to be a true and indispensable doctrine; but it by no means follows from thence (though my friend says it necessarily follows) ‘that Christ is not Jehovah!’ To the direct contrary of my friend's assertion, I am obliged to remark, that as Christ is the Son of Jehovah, and the Son of God in a peculiar and essential manner [*], it necessarily follows from thence, that he is also really and truly GOD and JEHOVAH in an essential manner; for as a SON must necessarily partake of the Nature or Essence of his natural FATHER, so "THE SON OF JEHOVAH" must necessarily be of the same Nature, Being, or Essence with his ALMIGHTY FATHER, JEHOVAH; and as there is but ONE JEHOVAH, must necessarily in some way or other (though incomprehensible to us at present) be included in that ONE Eternal BEING! The very circumstance which my friend assigns as a proof that "the Son is NOT JEHOVAH," was esteemed by the unbelieving Jews (when our Lord was on earth) as a proof that he made himself equal with God! ‘ Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath ’ (that is, as they falsely alledged, because he had healed the Sick, and done good on the Sabbath Day, which was certainly lawful) ‘ but said also, that GOD WAS HIS FATHER’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his own proper or peculiar Father, that is, his Father in a real or essential manner; and this, it seems, is the very reason which my friend has assigned as a proof that Christ is not Jehovah, but which, on the contrary, the Jews rightly esteemed to be the same thing as)
making himself EQUAL WITH GOD!
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. John v. 18.

Our Lord was so far from denying the truth of the consequential Doctrine, which the Jews had drawn from his having said, that "God was his Father," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—"his own proper Father," that he immediately, in the very next verse, appealed to his works for the truth of it! ‘ Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: ’ (shewing thereby, that the Father is indeed the Fountain of Power; but immediately afterwards he shews likewise, that he himself, as being Son of the Almighty Father, was therefore equal in Power with THE FATHER) ‘ for what things soever he ’ (that is, the Father) ‘ doeth ’ (said our Lord) ‘THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE!’ (or in like manner 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is surely such an ample declaration of his own Almighty Power, as could not be true, were he not really JEHOVAH) ‘ For the Father ’ (continued our Lord) ‘ loveth the Son, and sheweth him ALL THINGS THAT HIMSELF DOETH: and he will shew him greater WORKS THAN THESE’ (alluding to the mighty WORKS, by which he proved himself to be "THE SON OF JEHOVAH") ‘ that ye may marvel ’ (said he). ‘ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth (them); EVEN SO THE SON QUICKENETH WHOM HE WILL.’ [Another incontestable declaration of ALMIGHTY POWER, such as cannot be attributed to any that is not TRULY GOD, though it is certainly an especial Attribute of him that is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —"THE PRINCE (or Author) OF LIFE (117)]! ‘For the Father’ (continues our Lord)
judgeth no man; but hath committed ALL JUDGMENT unto the Son, that all (men) should honour (118) the Son, even as they honour the Father.
(And as supreme Honour is certainly due to THE FATHER, we must of course honour THE SON with supreme Honour, EVEN AS (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘we honour the Father.’ This is so necessary a part of the Christian Duty, that men cannot pay the proper honour to THE HEAVENLY FATHER, unless they thus honour THE SON, also, with supreme Honour; for) ‘HE THAT HONOURETH NOT THE SON’ (that is, ‘ He that honoureth not the Son, even as he honoureth the Father ’—for this is necessarily implied from the preceding Context) "HONOURETH NOT THE FATHER "(119), WHICH HATH SENT HIM. John v. 17—23.

The Scriptures attribute Eternal Honour and Glory to THE SON, and that jointly with THE HEAVENLY FATHER —‘Blessing, and HONOUR, and GLORY, and POWER, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB, for ever and ever. And the four beasts’ (or animals (120) representing the Redeemed Hosts of Israel)
said, AMEN.
(Rev. v. 13, 14. See also the 12th verse.)

Thus we find, that ‘HONOUR, and GLORY, and POWER,’ belong ‘UNTO THE LAMB FOR EVER!’ He had indeed, for a time, laid aside this SUPREME GLORY (this Glory which is attributed to him jointly with him that sitteth upon the Heavenly Throne) that he might become "the Son of Man," and
by Obedience (121) in fulfilling the Law (122),
and
all Righteousness (123),
even as A MAN, might retrieve the dignity and lost privileges of HUMAN NATURE: but the Divine Glory was again to be restored to him, though he now partook of the Nature of his Creature Man; nay, the Son himself, even when a Man, claims the Glory of his Heavenly Father!—‘ And now, O Father ’ (said he)
GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWNSELF, WITH THE GLORY which I had WITH THEE before the world was.
John xvii. 5. See also p. 308.

It was not only in his Divine Nature, that THE SON was to be thus glorified, but expressly as "MAN;" so that the Nature of MAN is indeed exalted in Christ to the highest pitch of glory!— ‘Behold THE MAN, whose Name is THE BRANCH ’ (says the Prophet Zechariah)
he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall BUILD THE TEMPLE of the Lord (124): even he shall BUILD THE TEMPLE of the Lord; and he shall BEAR THE GLORY,
(that is, even he,—THE MAN that is called the Branch, shall BEAR THE GLORY) ‘ and shall SIT and RULE UPON HIS THRONE; and he shall be A PRIEST UPON HIS THRONE,’ [that is, a ROYAL PRIEST, after the order of that Righteous King, (125), who was KING of SALEM, or King of PEACE
(126)
]
and the Counsel of PEACE shall be between them both.
(Zechariah vi. 12, 13.)

The throne or kingdom here promised, was also to be an everlasting Kingdom, though given to Christ, expressly as "Son of Man;" for it is certainly the same Kingdom foretold by the Prophet Daniel,—‘I saw in the night visions,’ (says Daniel) ‘and behold (one) like THE SON OF MAN came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him DOMINION, and GLORY, and A KINGDOM, that all People, Nations, and Languages, should serve him: HIS DOMINION IS AN EVERLASTING DOMINION, WHICH SHALL NOT PASS AWAY, and HIS KINGDOM (that) WHICH SHALL NOT BE DESTROYED. ’ Dan. vii. 13, 14. Compare this with chap. ii. 44. wherein the same Prophet informs us, that—‘in the days of these Kings’ (meaning the Kings, or rather Kingdoms, which succeeded the fourth great Kingdom or Roman Empire) ‘shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom, which shall NEVER BE DESTROYED: and the Kingdom shall not be left to other People, (but) it shall break in pieces, and consume all these Kingdoms, and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER.’ The Psalmist had also previously declared—
Thy Throne, O GOD, is FOR EVER AND EVER.
Psal. xlv. 6.

Which the Apostle Paul has applied expressly to the Son. Heb. i. 8. These Prophecies of an Eternal Kingdom, proclaimed by the Prophets under the Old Testament, were confirmed by the Angel GABRIEL, when he declared the Eternity of CHRIST'S Government:—‘And behold’ (said he to the Blessed Virgin) ‘thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his Name JESUS ’ (which signifies A SAVIOUR. See note in p. 225.) ‘He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and THE LORD GOD shall give unto him THE THRONE of his Father David. And he shall REIGN over the House of Jacob FOR EVER (—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉): and of HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.’) Luke i. 31—33. The Apostle Paul, nevertheless, informs us of a time, ‘when he (Christ) shall have DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER; when he shall have put down all Rule, and all Authority and Power.’ (meaning ALL POWER that in any degree is opposite or inimical in its Nature to his KINGDOM OF RIGHTEOUSNESS) ‘For he must REIGN till he hath put all Enemies under his Feet.’ 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25. And again, in the 28th verse—‘ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.’ The two last mentioned texts, when collated with the preceding declarations concerning the Eternity of Christ's Kingdom, would contain an irreconcileable difficulty, were it not clearly demonstrable, that "the Son of God" is really included with THE ALMIGHTY FATHER in the Eternal BEING JEHOVAH, and consequently is truly GOD! For the fact is, that he is called JEHOVAH and GOD in many unquestionable passages of Scripture, in some expressly, in others by necessary implication, (several examples of which are already cited in this Tract) and no inference to the contrary can be justly drawn from any of the texts which my learned friend (before mentioned) has laid before me as proofs of an opposite sentiment!

Most of these indeed are such as relate to the Son, merely in his mediatorial Office as MESSIAH, or the Anointed of JEHOVAH;—as Psal. ii. 2. (127) compared with Acts iv. 24, 25, 26. also Heb. i. 8, 9.—Psal. cx. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25. (which is the particular text now under consideration) Eph. i. 17.20. and Heb. i. 2. And others relate particularly to Christ's ministry, whilst he dwelt personally as a Man upon earth;—as Isai. xi. 2.
(128)
lxi. 1, 2. compared with Luke iv. 18.—These prove indeed that he is ‘inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood,’ and all of them demonstrate his subordination to the Almighty Father in the ministry and gracious offices which he had undertaken for the restoration of mankind; but none of them afford the least shadow of contradiction to the texts wherein his Divine Nature is declared! One particular text, however, remains to be mentioned, which at first sight, seems to militate against my general argument—viz. Psal. lxxxiii. 18.—‘ That (men) may know that thou ’ (i. e. GOD mentioned in the 1st and 13th verses) ‘WHOSE NAME ALONE IS JEHOVAH, (art) the most High over all the earth. ’—Now, it is strictly true, indeed, (though I do not think it the proper translation of this text, see pages 233—236.) that God ALONE is JEHOVAH, because Jehovah alone is God [*]; and the Scriptures assure us, that there is but ONE JEHOVAH, (Deut. vi. 4.) or One "ONLY WISE GOD." (Rom. xvi. 27. 1 Tim. i. 17.) And therefore, when the Son of God is called JEHOVAH, or GOD, he is not so named, as being distinct or separate with respect to that ONE Eternal Being, JEHOVAH, or GOD, but as being included in that Divine Nature, or GOD, ‘whose Name alone is JEHOVAH, ’ and as being ONE with the ALMIGHTY FATHER! which was declared by the Son himself; —
I and the Father (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) WE ARE ONE.
(John x. 30.)

I am in the Father, and the Father in me.
(John xiv. 11. xvii. 21. and x. 38.)

And therefore, though the Son ‘shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father,’—and shall ‘also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,’ (as declared in the texts cited above from 1 Cor. xv. 24—28.) yet, as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in him, and as "all things that the Father hath are" the Son's (John xvi. 15.) and as he must of course be glorified with the Glory which he had with the Father himself before the world was, (John xvii. 5.) it is manifest that he will still reign in and with the ALMIGHTY FATHER in that Eternal Being of GOD, which will then "be all in all!"

In the above mentioned text of St. Paul, it is said, that ‘He’ (Christ) ‘must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet,’ and that
the last enemy (that) shall be destroyed is DEATH.
(1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.)

This opens to us the time that Christ will deliver up the kingdom. DEATH, that last enemy, will be effectually destroyed, when all men, that are redeemed by Christ, are risen from DEATH! The world itself (where alone Death reigned) and all that is desirable in it, will then not only be "burned up," (2 Pet. iii. 10.) but will be made the seat of eternal Horror and "everlasting Fire," (see Notes in pages 130 and 142.) and the irrevocable decrees of the Son of MAN, in his final Judgment upon MEN and ANGELS, will by that time have taken place! Here, then, is an end of the whole Christian Dispensation! What need can there be of a Redeemer, a Mediator, or of a Judge, after the Fate of all Mankind is determined!—It is no lessening, therefore, of the Son's Dignity, that he then delivers up the several charges which he had undertaken in obedience to his Father's will, when the same shall have been compleatly executed and fulfilled!—The generality of Commentators agree, that it is Christ's Mediatorial Kingdom which will then be delivered up; but they should also have mentioned that Sovereignty, which is still of higher degree, that glorious Sovereign Authority, which is of unspeakable Dignity; I mean that of sitting as SUPREME JUDGE OF THE UNIVERSE! An Authority of which even the Almighty Father hath divested himself—‘For the Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment unto the Son’ (and the supreme Dignity of the Trust is fully declared by the reason of its being given);
that all (Men) should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.
(John v. 22, 23.)

Nay, not only Men, but Angels must honour him; for the word ALL (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) includes Angels as well as Men; and we read expressly, that Angels are required to WORSHIP HIM (129), which would be gross idolatry, if Christ was not truly GOD, and One with the Father in the Eternal Being JEHOVAH! And when the important Trust shall have been fulfilled, and compleatly executed, that Divine Authority and Jurisdiction, as supreme Judge (which had been committed only to One of the Divine Persons) shall be delivered up, together with all other offices of distinct or separate Authority, that ‘GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.’ And in GOD, undoubtedly, the Son of God ‘shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever: and of his Kingdom there shall be no end!’—Agreeable to the Angels Prophecy. Luke i. 33.

The Scriptures indeed are every where filled with clear Testimonies concerning the Divinity of our BLESSED REDEEMER, so that the command to honour him, "even as we honour the Father," is perfectly consistent with all the rest. And therefore, unless we HONOUR the Son with SUPREME HONOUR, ‘even as we honour the Father,’ we fall short of the command; and, for want of due Faith, cannot expect to obtain of the Father that glorious and heavenly Gift for the necessary improvement of Human Nature, which our REDEEMER has promised
to them that ask in his Name, even the Spirit of Truth,
(John xv. 26.)

which
will guide us into all Truth.
(John xvi. 13.)

The supreme, or equal Divine Nature of THE HOLY SPIRIT, is not less clearly declared, in several parts of Scripture, than the Divine Nature of THE SON OF GOD, notwithstanding that some other parts of Scripture express a manifest Subordination of Office; as that
he shall NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he "SHALL HEAR, (that) shall he speak (130);"
and that he is sent or given by the Father (131); and also by the Son (132); and again, that he is declared to be "the Spirit of Christ" (133), as well as "the Spirit of God!" —yet (I say, notwithstanding these expressions of Subordination) the supreme or equal Divine Nature of THE HOLY SPIRIT is clearly revealed in several parts of Scripture. The Prophet Isaiah, for instance, has declared the Divine Omnipotence of the Spirit in the strongest terms;—in terms which prove, that "the Spirit of God" is a free and independent Spirit, and is truly God of the same supreme Divine Nature, or Eternal Being, with the other Two Divine Persons; for this Prophet expressly applies to "the Spirit of God" the same supreme Attributes of Creation and Almighty Power, which in other parts of Scripture are occasionally attributed to the other Two Divine Persons!

But hear the words of the Prophet himself, dictated by that same Spirit.— ‘ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand? and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD,’ (or rather the SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for thus exactly is the Spirit of the Lord commonly expressed in the Old Testament, when mention is made of his inspiration or coming down upon the Prophets) ‘ or who (being) his Counsellor, hath taught him? With whom took he counsel; and (who) instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? ’ (Thus the Prophet clearly insists on the independency of the free [*] Spirit of the Lord)
—Behold, the nations (are) as as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Libanon (is) not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering! All nations before him (are) as nothing: and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
(Isaiah xl. 12—17.)

The Prophet afterwards proceeds to speak of GOD (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) without further distinction of Persons, having already, in the preceding part of the chapter, clearly distinguished the Person of the Son of God under the title of "Jehovah," and "our God," whose Advent was to be proclaimed by the voice in the wilderness, and of whom Sion and Jerusalem were directed to say unto the cities of Judah,
Behold your God,
(see p. 248—258)

and having also expressly distinguished ‘the Spirit of Jehovah,’ and proclaimed his Divine Attributes and supreme Dignity, (see ver. 12—17. last cited) he now proceeds to speak of GOD (in the 18th verse) without further distinction of Persons. ‘To whom then’ (continues he)
will ye liken GOD? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
(ver. 18, &c.)

The Spiritual Nature of GOD is surely so far above our finite comprehension, that it cannot be explained or expressed by any likeness or comparison whatsoever!—But yet, as we may clearly perceive and understand, by what is revealed to us, that the supreme Attributes of Creation and Almighty Power are applied expressly to the Holy Spirit (as in the above cited text of Isaiah) which in other parts of Scripture are equally attributed to THE FATHER AND THE SON, we may reasonably conclude, that the supreme Dignity of the HOLY SPIRIT must necessarily consist in his entire Union and Equality with the Father and with the Son in the Divine Nature, or GODHEAD [*]—that ONE eternal and glorious Being, JEHOVAH,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY!
(Rev. i. 8. see also p. 239.)

This entire Union of THE HOLY SPIRIT with the Almighty Father and the Son, in the One Eternal Being of GOD, is a necessary doctrine, without which THE ALMIGHTY POWER, attributed in the Scriptures to the Holy Spirit, cannot be reconciled to that other indispensable Article of our Faith, the Unity of God!

In the Book of Job (ch. xxxiii. 4.) the Spirit is declared to be the Creator!
THE SPIRIT OF GOD (134) hath MADE me, and THE BREATH
(a term synonymous to SPIRIT) ‘ of the Almighty hath given me Life. ’ In the account also which Moses has given us of the Creation, we read, that
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(Gen. i. 2.)

And the Psalmist attributes the Creation to THE SPIRIT jointly with the Divine WORD; —
By the WORD of JEHOVAH were the heavens made: and all the host of them, by the BREATH (or SPIRIT (135) of his mouth.
(Psal. xxxiii. 6.)

And afterwards, when the Divine WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us, he himself expressly attributed to ‘the Spirit of God’ (136) those mighty WORKS, to which he appealed for the truth of his doctrine concerning his Unity with the Almighty Father (see p. 287.) and which, at another time, he expressly calls the Works of his Father! (137) So that without the doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Nature, this application of the same Attributes to different Persons could not be understood!

St, Paul also attributed to ‘THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD’ (138) the miracles, which he wrought "through Jesus Christ," in preaching his Gospel to the Gentiles. Nay, even the miraculous Conception of the Blessed Virgin (from whence the Holy Child Jesus was called "the Son of God") is expressly attributed to the Holy Ghost by St. Matthew—
She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost
(i. 18.)

for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
(i. 20.)

Compare this with Luke i. 35.—‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ &c.

The glorious Title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—‘the Power of the Highest,’ which immediately follows these words concerning the Holy Ghost in the last mentioned text, is by several learned Commentators attributed also to him, viz. the Holy Spirit (139); and a Title nearly similar is certainly attributed to the same Spirit, even by our Lord himself, when he foretold the fulfilling of God's promise in the Gift of the Holy Ghost. —
And behold (said he) I send the promise of my Father (140) upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with POWER FROM ON HIGH.
(Luke xxiv. 49.)

Similar Titles are also given to the Son of God; for even in his ministerial Character as Messiah, or Christ, after he had taken Human Nature upon him, he is called
THE POWER OF GOD, AND THE WISDOM OF GOD.
(1 Cor. i. 24.)

Surely these are Attributes of the Divine Nature, and Titles of supreme Dignity!

The Power of Justification must certainly be also accounted a Divine Attribute, and as such can belong to none but GOD;
for it is GOD that JUSTIFIETH
(Rom. viii. 33.)

but yet both Justification, and Sanctification also, (another Divine Attribute) are expressly attributed to the HOLY SPIRIT, jointly with CHRIST!—
But ye are washed, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are JUSTIFIED, in the Name of the LORD JESUS, and by (or in) THE SPIRIT of our God.
(1 Cor. vi. 11.)

To give Life, also, is not less apparently an Attribute of THE DIVINE NATURE than Creation, whether we speak of mere Animal Life, or the Spiritual or Eternal Life, but more especially the latter, and yet this ALMIGHTY POWER is attributed both to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit! For though it is
GOD who quickeneth the dead,
(Rom. iv. 17.)

and
who quickeneth all things;
(1 Tim. vi. 13.)

yet the Son also is called
a quickening Spirit,
1 Cor. xv. 45.

and quickeneth whom he will,
(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, John v. 21.)

and by the same authority we know likewise, that
it is THE SPIRIT that QUICKENETH!
(John vi. 63.)

In consequence of this Almighty Power the Son is called
THE PRINCE (or Author) OF LIFE (141), and the Spirit is expressly intituled— the Spirit of LIFE (142).

Add to this, that the Spirit is expressly intituled
the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might (143), the Spirit of Holiliness
(144), and ‘THE SPIRIT OF GLORY’ (145)! These expressions of Dignity and Power are unlimited, and do certainly include the highest or supreme degree of the several recited Attributes, even the infinite Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, &c. of GOD, because they are attributed to that glorious Spirit, which
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God!
(1 Cor. ii. 10.)

and they are attributed to him, also, as essential Properties, which are so eminently his, that he is even named from them—‘the Spirit of Wisdom’—‘the Spirit of Might’—‘the Spirit of Glory;’ as Christ is also intituled—
the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God,
(see p. 367.)

and "the Lord of Glory," see pages 283, 284.

These Titles and Attributes cannot (in that eminent and essential degree in which they are attributed both to the Son and Holy Spirit) belong to any Being that is not truly God, and Jehovah: and it is clearly revealed to us, that there is but One Jehovah (146) (as I have before remarked in pages 241—244) who is the only true God; the God of Israel (147); and yet we learn by the Scriptures, not only that CHRIST is truly GOD, and JEHOVAH (of which I have already produced many authentic proofs from Scripture in pages 216—354) but that THE HOLY GHOST is also JEHOVAH, and consequently is included likewise in the Unity 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (148) of the Deity or Godhead!

The Holy Ghost is Jehovah, because it is he who "limiteth a certain day," ‘ saying in David, To-day, after so long a time ’ (see St. Paul's Commentary on the 95th Psalm) ‘ as it is said, Today if ye will hear HIS VOICE’ (the Holy Ghost refers them to THE VOICE of another Person, who appears by the Apostle's argument to be the Messiah)
harden not your hearts.
Heb. iv. 7.

In the preceding chapter the Apostle tells us expressly, that it was the Holy Ghost who said these words—‘ Wherefore ’ (says he) ‘ as the HOLY GHOST SAITH’—‘To-day if ye will hear HIS VOICE, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your Fathers tempted ME ’ (saith the Holy Ghost) ‘proved ME, and saw MY WORKS forty years.’ [But in the several accounts which Moses has given us of these glorious Works and Transactions, we find them mentioned as the Works of Jehovah, and by St. Paul they seem to be attributed to Christ (149); and therefore if the Holy Ghost was a mere ministering Spirit, employed only as an agent in Jehovah's Works with Jehovah's Power, and was not also truly Jehovah himself, he (the Spirit of Truth) could not have called them his Works.] ‘Wherefore I was grieved’ (continues the Holy Ghost, still speaking in David)
with that generation, and said, They do alway err in (their) heart; and they have not known MY ways. So I sware in MY wrath, they shall not enter into MY rest.
Heb. iii. 7—11.

Surely these are expressions of supreme Authority, which could not be used by any Spirit that was not truly Jehovah!

Again, in the 10th chapter of the same Epistle (15th verse) we read—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.—‘ THE HOLY GHOST also is a witness to us: for after that HE had said before,’ ‘This is the covenant that I WILL MAKE with them,’ &c. The text to which the Apostle apparently refers us is in Jeremiah, xxxi. 33. where we find, that it was Jehovah, who said these words by the Prophet!

See also the two verses preceding—
Behold the days come, SAITH JEHOVAH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, &c.
(Jer. xxxi. 31.)

And afterwards in the 33d verse (the text quoted by St. Paul as words said by THE HOLY GHOST) the Prophet adds in the Name of JEHOVAH— ‘But this (shall be) the covenant that I WILL MAKE with the House of Israel; after those days, SAITH JEHOVAH, I will put MY Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be THEIR GOD, and they shall be my people.’ This text is expressly attributed to the Holy Ghost by the Apostle, and the next verse is joined by the Copulative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and) as the words of the same Divine Speaker—‘ AND they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, KNOW JEHOVAH: for they shall all KNOW ME ’ [saith THE HOLY GHOST, this being a regular continuance (as I before remarked) of the words attributed to him by the Apostle] ‘from the least of them unto the greatest of them, SAITH JEHOVAH: for I will forgive their iniquity’ (and none but God can forgive sins [*]!)
and I will remember their sin no more.
(Jer. xxxi. 33, 34.)

This Promise is apparently to the same effect, as that which JEHOVAH had before proclaimed by his Prophet Isaiah, viz.—
And all thy children (shall be) TAUGHT OF JEHOVAH.
Isai. liv. 13.

To these texts, therefore, our Lord probably referred, when he said to the Jews— 'It is written in the Prophets,' ‘And they shall be ALL TAUGHT OF GOD. ’
Every man therefore that hath HEARD, and hath LEARNED OF THE FATHER, cometh unto me.
John vi. 45.

Thus, the being taught of God, is manifestly esteemed by our Lord to be the same thing as hearing and learning of the Father, for he mentions these circumstances apparently to illustrate what he had before said (in the preceding verse) concerning the Father's drawing the true Believers—‘No man’ (said our Lord)
can come unto me, unless THE FATHER, which hath sent me, DRAW him,
(John vi. 44.)

so that Christ's reference to what was ‘written in the Prophets’ on this subject (especially as he applies these Prophecies to the Drawing and Teaching of the Father) seems, at first sight, to make against my argument, which was to shew, that the Prophecies here cited were the Words of THE HOLY GHOST, speaking in the Prophets under the Title of Jehovah! But this is so far from being a real objection, that it is truly a confirmation of the former argument concerning the speaking of THE HOLY GHOST, when we consider, that the Drawing of the Father, and the Teaching of God, is effected only by the Spirit of God! For the same Apostle (John), who recorded our Lord's reference to the Prophets last cited, tells us in his First General Epistle (ii. 20.) how this Teaching of God is communicated. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
And ye have AN UNCTION from the Holy One (150), and ye KNOW all things.
(1 John ii. 20.) This Unction, or Anointing, is generally understood by Commentators to signify the Influence of the Holy Spirit (151), and the Effect of that Influence is further explained in the 27th verse of the same chapter—
But THE ANOINTING, which ye have received of him, abideth in you, and ye need not that any man TEACH you: but as the same ANOINTING TEACHETH you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie: and even as it hath TAUGHT you ye shall abide in him.
(1 John ii. 27.)

And it is manifest, that this "Anointing, which teacheth all things," is to be understood of THE HOLY SPIRIT; for the Apostle Paul informs us, that the Communication of this Knowledge or Teaching from God is by the Holy Spirit—‘Eye’ (says he) ‘hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him. But GOD HATH REVEALED (them) UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT: for THE SPIRIT searcheth ALL THINGS, yea, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. For what man 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. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but THE SPIRIT WHICH IS OF GOD ’ [or rather THE SPIRIT OUT OF GOD, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, which proceedeth forth (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, see John xv. 26.) "out of God," see note 132 in p. 357]; ‘that we might KNOW the things that are freely given to us of GOD ’ (whereby it is manifest, that we obtain this Knowledge of the things of God by the Holy Spirit).
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH (152); comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But ‘THE NATURAL (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Animal) MAN receiveth not the things of THE SPIRIT OF GOD,’ [How urgent and importunate ought we therefore to be in claiming, on all occasions, the gracious Promises of Spiritual Assistance (see p. 200—202) as the Nature of Man is declared to be thus miserably deficient without that Heavenly Gift, the neglect of which is the first foundation of Infidelity and Scepticism] ‘for they are foolishness unto him;’ [even the things of infinite Wisdom (for such must be ‘the things of the Spirit of God’) are foolishness to the mere Natural Man!]
neither can he know (them) because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. But he that is SPIRITUAL, judgeth all things, &c.
(1 Cor. ii. 9—15.)

The glorious Effect of Christ's Promises upon those who duly claim them, is principally (as I have before remarked, see p. 196—202) that we shall "partake of the Divine Nature!" But how can that Effect take place, if the Spirit of God, and of Christ (153), (see page 357), the Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, by which alone we can have communication with either (154), is not really Divine? We are taught by a multitude of texts throughout the New Testament, that MAN by Nature is capable of receiving THE HOLY SPIRIT within him; so that the Human Body is expressly called in Scripture
the Temple of the Holy Ghost (155);
and therefore, if THE HOLY GHOST were not really and truly GOD, of the same Divine Nature with THE FATHER (for there can be but ONE Divine Nature, as there is but ONE GOD, which I hope is already clearly demonstrated, see pages 241—244) how improper would be the idea of comparing Man to a Temple? For Christians are not only called
the Temple of God (156), but expressly (as I have already remarked) the Temple of the Holy Ghost,
as if the terms were synonymous!

Too many Temples, indeed, through the Depravity of Mankind, and the Influence of Devils, have been dedicated to those, "which by Nature are NO GODS!" But that was only amongst men —"who knew not God." (Gal. iv. 8.) But shall we conceive of the inspired Writers of the New Testament, that they would also DEDICATE Temples to a Being, "which by Nature is no God!" For if we could suppose it true, that THE HOLY SPIRIT ‘by Nature is no GOD, ’ the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY GHOST would be no better, in that one respect, than Heathen Temples! And therefore, if we really believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, we must necessarily believe that THE HOLY GHOST is really and truly GOD; for otherwise we should not have been required by the Holy Scriptures to esteem our Bodies as the ‘Temple of the Holy Ghost!’ And as it thus appears to be a necessary conclusion, that THE HOLY GHOST is truly GOD, it is equally a necessary doctrine, that he is also JEHOVAH— "For who is GOD" (i. e. truly God) "except JEHOVAH?" [†] Psa. xviii. 31. And therefore, though THE HOLY GHOST is clearly revealed to us in Scripture as a distinct Person from THE FATHER and THE SON, he must nevertheless be included in that One Divine and Eternal Being, JEHOVAH; and accordingly, in that supreme character, he revealed the Divine Will to the Prophets! Of this I have already produced some remarkable, and (I trust) incontrovertible proofs, and therefore shall only request my reader's attention to one more example of it. ‘Well spake THE HOLY GHOST ’ (said the Apostle Paul to the unbelieving Jews at Rome)
by Isaias the Prophet unto our Fathers, saying; Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, &c.
Acts xxviii. 25.

But when we turn to that part of Isaiah's Prophecy to which the Apostle refers us, as the SAYING of THE HOLY GHOST, we find it was JEHOVAH which spoke to the Prophet!—‘I heard’ (says the Prophet) ‘the VOICE of the LORD (Adonai) saying, Whom shall I SEND? and who will go for US?’ (speaking expressly in a Plurality of Persons).
Then said I, here (am) I; send me. And HE said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, (or in hearing) but understand not; and see ye indeed (or in seeing) but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed (157). Then said I, LORD, (or Adoni) how long? And HE answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, &c.
Isai. vi. 8—11.

Now the Lord, or Adoni, who then spake to Isaiah, was represented to the Prophet (see the beginning of the chapter) as ‘sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple,’ &c. ‘and one cried unto another,’ (that is, the Seraphims mentioned in the preceding verse)
HOLY, HOLY, HOLY (IS) JEHOVAH OF HOSTS, the whole earth is full of his glory, &c.
(ibid. 1—3.)

Now, notwithstanding that the Lord JEHOVAH is represented in this Divine Revelation as speaking in the Plural Number ("who will go for us"), and that the threefold repetition of the Epithet Holy, in the proclamation of God's glorious Title, Jehovah of Hosts, seems to correspond with the above-mentioned Idea of a Plurality of Persons being comprehended in that One Eternal Being JEHOVAH, which then revealed himself to Isaiah, yet the Apostle Paul expressly attributed the Revelation to the Holy Ghost, as being the Divine Person which then spake! ‘Well SPAKE THE HOLY GHOST ’ (says he) ‘by Isaias the Prophet, SAYING, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear,’ &c. Who then shall presume to say that THE HOLY GHOST is not really and truly GOD; when it is apparent by the citations already made, that the glorious Name JEHOVAH, which includes THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE FATHER, and OF THE SON, is expressly attributed also to THE HOLY GHOST?

Without a due sense of this supreme Dignity of the Holy Spirit, we should form but a very unworthy idea of the real Dignity of HUMAN NATURE, which (as I have already shewn) is not only capable of receiving the Gift, or internal Communication, of that glorious and eternal FREE SPIRIT [158] OF GOD, as a Principle of Action, but is absolutely entitled even to claim that wonderful participation of the Divine Nature! to claim it, I say, by a written Charter of Privileges, which can never be taken from us (as God's Word cannot fail), he having bound himself to us on certain reciprocal conditions by an irrevocable covenant (as sure as his Word) that MAN might be FREE indeed! We are FREE (I say) having now a free Choice, through Christ, to partake, if we will (159), of the Tree of Life (see note in p. 310) from which our first Parents were unhappily excluded in this world!

But these glorious Privileges being granted to Human Nature only through the Merits of that "Son of Man," who voluntarily took our Nature upon him, we must always remember, that our Title to the Benefits of the free Covenant, before-mentioned, is valid only when claimed in his Name, and for his Sake, as we ourselves are otherwise totally unworthy of them; for he alone is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life;" and
no Man cometh unto the Father, but by him.
John xiv. 6.

He hath, therefore, particularly instructed us how to claim the Privileges of Human Nature, assuring us by re-iterated [160] Promises, tendered in the most urgent and affectionate manner, that Prayers in his Name shall certainly be effectual; that is, provided there be no wilful Defect on our part; which conditional Clause is always to be understood, wherever Promises of Blessings are delivered in Holy Scripture.

Let us therefore be mindful,
that the sufferings of this present time, are not worthy (to be compared) with the glory which shall be revealed to us,
(Rom. viii. 18.)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, towards us, or respecting ourselves; referring, probably, to that ‘Eternal Weight of Glory’ with which Human Nature is capable of being invested ‘after the sufferings of this present time,’ as signified by the same Apostle in a parallel passage of another Epistle—‘For our light affliction’ (said the Apostle) ‘which is but for a moment’ (i. e. comparatively speaking)
worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal Weight of GLORY!
2 Cor. iv. 17,

This further Revelation of God's Will [variously expressed in the New Testament (161) concerning the sure and most certain expectation, that we may entertain, of being invested with ETERNAL GLORY in the world to come, (if we persevere in the true Faith and Practice of Christianity in this world); completes our Charter of Privileges and Immunities, or, "the perfect Law of Liberty," which THE ALMIGHTY has been pleased to tender to his Creature Man!

—‘Who’ (then) ‘shall separate us from the love of Christ? (shall) tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter). Nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded’ (said the Apostle to the Romans) ‘that neither death, nor life, nor angels,’ (that is, the angels of Satan)
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor heighth, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom. viii. 35—39.

Here is a noble declaration of that "perfect Liberty," to which Christ has restored mankind! that glorious Dignity of "Human Nature," which even the poorest and meanest persons amongst us (the distressed, the hungry, and the naked) are capable of attaining by Perseverance in Faith, and Resolution in observing and keeping, on their Part, THE CONDITIONS (162) of our reciprocal Covenant with God!

Let us therefore (like the Apostle) approach unto the Throne of Grace, in full Assurance of FAITH, always remembering, that a SOUND FAITH must be the principal Foundation of our Pretensions to the promised Dignity and Privileges of HUMAN NATURE, and that by Perseverance in the true Faith, and a continual Renewal of those inestimable Claims, from time to time, while we remain in this world, we may be as confident as the Apostle, that ‘neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor heighth nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from THE LOVE OF GOD, which is in CHRIST JESUS our Lord;’ because, through him, God has put it absolutely in our own Power (whatever our temporary Afflictions and Sufferings may be in this Life) to attain an "ETERNAL WEIGHT OF GLORY:" 2 Cor. iv. 17.—‘For which cause we faint not’ (‘though our outward man perish’) being fully persuaded that he, who PROMISED, is ‘able also to PERFORM. ’

The Defects of this Tract, wherever the Reader discovers any, are certainly to be attributed to the fallible Author, whose Name is prefixed; but whatever may seem praise-worthy, and instructive therein, to GOD ALONE!

"SOLI DEO, GLORIA ET GRATIA."

Notes

(1).

This answer to Mr. Thompson is confined to one kind of slavery only, viz. the oppression of private tyrants, or petty slaveholders, and has already been printed in America; and therefore I need not now repeat the arguments which it contains, especially as I propose soon to reprint it in England with some other tracts expressly against domestick slavery, such as is unlawfully tolerated in the British colonies.

↵

(2).

Servitus autem est constitutio Juris Gentium qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur." Justin. Institutes, Book 1. Tit. 3.

From whence the other authorities in the Common Law of England seem to be derived.

§ 2. Est quidem Servitus constitutio Juris Gentium qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur," &c. BRACTON, Lib. 1. Cap. 6.

"Est quidem Servitus libertati contrarium; item constitutio quaedam de Jure Gentium, qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur," &c. FLETA, Lib. 1. Cap. 3.

"Servitude is a constitution of the Law of Nations, by which, contrary to Nature, one is subjected to another's power." COWELL'S Institutes, Tit. 3.

↵

(3).
Hamburgh Edition 1618.
↵

(3).

That excellent English lawyer the Great Henry de Bracton informs us, that "Natural Law is that which Nature (or more properly God himself) has taught all animals." "Jus Naturale est quod Natura, i. e. ipse Deus, docuit omnia animalia," &c. and afterwards he further explains himself, saying, "Jus Naturale quod docuit omnia animalia Natura, i. e. per instinctum Naturae, &c. viz. Natural Law, which taught all animals by Nature that is, through the instinct of Nature," &c. Lib. 1. c. 5.

↵

(4).

"But of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii. 17.

↵

(5).

— Multi enim multa sciunt, et scipsos nesciunt: sed qui seipsum nescit nihil b•ne novit, quàm alia scire et se nescire, quid aliud est quam seipsum gravius condempnare, &c. Doct. & Stud. c. 13.

↵

(6).

In sorrow (or rather in labour) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the expression in the original; which, in the Targum, is explained by another Hebrew word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) signifying rather fatigue or labour, than sorrow; and as the necessity of man's labour was the more immediate consequence of the earth's new propensity, through the curse, to bring forth thorns, thistles, and useless weeds, it seems the most expressive rendering in this place, and most suitable to the context in the following verse: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." In the Vulgate also it is rendered, "in laboribus;" and by Pagninus, "in labore." The same word is also necescessarily rendered "Labours" in Isaiah lviii. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "and exact all your labours; and in Proverbs v. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth, and THY LABOURS be in the house of a stranger."

↵

(7).
Luke xiii. 7.
↵

(8).

"The Lord most High is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth." Psal. xlvii. 2. 7.

↵

(9).

For though God hath given the earth to the children of men, Psal. cxv. 16. yet "the EARTH IS THE LORD'S and the fulness thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein. Psal. xxiv. 1.

↵

(10).

For (the kingdom of heaven is) as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two," &c. "After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them," &c. Matth. xxv. 14. to 30. Give an account of thy stewardship: for thou mayest be no longer steward. Luke xvi. 2.

↵

(11).
Gen. iii. 19.
↵

(12).
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the Law. But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. xv. 56, 57.

↵

(13).
Hamburgh Edition 1618.
↵

(14).
What a profitable and convenient reduction might be made in the bulk and number of our Statute Books, (especially of the later volumes) upon a revisal conducted strictly according to this excellent rule!
↵

(15).
Hamburgh Edition 1618.
↵

(16).

We find a remarkable instance of the ‘Natural Dictates of Conscience,’ in the behaviour of ‘Tubourai Tamaide,’ (a poor uninstructed inhabitant of the remote island of Otaheite) when he was unjustly charged with stealing a knife. The story is related in the account of Capt. Cook's voyage (Vol. 2. p. 101.) and the singularity of the circumstances leads the writer to the following remark: ‘Upon this occasion it may be observed’ (says he) ‘that these people have a Knowledge of RIGHT and WRONG from the mere dictates of Natural Conscience; and voluntarily condemn themselves when they do that to others, which they would condemn others for doing to them. That Tubourai Tamaide felt the force of Moral Obligation is certain; for the imputation of an action which he considered as indifferent, would not, when it appeared to be groundless, have moved him with such excess of passion.’—But to what shall we impute the lamentable Change of PRINCIPLE in the same person, who was afterwards (on another occasion) absolutely convicted of theft? May not the licentious example of the English (whose criminal indulgences among the poor Indian women, proved that they had no fixed regard for that pure religion which they professed), have occasioned the corruption of the poor Heathen's morals, and natural Principles of Virtue? He was certainly become a worse man by his acquaintance with them!

↵

(17).

See Doct. et Stud. English version, 1668 and 1746. Dialogue 1. Cap. 13; but in the Latin copy of 1604, it is in the 11th Chapter.
Sinderesis est vis motiva seu potentia naturalis animae rationalis, quae semper est nata figi in superioribus partibus animae movens et stimulans ad BONUM, et abhorrens MALUM, &c.
Doct. et Stud. Cap. 11.

And again: ‘Sinderesis etiam est Principium quo ad speculativa et quo ad operativa; ’ (and therefore a "Principle of Action.") Exemplum de speculativis; ut omne totum est majus sua parte, quodlibet est, vel non est. Exemplum de operativis ut nullum MALUM est faciendum: BONUM est prosequendum, et similia. Et, ideo, Sinderesis dicitur à quibusdam Lex Rationis, quia principia Legis Rationis ministrat, quae ei insunt à Natura, &c. Ibid. Cap. 11.

↵

(18).

See Chap. 14. in the English versions of 1688 and 1746; but the 12th Chapter in the Latin original according to the Edition of 1604: Ratio, secundum Doctores, est ipsa vis animae rationalis quae consulit et discernit inter BONUM et MALUM et MELIUS comparando unum ad alterum, quae etiam virtutes eligit, et Deum diligit. Et dicitur non solum Cognitiva, sed etiam Motiva;" (and therefore a "Principle of Action.") "Cum autem judicat aliquid esse bonum vel malum et ibi sistit, sic dicitur Cognitiva: si vero ulterius procedat, indicando aliquid esse bonum ut fiat, vel malum ut evitetur, sic dicitur Motiva. Si vero adhuc amplius procedat et non solum indicat aliquid esse bonum ut fiat, sed etiam id fieri appetit, sic dicitur liberum arbitrium, nam liberum arbitrium apprehendit rationem, et voluntatem. &c. Cap. 12.

↵

(19).

Cap. 12. ‘De Ratione. Quando primus Homo creatus est percepit duplicem à Deo oculum. Exteriorem scilicet et Interiorem. Exteriorem carnis quo visibilia cerneret. Et interiorem Rationis quo invisibilia agnosceret atque divina: per illum carnis ut visibiles posset hostes aspicere, cognoscere, et vitare, per illum Rationis, ut spirituales hostes contra animam decertantes superare valeret,’ &c. Thus Englished in the Editions of 1668 and 1746, Chap. 14. Of Reason. ‘ When the first Man Adam was created, he received of GOD a double eye, that is to say, an outward eye, whereby he might see visible things, and know his bodily enemies, and eschew them; and an inward eye, that is, the eye of reason, whereby he might see his spiritual enemies that fight against his soul, and beware of them,’ &c.

↵

(20).

—per quam etiam Angelicam imitatur dignitatem à falso discernendo verum, et à bono malum. Quamobrem valde à sua degenerat origine quoties veritatem discernere negligit, atque malum bono preponit.
Ibid. c. 12.

↵

(21).

Sic Deus posuit Conscientiam in medio animae rationalis, tanquam Lumen quo discernet quid facere, vel non facere debeat.
Doct. et Stud. c. 13.

↵

(22).

The universal presence of God is most elegantly described by the Psalmist: ‘Oh! whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, surely the darkness shall cover me: even the night shall be light about me" (that is, with respect to God's knowledge of my thoughts and actions): yea, the darkness hideth not from thee, ’ &c. See the whole 139th Psalm. O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me, &c.

↵

(23).

Also, or moreover —The original word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in this place, on account of the context, seems more intelligible if rendered also, than "but;" which latter is the common version.

↵

(24).

But seems better to express the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, than the common rendering nevertheless, which gives a different turn to the sense.

↵

(25).

See also Revelation vi. 15, 16. ‘And the Kings of the Earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman ’ (for all will be equal in that tremendous day) ‘hid themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the mountains; and said, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?’

↵

(26).

—
They allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean (or for a little) escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them Liberty, they themselves are the Servants (or Slaves) of Corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in Bondage.
2 Pet. ii. 19, 20.

See also the remainder of the same chapter for the lamentable consequences of that wretched Bondage, the Service of Sin!

↵

(27).

Whosoever committeth Sin, is the Servant (or Slave) of Sin.
(John viii. 34.)

—
For the truth of this conclusion no further or better proof can be expected than our Saviour's authority.
Dr. Jackson, Book 10. Ch. 17.

↵

(27).

Est enim Lex nihil aliud, nisi RECTA et à numine Deorum tracta RATIO imperans honesta, prohibens contraria.
(Oratio Philippica 11. Vol. 2. p. 487.)

↵

(28).

A more remarkable instance of this perhaps was never known, than what my own grandfather experienced in his acquaintance with the Lord Chancellor Jefferies, who was, perhaps, the most abandoned time-server of those days (if we except his companion in iniquity, General Kirk (29). Dr. Sharp was as totally different and opposite to the Chancellor, in every part of his character, as it was possible for any man to be; yet the Chancellor entertained a very particular regard and esteem for him. He treated the Doctor very roughly indeed, when he had received his Royal Master's orders to prosecute him for preaching against Popery; but in every other point, which did not interfere with his time-serving principles and politicks, he was always ready to shew favour and kindness to Dr. Sharp, whenever he had an opportunity; and happy it was for him that he did so; for afterwards, in the time of his distress, when a just retribution of worldly trouble overtook him, (insomuch that he was not only a prisoner, expecting in his turn a severe execution of the Laws for his injustice and cruelty, but also grievously afflicted with the stone, and other diseases, in consequence of his former intemperance,) Dr. Sharp was the only person who afforded him any comfort in his misery; for he regularly visited the unhappy man in his confinement, and used his best endeavours to alleviate his distress, and prepare him for another world by advice and exhortation.

↵

(29).

‘It would not have been possible’ (says Rapin, speaking of Chancellor Jefferies and General Kirk) "for him" (King James the IId.)
to have found in the kingdom two men more void of all Religion, of all Honour, aad all Humanity. They were two tigers chafed with blood, who had no pleasure but in carnage.
Tom. 10. p. 30.

↵

(30).

Law of Nature and Nations, as translated by Basil Kennet. Oxford 1710. p. 109.

↵

(31).

‘And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them:) And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land; (for) they have heard that thou, LORD, (art) among this people; that thou, LORD, (art) seen face to face; and (that) thy cloud standeth over them, and (that) thou goest before them by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now (if) thou shalt kill (all) this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee, will speak, saying; Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now I beseech thee, let the power of my LORD be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The LORD is long suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing (the guilty,) visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth (generation.) Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt, even until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word.’ Numb. xiv. 13. to 20.

↵

(32).

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city, wilt thou also destroy, and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner; to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Gen. xviii. 23—25.

↵

(33).

Gen. xviii. 32. But alas, by the fatal catastrophe of all the nations in the plains of Sodom soon afterwards, and by the very small number of individuals that were found worthy of the divine warning to escape the national punishment, it is apparent that there were not even five righteous persons to be found in five royal cities.! (Gen. xiv. 2.) Horrible depravity!

↵

(34).

The text informs us, that ‘ KORAH gathered ALL THE CONGREGATION against them’ (Moses and Aaron) ‘unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,’ whereby the guilt of the congregation is manifest. Numb. xvi. 19.

↵

(35).

—‘the ground clave asunder that (was) under them: and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses,’ &c.

↵

(36).

‘And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin: and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book, which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ’ (Exod. xxxii. 31—33.)

↵

(36).

Meaning (probably) an exclusion from the temporal blessings promised in God's covenant; or perhaps the loss of life, both of which came upon him afterwards for his unguarded expressions on another occasion. Compare Numb. xx. 12. with Numb. xxvii. 12—14. Deut. iv. 37. and Psalm cvi. 32.

↵

(37).

‘Behold your house’ (said Christ)
is left unto you desolate.
Matt. xxiii. 38. Luke xiii. 35.

And again—‘When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand,’) said our Lord; ‘Then let them which be in Judea, flee unto the mountains,’ &c. ‘And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!’ &c.
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be.
Matt. xxiv. 15—21.

Under this severe ANATHEMA of national Misery, the unconverted part of the Jewish people might with propriety be accounted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accursed from the Messiah, being then separated, or excommunicated, as it were, from the immediate protection of the eternal "KING of ISRAEL," and by him publicly given up to temporal Vengeance; the Sufferings and Misery of which (and not the Reprobation which occasioned them) the patriotic Apostle would willingly have endured, if it were possible, in his own Person (for no otherwise could he wish to be separated from Christ, but in Sufferings; for the Love of Christ was unalienable:—See preceding Chapter, ver. 35 to 39.) if he could thereby have removed from his Nation this dreadful ANATHEMA of Christ's temporal Vengeance, which, at the time the Apostle wrote, was dreadfully impending! But whether this conjecture of mine be right or not, and whether the Anathema mentioned by the Apostle is to be understood as temporal, as eternal, or both; yet the same limitation with respect to the Love of Christ must necessarily be understood, viz. that ‘the Apostle wished he might perish’ (whether in this world or the next) ‘not as an Enemy of Christ, but as a Saviour of his Brethren,’ (agreeable to the remark of the learned Chrysostom) and as CHRIST himself also was

MADE A CURSE FOR US.
(Gal. iii. 13.)

See this point clearly stated by the Rev. Dr. John Sharp, in his ‘Symphonia Prophetarum et Apostolorum.’ Printed at Geneva in 1625.

↵

(38).

This example proves that KINGS and PRINCES are indispensably bound to exercise themselves daily and constantly in the study of the Holy Scriptures (agreeable to the command in Deut. xvii. 18—20. (39) lest they should inadvertently occasion any breach of GOD'S LAWS, and thereby draw down the Divine Vengeance upon themselves, as well as their unwary subjects; who are equally guilty, whenever they comply with an unlawful command.

↵

(39).
And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book, out of (that which is) before the Priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this Law, and these Statutes, to do them; that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand, or (to) the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children in the midst of Israel
↵

(39).

Some excellent arguments and very striking examples have been produced by the truly benevolent Mr. Brooke of Dublin, in his "Fool of Quality," to prove that Self-love is by no means ‘the universal Principle of Action.’

To quote the authority of a romance, in a Tract on the first Principles of Law, will perhaps, at first sight, give offence to many of my readers; but, for my excuse, I rely on the propriety of the arguments themselves, and the just application of the several real examples by which they are illustrated. I should never of my own accord, I confess, have consulted any work under the Form of a Novel for information of this kind; but the sentiments of this sensible author being pointed out to me by a worthy friend, I thought it would be injustice to my argument, if I neglected to refer my readers to the clear light which the worthy Author of the Fool of Quality has thrown upon the subject, when he makes his EARL OF MORELAND enquire ‘whence, how, by what means may a Man arrive at Happiness?—By getting out of himself, my Lord’—answered his worthy character MR. MEEKLY. ‘Out of himself, Mr. Meekly! you astonish me greatly. A contradiction in terms, unnatural, impossible! —GOD himself, my Lord, cannot make a Man happy in any other way, either here, or hereafter. It is, said the Earl, an established maxim among all thinking Men, whether Divines or Philosophers, that SELF-LOVE is the Motive to all Human Actions.—Virtue forbid! exclaimed Mr. Meekly; all Actions are justly held good or evil, base or honourable, detestable or amiable, merely according to their Motives. But if the Motive is the same in all, there is an end, at once, to the possibility of virtue; the cruel and the kind, the faithful and the perfidious, the prostitute and the patriot, are confounded together,’ &c.

He afterwards relates, in very striking terms, the well-known example of Damon and Pythias, whose inviolable FRIENDSHIP triumphed over SELF-LOVE, as well as over the cruel intentions of the Tyrant Dionysius.—Then follows the Author's excellent definition of the term SELF, wherein he demonstrates the necessity of overcoming SELFISHNESS by superior Principles originally communicated to our Nature by the Divine Intelligence; and he proves that such Principles have prevailed in the world, by reminding us of the ancient states of SPARTA and ROME, which ‘derived their lustre and power, their whole pre-eminence and praise’ (says he) ‘from this Principle of Communication, which, in them, was called LOVE OF COUNTRY. But this beatifying Principle’ (continues he) ‘was still more eminently instanced in the Society of THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM, who had all things in common; who imparted their possessions to all men, as every man had need; and thence did eat their common bread with gladness and singleness of heart, praising GOD, and having favour with all people,’ &c.

He afterwards mentions the instances of the Roman Regulus, and the Decii, as also that of ‘Leonidas, and his three hundred Spartans, who devoted their lives for THE LIBERTIES of Greece,’ &c. and, lastly, exemplifies ‘this DISREGARD OF SELF, the vital Source and Principle of every Virtue, in six Mechanics or Craftsmen of the city of Calais,’ when it was besieged by King Edward the 3d.

The whole argument, with the examples, are too long to be inserted here, but are highly worthy the reader's perusal.—See THE FOOL OF QUALITY, vol. 1. p. 117. —130.

↵

(39).

‘I have thought’ (says this Author) ‘and do think, and believe (which is somewhat more than a thought, it is a thought with the concurrence, approbation, and allowance of one's Reason) that the Soul of Man is immortal; and that the very Essence or substantial part of a Human Soul, disrobed of a Body, or subsisting of itself, is some restless working (however at some times invisible) affection; and that if those more noble faculties of our Soul (next and immediately under that bright heavenly Star) are the Pilots to conduct us unto rest, some affection (as it seems to me) is the chief Passenger in this frail and weak Vessel of the flesh. St. Paul, in that admirable Encomium of his of Charity, tells us, that it abides, when many other gifts fail. And if we shall know, as we are known, as he tells us in another place, there will be then little use of the Invention, Memory, Reason, or the like, which are but the Handmaids to knowledge. Neither can I rationally imagine, after return of the Soul to its place of rest, or for default thereof in its banishment to everlasting wandering, any use of other faculties than the affections, unless towards the exalting or heightening them in their several degrees, whether love and joy on the one side, or sorrow, fear, &c. on the other.’

‘The Soul of Man being an emanation from that DIVINE LOVE, must necessarily partake of it, LOVE; and not able at present by any natural light it has, to reach unto itself its proper object, lays hold on any thing, rather than seem to vanish or be extinct; and withal that it happens to have such several inclinations in man, while it is here, is surely by reason of some false imaginary light, or the want of a true one, and that we want both power and skill, in the setting or tuning some strings of the affections, as I may call them. And it is want of a clear inspect into our nature and frame, that we become, as David speaks, a stubborn generation, a generation that set not their hearts aright, and whose Spirit cleaveth not stedfastly to God. And I do further believe, that all the faculties, strength, and power of the Soul, which we have, are given us towards the performance of that first and great Commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with a•• thy mind: The whole Soul beside seems naturally subservient, if not subsequent, to the affections motion, and the motion of the Soul would be strange without them, and not imaginable; they being as necessary as they are useful. And therefore I think we may as well cease to be, by our own power, as cease to affect; and they who have gone furthest or most covertly herein, have in going about to hide some particular affections, shewed others more visibly; and for the covering of their joy or sorrow, fear or anger, or the like, have set up for predominant in their Soul, a seeming contempt of all things; which is an affection itself, and, for ought I know, as subject to be faulty as any. For surely the Soul may seem no less glorious in its march, with all its parts and retinue, than some of them; provided it marches the right way, and each faculty help and assist, and not go about to destroy each other.’ A VIEW OF THE SOUL. Sect. 5. pages 109, 110.

↵

(40).

—‘so bewitching is this infatuation, that though they cannot, most of them, but be sensible,’ (says Dr. Hales) ‘that they are manifestly shortening their days, and just plunging themselves into their graves; yet will they not refrain. This an eminent Physician was so sensible of, from his own unhappy experience, that he said, when Men had got a habit of it, THEY WOULD GO ON, THOUGH THEY SAW HELL-FIRE BURNING BEFORE THEM.’ ‘A Friendly Admonition to Drinkers of Gin, Brandy,’ &c By Stephen Hales, D.D. p. 14.

↵

(41).

‘THE DEVIL is not merely a name, which those who would sap the foundations of religion pretend religion has contrived to frighten timorous minds; nor is danger then only to be apprehended from him, when he is supposed to assume a bodily form: it is superstitious weakness to be afraid of him only when imbodied, and to neglect the secret and unseen influence, which his continual converse with us, as an unimbodied spirit, may have upon us. He and his angels are not yet cast into outer darkness, tho' it be prepared for them; the mouth of the bottomless pit is not yet closed over them: they fell from GOD, not so much by a local descent, as by mental apostasy and dissimilitude; and they have still this visible world, once the seat of their happiness and glory, to range in: they are, therefore, stiled by the Apostle spiritual wickednesses in high places; and their leader is called, The God of this World, The Prince of Darkness, The Prince of the power of the Air. Uncloathed and unimbodied spirits may converse with us by secret illapses, without our perception of the medium through which they act: even the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sound thereof; but cannot tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth. As there are Divine Illuminations communicated to the soul by THE GOOD SPIRIT OF TRUTH, so there are impure suggestions to the fancy made by The Evil Spirit of Darkness; and a watchful observer of his own heart, must have heard the frequent whispers both of The Voice of Wisdom and The Voice of Folly: he, from whose eyes a Heaven-born Faith in CHRIST has removed the scales of corruption, may easily discern The Calm Irradiations of Divine Light leading him to holiness and peace, and the foul and disturbed fires of Satan betraying him into sin and misery.’

‘But tho' our Enemy be invisible, and, on that account, more able to execute his malignant designs against us; yet let us not so dread his power, as to decline the contest. While our minds are constantly turned to That Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; while we desire it, and depend upon it, as The Light of Life; we shall always be able to know and to guard against the stratagems of the Apostate Spirit, whether he appears in his own naked deformity, or cloaths himself like an Angel of Light. A forced imitation will always fall short of the archetype: and tho' sin and falsehood may put on the mantle of Holiness and Truth; yet he, that is inwardly acquainted with The Truth as it is in JESUS, and ingenuously loves and pursues it, will be able to detect the imposture, and through the veil behold the blackness and malignity of the enemies to his peace.’ "Evangelical Discourses," by the worthy and ingenious Mr. John Payne. Discourse V. p. 121—124.

↵

(42).

‘The Original or Fundamental Temptation by which Satan draws men into the snare of Servitude, or bondage spiritual, is by enlarging or improving their desires, not of things simply evil, but of things either natural, or indifferent; that is, for their kind or quality not unlawful. These desires being improved unto the full, or unto some excessive measure, do, by long custom or continuance, require satisfaction by as strong a law of necessity (at least as importunately) as our natural desires of food or raiment do. The more excessive or exorbitant any desire is, the more impatient it is of repulse. It is as impossible for a greedy or ravenous Appetite to be satisfied with a spare or moderate diet, as for a moderate appetite to be satisfied without any food at all. A vain Fantastick, that takes proud cloaths to be Part of Himself, is as desirous of change of suits or costly apparel, as a poor man is of apparel itself, or of such stuff as is sufficient to keep out cold and wet. An ambitious Spirit is not so well content with an ordinary place or rank amongst Freemen, as an ingenuous mind will be with the estate or condition of an hired Servant; if no better by means fair and honest be likely to befal him. A Man apt to over-prize himself, and jealous withal of contempt, of wrong, or of gross abuse, is not so easily appeased with streams of blood, as a calm and gentle spirit is with an ingenuous acknowledgment of wrongs done, or with a courteous answer for wrongs suspected. The desire of wealth or worldly goods, after it hath once exceeded its lawful bounds, becomes as unsatisfiable as Hell. It enlargeth itself by often satisfaction, and of all earthly and mortal things, it knows no stint or period of growth, but grows strong and lusty by waxing old.’

‘ None of these desires of meat, of drink, of apparel, of satisfaction for wrongs done or suspected, of honour, riches, or preferment, are in themselves, or for their quality, unlawful. Their unlawfulness consists only in their excess. But even the best of these or like desires, being improved beyond its measure, will, for its private satisfaction, betray the Soul, which gives it harbour, into Satan's hands. He doth not, he need not tempt any man to be a thief, a robber, or a murtherer. For, (as St. James tells us, Chap. 1.14.) Every man is tempted (to these and the like crimes) by his own concupiscence, and our concupiscences and sensual desires are always increased by custom. He that hath long inured himself to exceed either in quality of meat or drink, or to fare deliciously, desires only to satisfy his appetite, or to observe his delightful custom: so these may be satisfied, he hath no desire to be a thief, to be a cheater, or couzener. But rather than his intemperate appetite should be unsatisfied, he will take himself to some other part of Satan's Service; and adventure on theft or murther, or any other breach of God's commandments.’ Dr. Jackson's Works, Vol. 3. p. 62.

↵

(43).

‘According to them’ (said Archbp. Sharp) ‘the Devil that is so often spoken of in the Scriptures, is nothing else but either a disease of the body, or a phantasm in the brain, or the wicked principles and inclinations of a man's heart. This is the doctrine of Mr. Hobbs, and his followers.’

‘But there cannot a vainer conceit enter into a man's head than this is. By the very same logic that they can prove this, they may likewise prove, that all those men that are spoken of in the Old and New Testament, were not real persons, but qualities. For it is certain, that the Devil is in the Scripture as much represented as a person, a real subsisting being, distinct from God and from good angels, and from mankind; I say, he is as plainly thus represented, as any man or woman, that is there mentioned, is. And he, for instance, that will say, that when our Saviour was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, all this was but a transaction of his imagination, and that it was only his own fancy that presented to his eyes all the kingdoms of the world, and that it was only his own fancy that set him upon a pinacle of the temple, and would have had him fallen down and worshipped it; I say, he that would give such an account as this, of that matter, may with the same reason say, that Jesus himself was but a phantasm, an imagination, and that there was never such a real person in the world.’

‘The Devil then has a real Being of his own, independent of us, or any other creature: and that Being is of the spiritual or angelic nature. As there are good spirits, and good angels, so there are evil spirits, and evil angels; and of this latter sort is the the Devil.’

‘But then, secondly, When we are speaking of the Devil, we are not to understand any one particular being, or any one particular evil spirit, but the whole aggregate, or company of evil spirits, which inhabit round about us in the lower regions of the air. All these are in the scripture language, and in common speech, called by the name of the Devil, and sometimes in the plural number, by the name of Devils.’

‘For the understanding this we are to know, that among that infinite and innumerable company of angels which God created in a happy and glorious condition, all of them did not continue in that primitive happiness: but several of them, by their wilful apostasy from God, forfeited that dignity and glory they were possessed of, and so depraved their natures, that they were incapable of dwelling any longer where they did before: but were, by the just vengeance of God, cast down into these lower regions of the air, where they are reserved by Providence, to the judgment and punishment of the great day.’

‘This is the plain account that the Scriptures give us as to this matter. Thus St. Jude in the 6th verse of his Epistle: The angels, saith he, that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, them hath God reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day. And just to the same purpose, and almost in the same words, doth St. Peter speak in the second chapter of his second Epistle, verse the fourth.’

‘These fallen angels now thus thrust down from heaven, tho' they do yet in a great measure retain all the intellectual accomplishments of the angelical nature, such as reason, and memory, and knowledge, yet are they in their moral qualities quite contrary to all the good angels; and particularly as to this, that as the good angels are infinitely kind and benign, great lovers of God and of mankind, and most intirely disposed to do all good offices to them whatsoever; so the nature of those fallen angels is cruel and revengeful, full of hatred, and spite, and malice to God, and to his whole creation; and upon account of this, the Scripture hath given to them the name of Satan or Devil, which two words (as all that understand the learned languages know) signify neither more nor less than an adversary, or an accuser, or calumniator. The one being the Hebrew word for it, and the other the Greek word. And indeed it is, with reference to this enmity to mankind, that most of these names and characters, that they bear in Scripture, are bestowed upon them. Upon this account it is, that the Devil is called a murderer, a deceiver, a lyar, and the father of lyes, the destroyer, the old serpent, the great dragon, with sundry other such appellations. But then, tho' these names being put in the singular number, seem to denote some single evil spirit, that bears ill-will to mankind; yet we are always to remember, that they are to be expounded collectively, that is to say, to signify the whole body of these apostate spirits, of which there are a vast number: I say, the whole body of them; for that these lapsed angels are formed into a body politic, or government, or kingdom, is plainly enough intimated in the New Testament: for there we meet with the kingdom of darkness, in opposition to the kingdom of light; and there we meet with the prince of the Devils as the chief of them; who is likewise by St. Paul called, The god of this world, and the prince of the power of the air. Under whom also, as in other societies, there are many subordinate officers, as St. Paul seems to intimate in the 6th of the Ephesians; where, among the wicked spirits in heavenly places (that is, in the air, as Grotius, with the ancients, rightly expounds it) that he saith we wrestle against, he makes mention in the plural number of principalities and powers, and other rulers of the darkness of this world.’

‘This is the Scripture account of these matters. I must confess, it may seem a very odd thing to some, that there should be in the world a society of such spirits, as are confessedly endowed with all the knowledge and subtilty of the angelical nature, and yet are so horribly degenerated in their morals, as to take pleasure in every thing that is naught, and even in ruining mankind, if they could. But that it is really possible that there should be such beings, doth in some measure appear from the prodigious instances of the depravation of reasonable natures, that we sometimes see among ourselves; there being men of excellent parts and endowments to be found, that do sometimes so far degenerate from human kind, that for all manner of wickedness and malice, they may be rather called Devils than men. But that it is more than possible, that there are a race of such spirits, as do malign the welfare of mankind, and take pleasure in making fools, and wretches, and slaves of them, is too evident, both from all the histories of past ages, and from the sad experience of some nations at this day; who (if we may credit the histories that are writ of them) do miserably groan under the violences and tyranny of the Devil. But however, no one that acknowledgeth the truth of the Scripture, can possibly doubt of this; for what I have now delivered, is so plainly affirmed in the Old and New Testament, that there is no evading of it. And indeed, this hypothesis of the being of evil spirits, and their ill will to mankind, and their concerning themselves continually to do us mischief, is so interwoven with, and makes so considerable a part of the scheme of, our religion, as it is delivered by Christ and his Apostles, that we cannot deny the one, without much weakening, if not altogether overthrowing, the other. ’ Archbishop Sharp's Sermons, Vol. 3. p. 60—65.

↵

(44).

But the place of torment, or Hell, after the day of Judgment, must necessarily signify a real Place of material Fire, because all Men are to rise again with their Bodies (46), and consequently will be capable of bodily punishment; for it is not the Soul alone, but the whole Body of the unrepenting Sinner, that will be
cast into Hell (47);
and as Human Bodies after the Resurrection will be incorruptible (48) or everlasting, so, of course, they will be capable of everlasting bodily punishment in ‘the fire that never shall be quenched: where THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, and the Fire is not quenched.’ (Mark ix. 45, 46.) and this FIRE (which must be a material Fire, as Bodies are to be punished in it) is the very same FIRE that is ‘prepared for the Devil and his Angels’ (48), and consequently we may be assured, that the latter, though Spirits, will also be rendered as capable, as the Human Bodies, of feeling the perpetual torment of that Fire. And lastly, it is not improbable, that even this Terrestial Globe, on which the worldly-minded seem to place their whole desire and happiness, may hereafter become that very Hell, or place of future punishment both for wicked Men and Devils, since it has so long been the seat both of Human and Diabolical wickedness; for Moses seems to intimate, in his prophetical song, that there is a worldly Hell—‘a Fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn UNTO THE LOWEST HELL ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘and shall consume the earth, with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.’ (Deut. xxxii. 22.) Commentators generally remark indeed, that HELL is mentioned here only as a Type or Metaphor of the most extreme temporal misery, or sufferings in this life, agreeable to the tenor of the subject carried on in the following verses, yet the having recourse to such a Metaphor certainty implies a real idea of Hell, and of the future destruction of the world BY FIRE; for otherwise the recital of these circumstances, even as Metaphors or Types, would be useless and unintelligible. It may be objected, indeed, that the present world will be consumed, or (agreeable to the literal expression of the Hebrew in this text) EAT by the Fire; which is also foretold by the Apostle Peter—that
the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up.
(2 Pet. iii. 10.)

So that the Earthly FIRE must, at length, CEASE for want of materials, if all earthly things are to "be burned up," and to "pass away" (49) in fire and smoke! Whereas the "Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels," is expressly declared to be an everlasting Fire. (Matth. xxv. 41.) Yet these last considerations will afford no just objection to what I have before suggested, because THE ALMIGHTY can surely render the Fire perpetual, by a continual accession of new materials, as the old are consumed (or by a variety of other means, which, like most other operations of Providence, are infinitely above human comprehension) agreeable to the intimation of the Prophet Isaiah, tho' the same is also given as a Metaphor of extreme temporal sufferings—viz. ‘and the STREAMS thereof shall be turned into PITCH, and the DUST thereof into BRIMSTONE, and the LAND thereof shall become BURNING PITCH. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever,’ &c. Isaiah xxxiv. 9, 10.

↵

(46).
And (though) after my skin (worms) destroy this (Body) yet IN MY FLESH shall I see God. Job xix. 26.
↵

(47).

If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy WHOLE BODY should be cast into Hell.
Matt. v. 20.30.

↵

(48).

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.
1 Cor. xv. 53.

↵

(48).

Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels.
Matt. xxv. 41.

↵

(49).
Heaven and Earth shall PASS AWAY, but my words shall NOT PASS AWAY.

Matt. xxiv. 35. See also chap. v. 18. and Luke xvi 17.

↵

(45).

And the Angels, which KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting Chains under Darkness unto the Great Day.
Jude 6.

↵

(46).

God hath declared, indeed, by his Prophet Isaiah (c. xlv. 7.) ‘I FORM the Light, and CREATE DARKNESS: I make Peace, and CREATE EVIL. I the LORD DO ALL THESE (Things). ’ But ‘the latter part of this sentence’ (says the learned Dr. Louth, Prebend of Winchester in 1714) ‘explains the former: LIGHT being often put for Happiness, and DARKNESS for Adversity. The sense is’ (continues the Doctor) ‘that all the vicissitudes of good or ill success are to be ascribed to Providence: God sets up one kingdom, that of CYRUS, and pulls down another, the BABYLONIAN monarchy.’ (Commentary on Isaiah, p. 367.) To the same effect is the Paraphrase of the learned DEODATI, viz. ‘I am the cause of all Goodness and Prosperity through my BENIGNITY: as likewise by my JUSTICE I am Author of afflictions, punishments, and calamities.’ And indeed Commentators in general agree, that the EVIL here to be understood is not the EVIL of Sins and Vices, (‘modo hic excludas PECCATA et VITIA, quae sunt ex homine,’ says the learned Vitringa) but the EVIL of Afflictions, Sicknesses, subjection to foreign enemies, and all other external or bodily Sufferings, whereby mankind are either proved and tryed, that they may thereby set forth due examples of Faith and Patience to others, or else are punished and chastised according to the just dispensation of GOD'S Providence in the government of the world. Nevertheless, GOD both proves and punishes mankind, even by internal Evil: for as the supreme direction and controul of all things whatsoever belong absolutely to GOD ALONE, he is said in Scripture to DO, what he only PERMITS upon just occasions (50), by withdrawing his restraining Grace from man, and giving him up entirely to the bent of his own inclination (51), or by ceasing to restrain the power of spiritual deceivers (52). Hence arises the necessity of our daily prayer—‘Lead us not into TEMPTATION, but deliver us from EVIL, ’ notwithstanding that we are assured by the Apostle James, that GOD "TEMPTETH NONE" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘but EVERY MAN is tempted when he is drawn away of his OWN LUST, and enticed. Then’ (says he) ‘when LUST hath conceived, it bringeth forth SIN: and SIN, when it is finished, bringeth forth DEATH. ’ (Jam. i. 13—15.) This latter text teaches us how we are to comprehend and limit such expressions as that above quoted from the Lord's Prayer.

↵

(50).

As when men wilfully forsake GOD's Laws and Religion, preferring temporal gratifications to Justice, Righteousness, and Truth! Such a gross abuse of the natural Knowledge of Good and Evil is presumptuous Sin; and "he that committeth SIN is of the DEVIL. (1 John iii. 8.) But if God permits men to be ensnared by the delusions of the DEVIL ‘after the working of SATAN, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness in them that perish’—a plain reason is assigned for such permission—‘because they received not the love of the TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE A LYE! that they all might be damned (or judged) who believed not the TRUTH, but had pleasure in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.’ (2 Thess. ii 9—12.)

↵

(51).

‘ GOD also GAVE THEM UP to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, &c. And again—GOD GAVE THEM UP unto vile affections.’ And again ‘ GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a reprobate mind,’ &c. For all which plain reasons are given, shewing that the wilful wickedness of man is the one foundation or first cause of God's deserting, or thus GIVING THEM UP ‘so that they are without excuse:’ (says the Apostle Paul) ‘Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, &c. WHEREFORE GOD also GAVE THEM UP to uncleanness through the lusts of their OWN HEARTS, ’ &c. (See Romans i. 20—32.) and even God's own servants may sometimes be deserted or left to themselves for a time, as King Hezekiah was upon a particular occasion, when the ambassadors came to him from Babylon ‘to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land;’ for then ‘ GOD LEFT HIM, to try him, that he might know all’ (that was) in his heart. 2 Chron. xxiii. 31. That is (according to the Dutch annotation) ‘that God might make known to HISKIA, and to all the Church, what was in his heart. For God made tryal of him for a while by the forementioned desertion, that he might know himself, and out of the sense and feeling of his own weakness and impotency, might have cause to HUMBLE HIMSELF; and that all believers beholding their own weakness and infirmity in him, might work out their own salvation with fear and trembling’ And accordingly we road, that
HEZEKIAH HUMBLED HIMSELF for the pride of his heart, both he, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.
2 Chron. xxxii. 26.

This example affords a clear illustration of the true sense in which God may be said to "tempt," or to "lead into temptation" viz. GOD LEFT HIM, to try him," &c.

↵

(52).

When the Divine vengeance and retribution was to be poured upon the wicked King Ahab, he was GIVEN UP to the delusion of wicked spirits—‘And the Lord said, Who shall persuade AHAB, that he may GO UP AND FALL at Ramoth Gilead? &c. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a LYING SPIRIT IN THE MOUTH OF ALL HIS PROPHETS. And he said, Thou shalt persuade and prevail also: go forth and do so.’ Wherefore the true Prophet Micaiah told Ahab—‘Behold the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy Prophets,’ &c. (1 Kings xxii. 20—23.) Here the effects of God's permission is plainly considered as the act of God; for the spirit, being rendered free to act agreeable to its own wicked principles upon the persons mentioned, effected the purpose of the Divine Justice and Retribution upon Ahab. Thus the very Devils are used as instruments to fulfil the eternal Justice and Judgment of the Almighty upon the unrighteous; and in such cases may properly be said to become the "Principles of Action" in Man!

↵

(47).

GOD is Light, and in him is NO DARKNESS at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in DARKNESS, we lye, and do not the Truth: but if we walk in the LIGHT, as he is in the LIGHT, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of JESUS CHRIST his Son cleanseth us from all Sin.
1 John i. 5—7.

↵

(48).
FOR SATAN HIMSELF is transformed into AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.

2 Cor. xi. 14.

↵

(49).

The Apostle Paul apparently means these wicked Angels or Spirits, when he warns us
against POWERS, against the RULERS of the DARKNESS of this world.
Ephes. vi. 12.

And elsewhere they are spoken of collectively, as "THE POWER OF DARKNESS." ‘Giving thanks unto the FATHER ’ (says the same Apostle)
which hath made us to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in LIGHT: who hath delivered us from THE POWER OF DARKNESS, and hath translated (us) into the kingdom of his dear Son.
Col. i. 12, 14.

— "This is your hour" (said our Lord to the chief priests and elders of the Jews who came to apprehend him) and THE POWER OF DARKNESS." Luke xxii. 53. The Power of Death hath also been attributed to the same malignant Spirits; for Christ took upon himself our Nature, Flesh and Blood—‘that through DEATH he might destroy him that had THE POWER OF DEATH, that is, THE DEVIL, and deliver them, who, through fear of DEATH, were all their life-time subject to BONDAGE. ’ Heb. ii. 14, 15.

↵

(50).
2 Pet. ii. 4.
↵

(51).
Jude 6.
↵

(52).

And the Angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting Chains under DARKNESS, unto the Judgment of the Great Day.
Jude 6.

↵

(53).

THE PRINCE of the Power of the Air, THE SPIRIT that now worketh in the children of disobedience.
Eph. ii. 2.

Now shall the Prince of this world be cast out.
John xii. 31.

—Beelzebub the PRINCE of the Devils.
Matt. xii. 24—27.

↵

(54).

Having in a former note, at p. 131, made some remarks concerning the probability that the present Terrestrial Globe (on which the greater part of mankind seem to place their whole interest and desire) will hereafter become the region of EVERLASTING FIRE, or Hell, I have since had the satisfaction to find, on a further examination of that point, that the same opinion hath been long ago decisively asserted by my own grandfather, in a sermon concerning "the manner of the day of judgment;" and though I could wish my readers to peruse the whole sermon, yet I must beg leave to lay before them a short extract from it, which is much to my present purpose.—‘The second particular’ (says he) ‘which the Scriptures acquaint us with concerning the general judgment, is this; that the earth shall then be set on fire, and that in the most terrible manner imaginable. Whether this general conflagration will happen upon Christ's coming to judgment, or rather will be the last transaction of the judgment, the Scripture doth not declare. But that there shall be such a conflagration, and that THIS FIRE SHALL BE FOR THE EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT BOTH OF THE DEVIL AND WICKED MEN, WHO WILL ALL BE TUMBLED DOWN INTO THESE LOWER REGIONS, WHICH WILL THEN BE A PERFECT LAKE OR SEA OF FIRE (as the Scripture expresseth it, Rev. xix. 20.) is beyond all doubt. To this purpose let us observe what the Apostle says, The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, to take vengeance of them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thess. i. 7.’

‘But more expresly this conflagration of the world is taught us in the second Epistle of St. Peter, Chap. iii. 6, 7. where the Apostle tells us, that as the world which was of old perished by an universal deluge of water, so the heavens and the earth which are now, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. From whence it is plain, that at the day of judgment this world shall be set on fire, and that fire shall be for the punishment of ungodly men. Furthermore, in the verses following, he adds to the same purpose, The day of the Lord shall come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up, ver. 10.’

‘If any one be at a loss to conceive how the heavens should be set on fire as well as the earth, as St. Peter three times in this chapter affirms they shall be; the difficulty will be removed by considering that the heavens here spoken of, are not those heavens in which stars are, (in which signification we commonly use that word) but the sublunary heavens, viz. those lower regions of the air, wherein are the clouds and vapours and other meteors, which are here called the elements, and in which sense the heavens are frequently taken in holy Scripture. Now these heavens, together with all that is in them, shall at that day pass away with a crackling noise of fire, and the earth, and all the things in it, shall be put in flames. David tells us, that upon the wicked God shall rain fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup, Psalm xi. 6. And our Saviour intimates the same, when he tells us, as in the day when Lot went out of Sodom, it it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all; so shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed, Luke xvii. 29, 30.’

And now who can express the horror and confusion that shall be at that day? Who can fancy so sad and dismal a face of things, as shall then be all the world over? Could we imagine ourselves to be present, when the whole frame of nature is upon the point of dissolution, and the whole world in flames about our ears, with what terror and amazement should we be filled? How would our hearts fail us, and our joints be loosed, and our knees smite against each other, Dan. v. 6. unless we were sure we were in the number of those who should be wafted up to meet the bridegroom with comfort? Oh, what will then become of all impenitent sinners! What will become of all worldly, sensual, ambitious, voluptuous men, who set up their rest in this world, and mind nothing but their ease, and the gratification of their appetites, or the pursuit of their secular interests! When they shall see all that they loved, all that they admired, all that they delighted in, gone, irrecoverably gone in a moment! Lastly, what will become of all those bold profane persons, who entertained all discourses of a future judgment only with scoffs and derision! Oh, how will they find themselves abused, and see, to their great amazement, what they would never before believe, that there is a reward for the righteous, that there is indeed a God that judgeth the earth!
Ps. lviii. 11. Archbishop Sharp's Sermons, Vol. 6. p. 184—186. 3d. Edit.

↵

(55).

Thus the reprobate Judas was mentioned, even by our Lord himself, (who knew the wilful wickedness of his avaricious heart, John vi. 64.[*] and that he was a thief, John xii. 6.) was mentioned, I say, in express terms, as being A DEVIL—"Have not I chosen you twelve (said our Lord to his disciples) "and one of you is A DEVIL." John vi. 70. The MAN, indeed, was the work of the benevolent Creator, but he became A DEVIL by the operation of his own mind, assisted by the spiritual Influence of SATAN, whom he neglected to resist (thus wilfully abusing the divine hereditary Knowledge of Good and Evil within himself) and of course partook of the Diabolical Nature; which will, most certainly, be the unhappy case of every other Man, who, in like manner, neglects that necessary Resistance to SATAN, and his own predominant passions, whereby he is rendered a Slave to habitual Sin!

↵

*
For JESUS knew, from the beginning, who they were that believed not, and who should betray him,

John vi. 64.

↵

(56).
GOD is LIGHT, and in him is no DARKNESS at all.

1 John i. 5.

↵

(58).
I am the Way, and the TRUTH, and the Life.

John xiv. 6.

↵

(59).
He (the Devil) was a MURDERER from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him.

John viii. 44.

↵

(60).

GOD is Love.
1 John iv. 8.

For the LORD (Jehovah) is good: his MERCY IS EVERLASTING, and his TRUTH endureth to all generations.
Psa. c. 5.

↵

(61).

The above remarks are principally intended for the use of those persons who disbelieve the Reality of Spiritual Influence; but there are some people (and worthy people too) who are apt to fall into a contrary Extreme concerning Spiritual Adversaries: I mean those persons, who, through bodily disorders, are subject to low Spirits and religious Melancholy, whereby they are led to conceive, ‘either that GOD has forsaken them, and left them to themselves, or that it is the DEVIL that is always busy about them, and raiseth those tumults and disturbances in their minds.’ And as this unhappy case of RELIGIOUS MELANCHOLY may be esteemed an Affection of the Mind, as well as of the Body, it certainly relates to my present subject, and seems worthy of as much notice in this tract, as most other Affections of the Human Mind which I have mentioned; but I am precluded from offering any remarks of my own upon it, by the writings of my grandfather, who has already treated this case so fully, so judiciously, and so satisfactorily for the comfort of such persons as may happen to want advice thereupon, that it would be superfluous to add any thing more than a reference to those parts of his works where the subject is examined and discussed. See Archbishop Sharp's Sermons, Vol. 3. Serm. 2. p. 21. and indeed all the Sermons collected in that Volume are on such points as are most liable to perplex and disturb the minds of persons subject to low Spirits and religious Melancholy; and the several difficulties are explained in such easy and natural arguments, as cannot fail to instruct and remove the doubts of every attentive reader.

↵

(62).
Ye are of your Father the Devil, and the lusts of your Father ye will do: He was a Murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a Lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a Liar, and the Father of it.

John viii. 44.

↵

(63).

I have been informed by an Englishman, who lived many years amongst the Indians in the internal parts of North America, very far to the westward, (and who is himself tatooed with all the marks of distinction common to the nations with whom he has had any connections) that he once saw a party of Indians (who had taken some prisoners in war) tatoo a couple of their unfortunate captives with the most curious marks they could devise, and afterwards hang them up upon a tree, as a sacrifice to that infernal Being which they worshipped, saying at the same time in their language, that they hoped those two fine Men (viz. finely tatooed) whom they presented, would be acceptable to him; for though the Indians in general acknowledge that there is a God, whom they call the Great and Good Spirit, yet, through the delusions of the Devil, they think it more profitable to worship Evil Spirits by way of propitiation, lest they should hurt them.

‘Outre l'idée du premier Estre qu'ont les Sauvages,’ (says Father Lafitau, speaking of the American Savages)
et qu'ils confondent avec le Soleil, ils reconnoissent encore plusieurs Esprits ou Genies d'un Ordre inferieur, que les Iroquois nomment Hondatkon-Sona, c'est-à-dire, Esprits de toutes Sortes. Le nombre n'en est point determiné, leur imagination leur en fait voir dans toutes les choses naturelles, mais encore plus dans celles, dont les ressorts leur sont inconnus, qui sont extraordinaires, et qui ont quelque air de nouveauté. Quoiquils leur donnent en general le nom d'Esprit, d'Okki, ou de Manitou, qui leur sont des noms communs avec le premier Estre, ils ne les confondent pourtant jamais avec cet Estre superieur, et ne leur donnent jamais certains noms particuliers, qui le designent lui seul, tel que sont les noms Chemiin, Areskoui. Ces Esprits sont tous des Genies subalternes; ils reconnoissent même dans la plûpart un charactere mauvais, plus porté à faire du mal que du bien; ils ne laissent pas d'en être les Esclaves, ET DE LES HONORER PLUS QUE LE GRAND ESPRIT, qui de sa nature est BON, mais ils les honorent par un effet de cette crainte servile, qui a le plus contribué à maintenir la superstition et l'idolatrie, que l'Ecriture Sainte appelle pour cette raison une Servitude; ainsi ils sont veritablement idolatres.
Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains, Tom. 1. p. 145, 146.

↵

(64).

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to SEDUCING SPIRITS, and DOCTRINES OF DEVILS; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY (and commanding) TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim. iv. 1—3.

↵

(65).

The celebrated Venetian Father MARK PAUL, in the account of his Travels through the East, speaking of the territories of the Great Cham of Tartary, informs us, that there are MANY MONKS appointed to the worship of idols, who have a great MONASTERY. Inveniuntur in Regione illa PLURIMI MONACHI, idolorum cultui deputati: habent hi MONASTERIUM quoddam magnum, &c. Novus Orbis Regionum ac Insularum, &c. p. 360. See also p. 385 of the Pagan Monks and Monastery at the city Caigui.

Mr. Isbrants Ides, who was Envoy Extraordinary from their Czarian Majesties John and Peter Alexowitz, in 1692, to the Court of China, speaking of the town of Jekutskoi, on the river Angara, which rises from the lake of Bakal, says, ‘On one side of this town, likewise, there stands a FINE MONASTERY, or CONVENT, on that particular spot where the river JAKUT, from whence it derives its name, empties its waters into the ANGARA. ’ Extract from Mr. Isbrants Ides Travels, inserted in the English edition of Mons. Le Brun's Travels, p. 165.—In the following page mention is made of the Mongulian Devotees; and he describes a Mongulian NUN, as well as a LAMA or Priest [*]; from whence it is natural to conclude, that the monastery or convent beforementioned belonged to one or the other of these orders. They both kept their account of their vain repetitions and numerous prayers, by Strings of Beads, like our Popish Christians [*]; and though we have no account that the ancient Heathen used BEADS, yet they were certainly equally distinguished by their numerous prayers and repetitions (for which alone the Beads are used); as our Lord himself testified— ‘ But when ye pray (said he) use not VAIN REPETITIONS, AS THE HEATHEN DO: for they think that they shall be heard for their MUCH SPEAKING. Be not ye therefore like unto them, ’ &c. Matt. vi. 7, 8.

↵

*

‘Whilst the envoy resided in this place, he met with a Taischa, that is to say, a Mongulian, or Mogulian lord, who had th•own himself under the shelter and protection of the Czar of Moscovy, and had been for some time a proselyte to the Christian faith, and received a member of the Greek church.’

‘This young nobleman had a sister, who was a Mongulian nun, and was greatly inclined to become a Christian c•nvert, a• well as her brother. In conversation upon that serious and important topic, she would ingenuously acknowledge, that the God in whom the Christians put their trust and confidence, must of necessity, in her opinion, be an omnipotent God indeed; since he had expelled their Mongulian deity out of paradise; but she was firmly persuaded, that a time would come, when he should be restored,’ (a proof this that the MONGULIAN NUNS are Pagans) "and never be subject to the like disgrace again.

‘When any of these NUNS, or MONGULIAN DEVOTEES enter into a room, they never salute any person present whomsoever, tho' 'tis a customary thing with their ladies, who live under no restraint; since their order is too strict to approve of such formal a•ts of complaisance. IN HER HAND SHE HELD A STRING OF BEADS, which she coun•ed over and over with her fingers; and was attended by a MONGULIAN PRIEST, whom they cal•ed a Lama, WHO HELD IN HIS HAND LIKEWISE A STRING OF BEADS, which he kept constantly counting with her, and at the same time visibly moved his lips, like one deeply engaged in private contemplation, AS IS CUSTOMARY AMONGST THE MONGULIANS, AS WELL AS THE CALMUCS. This priest, by the incessant practice of this branch of devotion, had wore his thumb, his nail, and the joints of his fingers to that degree, that he had perfectly lost the sense of all feeling in them.’ Le Brun's Travels, p 166.

↵

*

In the account of the Dutch Embassy to the Great Cham of Tartary (Ann. 1655 to 1657) where the author describes the idolatrous Chinese priests, (pars ultima, p. 54,) it appears that some of them use Be•ds, and are also, in many other respects, like the Romish Priests, as that they fill their chapels with statues; they abstain from flesh, but not all; however, ‘ such crimes ’ (says the author, meaning such crim•s as the eating of flesh) ‘are easily pardoned for money;’ and, like them, ‘they boast that the souls of the dam•ed are redeemed from hell by their prayers:’ some live by begging, others live in caves and mountains, but ‘the greatest part in MONASTERIES ’ Some of them have ‘a long black robe and square cap, and walk with a Pater-nefter or Rosary, ’ (that is, a string of beads) in their hands. The women or NUNS have separate monasteries, shave their hair, and REJECT MARRIAGE; and the priests of the sect of Lauzu profess celibacy, and live in monasteries. ‘Caeremonias fere instar Romanensium habent. Horas suas plane more Gregoriano cantillando recitant. Pagodas suos et SACELLA STATUIS REPLENT.’—‘CARNIBUS, ET QUAE VIVUNT, ABSTINENT, sed non omne•, et talia peccata sacile argento condonant, jactantque damnatorum animas suis se precibus ab inferis redimere p•sse.’ ‘Capillos continue abradunt Alii mendicando vagantur, alii in speluncis et montibus vivunt; maxima pars vitam in COENOBIIS SACELLORUM agunt,’ &c.—Vestitus eorum dispar, ut ex quatuor iconibus (referring to the picture in p. 65.) videri potest. Aliqui, ut primus ad laevam (on the left side of the plate) longa nigra toga, quadrato pileo, PATER NOSTER, aut ROSARIUM MANU TENENTES, incedunt.—Habent foeminae separata monasteria, quae et ipsae capillos radunt, CONJUGIUM REPUDIANT et sinice Nicu vocantur. Tertiae Sectae Lauzu quidam Confutii coaetaneus auctor, &c. (of whose followers, he says, in the next sentence) HI IN COENOBIIS CAELIBESVIVUNT, &c. pars ultima, p. 54, 55. And lest the testimony of my Dutch author (who is nevertheless very respectable) should be called in question by any partial bigot of the Romish church, I must beg leave to add a similar testimony even of a learned Jesuit (Athanasius Kircher) who, in his China Illustrata, p. 154, makes particular mention of a MONASTERY of idolatrous Chinese Priests, or Bonzes at the city of Camsan; and in his account of the Japanese idols, p. 139, he informs us, that the Japanese believe that their idol Amida requires nothing of them to incline him to save them, except a FREQUENT REPETITION of the word, Namu, Amida, Buth, that is, "Happy Amida, save us" (Compare this with the vain repetitions of the Popish Rosary.) And when they repeat these words, they also use their Rosaries, or Strings of Prayer Beads, which the Japanese (says he) have in common with the Christians, and which are commonly painted in the hands of their idols, as you see (says he) in the annexed picture, which shews the representation of AMIDA, and every way corresponds with the figure of PUSSA, the goddess of the CHINESE.—Illos huic idolo tantum tribuere, ut ad salvandum se nihil aliud requiri credant, nisi frequentem horum verborum repetitionem: NAMU, AMIDA, BUTH, hoc est, Felix Amida, salva nos. Quae verba identidem repetunt, Rosaria sua, seu coronas e globuiis precatoriis confectas gerunt, quas Japo ••• communes habent cum Christianis, et in idolorum manibus fere depinguntur, uti h•c imagi•e adjuncta vides, quae imaginem Amidae, refert, et Pussae Sinarum Deastrae undequaque respondet ut postea videbitur. See the plate at p. 154, where Pussa is represented holding a Rosary in one of her many hands. And in the picture of the Great Lama, the same author represents him holding a String of Beads in his right hand, p. 73: and the priest which attends the idol Menipe is represented in the plate at p 131 and 145, with a string of Prayer Beads hanging from his girdle after the Popish Fashion.

↵

(66).

Adversary—The name for an Adversary, Hater, or Enemy, is Satan (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which name was generally applied by the Jews to the Spiritual Enemy in particular; and it is remarkable, that many of the Heathen Tartars worship the Devil under that very name to this day.

The author last quoted, respecting the Tartar Devotees, tells us, in page 152, concerning the idols of the Ostiachs, that ‘these idols are called SAITANS, a name which seems to derive its origin from SATAN, the arch fiend of Hell.’ And in page 186, speaking of the people of BARABINSY, who are a kind of CALMUCS, he says—‘When they traverse the woods, in order to hunt down their game, they take their Saitan, as they call it, along with them; which is an image made of wood, inelegantly carved with a knife only, and covered with a parti-coloured stuff, not unlike that which is frequently worn by the female Russians. This idol, or Saitan, of theirs is inclosed in a box, which is carried upon a particular sledge; and to this their god they offer up the first-fruits of their chace, be it what it will, without any exception.’

‘When they prove more successful than they could reasonably expect, and when safely arrived at their respective cabbins, this Saitan, or idol, is deposited in the most conspicuous part of their tent, or hut, in its proper box, and covered over with the finest furs they are masters of, by way of grateful acknowledgment of the great success they have met with through their means; and there they are left untouched till they are grown rotten and worthless in process of time; for they are firmly convinced, that they should be guilty of the most heinous sin of sacrilege, should they strip them of those robes, or apply them to any other purpose whatsoever.’

↵

(67).
The young women here used to prostitute themselves to such strangers as came ashore, in order to raise money for their portions.

Univ. Hist. Vol. 8. p. 239.

↵

(68).
—for there she had a temple as the Venus of Adonis: and there such women as would not conform to the custom of shaving their heads, at the annual time of lamenting Adonis, were bound to prostitute their bodies, one entire day, for hire; and the money thus earned was presented to the Goddess.

Univ. Hist. Vol. 2. p. 342.

↵

(69).

"There sat women weeping for TAMMUZ," Ezek. viii. 14. ‘Whoever he was’ (i. e. Thammuz) ‘the superstition of mourning over him was universally practised by the women in those parts,’ (speaking of the country of the Phoenicians, or land of Canaan.)
They began their lamentations at a stated time: they set up their outcries as soon as they perceived the river Adonis to appear of a bloody hue, as at certain times it did [*]. The lamentations of a mother for the loss of her only son could not be more loud, or tender: they then proceeded TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE DEAD, having first DISCIPLINED THEMSELVES WITH WHIPPING;
(which practices haye since been revived by THE CHURCH OF ROME, at the instigation, without doubt, of the same spiritual Author)
and the next day, pretending him to be revived, and ascended through the air to the upper regions, they shaved their heads, as the Egyptians did for the loss of Apis; and at Byblus, at least, those who would not comply, were bound to PROSTITUTE THEMSELVES in the manner and for the purposes above specified.
Univ. "Hist. Vol. 2. p. 345.

↵

*

‘The cause of this red face of the river was anciently known; and, by those who were not so superstitious, as the rest of their cotemporaries and countrymen, ascribed to a kind of Minium, or red earth, which this river brought away when it swelled to an unusual height. It is still subject to the same appearance in the time of floods.’ (For which he quotes Mr. Maundrel's Travels) Univ. Hist. Vol. 2. p 327.

↵

(70).

‘In honour of this Goddess’ (Tanais)
and in her temple, the Armenians used to prostitute their daughters, it being a custom among the young women to consecrate their virginity to Tanais, that is, to her priests.
Univ. Hist. Vol. 9. p. 491.

↵

(71).

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (who is called also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same page) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Herod. Lib. 1. p. 83. Frankfort Edit. 1608.

Herodotus also tells us, that there was a similar law at Cyprus—"〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉."

↵

(72).

—‘Behold THESE ’ (said Moses, speaking of the Midianitish women, that were taken prisoners by the Israelites) ‘caused the children of ISRAEL, through the COUNCIL of BALAAM, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of PEOR, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.’ Numb. xxxi. 16.

↵

(73).

‘For worshipping Baal-Peor ’ (says Bishop Patrick) ‘into which they’ (the Israelites) ‘were inveigled by the women; who invited them to a feast, and there by their charms excited another fleshly appetite in them: which they would not let them satisfy, unless they would both eat of their sacrifices, and worship their idol,’ &c. On Numb. xxv. 18.

↵

(74).

‘By whose consent, no doubt’ (says Bishop Patrick) ‘she went upon this wicked design, that by her noble garb and attendance she might the more powerfully intice the great men of Israel to idolatry.’

↵

(75).

When Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) removed the married Priests (in the year 1074) from officiating in the church service, and forbid the laity to hear them say mass, the numbers of Monkish or unmarried clergy were of course increased; and the scandal of Incontinence (the necessary effect of "forbidding to marry") became notorious, of which even the Monk Matthew Paris bears ample testimony—‘Porrò PAUCIS CONTINENTIAM OBSERVANTIBUS, aliquibus cam causa lucri ac jacantantiae simulantibus, multis INCONTINENTIAM perjurio multipliciori ADULTERIO cumulantibus.’ M. Paris Hist. Angl. p. 9. And afterwards, in the reign of Henry I. (anno 1102) when Archbishop Anselm excommunicated the married Priests (whom he maliciously called ‘Sacerdotes concubinarios,’ as if their lawful wives were no better than concubines) there were not wanting some prudent persons (even in those dark days) to declare the immoral tendency of the measure, as M. Paris testifies. "This" (says he, speaking of the said excommunication of married Priests)
seemed good to some, and to others DANGEROUS, lest while they aim at PURITY greater than their strength, they should fall into worse UNCLEANNESS [*];
a remarkable example of which he gives us in the person of Cardinal John de Creme [*], (Joannes Cremensis) who, after holding a council of the clergy in London (in the reign of Henry II.) against married Priests (and therein bitterly exclaiming against the monstrous wickedness of rising from the side of a whore, for so he affected to call the virtuous wife of a Priest, to perform Mass) was himself detected, that very evening, in a real brothel—‘The affair was so VERY NOTORIOUS (says M. Paris) that it could not be denied, whilst the Cardinal exchanged great honour into profound disgrace.’

↵

*

Hoc autem bonum quibusdam visum est, et quibusdam PERICULOSUM, ne dum mundicias viribus majores expeterent, in IMMUNDITIAS LABERENTER DETERIORES. M. Paris Hist. Angl. p. 58.

↵

*

‘Anno Domini M.C.XXV. Johannes Cremensis, Apostolicae sedis Cardinalis, de licentia Regis Anglorum veniens in Angliam, perendinavit per episcopatus et abbatias, et non sine magnis donariis, ad Nativitatem Beatae Marioe apud Londonias solemne Consilium celebravit. Ubi igitur de concubinis Sacerdotum severissime tractasset, dicens summum esse Scelus de latere surgere meretricis, ad corpus CHRISTI conficiendum: ipse cum die illa corpus Christi consacrasset, post vesperam fuit in meretricio interceptus: res notissima negari NON POTUIT, dum magnum decus in summum dedecus commutavit.’ M. Paris Hist. Angl. p. 70.

↵

(76).

This particular case of the Gadarene Demoniacks has been violently attacked by the opposers of the common received doctrine concerning the Reality of Demoniacal Possessions. Three very eminent and learned men among them, for instance, have endeavoured to accommodate to their own notions the evangelical history of this matter, and by the failure of their several attempts have proved, that the literal meaning of the terms in which the Evangelists have related the several circumstances of that case (and no less than three Evangelists out of the four have mentioned it) cannot possibly be set aside, without raising up in its stead the most glaring absurdities! One of these gentlemen (notwithstanding his own errors) has very fully and justly censured the miserable shift to which the other two learned men were reduced, in attempting to defend their own groundless hypothesis.

A farther argument (says he) in favour of REAL POSSESSIONS, is taken from the destruction of the herd of swine, which the DEMONS are said to have entered, and stimulated to instantaneous madness. This case is considered by some' (continues he) 'as a decisive proof of the power of Demons, both over the human and BRUTAL RACE [*], and is thought even to have been purposely designed by Providence to refute the opposite opinion. To enervate this argument, DR. SYKES suggested, and DR. LARDNER strenuously contended, that THE SWINE WERE FRIGHTED BY THE TWO MADMEN, AND SO DRIVEN DOWN THE PRECIPICE INTO THE SEA. On the other hand' (says he) 'the advocates for the common hypothesis insist upon it, (to my apprehension' [continues he] 'with great reason,) that IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR TWO MEN, HOWEVER FIERCE, TO PUT SO VAST A HERD OF SWINE AS TWO THOUSAND INTO MOTION IN AN INSTANT, AND TO CAUSE THEM ALL TO RUSH WITH VIOLENCE DOWN A PRECIPICE INTO THE SEA; SWINE, CONTRARY TO THE NATURE OF MOST OTHER ANIMALS, RUNNING DIFFERENT WAYS WHEN THEY ARE DRIVEN. But this part of the controversy might well be spared; it not appearing from the history, that the men ever fell upon the herd, or made any attempt to drive them into the sea. Nay, the history expressly refers their destruction to a different cause from the behaviour of the madmen.
"An Essay on the Demoniacks of the New Testament." P. 280, 281.

Many other insurmountable objections are alledged by the same ingenious writer, and may be seen at large in pages 283 to 290, if what I have already quoted should not be thought amply sufficient to confute the groundless supposition of the other two learned men. And he very justly concludes thereupon—‘For these reasons’ (says he) ‘I cannot accede to the opinion of those learned writers, who ascribe the destruction of the swine to the madmen.’ But then (unfortunately for himself) he immediately adds—‘Neither’ (says he)
can I see any just ground for ascribing it to THE AGENCY OF DEMONS.
P. 291.

He tells us elsewhere, that
what is called the ejection of DEMONS, is the case of a natural disorder,
p. 178 and 189

—that there never was, nor can be, a real Demoniack,' p. 240—'that the DEMONIACKS spoken of in the New Testament were ALL either MADMEN or epilepticks,
Prop. vi. p. 92.

—And, with respect to the particular case before us, 'he asserts, that ‘all that can he inferred from their’ (the Evangelists) ‘saying,’ that ‘the Demons came out of the Men, and entered into the herd of swine,’ ‘is, that the madness of the former was transferred to the latter, in the same sense as’
the leprosy of Naaman was to cleave to Gehazi, and to his seed for ever.
P. 292.

He allows, however, ‘what a learned writer’ (says he)
contends for, that in the case before us,
the power of imagination could have no place [*]
. It was never said, that the swine FANCIED themselves possessed; their disorder, I admit
(says this author) ‘was REAL, but not therefore DEMONIACAL. So great a miracle as that wrought upon them’ (continues he)
can be ascribed to no other AGENCY than that of GOD.
P. 293.

Certain it is, that no created Being whatsoever, whether good or evil, visible or invisible, can have any power to act without the Knowledge and Permission of the ALMIGHTY; but, at the same time, we must remember, that there is a very material difference between ‘the AGENCY of God,’ and the PERMISSION of God.— God is, indeed, said to do what he only permits, as I have elsewhere remarked (see notes in pages 134 to 137) and he sometimes grants his Permission to very unworthy AGENTS, both spiritual and temporal, which act with views and intentions very opposite to the actual purposes of God, that are really effected by their Actions; for the histories of all nations sufficiently testify, that even the vices and malicious dispositions of the enemies both to God and Man, are frequently permitted to act as Instruments of DIVINE VENGEANCE (see my Tract on the Law of Retribution, pages 125, 184, and elsewhere) to promote the eternal Justice and Glory of the ALMIGHTY, as he alone can bring Good out of Evil.

But in all such cases, wherein there is manifest evidence of Evil in the production of events, though the same are certainly by the Sufferance or Permission of God, yet it would be highly injurious to truth to ascribe the AGENCY to GOD.

In the case before us concerning the Gadarene Demoniacks, the PERMISSION and the AGENCY are clearly distinguished by the Evangelists in the most express terms.
So the DEMONS besought him, saying, if thou cast us out, SUFFER US to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go.
Matth. viii. 31, 32.

—
And all the DEMONS besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith JESUS GAVE THEM LEAVE.
Mark v. 12.

—
And they (the Demons) besought him (Jesus) that he would SUFFER THEM to enter into then (the herd of swine) and HE SUFFERED THEM.
Luke viii. 32.

Thus the DIVINE PERMISSION is clearly and distinctly declared; and the same faithful historians leave us as little room for doubt concerning the AGENTS in this matter: for,
when they' (the DEMONS) 'were come out, they entered into the swine: and behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
Matth. viii. 32.

—
And the UNCLEAN SPIRITS went out, and entered into the swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place, &c.
Mark v. 13.

—Then went the DEMONS out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down, &c.
Luke viii. 33.

Here is the most EXPRESS EVIDENCE of three Evangelists, that DEMONS, or UNCLEAN SPIRITS, entered into the swine; and the consequences of that entering are as clearly noted;—the animals rushed headlong to their own apparent destruction! A circumstance which was never known to happen, either before or since that time, to any Brute Animals whatsoever; so that it is unreasonable to attribute that singular deprivation of Natural Instinct in Brutes to "a Natural Disorder," because the circumstances of it must necessarily be allowed to have been totally unnatural to Brutes; though with mankind, alas! it is far otherwise; for we have almost daily examples of men that are absolutely actuated with the same violent desire to rush headlong out of the world! But the reason of of this remarkable difference between Men and Brutes I have already (I hope) sufficiently explained.

Now, if it is unreasonable to attribute this singular destruction of Brute Animals to a Natural Disorder, it is much more unreasonable, nay, it will appear profane and blasphemous to say, that it ‘can be ascribed to no other AGENCY than that of GOD, ’ when we consider that the Demons, which are said to have entered the swine, were not mere nullities, as this author supposes; not a mere name for deceased Souls, or the Souls of DEAD MEN, but are expressly declared by the Evangelist Mark to be UNCLEAN SPIRITS! 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mark v. 13. For if the Sin against the Holy Ghost (the most unpardonable of all Blasphemies!) consisted, as many learned commentators have supposed, in attributing the the Works of GOD to "Beelzebub the Prince of Demons," surely it must be almost equally dangerous to ascribe to the Agency of GOD the furious and profane agitations occasioned by the inspiration of unclean Spirits!

But I impeach not the intention of the learned author, but only the tendency of his doctrines: his excuse, however, is already prepared; he doubts (in page 61.) ‘whether these epithets’ (EVIL and UNCLEAN, given by the Evangelists to the SPIRITS ejected by Christ) ‘express their PERSONAL DISPOSITIONS, or only those EFFECTS they were supposed to produce;’ nay, even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Caco-Demon) with him is "not a wicked Demon!" See note in p. 61. And he tells us in another part of his work, p. 352. that ‘Infirmities, plagues, and EVIL SPIRITS, seem to be mentioned only as so many distinct species of DISEASES. ’ These suppositions (for they are merely such) may seem at first sight to afford some excuse for his ‘ascribing to the Agency of GOD ’ the declared effects of ‘ unclean SPIRITS.’ But his error has still a deeper root; he has, in another tract [*], 'ascribed to the Agency of GOD' that which no less than three Evangelists have expressly registered amongst the transactions of the Devil himself, (I mean the temptation of Christ by the Devil in the wilderness); and he roundly exculpates Satan from the charge
[†]
; and yet all this is carried on in such smooth language, and with such seeming plausibility, that the author himself is apparently deluded by his own sophistry and mistaken conclusions [*]: for, notwithstanding the plain testimony of the Evangelists above-mentioned concerning the Agency of the Devil and Satan in that temptation; [*]; yet our author is pleased to assert, that it ‘is to be understood as a history, not of a fact, but of A VISION. As such (says he) the writers of the Gospel EXPRESSLY represent it’ (by which, it seems, this learned author is so far blinded by hypothesis, as to forget the true meaning of the word EXPRESSLY; for not one of the writers of the Gospel have EXPRESSED the least idea about a VISION in that particular case; and yet he asserts, that they EXPRESSLY represent it) ‘without leaving us’ (says he) ‘as the sacred penmen have been thought to do in other instances, to collect it from the nature and circumstances of the relation. They likewise (continues he) REPRESENT THIS VISION’ (he must mean this VISION of his own imagination—this VISION of a VISION; for the Evangelists cannot justly be charged with any such REPRESENTATION) ‘not as DIABOLICAL, but DIVINE; ascribing it’ (says he)
to the SPIRIT OF GOD.
("An Inquiry," &c. p. 64, 65.)

. Now what shall we say to the assertions of this critick, when we turn to the authority of the Evangelists themselves, and find, that they are so far from ascribing any such supposed VISION of a temptation to the Spirit of God, that they expressly mention the Devil or Satan as the tempter; and do not express or represent a single word about a VISION in that particular case: nevertheless, our Commentator boldly adds to this monstrous perversion of evidence the following mockery of truth, viz.—‘So that to all the other arguments urged above (says he) we may add (what we before promised to produce) THE AUTHORITY OF THE EVANGELISTS ’ (whom he most notoriously contradicts) ‘and THE EXPRESS LETTER OF THE TEXT ’ (which as notoriously contradicts him) ‘in confutation’ (says he)
of those, who misconstrue Christ's temptation, either as an outward transaction, or as an illusion of Satan.
Inquiry, &c. p. 65. See also his proposition, p. 36.

—‘that all the Evangelists, who have mentioned this affair, do, IN EXPRESS TERMS, affirm, that it passed SPIRITUALLY and IN VISION, that it was AN IDEAL OR MENTAL REPRESENTATION; and consequently could not be an outward transaction.’ Now, "If such a method of explaining Scripture," (as he himself censures others in, p. 372. of his Essay on the Demoniacks, &c.) "be allowed, language can be of no use!"

He may think it a generous action, perhaps, to excuse, or endeavour to exculpate an Adversary (and more especially such an inveterate Adversary as Satan himself [*]) from the most baneful and malicious attempt that was ever made against the happiness of mankind! But this generosity (or whatever else it may be called) to the Enemy, is productive of consequences which the learned author (had he been aware of them) would not, perhaps, be willing to adopt: for his doctrine of SATAN'S INNOCENCE IN THIS MATTER (viz. that "there was no real presence or AGENCY OF SATAN on this occasion, p. 63.—that
the DEVIL was not really and personally present with CHRIST, but only in mental representation; and consequently could act no part in this whole transaction,
p. 62.

and that the Evangelists ‘represent this VISION ’ [*] [as he is pleased to call it]
not as DIABOLICAL, but DIVINE; ascribing it to the SPIRIT of GOD,
p. 65.

) This doctrine, I say, of SATAN'S INNOCENCE, not only deprives Christ, "the Son of MAN," of that actual triumph and victory, which he gained in his HUMAN NATURE (for the Restoration of Mankind) over the temptations of ‘the Prince of this world;’ but it also necessarily implies, that GOD himself was the tempter; which, if not downright blasphemy, is at least a doctrine which is EXPRESSLY contradicted in Scripture—for there we read, that
God cannot be tempted of Evil, NEITHER TEMPTETH HE ANY MAN.
(James i. 13.)

And though there are several passages of Scripture wherein God is said to tempt [*], yet they are all clearly to be understood in a different sense from the tempting mentioned by the Apostle James, which was a tempting, or being tempted of EVIL, apparently meaning a temptation to SIN [*]. And in other passages, where the latter (or indeed any spiritual influence of EVIL whatever) is to be understood, the Evil Spirit, or real AGENT in the EVIL, is generally mentioned; and in that case the Agency cannot be "ascribed to the Spirit of God," without gross absurdity, at least, if not blasphemy! even though the SPIRIT be expressly declared to be "from the Lord," as in the case of Saul related in 1 Sam. xvi. 14. where we read, that ‘an Evil Spirit FROM THE LORD troubled him.’

Now this expression, if we regard the literal meaning of it, clearly implies, not only, that the Evil Spirit came by the Permission of GOD (as it was ‘ an Evil Spirit FROM THE LORD’) but also that the said Evil Spirit was really "THE AGENT" which troubled Saul.

The same ingenious writer has attempted to set aside the literal meaning of this text also, by attributing Saul's disorder to "a deep melancholy," meaning thereby a mere natural disorder, without any supernatural spiritual influence (for if he admitted the latter as the cause of Saul's melancholy, he must necessarily give up his whole hypothesis); but the futility of such a supposition shall be clearly shewn hereafter in a separate Tract on the Case of Saul, as I have already extended this note to a most unprecedented length; but as the "Law of Nature," and ‘the Principles of Action in Man,’ cannot be understood without a competent knowledge of those Spiritual Beings, with which the minds of men are liable to be influenced, I was obliged to take some notice of such contradictions to my general doctrine, as had been previously published by the ingenious Author of the Essay on Demoniacks; for I must acknowledge, that I was not aware of them, until my Tract was not only finished (as I thought) and sent to the press, but was also more than half printed; and therefore I hope my readers will excuse the irregularity of tacking so long a note to so small a Tract.

↵

*

This conclusion is expressed in too general terms. The example is indeed "a decisive Proof of the Power of Demons over the BRUTAL RACE," whenever Demons can obtain the Divine Permission to enter Brutes; but without such EXPRESS PERMISSION the case itself sufficiently demonstrates, (as I have remarked above, for otherwise the asking and granting PERMISSION to enter the swine would be but vain circumstances,) that they have NO POWER over the Brutal Race. The case is very different with Human Bodies, which I have already shewn.

↵

*
Dr. Warburton. p. 223, 224.
↵

*
"An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness." (2d Edit. enlarged).
↵

†

There was no real Presence or AGENCY of SATAN (says he) ON THIS OCCASION,
p. 63.

and that

the DEVIL was not really and personally present with Christ, but only in mental representation, and consequently could act no part in this whole transaction.
P. 62.

↵

*

After a great deal of sophistry (in p. 50 to 59) in comparing the Evangelists account of the Temptation with several expressions in Ezekiel and St. John relating to the Revelations of the Spirit; (viz. as that—'the Spirit took me up'—lifted me up, and took me away'—‘I was in the Spirit’—'He carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness,' &c.) he boldly concludes thereupon in p. 59.—Thus (says he) from the EXPRESS TESTIMONY of the THREE several Evangelists, it appears, ‘that Christ was conveyed into the wilderness IN A PROPHETICK VISION, TRANCE, or EXTACY, under the afflatus or inspiration of the Spirit of God.’—But where has he shewn ‘the EXPRESS TESTIMONY of the three several Evangelists, that Christ was conveyed in A VISION?’ He cannot shew, that even one of the three has once used any such EXPRESSION, or even the least insinuation about a VISION on that occasion. Though the EXPRESSIONS of Ezekiel and St. John relate to Revelations received in the way of VISIONS; yet that does not prove that all similar expressions, wherein the Spirit is said to lift up, or take away, must necessarily be understood as VISIONS. If his argument proved any thing at all, it would prove too much. Let us suppose it for once to be perfectly conclusive, and apply it to that text in the Acts of the Apostles, where we read, that—‘the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,’ and afterwards that he was found at Azotus: shall we say then (to argue like our critic) that—'this 'passage of Scripture is to be understood as a history, not of a fact, but of a VISION, p. 64; and that it appears "from the EXPRESS TESTIMONY" of the text (though the text contains not a single word about a VISION, TRANCE, or EXTACY, any more than the texts of the three Evangelists do about the supposed VISION of Christ) that Philip was conveyed in a VISION, that is, his removal was
not REAL and CORPOREAL, but SPIRITUAL and MENTAL only,
p. 60.

notwithstanding that the text afterwards asserts it as a FACT, that he was FOUND AT AZOTUS. The circumstances of this transaction necessarily oblige us to understand, that the operation of THE SPIRIT upon Philip, when he was "CAUGHT AWAY, was not visionary, but REAL; and it will appear upon further examination, that a similar necessity of literal interpretation is equally included in the circumstances of the other case also. Now "if the Spirit of the Lord" REALLY "caught away Philip" from the sight of the eunuch in the desart, and left him at Azotus, there is no absurdity in supposing that our Lord himself might also REALLY be led" by (or in) ‘the Spirit into the wilderness;’ and that the history must necessarily be so understood, will, I trust, be hereafter shewn. That it was no unusual thing for the Prophets of God to be actually "led"—"carried"— or "caught away," by—or in—the Spirit, is manifest from the apprehension of such a carrying by the Spirit, expressed by the generous and faithful Obadiah, governor of king Ahab's house, when Elijah required him to acquaint his master where he might find him, 1 Kings xviii. 12. and the opinion of Obadiah, with respect to the true meaning of such expressions, is certainly to be preferred before the sentiments of the author of the "Inquiry," &c. or perhaps than the opinion of any other man whatever, because Obadiah was not only personally acquainted with Elijah, but also with a great many other Prophets of the Lord, having himself preserved the lives of more than one hundred of them, by hiding and maintaining them in caves, so that he could not be unacquainted with the occasional effects of the HOLY SPIRIT upon Prophets; and therefore we may fairly conclude, that his apprehension of the SPIRITS removing or carrying the Prophet to a different place, was not without just foundation or example, or at least not without probability, especially as we read, that Elijah was at last actually taken away in a miraculous manner, which was equally attributed to "the Spirit of the Lord" by the sons of the Prophets at Jericho—
lest peradventure (said they) THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD HATH TAKEN HIM UP, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.
(2 Kings ii. 16.)

And they cannot surely be be supposed to mean, that the Spirit of the Lord had taken him up in a mere trance or vision.

↵

*

As that he was 'led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of THE DEVIL (in which the AGENCY of the Spirit, and the AGENCY of the Devil, are clearly distinguished.) That Jesus said unto him (the DEVIL) 'Get thee hence, SATAN:—and that —'then THE DEVIL (N. B. the appellations Satan and the Devil are manifestly applied to the same wicked Being) 'leaveth him, &c. Matth. iv. 1—11. ‘And immediately the SPIRIT driveth him (Jesus) into the wilderness.’ And he was there IN THE WILDERNESS forty days TEMPTED OF SATAN, and was with THE WILD BEASTS, &c. Mark i. 12, 13. whereby the reality of our Lord's being driven by the Spirit INTO THE WILDERNESS is manifest: for though the Author of the Enquiry asserts in pages 47 and 48, that ‘it appears, by comparing the several Evangelists together, that Christ had but just left the banks of JORDAN, and therefore WAS STILL IN THE WILDERNESS, at the very time he is said to have been led into it,’ &c. yet that part of the wilderness where John baptized ceased in effect, though not in name, to be a wilderness, whilst it was the place of publick resort for all
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.
(Mat. iii. 5. Mark i. 5.)

and therefore, even supposing it true that Christ ‘was still in the wilderness at the very time he is said to have been led into it,’ we must necessarily understand that he was led to some more solitary part of the wilderness than that which had been for some time before the place of publick resort for the whole nation, for otherwise he could not well be said to be "there, in the wilderness"—"with the wild beasts." But when our author wrote the above assertion, that "Christ ‘was still in the wilderness,’ &c. (notwithstanding that the Evangelist Luke assures us that he returned from Jordan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) he seems to have forgot that the word return (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) implies a going BACK to some other place from whence he had lately come, and is used in that sense about thirty-four times in the New Testament without a single exception; so that it is much more prudent to believe the plain testimony of the Evangelist, that Christ "returned from Jordan," that is, from the place where he was baptized, to some other place; or, at least, was on his way to some other place; than to believe the contradictory assertion of this critick, that he ‘ was still in the wilderness at the very time he is said to have been led into it.’

↵

*

The author of the Inquiry, &c. in p. 3. objects, that if the Evangelical History of our Lord's Temptation is to be understood as a narrative OF REAL FACTS, &c. ‘it is unsuitable to the SAGACITY and POLICY of the Evil Spirit,’ &c.—Now this would certainly be a good argument, if we could suppose that the Evil Spirit is prompted by no other Principles of Action than SAGACITY and POLICY; but, alas! he yielded himself a Slave, (as frail men do) to Principles very opposite to SAGACITY and POLICY, or he would surely have ‘kept his first estate,’ and have still remained (as originally created) ‘an Angel of Light!’ And therefore with respect to the particular circumstances of Christ's temptation EXPRESSLY ascribed to the DEVIL, or SATAN, by three Evangelists, we may reasonably conclude, that our Spiritual Adversary was prompted to that unequal contest with Christ by the same predominant Principles of Evil (viz. PRIDE, ENVY, and FALSEHOOD) that originally occasioned his Fall from GOD; but now occasioned a much more mortifying abasement to Satanical Pride and Envy—a Defeat by MAN!—even by "the seed of the" (deluded and much injured) "Woman!"

↵

*

—‘We have as little reason to affirm, from the stile of the Gospel writers, and the manner of their expressions, that Christ's temptations are only' "the history of a vision," as we have to affirm, that our Lord's restoring the lame to their feet, the blind to their sight, the lepers to their cleanness, the diseased to health, and the dead to life, was likewise all the history of what was transacted in a vision: or that the whole Gospel account of what our Lord did upon earth is no more than the history of so many visions; an account of what he saw,' "in spiritual raptures, by a prophetick afflatus and inspiration.’
‘'Hui, quantam fenestram ad nequitiam patefeceris!'’
See p. 55. of a little Tract printed in 1762, intituled, ‘ Christ's Temptations real Facts; or a Defence of the Evangelical History; shewing, that our Lord's temptations may be fairly and reasonably understood, as a narrative of what was really transacted,’ &c. wherein the reader will find many sensible and learned remarks in confutation of the novel doctrine propagated by the Author of the Inquiry.

↵

*

As for instance, we read in Genesis xxii. 1.—that ‘God did TENET Abraham, &c.’ when he ordered him to offer up his only son for a burnt-offering. Yet this was not a temptation to SIN; for men if the command had been actually executed, the Patriarch would not have sinned; but, on the contrary, would have been justified by his faith in him that commanded, whom he knew to be the Creator, and Lord of LIFE, and therefore the only rightful disposer of LIFE in all creatures: but as the command was revoked just in so critical a time, as to demonstrate the Patriarch's readiness to obey, and yet to save the life of his son, the command was so far from being a temptation to SIN, that it was not (on the part of the righteous Lord who commanded) even a temptation to KILL, because the event shewed, that the command was not given with any such intention, but merely to PROVE the Patriarch's faith and obedience. The same Hebrew root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here rendered did tempt, is frequently used in other passages of Scripture, where it necessarily signifies to prove or try, as in Exod. xvi. 4. 'that I may PROVE them' (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘whether they will walk in my law or no.’ And in Deut. viii. 16.—that he might PROVE thee (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) "to do thee good," &c. See also Judges vi. 39. Psa. xxvi. •. &c.

↵

*

There is an expression, however, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. which, without a further explanation, would be very difficult to be reconciled with the text above cited from the Apostle James, that ‘God cannot be tempted of Evil, neither tempteth be any Man;’ for the text in Samuel seems at first sight to imply a temptation to SIN by the Almighty.—And again, the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel: and HE MOVED DAVID against them, to say, ‘GO, NUMBER ISRAEL and JUDAH,’ as if God himself had MOVED David to sin against Israel, which might seem to give countenance to the doctrine of the Author of the ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation,’ viz. that it is represented, ‘not as DIABOLICAL, but DIVINE, ascribing it to the Spirit of God,’—and that
there was no real Presence or AGENCY of SATAN on this occasion,
p. 63. 65.

But we are happily relieved from the difficulty by further information in another text concerning the real AGENT in that temptation or MOVING of David; for we read in 1 Chron. xxi. 1. that—‘ SATAN stood up against Israel, and PROVOKED David’ (or MOVED David, for the same Hebrew word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is used in both texts) ‘to number Israel;’ and therefore, when this text is compared with the former, wherein it is said that God moved David, we must necessarily understand, that the moving of David was indeed SUPERNATURAL and SPIRITUAL, but that the real AGENT (as the Action was Evil) was the spiritual Enemy (SATAN) acting by God's Permission, as a just judgment against Israel, and also against David himself, who at that time was probably so much elated by his temporal prosperity and successes, as to forget that his absolute dependance ought to be upon God, and not upon the Number of his subjects; and certain it is, that he was off his guard, and neglected that necessary vigilance over his thoughts and actions, which God requires of all men; for otherwise he would have resisted the EVIL SUGGESTION of Satan, whereas his yielding to it occasioned the imputation of sin.

↵

(77).

‘Verily—Verily, I say unto thee,’ (said our Lord to the Jewish Ruler, Nicodemus)
Except a Man be born of WATER and of THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
John iii. 5.

Here are two distinct articles expressly mentioned by our Lord, as necessary to salvation, viz. 1st. Water, by which we outwardly profess our Faith, ‘in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ upon our first admission into Christ's church; for that is the Form of Baptism afterwards expressly ordained by Christ himself. (Matt. xxviii. 19.) and 2dly, the Holy Spirit, which we claim of the Father, in the name and through the merits of the Son; so that Faith in all the Three Divine Persons is undoubtedly necessary to constitute that Spiritual Regeneration, without which no Man can enter into the Kingdom of God; and as FAITH therefore must precede, we may clearly perceive the reason why WATER (the outward sign of initiation to the publick profession of that necessary FAITH) is first mentioned.

↵

(78).

1 Tim. iii. 6. ‘Lest being PROUD, he fall into the Condemnation (or Judgment) of the DEVIL. ’ That is, (says an old Commentator) by means of PRIDE and High-mindedness be cast into Hell-fire, in manner as the DEVIL is: by which, ‘to my seeming (says he) it is plain what the sin of the DEVILS was, namely, an ambitious affecting, aspiring unto, and arrogating DIVINITY to themselves, not content with their own condition; unto which very sin the DEVIL afterward, by the serpent, tempted Eve: ministers being young men, and young scholars’ (continues this writer) ‘by PRESUMPTION AND PRIDE, are in no small danger of eternal destruction.’ Complete Christian Dictionary (1655) p. 138.

↵

(79).
This is the Condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and Men loved Darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.

John iii. 19.

↵

(80).

It is reasonable and just, indeed, that all men should be at liberty to teach and profess whatever religious opinions they think most consistent with the Holy Scriptures (if we except any publick promulgation of that religion, which offends against the laws of this nation, as a civil society, by asserting a foreign jurisdiction; and which has also unhappily adopted some antichristian rites of idolatry, sorcery, and inchantments!

But the petitioners cannot allege that they are not already AT LIBERTY to bear a publick testimony of their opinions; and it would be dangerous even to the true religion, were not SUCH LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE allowed: for supposing any material alteration should be permitted to be made in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England, a great majority, perhaps, of the present churchmen might think themselves obliged to dissent, and separate from what would then be called, the Established Church; and would certainly think themselves intitled to a free toleration, and a public use of the present Liturgy in their several separate congregations.

I am therefore a sincere advocate for LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE; but when a majority of the clergy and people have agreed upon the Articles of their Faith, and established the same as the National Profession of Religion, (which it surely is while the majority continue of that opinion) it is certainly no unjust restraint nor derogation from that NECESSARY LIBERTY above-mentioned, that those who are to be admitted public teachers of the national Profession, should be required to subscribe a declaration that they approve and will maintain the same. For otherwise the uniformity of doctrine would be banished from the pulpits, and the peace of congregations would be continually disturbed by the broaching of undigested notions diametrically opposite to the general and established opinions of the people; and even the publick Form of Prayer would be reduced and moulded according to the caprice of every officiating minister; for there can be no Church Government without a written Test of Doctrine, couched in such terms as are least liable to misconstruction and equivocation. The Catholick or Universal Church in every age, and in every place, hath ever had its Tests of Doctrine, or particular Creeds, to which the assent of all persons, but more particularly the assent of the clergy, was always required; so that the Church of England is not singular in requiring the assent or subscription of those persons who desire to be admitted and authorized by the National Church as publick teachers and expounders of the Christian Faith.

↵

(81).
—
the NATURAL MAN receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know (them), because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Cor. ii. 14).

↵

(82).

For NOW we see through a glass darkly: but then FACE to FACE: now I KNOW in part
(said the Apostle to the Corinthians)

but then shall I KNOW even as also I am KNOWN.
1 Cor. xiii. 12.

↵

(83).

For this CORRUPTIBLE (Body) must put on INCORRUPTION, and this MORTAL (must) put on IMMORTALITY; then shall be brought to pass the Saying that is written
(see Isaiah xxv. 8.)

DEATH is swallowed up in VICTORY.
1 Cor. xv. 53, 54.

↵

(84).
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, &c.

2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

↵

(85).

And yet they are distinct persons; for
the LORD said unto my LORD,—Sit THOU on MY right hand, &c.
(Mat. xxii. 44. Psa. cx. 1.)

↵

(86).

Nam DEUM, ut est, nemo mortalium, quamlibet magnus, vidit unquam nisi per aenigmata. Et quanquam MOSI, Patriarchis, et Prophetis aliquam suorum arcanorum portionem quàdantenus patefecit, tamen hanc gratiae et veritatis plenitudinem solus unigenitus filius accepit: qui sic ad nos descendit, factus homo, ut PER DIVINAM NATURAM semper sit in sinu DEI PATRIS.
Erasmi Paraphrasis in Evang. Joannis, p. 24.

↵

(86).

For he is—
the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, &c.
1 Tim. i. 17.

—
WHOM no man hath SEEN, nor can SEE.
(1 Tim. vi. 16.)

—

there shall no man SEE me and live.
Exod. xxxiii. 18. 20.

↵

(87).

‘In whom we have redemption through his blood’ (even) ‘the forgiveness of sins. WHO IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the first-born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether (they be) thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all’ (or among all)
he might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased (the Father) that in him should all fulness dwell.
(Col. i. 14.19.)

But the word Father, expressed in this version, is not found in the original Greek, though it is here supplied as the principal Substantive, which is an unjustifiable violence to the text, especially as the proper governing Substantive of the sentence is plainly expressed in the original: I mean the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, THE FULNESS, for it apparently means that Divine FULNESS, which the same Apostle in the very next chapter (9th verse) expressly calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, "all the Fulness of the Godhead" —that DWELLETH, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bodily, or personally, in Christ; so that both verses have the same application of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and surely "the Fulness of the Godhead" may, with propriety, be said to will or please to dwell in Christ, according to the literal sense of the text, and therefore there can be no necessity to supply another Substantive to govern the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The literal construction of the text is sufficiently intelligible— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is literally rendered by the learned Hugh Broughton as follows:
For that in him all FULNESS pleased to dwell[*].
The same literal interpretation exactly has been made by the author of the Syriac Version, which Mons. de Dieu translates as follows: ‘Quia in ipso voluit omnis PLENITUDO habitare.’ The Arabic Version also has the same rendering, except in one word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being construed PERFECTION, instead of FULNESS—Quia PERFECTIO omnis in eo voluit habitare.

↵

*

This is copied from an old printed Bible in my Possession, with MS. Corrections copied from Mr. Broughton's own Hand-writing. At the Bottom of the Page the same Verse is transcribed, with a little Variation in the Order, but equally literal—viz. ‘For all Fulness pleased to dwell in him.’

↵

(88).

See the first verse of the chapter, which contains the governing Substantive to which this relative Pronoun his plainly refers.—
GOD, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by (his) Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of (his) glory, and the express image of HIS person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb. i. 1—4.

↵

(89).

For there
went out to him (John the Baptist) JERUSALEM, and all JUDEA, and all the Region round about Jordan.
(Matt. iii. 5.)

—whom John had previously forewarned, saying,—‘After me cometh a Man which is preferred before me:’ a Man whom he himself knew not, only that "he should be MADE MANIFEST" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) "to Israel." (John i. 30, 31.) But as soon as this faithful Messenger was divinely instructed concerning the Identity of the Person that was to be made manifest to Israel (for "GOD was MANIFEST," (or appeared, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) IN THE FLESH, 1 Tim. iii. 16.) [*] he proclaimed him to the Cities of Judah (the People that flocked to him from "Jerusalem, and all Judea") saying, "BEHOLD, THE LAMB [†] OF GOD, which taketh away (or beareth) the "Sins of the World." John i. 29.

↵

*
See Note in p. 223. concerning the true Reading in this Text.
↵

†
LAMB OF GOD, i. e. the Lamb foretold by Isaiah (liii. 7.)
He is brought as A LAMB to the Slaughter,
&c.

↵

(90).

"He that SEETH ME (said our Lord himself) SEETH HIM THAT SENT ME." (John xii. 45.) Compare this with 1 John iv. 9.—‘ because that GOD SENT his only begotten Son into the World,’ &c.

↵

(91).

"The WORD was GOD,"&c.—‘ All Things were made by him,’&c.—
And THE WORD was made FLESH, and dwelt among us (and WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, the GLORY as of the only begotten of the Father) full of Grace and Truth.
John i. 1—14.

Agreeable to this, the Apostle Paul informs us, that "GOD WAS MANIFEST" (or appeared, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉)
IN THE FLESH.
1 Tim. iii. 16.

The Cavils of the learned Wetstein upon this Text are clearly confuted by the very accurate Observations of the Rev. Dr. J. C. Velthusen (printed at London in 1773) who proves, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 C, the proper Abbreviation for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and not O C or O) is the true Reading in this Text.

↵

(92).
—in them is fulfilled the Prophecy of ISAIAH, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and SEEING ye shall SEE, and shall not PERCEIVE.

Matt. xiii. 14. Isai. vi. 9, 10. Ezek. xii. 2.

↵

(93).

In the Beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD. The same was in the Beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was LIFE, and the LIFE was the LIGHT of Men. And the LIGHT shineth in Darkness, and the Darkness comprehendeth it not. (John i. 1—5, &c.)—And the WORD was made FLESH, and dwelt among us (and we BEHELD HIS GLORY, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of Grace and Truth. (John i. 14.)

↵

(94).

JESUS, or Iesous, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jeshouo, in the vulgar Tongue of the Jews, while our Lord was on Earth, signifying a SAVIOUR (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 SALVATION [*], from whence is formed the Verb in Hiphal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he SAVED) agreeable to the Purport of the Name JESUS declared by an Angel before the Birth of Christ:
She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his Name JESUS, for he SHALL SAVE his People from their Sins.
(Matt. i. 21.)

—The Apostle Peter also bore the like Testimony concerning the true Meaning of Christ's Name, when he was "filled with the Holy Ghost" in the Presence of the High Priest and Elders of the Jews, saying—
Ye Rulers of the People, and Elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good Deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead (even) by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone Which was set at nought of you builders,
(see Psal. cxviii. 22. Isai. xxviii. 16.)

‘which is become the Head of the Corner; neither is there SALVATION’ (says he, still alluding to the Name JESUS)

in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under Heaven given among Men, whereby we must be SAVED.
Acts iv. 5—12.

This Name of SALVATION therefore exactly corresponds with the Title, by which the Prophet Isaiah proclaimed to the Jews the Advent of that Divine Person, who was to redeem ZION. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. ‘Say ye unto the Daughter of Zion, Behold thy SALVATION’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 JESHO)
cometh; behold, his Reward is with him, and his Work before him, and they shall call them, The Holy People, the REDEEMED of JEHOVAH: &c.
Isai. lxii. 11, 12.

↵

*

See Psal. xx. 7. where the Word is used as a Noun in that Sense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "By the Strength" (or in the Mightinesses) "of THE SALVATION of his right Hand. See also Psal. L. 23.

↵

(94).

Our Lord himself applied this Prophecy to John the Baptist—
for this is (he) of whom it is written (said our Lord) "Behold I send my Messenger before thy Face, which shall prepare thy Way before thee.
Matt. xi. 10. Mark i. 2. Luke vii. 27.

↵

(95).

Adoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Title for a great Lord; and from thence one of the false Deities of the Phoenicians is named ADONIS; but when the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is prefixed to this Title in the singular Number, it marks, that the Person spoken of is not only a hard, but THE LORD, by way of Eminence, as being the only supreme Lord and Governor of all things; for it is then applicable to none but JEHOVAH THE LORD OF HOSTS, and is so applied in no less than seven other Instances of Scripture, without one Instance of a different Application. See Exod. xxiii. 17. and xxxiv. 23. Isai. i. 24. iii. 1. x. 16. x. 33. xix. 4.

↵

(96).

If THE ADOUN, or Lord, who was the Messenger of the Covenant, was not also Jehova, he could not be said to come to HIS Temple.

↵

(97).
See my Remarks concerning the Names Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, in my Tract on
the Law of Retribution,
p. 47.

Note 101. 109, 110, and 166.

↵

(98).

‘And Jesus came and spake unto them’ (his Disciples)
saying, ALL POWER is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth—Go ye, therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.
Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.

For as the Father raiseth up the Dead, and quickeneth (them) even so the SON quickeneth whom he will.
John v. 21.

↵

(99).
For the FATHER judgeth no Man; but hath committed ALL JUDGMENT unto the SON: that all (Men) should HONOUR the SON, even as they HONOUR the FATHER. He that HONOURETH not the SON, HONOURETH not the FATHER which hath sent him.

John v. 22▪ 23.

↵

(100).

‘ And now, O Father ’ (said our Lord Jesus) ‘GLORIFY thou me with thine ownself ’ (and surely to be GLORIFIED with the Father himself, is the same Thing as to partake of the GLORY OF JEHOVAH)
with the GLORY which I had WITH THEE before the World was.
John xvii. 5.

↵

(101).

Amongst the rest he cites a Commentary on some of the Psalms, viz. x. 16. and cxlvi. 9. &c. from a Jewish book, wherein this sense is plainly laid down.—‘Textus hïs docet de DEO CREATORE, quòd est PRIMUS sine Principio, et ULTIMUS sine Fine. Sic Nomen ejus testatur de tribus existens•is, seu existendi differentiis ejus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 PRAESENTI, PRAETERITO, et FUTURO, quae sunt literae ipseu smet Nominis appropriati 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et profort tr•s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 EXISTENTIAS EJUS, Voce Regui et Dominii, ad indicandum, quòd ipse regnat et gubernat in Mundo fuo, secut Rex regit serv•s fuos.’ ‘ The Text here teaches concerning GOD THE CREATOR, that he is FIRST without Beginning, and LAST without End. So his Name bears witness of his three Existences, or Differences of Existing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Present, the Preter, (or Past) and the Future Tenses, which are the letters of his own appropriated (or peculiar name) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and proclaims his three Existences 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Voice of Rule and Dominion, to denote that he reigns and governs in his World, as a King governs his Subjects.’

↵

(102).

Ephes. i. 3. See also the 17th verse—‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory.’ Our Lord himself likewise said unto Mary Magdalene, after he arose from the dead,—
Go to my BRETHREN, and say unto them, I ascend unto MY FATHER, and YOUR FATHER, and to MY GOD, and YOUR GOD.
John xx. 17.

↵

(103).
Remarks on several very important Prophecies.

2d Edit. p. 177—189.

↵

(104).

1 Tim. iii. 16.—I have just now seen a new edition of the Greek Testament, by the Rev. B. HARWOOD▪ D. D. published at London, in the present year 1766, wherein (contrary to the general evidence of the best Greek MSS.) the editor has boldly ventured to alter the common reading of this text, and to insert the masculin̄e article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (This) instead of the substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God. Had he added an accent to the article, in order to render It neuter; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which instead of this) his NEW TEXT would have seemed rather more probable; because the article (which at present is without a Substantive) would, in that case, have agreed with the preceding noun substantive of the neuter gender (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), and would also have been countenanced by the neuter relative (quod) in the Latin Vulgate. This remark proves, also, that accents, in some particular cases, are essential to the meaning, and proper construction of the text, and should not, therefore, be indiscriminately omitted, together with such as are useless, as they are in this edition. But, indeed, in either way (with or without the accent) the expression, which he has introduced into the text, is entirely unscriptural! Even, if (to make the best of it) we should suppose that the accent is to be understood, and the article to be construed as if written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—what sense can be made of it? A MYSTERY—which was MANIFEST in the flesh!—received up into glory!—A parallel reading cannot be found in Scripture!

As the Editor, in his Preface, appeals to God concerning his Sincerity and Integrity, it would be uncharitable to call either of these in question; but we are not bound to think so favourably of his Discretion!—The zeal, which he has expressed at the end of his Book for the opinions of the Polish Brethren (who were most notorious SOCINIANS) gives us too much cause to suspect not only his want of Discretion, but also such a want of Moderation and Impartiality, as must render him totally unfit to DECIDE for us in the choice of controverted readings of the Holy Scriptures; and consequently the preference which he has paid to his own Opinion, by arbitrarily taking upon himself to alter Records [*] of so much importance, must, at best, be esteemed a dangerous presumption! His indiscriminate and unjust censure of the doctrine of Athanasius (which he has been pleased to intitle—
The Athanasian Impiety of Three Co-equal Gods,
Vol. II. p. 284.

) is a sufficient proof of the Intemperance of his Zeal, and the Hastiness of his Conclusions; so that THE ADVENTUROUS VARIATIONS which he has made from the common Greek Text will gain but little credit by his authority! Athanasius was a steady assertor of THE UNITY OF GOD, and could not, therefore, be guilty of so shocking an "IMPIETY," as to assert the Existence ‘of Three Co-equal Gods!’ And if the Doctor meant only to reflect, on the Confession of Faith, which is commonly called The Athanasian Greed, his censure is equally unjust; for the Unity of God is clearly and expressly taught and declared therein; neither does it contain any assertions whatever concerning the Divine Nature of the Son and the Holy Ghost, which are not strictly warrantable according to the clearest evidence of Holy Scripture—by the evidence even of incontrovertible texts! So that the charge about "Three Co-equal Gods," seems to be founded only in the indiscriminate Zeal of him who published that unjust assertion against Athanasian! It distresses me much to speak so freely of this Gentleman's performance; but the cause of Truth compels me; insomuch, that if he had even been one of my own Brothers, whom I dearly love, I must have done just the same! The opposers of the common reading (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c) in the above-mentioned text, are so clearly confuted by the Rev. Dr. Veithusen, (as I have before remarked in p. 223.) that I must request my readers, if they have any doubts concerning the true reading of this passage, to consult his judicious and accurate remarks upon it. They are published at the end of a very thin Octavo pamphlet, intituled—‘Observations on varius Subjects.’—Printed for C. Heydinger, in the Strand. 1773.

↵

*

The particular alteration, of which I complain at present, has but one single Greek manuscript to support it; and, what is worse, even this single MS. is not a credible Evidence! For it has been condemned in the strongest terms by the most eminent criticks and judges of ancient MSS. in Europe. So that Dr. Harwood has been particularly unfortunate to adopt this very exceptionable evidence, I mean the CLAROMONTAN MS. of St. Paul's Epistles, together with the old CAMBRIDGE MS. of the Gospels and Acts, as the principal authorities to justify his presumption in altering the Sacred Records! He tells us, in p. vii. of his Preface—that they ‘approach the nearest of any manuscripts now known in the world to the original text of the Sacred Records’ —that is, he must mean, in HIS OWN OPINION; and ‘accordingly in this edition’ (says he) ‘these have been most commonly followed.’ But the famous FATHER SIMON, speaking of the Claromontan or Clerment MS. together with that at St. Germains, (which seems to have been only a continuation or part of the two former in a third volume) says—‘MAGNUM ILLUM ERRATORUM, quae inveniuntur in duobus illis exemplaribus, in textu Graeco, ESSE INDICIUM A LATINIS ESSE SCRIPTA, QUI GRAECAE LINGUAE COGNITIONEM NULLAM HABUERE.’ With respect to the Cambridge MS. the learned Dr. Mill calls it—"CODICEM PESSIMI COMMATIS;" and asserts, that it contains many things that are not Greek, and that the writer has "presumed to add, substract, and change" (this includes all the various modes of corrupting Evidence, and ALTERING RECORDS) ‘an infinite number of places’ ("pro arbitrio," says he) ‘according to his own caprice!’ The very learned GER. VAN MASTRICHT, Syndic of Bremen, asserts the same thing only in different words —‘Prolixior fui de hoc Codice’ (says he, speaking of the Cambridge MS.) ‘quia omnes Paginas implet, addit, detrabit, mutat pro lubitu, omniumque Codicum varias lectiones superat, ideoque NON MULTUM EI TRIBUENDUM, quod ex examine hoc critico affatim patet,’ &c. The same learned writer informs us, that M. Le Clerc esteemed it a mere paraphrase. ("JOH. CLERICUS in Arte Critico hunc habet PRO PARAPHRASI," &c.) ‘ and that Father Simons, and the learned Fr. Gomarus held it cheap.— Non magnam auctoritatem tribuunt.’ And in the Preface to Wetstens 2d Edition of the Greek Testament in 12mo. the character of the Cambridge, Clermont, and St. Germain MSS. is summed up in such terms, at must oblige us to think very indifferently of Dr. Harwood's CHOICE of MSS. and much worse of his PRESUMPTION, in daring to ALTER THE SACRED RECORDS upon such miserable evidence! —‘A Librario Latino Scripti’ (says the Author of the abovementioned Preface) ‘et ad versionem Italicam corruptam TAM INEPTE atque IMPERITE DEFORMATI atque DEPRAVATI SUNT, UT RISUM MOVEANT, qui ILLIS locum dignitatemque genuinorum Codicum Graecorum conciliare voluerunt.’—Now what must we think of Dr. Harwood's assertion, that these MSS. ‘approach the nearest of any MSS. now in the known world to the original text of the Sacred Records!’ If my readers have not leisure to consult the works of the several authors which I have quoted on this occasion, they may see the evidence collected in the Prolegomena to the last mentioned Edition of the Greek Testament. And I hope these few hints will induce the learned among the Clergy (who ought to be the Guardians of the Sacred Text) to examine Dr. Harwood's New Text with care and accuracy, to point out its errors to the publick, and to consider of the best means to prevent any ill effects from so dangerout an attack upon the Sacred Records!

↵

(105).

In the common English version this name is rendered, ‘ I AM ’—
God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM, hath sent me unto you.
(Exod. iii. 14.)

The literal meaning, however, of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is in the future tense, is, I WILL BE, and so indeed it was rendered in the older English versions—I have a copy printed in 1549, wherein the word is rendered, ‘I WIL BE.’ And the translator has added the following remark upon it. ‘Thys traunslation’ (says he) ‘foloweth the Hebrue, whyche hathe, I WYLL, for that whyche is in all Latten traunslations, SUM, I AM. But whyche waye soever it be taken, it signifieth, that God onely HATH BENE, IS, and SHALL BE, and hath hys beynge of hymselfe, and that all other thynges have theyr beynge of hym. Stryve not therefore for the matter, but let it be, WAS, AM, or WYL BE, al is one matter.’

↵

(106).

Lo, I am with you alway (even) unto the end of the world.
Matth. xxviii. 20.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matth. xviii. 20.

How the Son of God, who

was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God,
(Mark xvi. 19.)

and will continue to sit there till all enemies are subdued or put UNDER HIS FEET, as the Holy Ghost declared by David, saying,
The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy FOOTSTOOL.
(Psa. cx. 1.)

How the Son of God (I say) whose personal residence in heaven is so expressly declared, may yet be said to be always present on earth with his Church, will be more easily explained when I come to speak of the Divine Nature and Existence of the HOLY SPIRIT in the Eternal Being, JEHOVAH.

↵

(105).

Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—The Apostle manifestly applies to Christ the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Lord) which is the usual Greek rendering of the Hebrew title, JEHOVAH, the essential name of that Eternal BEING, to whom the Prophet, in the ciid Psalm, here quoted, really addressed himself, as appears by the first verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "JEHOVAH, Hear my prayer," &c. And in the 24th verse, which immediately precedes the Apostle's quotation, the Person addressed by the Psalmist is expressly called upon as God (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, my God!)—‘I said, O MY GOD, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years (are) throughout all generations;’ and then immediately follows the Apostle's quotation, ‘Of old, thou laid the foundation of the earth,’ &c. To which he has added the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though not expressed in the original; so that he must mean thereby to express the Person to whom the Psalm in general was addressed, viz. the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or JEHOVAH. There is something peculiarly deep and mysterious in this Psalm—The Prophet, in his own person, as a man of afflictions, seems to express and prefigure the temporal sufferings, humiliation, and death [*] of the MESSIAH as A MAN upon earth, at the same time that he prays to him as GOD, and JEHOVAH, that ‘looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven,’ &c. See verse 19.

↵

*

See particularly the 23d and 24th verses —‘ He weakened my strength in the way ’ (probably alluding to the failure of our Lord's bodily strength, "in the way" to Mount Calvary, when he was ‘ led away, bearing bis cross, ’ before the soldiers compelled Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross. Compare John xix. 16, 17. with Matt. xxvii. 32.) ‘he shortened my days. I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years (are) throughout all generations.’

The Hebrew word here rendered "to take away," is formed from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to ascend; and from the ASCENDING of smoke towards heaven, the same word signifies also to offer a burnt-offering; and, as a substantive, it signifies a burnt-offering or sacrifice; for it is thus used (both as a substantive and as a verb) in that remarkable command of God to Abraham, by which THE SACRIFICE OF THE SON OF GOD was manifestly prefigured.—‘Take now THY SON ’ (said God to Abraham)
THINE ONLY (Son) ISAAC, whom thou lovest, and get thee into THE LAND OF MORIAH; and OFFER HIM there for A BURNT-OFFERING (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
(Gen. xxii. 2.)

It was also "upon one of the mountains," in "THE LAND OF MORIAH," that the "Beloved Son of God," (who is also eminently called ‘Son of Man,’ by having voluntary taken upon himself the Seed of Abraham, in which, according to the promise in Gen. xxii. 18. all the nations of the earth were to be blessed) was really sacrificed, and became "the propitiation for our sins." (1 John ii. 2.) as even Caiaphas the wicked High Priest himself had foretold, saying,
It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
(John xi. 50.)

He was accordingly ‘brought as A LAMB to the slaughter,’ which Isaiah had long before declared (Isai. liii. 7.) nay, Abraham himself seemed to have foretold this long before the giving of the Law from Mount Sinai, at a time indeed when he thought of another sacrifice, even when he led his own Beloved Son as the victim BEARING THE WOOD for the sacrifice, just as the Beloved Son of God was afterwards led away to death BEARING HIS CROSS! (John xix. 17.) For Isaac said to Abraham,

Behold the fire and the wood, but where is THE LAMB FOR A BURNT-OFFERING? "And abraham said, My Son, GOD will provide himself A LAMB for a Burnt-offering.
(Gen. xxii. 6—8.)

And accordingly we find the Harbinger of the Messiah proclaiming the manifestation of that promised Lamb—
BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, which taketh away the sin of the world.
(John i. 29.)

for Isaiah had also foretold this propitiation, saying,
He was wounded for our transgressions, (he was) bruised for our iniquities.
(Isai. liii. 5.)

In like manner the inspired Psalmist (in the particular Psalm already mentioned) seems to allude also to the same great sacrifice of the Son of God, if the interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which it necessarily bears in the above-cited command of GOD to Abraham (and many other places) be admitted—
He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. I said, O my GOD, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—SACRIFICE ME NOT in the midst of my days.
Psa. cii. 23, 24.

So Christ afterwards in reality prayed to God, that the bitter cup of his sufferings might pass from him—‘ O MY FATHER,’ (said he)
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as that wilt.
(Matt. xxvi. 39.)

for being
in all points tempted like as (we are yet) without sin.
(Heb. iv. 15.)

he was affected (through the weakness of that Human Nature which he had taken upon him) with all the horrors of an approaching agonizing death; but as he knew that
all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and (in) the Prophets, and (in) the Psalms concerning himself,
(Luke xxiv. 44.)

he soon afterwards declared his steady resolution to suffer for us, saying,
The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
(John xviii. 11.)

And accordingly he was ‘ taken away ’ (or rather sacrificed) ‘IN THE MIDST OF HIS DAYS,’ agreeable to the expression above cited from the Psalmist, being in the thirty-fifth year of his age, as Scaliger, and several other learned men have supposed (see the Rev. Mr. Burton's Essay towards reconciling the Numbers of Daniel and John, p. 335.) which is exactly half the age of MAN; I mean, half the term which Moses in the 90th Psalm has declared to be the usual period of Human Life! But even if our Lord was only in the thirty-third year of his age when he suffered (according to the common chronology) he might, still, with sufficient propriety be said (agreeable to the Psalmist's expression) to be SACRIFICED IN THE MIDST OF HIS DAYS.

↵

(106).
Here the Apostle applies to Christ the very text which I last cited from Isaiah.
↵

(107).

It was JEHOVAH who spake by Isaiah, in the text cited by the Apostle—‘Unto ME every knee shall bow,’ &c. for Jehovah proclaimed his title in the preceding context, which I quoted above 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I JEHOVAH, and (there is) "no God else beside me," &c. and therefore it is certain that the Apostle here uses the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or LORD, as the usual Greek rendering for JEHOVAH: for so it is generally translated in the Greek versions of the Old Testament, as well as in the Gospels; so that by applying the title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or LORD, in this place to Christ, he manifestly applies to him the title of JEHOVAH, to which it refers in the Hebrew.

↵

*

This title of supreme Dignity is due, not only to THE HEAVENLY FATHER, but is also expressly applied to his MESSIAH—
The word which (God) sent unto the children of Israel, preaching Peace by JESUS CHRIST; he is LORD OF ALL.
Acts x. 36.

↵

(108).

When the Apostle Matthew cites Isaiah's prophecy, that "a Virgin shall be with child," and applies it to the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, a descendant of the house of David, he says,
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of THE LORD (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) by the Prophet, &c.
Matt. i. 22, 23.

whereas in the Book of the Prophet himself, we find that the prediction was the Word of Jehovah. See Isai. vii. 10—14. ‘Moreover, the Lord (i.e. JEHOVAH) spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign-of JEHOVAH thy God,’ &c.

Again, when Isaiah's Prophecy concerning the Harbinger of Christ—"Prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH," &c. (Isai. xl. 3.) is cited in the New Testament, we find the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord, substituted for the Hebrew name JEHOVAH by all the Four Evangelists, Matt. iii. 3. Mark i. 3. Luke iii. 4. and John i. 23. This Prophecy, by the unanimous testimony of all these Evangelists, is applied to the Preaching of John the Baptist, who himself pointed to JESUS, as the Person whom he was sent to precede in the world, and for whom he prepared the way. ‘BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD’ (saith the Baptist)
which taketh away (or beareth) the sin of the world. THIS IS HE of whom I said, AFTER ME COMETH a Man which is preferred before me, &c.
John i. 23—36.

Jesus, therefore, is undoubtedly that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Lord or Jehovah before whom John prepared the way, agreeable to the prediction of the Prophet, as I have elsewhere remarked.

—"Ye shall not tempt JEHOVAH your God," &c. in Deut. vi. 16. is rendered by Matthew (iv. 7.) and also by Luke (iv. 12.) ‘Thou shalt not tempt THE LORD thy God’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the like rendering of the title JEHOVAH may be found in the 10th verse of the same chapter of Matthew, and in the 8th verse of the same chapter of Luke.

Also—
thou shalt keep and perform a free-will offering, according as thou hast vowed unto JEHOVAH thy God, &c.
in Deut. xxiii. 23.

is rendered by the Apostle Matthew (v. 33.) ‘Thou—shalt perform UNTO THE LORD (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) thine oaths.’

Deut. vi. 5.—‘Thou shalt love JEHOVAH THY GOD with all thine heart,’ is rendered by Matthew (xxii. 37.) by Mark (xii. 30.) and by Luke (x. 27.) ‘ Thou shalt love THE LORD THY GOD,’—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—‘ JEHOVAH said unto my Lord,’ in the 110th Psalm, ver. 1. is rendered by the ‘Apostle Matthew, xxii. 44. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —THE LORD said unto my Lord, ’ &c. and in the same manner exactly by Mark (xii. 36.) and by Luke (xx. 42.) and also in the Acts (ii. 34.)

In the remarkable Prophecy of Isaiah (lxi. 1.) quoted by St. Luke (iv. 18, 19.) concerning the Preaching of the MESSIAH, or ANOINTED 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—‘The Spirit of ADONI JEHOVAH (or the Lord JEHOVAH) is upon me, because JEHOVAH hath ANOINTED me to preach to the poor,’ &c. The Evangelist has substituted the Greek title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Hebrew titles Adoni Jehovah.

The Prophecy in the 118th Psalm (ver. 26.) which was cited by our Lord himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 "Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of JEHOVAH," is rendered by the Evangelist Luke, xiii. 35. ‘ Blessed is he that cometh IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.’ And he expresses the Name Jehovah, by the same Greek title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he afterwards records the circumstance whereby that Prophecy was in part fulfilled, viz. the publick entry of Christ into Jerusalem, when the whole multitude of disciples proclaimed before him, saying, "Blessed is the King that cometh IN THE NAME OF THE LORD," 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Luke xix. 37, 38. See also John xii. 13. where we find the same rendering of the words—‘in the Name of JEHOVAH, ’ by ‘in the Name of THE LORD (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉).’

The Prophecy of Isai. (liii. 1.) ‘Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of JEHOVAH revealed,’ is rendered by the Evangelist John—
Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm OF THE LORD (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) been revealed.
John xii. 38.

—These examples from the Evangelists, I hope, are amply sufficient to prove the true meaning and importance of the Greek title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord, when it is applied to God or to Christ; in which case it implies nothing less than the dignity of Jehovah!

↵

(110).

This is clearly a part of the testimony of John the Baptist, concerning the supreme Dignity of that Divine Person, whose WAY he was sent TO PREPARE [*]! For the sentence immediately follows, what the Baptist said of Christ—"He must increase, but I (must) decrease." John iii. 30.

↵

*

John the Baptist, as I have already remarked, was sent to prepare the way of JEHOVAH—his voice—was the long expected voice foretold by Isaiah—
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH,
(xl. 3.)

He was that extraordinary Messenger of JEHOVAH, foretold by Malachi (iii. 1.) ‘Behold, I will send MY Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ME, ’ &c.— that is, ‘ I (JEHOVAH) will send my Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ME;’ viz. before JEHOVAH; for the Divine Person, whom the Prophet represents as speaking these words, is expressly mentioned in the 6th verse of the same chapter,—‘For I (am) JEHOVAH, I change not,’ &c. It therefore evidently appears, that the way was to be prepared for JEHOVAH; and indeed the prediction was fulfilled in the most exact, literal sense: for when this extraordinary Messenger was questioned by his own disciples, and the Jews, concerning JESUS, saying—‘he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.’ John shewed them, that their report of the increasing power and fame of Christ contained nothing contradictory to the testimony which he had always borne concerning his own office and calling—‘Ye yourselves (said he) bear me witness that I said, I am not THE CHRIST, but that I am sent before him,’ (that is, before the Christ or Messiah). And after assuring them, that Christ must increase, saying, "he must increase, but I (must) decrease," he added the highest testimony that could be given of Christ's heavenly Power and Divine Existence, (such a testimony as became that extraordinary Messenger, who was sent to prepare the way of Jehovah), saying, "he that cometh from above, IS ABOVE ALL;" which expression cannot, with propriety, be applied to any person that is not really and truly Jehovah! John iii. 26—31.

↵

(111).

Which none of the princes of this world knew:
for had they known (it) they would not have crucified, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—THE LORD OF GLORY.
1. Cor. ii. 8.

↵

(112).
See page 212.
↵

(113).

—‘or else believe me’ (said our Lord)
for the very works sake.
John xiv. 11.

Our Lord had been instructing his disciples concerning his own dignity and office—‘I am THE WAY, ’ (said he)
and THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM, and HAVE SEEN HIM. Philip saith unto him, LORD, shew us THE FATHER, and it sufficeth us. JESUS saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known ME, Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME, HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou (then) Shew us the FATHER? Believest thou not that I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but THE FATHER, that dwelleth in me, he doeth THE WORKS. Believe me, THAT I AM IN THE FATHER, and THE FATHER IN ME: or else believe me for the very WORKS sake!
John xiv. 6—11.

↵

*

That they also
(said Christ to his Heavenly Father)

may be ONE IN US.

↵

*

‘ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ’ (says St. Paul, speaking of the people of Israel) ‘ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.’ ‘ Whose ’ (or of whom are)
the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh CHRIST (came) WHO IS OVER ALL, GOD blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom. ix. 5.

↵

†

And our Lord manifested himself to be truly GOD, when he asserted his "Power on earth to forgive sins," without contradicting the inward sentiment of the Scribes, "reasoning in their hearts"—
Who can forgive sins, but GOD only.
See Mark ii. 5—12.

↵

*
For thy Maker is thine HUSBAND; the Lord (Jehovah) of Hosts (is) his Name: and thy REDEEMER, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth, shall he be called.

Isai. liv. 5.

↵

*
So we (being) MANY, are ONE BODY in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Rom. xii. 5.

↵

†

For—
if ye be CHRIST'S, then are ye ABRAHAM'S SEED, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. iii. 29.

Thus all true believers in Christ, by being accounted "Abraham's Seed," are included in the Spiritual Israel, and are esteemed ONE in Christ; that is, ONE Catholick Church, but not ONE Jehovah; for in the peculiar Unity of the latter, none can be included, except the Three Divine Persons, to whom alone the supreme Title JEHOVAH is distinctly attributed in the Scriptures!

My reason for making this remark is, that some learned Men, in their Comments on Jeremiah xxxiii. 16. (viz. Grotius, Vitringa, and several others) have applied to Jerusalem that glorious Title, which the Scriptures have given to Christ alone; viz. "JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS! The learned and Rev. Mr. William Lowth (formerly Prebendary of Winchester) in his Commentary on Jeremiah, p. 293. also applies it to ‘ JERUSALEM, that is (says he) to the CHURCH, ’ &c. The learned Authors of our last excellent English Version have likewise unhappily fallen into the same error (though the older English Versions were clear from it) and have rendered the passage as follows—‘ And this (is the name) wherewith SHE shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ So Vitringa—
Hoc est (Nomen) quo IPSA denominabitur, JEHOVA JUSTITIA NOSTRA.
(Anacrisis Apocalypsios, p. 188.)

But the Hebrew Text will bear no such construction, insomuch that the abovementioned Translators have been obliged to interpolate their respective Versions of this passage with words that have nothing to answer them in the original, in order to make up that imaginary sense of it, which they have erroneously adopted! for they supply the words "is the name" and "NOMEN," for which there is not the least authority in the original Text! Supplementary words are never allowable in translations from the Hebrew Scriptures, unless they are absolutely necessary to render the sense compleat by filling up such a vacuum in the English Expression as sometimes arises from the difference of idiom in the two Languages; but they are very far from being necessary in the Text before us, which will appear by two plain Circumstances, viz.—1st. That a literal rendering of the Hebrew in this Text into English affords an intelligible and just construction without that interpolation, so that •here can be no reason or authority whatever for making it!—And 2dly. That the Words supplied by the Translators have led them (for they could not have so rendered the Hebrew Text without them) to attribute to Jerusalem that glorious Title, which in the Parallel Passage of Jeremiah (Ch. xxiii. 5, 6, as well as in the Text before us) apparently belongs to the Righteous Branch of David, the King that should reign and execute Judgement and Righteousness (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in the earth; so that the passage instead of being (as in the Hebrew Bible) parallel to the former[*], is rendered by their Translation absolutely dissonant, irreconcileable, and unparallel not only to that particular Text, but to every other part of Scripture!

Jerusalem, or the Church, might be allowed, by way of Title, to bear a Motto, or Memorial respecting ‘the Righteousness of Jehovah,’ or that ‘Jehovah is Righteous,’ as King ZEDEKIAH and others certainly did hear such a memorial of JEHOVAH in their names (see my Tract on the Law of Retribution, p. 110, 166); but neither Zedekiah, nor even the Redeemed Church or Spiritual Jerusalem, could with the least degree of propriety be called, what Christ alone really was and is,— "Jehovah OUR Righteousness!"

But the impropriety of thus applying that glorious Title need not be argued: it is amply sufficient to shew that the Hebrew Text cannot admit of such a construction without doing violence to it (as Vitringa and the learned English Translators have done) by supplying the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nomen, or name which is not found in the Text! See the words at length. ‘ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ’ That is—‘ In those days ’ (referring back to the former Sentence wherein THE RIGHTEOUS BRANCH of David is foretold, and that he shall execute Judgement and RIGHTEOUSNESS in the Land) ‘ shall Judah be saved ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feminine, She shall be saved) ‘ and Jerusalem shall dwell ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also feminine, she shall dwell) ‘ safely; AND HE’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Iste or this person) ‘WHO SHALL CALL HER’ (or rather—"he who shall call to HER" 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘ is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ Here is a Translation strictly literal (the only word supplied being the common auxiliary verb is, which very frequently is found necessary to be added to the English Expression in Translations from the Hebrew) and though we find the manner of expression very different from the Text in the 23d Chapter, there being here a feminine Relative instead of a masculine Relative, the Verb being also varied from plural to singular, and the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Name) entirely omitted, yet the sense according to this most literal rendering, is not only consonant and parallel to the former passage, but also strictly scriptural. For Jehovah certainly CALLED TO Jerusalem and her Inhabitants both before and after that Prophecy of Jeremiah;—‘ I have called unto them ’ (said JEHOVAH, speaking to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem by Jeremiah, Chap. xxxv. 17) ‘ but they have not answered. ’ Here is the very same verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to call, and the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prefixed in like manner to the pronoun following the verb; so that the expression is the same. And again we read in the Prophet Micah (vi. 9.)—‘The Voice of Jehovah shall CALL TO the City’ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here the very same Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in the same sense—shall call; and in the two preceding Chapters Sion is called upon under the figure of A WOMAN—
Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O DAUGHTER OF ZION, LIKE A WOMAN in Travail, &c. Thou shalt go even to Babylon, &c.
Chap. iv. 10.

And again in the 5th Chapter 1st Verse, ‘ Gather thyself in Troops—O Daughter of Troops ’ (manifestly refering to the Daughter of Zion mentioned in the preceding Verse) ‘ he hath laid siege against us; they shall smite THE JUDGE OF ISRAEL with a rod upon the Cheek, ’ &c. And who is this JUDGE OF ISRAEL? Surely it is the Divine WORD who, not only by his Prophets in ancient times [*] but also in his own Person (as Son of God, and Son of Man) CALLED TO THE CITY and its unwary inhabitants?—Who said by Isaiah—‘I have spread out my hands all the Day unto a rebellious People,’ &c. (Ch. lxv. 2.) —‘But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the Shoulder, and stopped their Ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts (as) an Adamant Stone, lest they should hear the Law, and the Words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent IN HIS SPIRIT by the hand of the former Prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of Hosts. Therefore it came to pass (that) as HE CALLED ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same Verb, still used in the same sense) ‘and they would not hear, so THEY SHALL CALL ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the future Tense) ‘and I will not hear’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ‘saith JEHOVAH of Hosts: and I WILL scatter them’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 still in the future Tense: and be pleased to remark, that the prophecy of this scattering or dispersion was delivered by Zechariah after the return of Israel and Judah from their former dispersion in the Provinces of Babylon; but this future Dispersion was to be much more notorious and general)—
I will SCATTER them with a whirlwind AMONG ALL THE NATIONS whom they knew not, &c.
(Zech. vii. 11—14.)

From this last dreadful and general Dispersion, the Jews have never yet returned to their own proper Country, but
the Land is (still) desolate after them
(see the 14th Verse)

having been ever since possessed and plundered by standing Armies (the bane of Mankind) consisting alternately of various foreign Nations; and the frightful desolation of that Devoted Land has been continued and prolonged by the detestable Arbitrary Governments of Arabians, Turks, and such other foreign Despots, the Scourges of Mankind!—‘For they laid the pleasant Land desolate!’ This determined Vengeance against the Jews (viz. "They SHALL CALL and I will not hear," &c.) was lamented in the most affecting Terms by "THE JUDGE OF ISRAEL" abovementioned, whom they smote and despised, for ‘he called and they would not hear!’—
O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, that killest the Prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, HOW OFTEN WOULD I HAVE GATHERED THY CHILDREN TOGETHER, even as a hen gathereth her Chickens under (her) wings, and YE WOULD NOT! Behold, your House is left unto you DESOLATE! For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord.
(Matt. xxiii. 37—39.)

May God of his infinite Mercy hasten that time, and give grace to the Descendants of his once peculiar people that they may acknowledge the true Shepherd and King of Israel, and be collected from this fatal dispersion, which hath already endured more than 1700 YEARS! Then will they know and declare that ‘the Branch of RIGHTEOUSNESS that grew up unto David, and executed judgement and RIGHTEOUSNESS in the Land, is he that CALLED TO HER ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that is, to Jerusalem (Jer. xxxiii. 16.) and that
this is HIS NAME (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which they shall call JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
(Jer. xxiii. 6.)

Nay some of the most learned Rabbins have declared long ago that this is the title of the Messiah; and even Grotius himself who applies this Title to THE CITY (
hic de CIVITATE agitur,
see on Jer. xxxiii. 16.)

yet acknowledges that not only Christians, but also the learned Rabbi KIMCHI refers it in a more sublime sense to the MESSIAH. ‘Sensu sublimiore non Christiani tantum, sed et KIMCHI hoc ad Messiam refert.’

And therefore if all the Texts above cited be duly compared and considered, it must appear that the Title "Jehovah our Righteousness" is not applied by Jeremiah (xxxiii. 16.) to JERUSALEM, but to him, who (as the prophet said) shall call her. This it seems has been the opinion of ‘several Interpreters, particularly HUETIUS, Demonstr. Evang. Prop. vii. cap. 16, and our learned Bishop PEARSON in the Notes upon his exposition of the Creed, p. 165, ’ who, as the abovementioned Mr. Lowth acknowledges, 'render the Words thus:' "HE THAT SHALL CALL HER" [i. e. ‘to be his peculiar people’] "IS THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." See also the Old English Translation by Tindal, printed in 1549—‘And HE THAT SHAL CAL HER, is even God our Ryghteous Maker.’—In the Old Version called the Bishop's Bible, we read—‘And he that shall call her, is even God our righteousnesse.’ And in the common English Version printed by the King's Printer in 1611, we find nearly the same rendering—‘And hee that shall call her is the Lord our righteousnesse.’—These are sufficient authorities, I trust, for what I have asserted in this note, and for the translation which I have ventured to make of the Text in question; and therefore if all the Texts also above cited be duly compared and considered, it must appear that the Title ‘JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’ was NOT applied by Jeremiah to Jerusalem, but only to the Righteous Branch, which (as he foretold) grew up to David, and called to her!

↵

*

In the former passage (Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.) the RIGHTEOUS Branch of the House of David, the King that was to reign, and do judgement and RIGHTEOUSNESS in the Land, is manifestly called "JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."—"In HIS days" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here is a masculine relative plainly refering back to the substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—King, in the preceding sentence) "Judah shall be saved" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—feminine—i. e. Judah she shall be saved) ‘and Israel shall dwell safely’ (these are mentioned as contingents of that King's Reign, so that the principal Substantive must be known by the reference of the Relative, which plainly points to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the King, mentioned in the preceding sentence); ‘And this (is) HIS name whereby he shall be called’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here the Masculine Relative is again inserted and connected by the copulative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [and] to the Relative in the beginning of the same sentence, so that both relatives manifestly refer back to the same principal Substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the King mentioned in the preceding sentence, and not to the nearest substantives Judah and Israel as some have erroneously conceived, in order to make the Text correspond with the mistaken construction of the Parallel Text, which cannot be done without violence to both Texts, and therefore we must abide by the Letter and construe this part of the Sentence as follows—‘And this (is) HIS Name which THEY shall call’ [or "proclaim"] rather than— "whereby he shall be called," for the Verb is in the 3d person plural) "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."—The expression in the other parallel Text varies in several circumstances from this, so that Critics cannot be justified in attempting to warp the sense of this passage to that, nor the sense of that to this, but on the contrary are bound to give to each of them their true literal Sense; and we shall find that the parallel will be so far from being weakened thereby, that it will, on the contrary, appear much more clear and consistent.

↵

*

"Are not these the Words which JEHOVAH hath CALLED" —(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called or proclaimed, i. e. to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem) "by the former Prophets, when JERUSALEM was inhabited?"— &c.—Zech. vii. 7. Here the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to call is used in the very same sense that I have given to it in the Text of Jeremiah now under consideration.

↵

*

This attempt of the Socinians to exclude the doctrine of Christ's Divine Dignity, which necessarily arises from the repeated declarations in Scripture, that the Father and the Son are ONE, is vain and futile; because the many circumstances of Divine Omnipotence and Eternal Existence (already recited) in which they are ONE, cannot without blasphemy be attributed to the Church, or to that other Unity, wherein the Church is included in the Father and the Son.

↵

*

With respect to the "One Holy Temple," we may say, that the Faithful are One, either in or with Christ; because Christ is called "the chief Corner," and
the Head [†]
of the Church, and consequently in this figure is esteemed a part of the Church.

↵

†
And gave him to be HEAD over all (things) to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Eph. i. 22, 23.

↵

(114).

The hereditary KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, which our first parents unlawfully took upon themselves, by eating of "THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE," is shewn in the beginning of this Tract to be a Divine Knowledge, such as must have originally proceeded from GOD; and as THE DIVINE WORD, which "was with GOD," and "was GOD," (John i. 1.) is declared also to be
the true LIGHT, which LIGHTETH every man that cometh into the world,
(John i. 9.)

we may perhaps, without impropriety, conceive, that the said Divine Knowledge (of which man unlawfully partook) was in some way or other originally communicated to the Tree of Knowledge in Paradise, by the ETERNAL WORD, because LIGHT and KNOWLEDGE, when mentioned as mental Properties, are certainly synonymous terms; so that to impart KNOWLEDGE to every man, is the same thing as to LIGHT, or ENLIGHTEN every man that cometh into the world. But, whether this conjecture be true or not, yet we are certain that we can have no hopes of regaining the privileges which were lost by the former fatal disobedience, except through CHRIST alone: for to him are attributed all the properties of "THE TREE OF LIFE [*];" so that, in Him, we may truly partake of such benefits, as are amply sufficient to restore the original Dignity of MAN!
And this is the record, that GOD hath given to us ETERNAL LIFE; and this LIFE is in his SON. He that hath the Son, hath LIFE; (and) he that hath not THE SON OF GOD hath not LIFE. These things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of THE SON OF GOD, that ye may know that ye have ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the Name of the SON OF GOD.
1 John v. 11—13.)

‘He that hath an ear, let him hear what THE SPIRIT saith unto the Churches: To him that overcometh, WILL I GIVE ’ (THE SPIRIT here speaks in his own Name, and thereby declares his own Omnipotence and DIVINE NATURE—"To him will I GIVE," saith the Spirit)

to eat of the TREE OF LIFE; which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.
(Rev. ii. 7.)

—Therefore, to "eat of the Tree of LIFE," is manifestly a spiritual repast, though real in its eternal effects, which are undoubtedly the same as those we expect in Christ. ‘As the LIVING FATHER hath sent me’ (said our Lord)
and I LIVE by the Father: so he that EATETH ME, even he SHALL LIVE by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your Fathers did eat Manna, and are dead. He that EATETH of this bread SHALL LIVE FOR EVER.
John vi. 57, 58.

Christ is therefore, in a most effectual manner to us, ‘THE TREE OF LIFE;’ and accordingly he himself has assured us in the strongest terms—‘ VERILY, VERILY, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no LIFE in you. Whose eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal LIFE, and I will raise him at the last day. For my FLESH is MEAT INDEED ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, "TRULY SO")
and MY BLOOD is DRINK INDEED, &c.
(John vi. 53—55.)

Now as the eating the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinking his blood (‘EXCEPT YE EAT, &c.—YE HAVE NO LIFE in you, ’ &c.) is thus declared to be absolutely necessary for us, of course THE MEANS given us of DOING SO, demand our most serious consideration, especially as they were expressly and clearly revealed to the Apostles in the solemn hour of Christ's latest instructions [*], which confirms the doctrine of their necessity and importance!

As our Lord had before declared—My flesh is MEAT (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, FOOD, from thence the German BROAT, and English word BREAD) ‘ INDEED, and my blood is DRINK INDEED, ’ he now substituted the real viands of bread (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or FOOD INDEED) and wine (drink indeed) as the outward symbols of that FLESH and BLOOD (that spiritual meat and drink for the soul) of which all persons must of necessity partake, who hope for ETERNAL LIFE!
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the TREE OF LIFE, &c.
Rev. xxii. 14.

↵

*

From which our beguiled ancestor was unhappily excluded, being driven from paradise—
lest he (should) put forth his hand, and TAKE also of THE TREE OF LIFE, and EAT and LIVE for ever.
Gen. iii. 22.

↵

*

The Apostle Paul relates the last commands of Christ on this subject, as they were revealed to him by our Lord himself, even after his ascension, whereby the necessity and importance of them are still further confirmed! viz. ‘ That THE LORD JESUS, the night he was betrayed, took BREAD: and when he had given thanks, he brake (it), and said, Take, eat: THIS IS MY BODY, which is broken for you: THIS DO’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, manifestly directing his disciples to use the solemn ceremony of breaking bread, AS HE HAD DONE) ‘ in remembrance (said he) of me. ’ After the same manner also the CUP, when he had supped, saying, ‘ THIS CUP is the New Testament’ (or New Covenant) ‘in my blood: THIS DO YE, as oft as ye drink (it) in remembrance of me.’ Thus far the Apostle relates the commands of Christ, which clearly relate to what our Lord himself had before declared concerning the necessity of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; so that this solemn ceremony of Bread and Wine is manifestly the means he had given us of doing so; because our Lord declared of the Bread—This is my Body, &c. adn of the Cup, This is the New Covenant in my blood, &c. And therefore we may be assured, that all persons, who sincerely and with due faith and disposition, partake of these two outward symbols of his Body and Blood ‘in remembrance of him’ (according to the form which he himself so expressly instituted) do most certainly, in a spiritual manner, partake also of "the Tree of Life," agreeable to the promise of THE SPIRIT "to him that overcometh!" THE BREAD is no otherwise THE BODY OF CHRIST, than as it is used in this institution—viz. received, and eaten in remembrance of Christ; by which we have Communion of his Body. 1 Cor. x. 16. For we have no authority whatever to esteem it the Body of Christ in any other respect; so that for all other purposes and uses whatsoever, it cannot be allowed so much as the Name of any thing else, but what it really is—mere Bread—even when it is held up to be worshipped; and therefore that Church which uses it in suth an unjustifiable manner, is certainly guilty of the grossest idolatry!

↵

(115).
Thus saith God the Lord (or Jehovah) he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and Spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee (that is, Christ) in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, &c.

Isai. xlii. 5—8.

↵

*

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Divine Nature, or Godhead (Acts xvii. 29.) which can be but One, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One Godhead) as there is but One God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. James ii. 19.

↵

(116).

I have said, Ye (are) GODS; and all of you (are) children (or SONS) of the most High.
(Psa. lxxxii. 6.)

The whole Psalm is plainly intended as a reproof and warning to wicked Rulers or wicked Judges, whom the inspired Psalmist calls Gods, probably because they ought to act as God's Vicegerents on earth, in ‘judging righteously,’ according to GOD'S LAW, as Moses ‘charged them’—
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, (but) ye shall hear the small, as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; FOR THE JUDGMENT IS GOD'S, &c.
Deut. i. 16, 17.

or, as King Jehoshaphat afterwards warned his Judges, in a most excellent charge, which ought to be wrote in letters of gold on the most conspicuous part of every Court of Judicature—viz.—

Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, BUT FOR THE LORD, WHO IS WITH YOU IN THE JUDGMENT. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you!—Take heed; and do it! for (there is) no iniquity with THE LORD OUR GOD, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
(2 Chron. xix. 6, 7.)

It is obvious, therefore, when these texts are duly considered, that Judges and Magistrates are called GODS, by the Psalmist, only in a confined and qualified sense, because they "judge not for man, but for the Lord," and because "the judgment is God's;" and though in the same sentence they are called "SONS OF THE MOST HIGH," yet this is no disparagement or lessening to the title and dignity of the REAL SON OF GOD, because the former (which are mere men by nature) are no otherwise ‘ SONS of the most High,’ than by Adoption, for the sake of the REAL SON, who was
not ashamed to call them BRETHREN [*],
(Heb. ii. 11.)

and even vouchsafed to take Human Nature upon himself, and to become also "THE SON OF MAN," that he might be our BROTHER indeed, and the Restorer of Human Dignity in his own Person!

The quotation made by our Lord (John x. 34.) from the 82d Psalm, viz. "I SAID ye are Gods," manifestly refers us back to a preceding expression in the 1st verse of the same Psalm, wherein the inspired Psalmist had "SAID," that God "judgeth among THE GODS,"—meaning ‘the congregation of God,’ mentioned in the beginning of the same verse—‘God standeth in THE CONGREGATION OF GOD: he judgeth among THE "GODS. How long will ye judge unjustly?’ &c. The whole Psalm, as I have before remarked, is a reproof or warning to unjust Judges, who are here called GODS, apparently in no other sense, than what I have already described. ‘The congregation of God,’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) signifies, for the most part, the main body of the people, or the congregation of the Israelites in general, as in Numbers xxvii. 17, and xxxi. 16. and also in Joshua xxii. 16, 17; but in the text before us (when the subject of the context is duly considered) the expression seems to mean, the congregation or assembly of the Judges or Senators of the people, and not the whole "Congregation of God;" though indeed the said assembly was the proper representative of the whole "Congregation of God;" because the Judges, Magistrates, and other Officers, were originally ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, AS ALL MAGISTRATES and PUBLICK OFFICERS (in strict justice) OUGHT TO BE! We read, indeed, that Moses
CHOSE able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people.
(Exod. xviii. 25.)

but, in fact, "the able men" were chosen by the people, and not by Moses (though it is here said, that "he chose" them, as it was, indeed, by HIS advice, that they were chosen, agreeable to the council and proposal of Jethro, related in the preceding context) for in the first chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses begins to repeat the history of former transactions, he relates this amongst the rest, in terms, which clearly shew, that the election of the "able men" was BY THE PEOPLE. ‘I spake unto you’ (says he)
at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: the Lord your God hath multiplied you, &c. How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? TAKE YE, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 CHUSE YE TO YOURSELVES [*]) wise men and understanding, and KNOWN AMONG YOUR TRIBES,
(which necessarily implies that the Tribes were to NOMINATE) ‘and I’ (said Moses) ‘will make them Rulers over you,’ (i. e. the returns of the elections were to be made to Moses, and he was to invest the Elected with publick authority). ‘And ye’ (said Moses) ‘answered me, and said—The thing which thou hast spoken (is) good (for us) to do.’ (Thus Moses, like a good politician, and faithful publick minister under under God, declared the free assent of the people, whereby the important measure he had proposed, by the advice of JETHRO, was enacted, and became a publick LAW, or STATUTE). ‘So I took’ (said Moses) ‘the Chief of your Tribes, wise men and known’ [that is, "known among the Tribes," (as expressed in the 13th verse) which necessary qualification could not fairly be ascertained, unless the known men were really returned or named to Moses, as such, by the Tribes themselves] ‘and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your Tribes.’ [Thus it appears, that the officers in general, from the colonel, or captain of a thousand (whether of individuals or families) down to the serjeant, or tything-man, were recommended or nominated by the people, before they were invested with authority by Moses] And I charged your JUDGES at that time (whereby it must of course be understood, that the JUDGES also had been previously nominated by the people as ‘wise men, and understanding, and known among the Tribes,’ agreeable to the preceding enacted proposal) ‘saying, Hear (the causes) between your brethren, and JUDGE righteously between (every) man and his brother, and the stranger (that is) with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment,’ &c. Deut. i. 9—17. The remainder of the excellent charge I have quoted above.—I have thus far digressed from my subject, not only for the sake of explaining several texts of Scripture, which occurred to me in the course of my argument, but also, for the honour of Human Nature, to shew the glorious State of Political Liberty, with which God was pleased to bless his people ISRAEL; and in which he would, most certainly, have maintained them, if they had persevered in the right Faith, and in due obedience to his Laws! But when men forsake GOD, they unavoidably lose their LIBERTY!

↵

*

I will declare thy Name unto MY BRETHREN,
Psa. xxii. 22.

And again—Who are MY BRETHREN? And he stretched out his
hands towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my Mother, and MY BRETHREN. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my BROTHER, &c.
Mat. xii. 48—50.

↵

*
‘In the Hebrew’ (says the learned Bp. Patrick)
it is, GIVE YE,
i. e.

present unto me (says he) such persons AS YOU THINK FIT, according to the following characters.

WISE MEN, and UNDERSTANDING, and KNOWN AMONG YOUR TRIBES,
&c. Thus the learned Bishop's paraphrase amounts to the full meaning of my interpretation above, "Chuse ye to yourselves"—But there is no need of a paraphrase to justify this rendering: the word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
indeed, literally signifies, GIVE YE, as the Bishop remarks; but neither his Lordship, nor the English version, have taken any notice of the word which immediately follows it, viz.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.—
TO YOURSELVES;
for, when these two words come together,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
they form a phrase, which, construed literally indeed, it, ‘Give ye to yourselves’ (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as the DXX. have literally rendered it) but as such a sentence necessarily implies a choice, the phrase is much better expressed when rendered, "Chuse ye to yourselves," as above; above; which is the version of the Syriac
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
"Chuse ye to yourselves," both in this text, and in Joshua xviii. 4. where the same Hebrew phrase occurs
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
—
CHUSE YE TO YOURSELVES three Men for each Tribe, and I will send them, and they shall rise, and go through the land, and describe it according to the inheritance of them; and they shall come (again) to me,
&c. Thus Joshua also, as a faithful Minister of State under GOD, was careful to maintain the popular Rights of Election, and to promote them by his advice! Even a survey of the country, in his opinion (it seems) was not to be trusted to any publick officers or commissioners whatever, but such as were duly chosen by the people, and those in equal proportions for each Tribe—
Chuse ye to yourselves (said he) three Men for each Tribe,
&c.
↵

*

‘I will declare the decree: THE LORD ’ (in the Hebrew JEHOVAH)
hath said unto me, Thou art MY SON; this day have I BEGOTTEN THEE.
Psal. ii. 7.

↵

*

Christ is, in a peculiar and essential manner, the ‘Son of God,’ because he
proceeded forth, and came out of God,
(see p. 261, 262.)

and is expressly called ‘THE ONLY BEGOTTEN’ of the Almighty Father—
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER) full of grace and truth.
John i. 14.

And 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. For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
John iii. 16—18.

↵

(117).

‘But ye denied the Holy One, and the Just’ (said the Apostle Peter to the Jews) ‘and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. And killed THE PRINCE OF LIFE, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses: and HIS NAME ’ [i. e. the Name of JESUS, as a proof that he hath ‘LIFE IN HIMSELF, (John v. 26.) and QUICKENETH WHOM HE WILL’]
through faith in HIS NAME hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know, &c.
Acts iii. 14—16.

For as the Prophets of old wrought miracles in the Name of JEHOVAH, so the Apostles and Primitive Christians wrought miracles in the Name of JESUS, to prove that he was the Son of Jehovah, and consequently is truly God and Lord!

↵

(118).

Which Honour (as I have before remarked) implies supreme Honour, and Worship, such as would be gross idolatry, if THE SON was not truly JEHOVAH; because the Law (which Christ came to fulfill [*]) declares expressly —
Thou shalt fear JEHOVAH THY GOD; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, &c.
Deut. x. 20.

And this Law Christ himself, in his quotation of it, has taught us to understand as an injunction to serve and fear JEHOVAH only, or exclusively of every other BEING— ‘for it it written’ (said our Lord) ‘Thou shalt worship THE LORD THY GOD ’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for "JEHOVAH thy God") "and him ONLY shalt thou serve" (or worship) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Matth. iv. 10.) whereas if the Son was not truly JEHOVAH, this also would be an irreconcilable contradiction to the command above-mentioned, that ‘all men should honour the Son, even as (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) they honour the Father!’

↵

*
Think not that I am come to destroy THE LAW, or THE PROPHETS: I am not come to destroy, but TO FULFIL. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from THE LAW, till all be fulfilled.

Matth. v. 17, 18.

↵

(119).

How dangerous, therefore, is the doctrine of some modern Clergymen, who have seceded from the Church of England, merely because the Litany, and other Parts of our excellent Liturgy, express Divine Honour to THE SON OF GOD! What mental blindness! not to perceive that we are bound to honour THE SON (not merely for his own sake, but also) for the sake of our HEAVENLY FATHER "which hath sent him," that the FATHER, in return, may have mercy on us, for the sake of his ONLY SON! For the Scriptures assure us, that we cannot honour the Father, if we do not honour the Son;— and the Jews of old were warned by the Psalmist concerning the necessity of "Honouring the Son," lest they should perish from the right way! 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ‘Kiss THE SON, lest he be angry, and ye perish (from) the way,’ (Psal. ii. 12.) The literal sense of this passage is fixed by the preceding context— ‘I will declare the decree—JEHOVAH hath said unto me, Thou art MY SON; this day have I begotten thee, v. 7. ’

↵

(120).

The Redeemed out of the twelve tribes of Israel, which are represented by the figures that anciently distinguished the standards of the four principal tribes in their encampments round the tabernacle. This opinion has been adopted by the great Sir Isaac Newton—‘The people of Israel’ (says he) ‘in the wilderness encamped round about the tabernacle, and on the east side were three tribes under the standard of Judah, on the west were three tribes under the standard of Ephraim, on the south were three tribes, under the standard of Reuben; and on the north were three tribes under the standard of Dan, Numb. ii. And the standard of JUDAH was a Lion, that of EPHRAIM an ox, that of REUBEN a man, and that of DAN an eagle, as the Jews affirm.’ (Compare this with Revel. iv. 7. [*]) ‘Whence were framed’ (says Sir Isaac Newton)
the Hieroglyphicks of Cherubims and Seraphims, to reprepresent the people of Israel. A Cherubim had one body with four faces, the faces of a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle, looking to the four winds of heaven, without turning about, as in Ezekiel's vision, chap. i. And four Seraphims had the same four faces with four bodies, one face to every body. The four beasts are therefore four Seraphims standing in the four sides of the peoples court; the first in the eastern side with the head of a lion, the second in the western side, &c. and all four signify together the twelve tribes of Israel, out of whom the hundred and forty four thousand were sealed.
Apoc. vii. 4. Observ. on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apoc. p. 259.

↵

*
And the first beast (was) like A LION, and the second beast like A CALF, and the third beast had a face as A MAN, and the fourth beast (or animal) was) like a FLYING EAGLE.

Rev. iv. 7.

↵

(121).
For as BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so BY THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous.

Rom. v. 19.

↵

(122).
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Matth. v. 17.

↵

(123).
And Jesus answering, said unto him (John the Baptist) Suffer (it to be so) now: for thus it becometh us TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Then he suffered him.

Matth. iii. 15.

↵

(124).

That is—"The Holy TEMPLE in the Lord," (i. e. in Christ) "in whom" the Faithful
are BUILDED together for an habitation of GOD through THE SPIRIT.
Ephes. ii. 21, 22. See also p. 305—307.

↵

(125).

The Lord (Jehovah) hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art A PRIEST FOR EVER after the order of MELCHIZEDEK, or "the righteous King."
Psa. cx. 4.

Compare with Heb. v. 6—10. and also with Heb. vii. 1—11.

↵

(126).

For this MELCHI-SEDEC, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first, being by interpretation, KING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace, &c.
Heb. vii. 1, 2.

↵

(127).

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed.
Psal. ii. 2.

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The Kings of the earth stood up, and the Rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Acts iv. 24, 25, 26.

‘But unto the Son’ (he saith)

Thy throne, O God (is) for ever and ever: a Scepter of righteousness (is) the Scepter of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God (even) thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb. i. 8, 9.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand: until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psal. cx. 1.

For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1 Cor. xv. 25.

‘That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom, and revelation, in the knowledge of him,’ &c.
which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set (him) at his own right hand in the heavenly (places).
Eph. i. 17.20.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by (his) Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.
Heb. i. 2.

↵

(128).

And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.
Isai. xi. 2.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.
lxi. 1, 2.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor: he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.
Luke iv. 18.

↵

*
For who is God but Jehovah?

Psa. xviii. 31.

↵

(129).

‘And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith’ (says the Apostle to the Hebrews)
And let ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.
Heb. i. 6. Compare with the Greek version of Psalm xcvii. 7.

↵

(130).

John xvi. 13. Upon this Augustine has remarked, that
AUDIRE illi SCIRE est, SCIRE verò ESSE. Ab illo à quo precedit, illi est ESSENTIA SCIENTIA et AUDIENTIA. Semper AUDIT Spiritus Sanctus quia semper scit.
(Tract. 99)

. But the true sense of this Hearing and Speaking of the Holy Ghost will be best understood by comparing the text with another passage of Scripture, wherein God's Revelation by his Spirit is further explained. St. Paul, speaking of ‘the things which God hath prepared for them that love him,’ intimates, that—
GOD hath REVEALED (them) unto us BY HIS SPIRIT: for the Spirit (says he) searcheth all things, yea, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. For what Man" (continues the Apostle) "knoweth the things of a Man, save THE SPIRIT OF MAN which is in him? Even so" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so also) "the things of GOD knoweth no Man but THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.

Thus by ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual’ (agreeable to the Apostle's advice in the next verse but one, ver. 13.) we learn how to understand what is said of the Holy Ghost's Hearing what "he shall speak:" for the manner of his knowing, or being acquainted with "the things of God," we find is plainly compared to the knowledge of the Soul in a Man, respecting the things of a Man; and surely a stronger declaration of supreme and infinite Knowledge could not have been made! He therefore that searcheth the deep things of God, speaks not of himself, because he speaks "the things of God," and of course the things of Christ, because "all things that the Father hath" (said Christ) "are MINE: therefore said I" (continues our Lord)

that he (i. e. the Spirit) shall take of MINE, and shall shew it unto you.
John xvi. 15.

↵

(131).

Our Lord said to his disciples—
I will pray THE FATHER, and HE shall GIVE you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever; (even) the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, &c.
John xiv. 16, 17.

—
But the Comforter (which is) the Holy Ghost, whom THE FATHER WILL SEND in my Name, he shall teach you all things, &c.
Ch. xiv. 26.

↵

(132).

—‘It is expedient for you’ (said our Lord to his disciples)
that I go away: for if I go not away, THE COMFORTER will not come unto you; but if I depart, I WILL SEND HIM unto you.
John xvi. 7.

Compare this with ch. xv. 26.—‘When THE COMFORTER is come, whom I WILL SEND unto you from the Father, even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, which proceedeth’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, proceedeth out) ‘from the Father, he shall testify of me.’ This text affords an ample proof of the Divine Nature of the HOLY SPIRIT, and shews, that he is not like other Spirits, a created Spirit, but, on the contrary, ‘proceeded out from the Father,’ as Grotius remarks—‘Non creatus aliquis Spiritus, sed qui de patris ipsius substantia procedit et ab ipso emanat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut Athenagoras loquitur.’ The Divine Word, in like manner, proceeded out from the Father, as I have already remarked, see p. 261.

↵

(133).

‘Of which salvation,’ (meaning "the salvation of souls" mentioned in the preceding verse)
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
1 Pet. i. 10, 11.

From hence it is manifest, that this Spirit of Christ is the same identical Spirit of God (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 THE SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH) which spake ‘beforehand the sufferings of Christ by the Prophets’ in old time; so that ‘the Spirit of God’ is unquestionably the Spirit, also, of Christ, agreeably to what our Lord himself declared,
All things that THE FATHER hath are MINE,
(see page 308.)

and therefore the Almighty Operations of the Holy Spirit manifested the Glory of the Son as well as the Glory of the Father—‘He’ (said our Lord, speaking of THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH)

shall glorify me: for he shall receive of MINE, and shall shew it unto you. All things that THE FATHER hath ARE MINE: therefore said I, that he shall take of MINE, and shew (it) unto you.
(John xvi. 15, 16.)

Compare this with John xvii. 10.—‘And all mine are thine’ (said Christ to his Heavenly Father) ‘and thine are mine; and I AM GLORIFIED IN THEM. ’

↵

*

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY!
2 Cor. iii. 17.

—
Take not thy HOLY SPIRIT from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy FREE SPIRIT.
Psa. li. 11, 12.

↵

*
See note in p. 322. and note (148) in p. 371.
↵

(134).

The words here rendered "the Spirit of God," are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are both Noun Substantives, and therefore ought not to be construed — the Divine Spirit, as in the Greek version (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) but ‘the Spirit of God,’ as it is rendered in the Chaldee Paraphrase or Targum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and also in the Syriac version 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for in both these, the Article of the Genitive Case is added to the second Substantive, to mark the sense of the Hebrew in such cases, though that most ancient language has no Article to express the Genitive Case.

↵

(135).

Or SPIRIT—for the word here rendered Breath, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the very same Hebrew Noun, by which the Spirit is most commonly expressed in Holy Scripture.

↵

(136).

Attributed to "the Spirit of God."—Our Lord said to the Jews—
If I cast out Devils BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, then the Kingdom of GOD is come unto you.
(Matth. xii. 28.)

↵

(137).
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John x. 37.

↵

(138).
I have therefore whereof I may glory, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, in those things which pertain unto God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which CHRIST HATH NOT WROUGHT BY ME, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through MIGHTY SIGNS AND WONDERS, BY THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.

(Rom. xv. 17—19.)

↵

(139).

"Et Virtus Altissimi, i. e. Spiritus Dei (qui Virtus Dei, Luc. xxiv. 49.) efficacissimus." Lucas Brugensis, as quoted in Pole's Synopsis. And Grotius, on the 17th verse of this chapter, says—‘Quoties 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nominatur SPIRITU nominato, vis quaedam SPIRITUS solita major indicatur, ut infra 35.’ (meaning the 35th verse, the text in question) ‘Actor. x. 38. 1 Cor. ii. 4. 1 Thess. i. 5.’

↵

(140).
Compare with John xiv. 16—26.
↵

(141).

And killed the PRINCE (or Author) OF LIFE (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) whom GOD hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
(Acts iii. 15.)

See also a note in p. 336.

↵

(142).

(There is) therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after THE SPIRIT. For the Law of THE SPIRIT OF LIFE in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death.
Rom. viii. 1, 2.

—
And after three days and an half, THE SPIRIT OF LIFE from God entered into them: and they stood upon their feet, &c.
Rev. xi. 11.

↵

(143).
And THE SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH shall rest upon him (viz. upon the Branch from the Stem of Jesse), the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord; &c.

Isai. xi. 2.

↵

(144).
And declared to be THE SON OF GOD with POWER; according to THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS, by the resurrection from the dead.

Rom. i. 4.

↵

(145).
—For THE SPIRIT OF GLORY and of God resteth upon you.

1 Pet. iv. 14.

↵

(146).
Hear, O Israel, the Lord (or Jehovah) our God, is ONE JEHOVAH.

Deut. vi. 4.

↵

(147).

When GOD delivered the Law to his people Israel, he said—
I am JEHOVAH THY GOD, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Exod. xx. 2.

↵

(148).

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Deity, or Godhead. This is a scriptural expression for the Nature of God; for we read in Col. ii. 9. that ‘in him (i. e. in Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Deity, or Divine Nature) ‘bodily!’ Nearly the same word (but in the Nominative Case, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is also used in Rom. i. 20. Another expression for the Divine Nature, or Deity, we read in Acts xvii. 29. viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That there is but One Divine Nature is a necessary doctrine, because there is but One God; and though it is difficult for our finite understandings to comprehend how Three Divine Persons are included in that One God, yet these scriptural expressions for the Divine Nature (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) afford great relief to our conceptions of that necessary doctrine, for there is no difficulty in comprehending, that Three Divine Persons may be united in One Divine Nature, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And hence also it is a necessary doctrine, that the Son, (and not less the Spirit likewise) is ‘equal to the Father as touching the Godhead’ (though inferior and subordinate in some other respects) because it would be absurd to contend for the Unity of the Divine Nature, if the least degree of Inequality respecting that Nature, or Existence, be admitted! See pages 242—244.

↵

(149).

For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1 Cor. x. 4.

And again in the 9th verse— ‘Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.’

↵

*
See a note in p. 294. marked †.
↵

(150).

"From the Holy One"—‘That is’ (says Dr. Whitby) ‘ From JESUS CHRIST, emphatically so called Acts iii. 14. Apoc. iii. 7. But then that UNCTION (says he) is the HOLY SPIRIT, which he hath given to them that believe. For he being’
ANOINTED WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE HIS FELLOWS,
Psa. xlv. 7.

ANOINTED BY GOD WITH THE HOLY GHOST,
Acts x. 38.

‘ This Grace ’ (says the Dr.) ‘ is given to Christians, ’

ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE OF THE GIFT OF CHRIST,
Eph. iv. 7.

And we all beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same likeness, as by the Spirit of the Lord,
2 Cor. iii. 18. Vol. 2. p. 759.

↵

(151).

By the UNCTION here, and the ANOINTING, ver. 27. is meant the HOLY SPIRIT, whose Gifts and Graces are diffused throughout the whole Church, and to every living Member thereof.
Rev. Francis Fox, M. A. See his New Test. with references, printed in 1722. p. 999.

—
Thereby are signified the gifts of THE HOLY GHOST, bestowed on Believers, whereby they are consecrated to God,
Psa. xlv. 7. Heb. i. 9. (Assembly's Annotations)

.

In Novo Testamento ubi omnes sunt Reges et Sacerdotes, per UNGUENTUM intelligitur QU•E VIS DEI GRATIA, ut diximus Hebr. i. 9. et Iac. v. 14. EXIMIè verò ILLA per quam SPIRITUS nobis in singulis circumstantiis suggerit, et Christi praecepta et monita quae cuique tempori sunt idonea.
Joh. xiv. 26. Grotius.

See also the opinion of Dr. Whitby in the preceding note. But the Scriptures themselves teach us plainly, that the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit is to be understood by the Unction or Anointing—
THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD JEHOVAH is upon me, because JEHOVAH hath ANOINTED me, &c.
Isaiah lxi. 1. Compare with Acts x. 38.

—
How God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with THE HOLY SPIRIT, and with Power.
See also note in p. 381.

↵

(152).

This Teaching of the Holy Ghost is also fully declared by our Lord's promise of that Heavenly Gift to his disciples—‘ But the Comforter (which is) THE HOLY GHOST’ (saith our Lord)
whom the Father will send in my Name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, &c.
John xiv. 26.

And again,
When he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH is come, he will guide you INTO ALL TRUTH, &c.
John xvi. 13.

↵

(153).

‘But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his. And if CHRIST (be) IN YOU ’ (i. e. in you by his Spirit, mentioned in the preceding sentence)
the body (is) dead, because of sin, but the Spirit (is) life, because of righteousness. But if THE SPIRIT OF HIM that raised up JESUS from the dead, DWELL IN YOU, he that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken your mortal mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT that DWELLETH in you.
Rom. viii. 9—11.

Here we find "the Spirit of God," and "the Spirit of Christ," distinctly mentioned in the same context, though the spiritual Effects of both are undoubtedly the same, because both these titles belong to one and the same Holy Spirit, as St. Paul elsewhere declares—"For through him" (says the Apostle, speaking of the reconciliation, or uniting of the Gentiles, and the commonwealth of Israel, through Christ) ‘we both’ (i. e. Jews and Gentiles)
have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father.
Eph. ii. 18.

This One Spirit, therefore, must necessarily be understood, not only when "the Spirit of God" is mentioned, but also whenever we read of "the Spirit of the Son [*],"—

the Spirit of Jesus [†],

or
the Spirit of Christ,
(see note in p. 357)

; for as Christians are
builded together for AN HABITATION OF GOD THROUGH THE SPIRIT,
(Eph. ii. 22.)

so likewise it must be THROUGH THE SAME SPIRIT that they become ‘AN HABITATION OF CHRIST,’—‘ if Christ be in you, ’ &c. because the same text informs us, that—‘if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.’

↵

*
Because ye are Sons, GOD hath sent forth THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON into your hearts.

Gal. iv. 6.

↵

†
I know that this shall turn to my salvation, through your prayer, and the supply of THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST.

Phil. i. 19.

↵

(154).
Compare the preceding note in page 383, with the note in p. 385.—See also page 292.
↵

(155).
What, know ye not that your BODY is THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY GHOST, (which is) in you? which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Cor. vi. 19.

↵

(156).

2 Cor. vi. 16.—‘And what agreement (says the Apostle Paul) hath THE TEMPLE OF GOD with idols? for ye are THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD: as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in (them) and will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ And this In-dwelling, or Inhabitation of God in the Faithful, is declared in Scripture to be "through the Spirit," which affords an ample proof, that the Spirit is truly GOD! ‘ In whom ’ (says St. Paul to the Ephesians, ii. 22. speaking of Jesus Christ) ‘ ye also are builded together for AN HABITATION OF GOD THROUGH THE SPIRIT.’ Thus the true Christian doth really become a TEMPLE OF GOD, "for where God dwells is a Temple," as Grotius remarks [*]; and GOD dwells is good men BY HIS HOLY SPIRIT. "Therefore (says he) are they THE TEMPLE OF GOD." This Inhabitation, or In-dwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT in the Temple of GOD, is plainly declared by the Apostle Paul in another text—"Know ye not" (says he)
that ye are THE TEMPLE OF GOD, and that THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELLETH IN YOU? If any man defile THE TEMPLE OF GOD, him shall God destroy: for THE TEMPLE OF GOD is holy [†], which (Temple) ye are.
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.

↵

*
Templum est ubi DEUS habitat. In piis habitat Deus PER SPIRITUM SANCTUM. Sunt igitur TEMPLUM DEI.

Grot. Annot. Tom. IV. p. 482.

↵

†
"is holy,"—"being sanctified by THE HOLY GHOST." Rom. xv. 16.
↵

†

Compare this with Ps. lxxxvi. 10.—‘Thou art God alone,’ that is, ‘Thou’ (JEHOVAH) ‘art God alone,’ for the whole Psalm is a prayer addressed to JEHOVAH— "Bow down thine ear, O JEHOVAH," &c.—See also Isaiah xxxvii. 16. and compare th•se texts with the note in p. 323. concerning those persons, whose title of "Gods," was merely nominal.

↵

(157).

See some Observations on this passage in my Tract on several important Prophecies. 2d Edit. pages 222, 223, and 228—235.

↵

158.
See note in p. 360.
↵

(159).

"If we will." For, notwithstanding all that has been said and wrote concerning Predestination and Reprobation, yet it must surely be our own fault, a depravity in our own choice, or will, if we partake not of "the Tree of Life!"

‘No man’ (indeed) ‘can come to me’ (said that Divine Person, who alone is THE WAY, and THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE," John xiv. 6.) ‘except the Father, which hath sent me, DRAW him: and I’ (said he)
will raise him up at the last day.
(John vi. 44.)

But though this Drawing depends on the Will of the Father, yet no just argument arises from thence against the free Will of MAN, because we have ample assurance on the part of the Almighty, that his Good Will to DRAW us will not be wanting, if we seek him as we ought, and do not resist his Divine Grace in our hearts; of this Good Will his affectionate remonstrances from time to time by his Prophets bear unquestionable testimony. —‘Why WILL ye die, O House of Israel? For I HAVE NO PLEASURE in the death of him that dieth, saith the LORD JEHOVAH, wherefore turn yourselves,’ (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hiphil. cause ye to turn; i. e. the repentance must be by your own will and deed) "and live ye." (Ezek. xviii. 31, 32.) And again, GOD swears by himself, that we may have full assurance of his Will in our favour, if our own Will is not wanting!—
Say unto them (as) I LIVE, saith the LORD JEHOVAH, I have NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way, and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways: for why will ye die, O House of Israel?
Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

These texts, indeed, are assurances of God's love to the House of Israel; but in Christ, even the Gentiles are entitled to claim them, being now engrafted on the stock of Israel (see p. 296) and are thereby rendered
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal. iii. 29.)

And under the New Covenant, also, God hath confirmed these assurances of favour on his part, if we are not wanting to ourselves, promising us that we shall receive, if we will but ask (see note in p. 395)—
For THE LORD is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, BUT that ALL should come to repentance.
2 Pet. iii. 9.

From hence it follows, that, if any perish, it is not by God's Will, (though he certainly foreknows their destruction) but by their own wilful Abuse of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; for we are assured also by another Apostle, that GOD
will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the Knowledge of the Truth.
(1 Tim. ii. 4.)

‘ The Word ALL’ (says the learned Mr. Francis Fox on this text)
here stands for EVERY MAN; for so it is used ver. 1. where we are commanded to pray for ALL MEN. Hence (says he) we may argue, that if God WILLS the Salvation of ALL MEN, and would have ALL come to the acknowledgment of the Truth, then he affords ALL sufficient MEANS and GRACE, in order to their obtaining Salvation; because without this they cannot be saved.
(See John vi. 44. quoted in the beginning of this note)

.
If any therefore perish, it is not because God DENIES them GRACE and HELP, but because they are WANTING TO THEMSELVES, and WILL NOT BE PREVAILED WITH to USE the assistance he affords. Their destruction, therefore, is not FROM any peremptory DECREE of God's, but FROM THEMSELVES.
New Testament with references, p. 867. note.

↵

160.

‘And I say unto you’ (said our Lord Jesus) ‘ ASK, and it shall be GIVEN you: seek, and ye shall find: KNOCK, and it shall be OPENED unto you.’ (For our Lord had just before given a parable of a man's going to his friend's house even at midnight, and knocking at the door to borrow bread).
For every one, that ASKETH, RECEIVETH: and he that SEEKETH, FINDETH: and to him that KNOCKETH, it shall BE OPENED. If A SON shall ask bread of any of you that is A FATHER, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? IF YE THEN, BEING EVIL, know how to give good Gifts unto YOUR CHILDREN: how much more shall your HEAVENLY FATHER, give the HOLY SPIRIT to them that ASK him?
(Luke xi. 9—13.)

"And whatsoever ye shall ASK in MY NAME" (said our Lord JESUS) "that will I DO" [an ample proof, as I before remarked, of his being truly GOD in Effect and Power, as well as in Name; and that he and the Father are ONE, as he himself not only said, but proved by his Works; so that we must necessarily understand, as there is but ONE GOD, (Jehovah) that he is included with THE FATHER in the ONE Eternal Being JEHOVAH] ‘that THE FATHER may be glorifed in THE SON. If ye shall ask any thing in MY NAME ’ (our Lord JESUS again repeated and enforced his gracious promise) ‘I WILL DO (it).’ ‘If ye love me’ (said he) ‘keep MY commandments,’ (and who hath a right to command, but GOD?—Our Lord, nevertheless, immediately afterwards declares the ministerial Office, which he had condescended to undertake for our sake, as Mediator between GOD and Man, himself being both!) ‘ And I ’ (said he) ‘ will PRAY THE FATHER, and he s•ll give you ANOTHER COMFORTER,’ (or ADVOCATE, see ABp. Sharp's Sermons, 5 vol. Disc. 2d.) ‘ that he may abide with you for ever; even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH,’ (here the Three Divine Persons are distinctly mentioned together, in their separate personal functions under the Christian Dispensation) "whom" (i. e. the Spirit of Truth) ‘the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him:’ (and of course all other true disciples of Christ know him, as the promises are to all, and cannot fail)
for he dwelleth with you, and shall be IN YOU.
John xiv. 13—17.)

‘Again, I say unto you’ (said our Lord JESUS) ‘that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of MY FATHER, which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together IN MY NAME ’ (i. e. in the Name of JESUS)

there AM I in the midst of them.
(Matt. xviii. 19, 20.)

These, and many more such, declarations of Christ, are the reiterated Promises (mentioned above) on which the restored Dignity and Privileges of Human Nature are firmly founded, and may be effectually secured, if the future building be raised thereupon with the plumb line of Integrity, and be afterwards maintained with Perseverance to the end of life! "He is faithful that promised." (Heb. x. 23.) Wherefore,
be strong, and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid: for THE LORD (Jehovah) THY GOD, he it is that doth go with thee, he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
(Deut. xxxi. 6.)

↵

(161).

When Christ (who is) our life, shall APPEAR, then shall ye also appear with him IN GLORY. Mortify therefore your members, &c.
Col. iii. 4.

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for THE SAVIOUR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST: who shall change our vile BODY, that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY, according to the working, whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
(Ph. iii. 20, 21.)

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know, that when he shall APPEAR, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM: for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
1 John iii. 2, 3.

‘But some (man) will say, How are the dead raised up? and WITH WHAT BODY do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that BODY that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other (grain), but God giveth it A BODY as it hath pleased him, AND TO EVERY SEED HIS OWN BODY. All flesh is not the same flesh, but (there is) one (kind of) flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, (and) another of birds, &c.— So also (is) the resurrection of the dead. It 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 (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, animal) BODY, it is raised A SPIRITUAL BODY. There is a natural (or animal) body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (was made) a quickening Spirit, &c.—And as we have borne the image of the earthy, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE HEAVENLY ’ [i. e. of the Lord Jehovah from HEAVEN, mentioned in the 47th verse, see also pages 181—285, 294—308.].
Now this I say, brethren, that FLESH AND BLOOD cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth CORRUPTION inherit INCORRUPTION [*]. Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, 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.
That is, we living men, whoever we are, that shall be found alive, and remaining in the body at that awful period, "shall be changed;" for the Apostle had before declared, that "we shall not all sleep" (that is, in death) but we "shall all be CHANGED," viz. both Dead and Living shall be changed from corruptible to incorruptible Beings, though the manner of THE CHANGE will be different in these two different states of mankind, the Dead will be RAISED incorruptible, but the Living shall be instantaneously rendered so, "in the twinkling of an eye." Thus the change will be made in the property or quality of our living bodies, and not in the identity of them. It will be an annihilation or dissolution of corruptibility, and not of substance; for the substance, on the contrary, will be rendered indissoluble and eternal; even that substance which now is subject to so many fatal accidents, diseases, and death) ‘For THIS CORRUPTIBLE must put on INCORRUPTION, and this mortal (must) put on IMMORTALITY. ’ [So that it is, manifestly, "this" same mortal body, "this" earthly tabernacle in which we now live, that shall hereafter "put on" immortality and incorruption—‘We that are in (this) tabernacle do groan’ (says the same Apostle in another place)
being burdened: not for that we would be UNCLOTHED, but CLOTHED UPON, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2 Cor. v. 4.

and this is further explained in the former text, viz.]
So when THIS CORRUPTIBLE (says the Apostle) shall have PUT ON incorruption, and THIS MORTAL shall have PUT ON immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written; Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? &c.
1 Cor. xv. 35—55.

↵

*

By this latter part of the sentence (i. e. neither doth corruption haberit incorruption) the Apostle explains what he meant by the ‘flesh and blood’ which "cannot inherit," &c. "ita explicat" (as Grotius justly remarks) "quid intelligi voluerit per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉." It is manifest from the whole context, that the Apostle, by flesh and blood in this text, meant only corruptible and perishable flesh and blood; for it is not the substance or solidity of flesh and blood, which cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, but only the corruptibility, or dissoluble and corrupt quality of it, as another learned commentator (Slater) has remarked—Non intelligit CORPORIS SUBSTANTIAM, sic enim resurget. Job xix. 26, 27. sed qualitatem corruptam. Pol. Synop. Vol. V. page 539.

We have incontestable evidence, by the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, that the real human substances of "flesh and bones" (of which his revived body consisted) can, and doth ‘inherit the kingdom of heaven.’—Our Lord was particularly careful to convince his disciples of this truth after his resurrection, saying—‘ Behold my hands and my feet, THAT IT IS I MYSELF (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thus insisting upon the identity of his own person) handle me, and see ’ (thus urging his disciples to receive undeniable conviction by all their senses) ‘for A SPIRIT ’ (says he)
hath not FLESH AND BONES, as ye see we have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them (his) hands and (his) feet.
Luke xxiv. 39, 40.

Now this was not to convince them merely, that the hands and feet, which he then shewed, were "flesh and bones," but that they were also (to undeniable demonstration) the same identical "flesh and bones" that had been publickly nailed to the cross; for our Lord shewed them likewise
his side,
John xx. 20.

undoubtedly that same wounded side which had been pierced with a lance; for it was manifestly on account of the wounds, which he had received in his flesh, that he now pointed out, as unquestionable evidences of his identical body, those particular parts thereof (his hands, feet, and side) in which the principal wounds had been made, agreeable to the predictions of the Prophets (Ps. xxii. 16. Zech. xii. 10. and xiii. 6, 7.) and at the same time, he submitted himself to the most critical examination of those select persons, whom he had chosen for witnesses—‘It is I myself (says he) handle me and see,’ &c. That our Lord appealed to the evidence of real wounds in his flesh, is further demonstrated by the declaration of the Apostle Thomas, when he had heard the account of our Lord's appearance from the other disciples: for Thomas answered them, saying—‘Except I shall see in his HANDS the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his SIDE, I will not believe.’ And accordingly, this palpable and unquestionable demonstration was graciously allowed him, even in the presence of the former witnesses; for—

After eight days, again the disciples were within, and THOMAS with them: (then) came Jesus, the doors being shut, AND STOOD IN THE MIDST, and said, Peace (be) unto you. Then saith he to THOMAS, reach hither thy finger, and behold MY HANDS; and reach hither thy hand, and (thrust) it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
(John xx. 24—27.)

And after our Lord had at several other times, (1 Cor. xv. 4—8.) visited, instructed, and confirmed his disciples concerning the truth and reality of his resurrection, and other necessary doctrines, he at length ascended from among them towards heaven, even while their whole attention was fixed upon him—"While they beheld" (says the text)
he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while THEY LOOKED STEDFASTLY (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) toward heaven, AS HE WENT UP, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? THIS SAME JESUS, which is taken up from you INTO HEAVEN, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go INTO HEAVEN.
(Acts i. 9—11.)

Thus we have incontestible evidence concerning the identical substance of our Lord's revived body, "Flesh and Bones;" and therefore with certainty we know that the Human Body (consisting of solid and palpable substances of "Flesh and Bones") is capable of inheriting the kingdom of heaven; and consequently we must understand that the Flesh and Blood mentioned by the Apostle, which ‘cannot inherit,’ &c. must necessarily mean corrupt and mortal Flesh and Blood, before it has undergone the promised change to incorruption and immortality, as explained above; for our Lord's body (it is manifest, if all these circumstances are considered) could not possibly have undergone any other change than that of being "RAISED INCORRUPTIBLE," whereas, before, it was corruptible (or liable to injuries) and mortal, or it could not have suffered and died: and in like manner all the rest of the "dead shall be raised INCORRUPTIBLE;" as the resurrection of Christ is the pledge of our hope, he being declared "the first fruits of them that slept." 1 Cor. xv. 20. I shall not apologize to my readers for the length of this note, because the subject of it very materially concerns the Nature of Man; and all mankind are personally interested in the assurances we have, that even the Body (as well as the Soul) shall one day be raised to immortality and eternal duration; nevertheless, I confess, that I should have neglected to treat upon this very material part of my subject (as I conceived that the doctrine was sufficiently understood, and generally received among Christians) had not a new pamphlet, on very different principles, been put into my hands, at the very time when I had proceeded in transcribing the above note for the press, even to the very sentence where I have placed the mark of reference; so that I thought myself obliged to add these remarks upon the text, in order to guard against the plausible insinuations in the said Tract.

↵

*

"For the trumpets SHALL sound," (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) says the Apostle; but the Author of the New Pamphlet, mentioned in the preceding note, boldly insinuates, that it shall NOT sound! And as this Author has thought proper to conceal his name, I hope I may censure his opinions with less reserve, because he cannot suspect me of any personal dislike to an unknown author; and must therefore consider my severity as levelled merely against his erroneous doctrines, and not against himself.

‘ Do you take the LAST TRUMPET’ (says he, in page 13.) ‘to be some instrumental sound?’ &c.—‘The word LAST, ’ (says he again) ‘evidently implies a FIRST: now who is he that heard the instrumental sound of the FIRST Trumpet?’ Thus, on the strength of a mere sophistical quibble, he ventures to found his opposition to the clearest evidence of scripture, that ‘the Trumpet SHALL SOUND, and the dead shall be raised,’—as if these great articles of the Christian Faith, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the awful summons to the Judgment Seat of Christ, could possibly be set aside by such superficial reasoning! For though we may not be able to answer his question, viz. ‘Who is he that heard the instrumental sound of the FIRST Trumpet?’ Yet any plain honest Christian, who reads his Bible with a proper humble disposition, can easily inform him, who they were (even a whole nation at once) that really and truly heard the actual sound of a former heavenly trumpet. See the 19th chapter of Exodus; wherein the instrumental sound is clearly expressed by two different technical Hebrew names of an instrument, well known among the Israelites, which seems to have been a kind of horn or cornet. The use of such instruments is particularly recorded in Joshua vi, 4, for seven of them were sounded by the priests at the taking of Jericho. The sound only of one instrument (bearing two different names) was heard at Mount Sinai, tho' it is described as being loud to a most tremendous degree, being a heavenly trumpet. And answerable to this the future heavenly trumpet, foretold by St. Paul, is mentioned in the singular number, viz.
the trump of God.
1 Thess. iv. 16.

—Now as the sounding of the former trumpet was previously appointed and foretold, as the awful signal to apprize the Israelites of the Coming of Jehovah upon Mount Sinai, and to summon them up to the Mount (see Exodus xix. 11, and 13.) so the actual tremendous sounding of that former trumpet (see verses 16 and 19) is an incontestible earnest or pledge to us (even upon the principles of this author's own argument) that we ought to expect an actual sounding also of the last trumpet, because it is as clearly appointed to be the awful signal of the future Coming and Appearance of the Messiah to judge the world, as the former trumpet was of the descent of Jehovah upon Mount Sinai, so that the ingenious hypothesis of this Author about the soundless summons of the last trumpet falls at once to the ground!

There is such ample evidence (God be thanked) of outward transactions throughout the whole account which Moses has given of God's coming down upon Mount Sinai (or Horeb, which is only a different part of the same mountain) that the literal sense of his relation cannot, without the most glaring perversion, be enveloped and darkened by the delusive mist of figurative sophistry! And the same, indeed, may be said of what is revealed to us in the Scriptures concerning the future Coming and Appearance of the Messiah to judge the world; but this Author nevertheless (presuming upon the supposed force of his insidious quibble about the last trumpet) ventures openly to profess his disbelief of the actual future judgment of the world by Christ; and boldly asserts, that ‘there will be no such process hereafter. The judgment seat’ (says he)
is in every man's heart; and it is there, and THERE ONLY, that man can, or EVER WILL, feel acquittance, or CONDEMNATION, &c.
(Note in p. 25.)

And this unscriptural doctrine he has attempted (in a preceding part of his book) to illustrate by an example drawn even from Scripture itself!

When Paul stood before Felix
(says he in p. 20.)

‘Felix stood before the judgment seat of Christ; else what made him tremble? What but the secret condemnation he felt in his breast?’ But give me leave for a moment to treat this Author in his own evasive stile, by answering question with questions, though I by no means wish to avoid giving him a direct answer to his trembling system! — Would not Felix have had much less cause to tremble, if (with the spirit of our modern Author) he had conceived that there would never be any other condemnation, than that which he felt within himself? And again—Did not Felix tremble whilst (or as) the Apostle "reasoned" (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a genitive case taken absolutely, as the grammarians say, i. e. to mark the precise interval of any action, or corresponding circumstance, as that it happened during the very time that the Apostle reasoned) "of righteousness, temperance, and THE JUDGMENT TO COME (expressly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the future judgment) so that the Apostle could not possibly mean the present internal condemnation, which at that very interval of time caused Felix to tremble? Acts xxiv. 25. But this author not only denies the future JUDGMENT OF CHRIST, but also, it seems, the future RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD! ‘ He feels" (speaking in p. 23. of a man that has the witness within himself) "that he is RISEN WITH CHRIST; and so experiences with St. Paul, THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION: and being made A PARTAKER OF THE FIRST RESURRECTION, flesh and blood then convinces him what it is, ’ &c. Now, as he thus asserts, that he is "made a partaker of the first resurrection," and that there will be "no process hereafter," nor judgment of Christ, besides that which (as he conceives) is in every man's heart, it necessarily follows, that (with respect to himself, and such other "truly awakened such") this Author must suppose the resurrection to be already past! This is a leading principle, which, being once admitted, all the other doctrines, which this Author has laboured to inculcate, must necessarily follow as concomitant circumstances: the perusal of his book, therefore, enables us to form a very probable idea of the particular doctrines held by those very ancient heretics, Hymeneus and Philetus; for tho' this author himself (a similar spirit) conceives, that his doctrines are ‘not only uncommon, but n•w,’ &c. and accordingly (in his preface) apologizes for "the untrodden path," yet his path is very old, and so strongly marked in antiquity, that the leading principle above-mentioned, on which almost all the rest depends, was described more than 1700 years ago, even by St. Paul himself, who mentioned the promoters of it expressly by name, and warned us against the pernicious effects of their errors in the strongest terms—‘Their word’ (says the Apostle)
will eat as doth a canker: of whom is HYMENEUS and PHILETUS; who concerning the truth have ERRED, saying, that the RESURRECTION IS PAST ALREADY; and overthrow the faith of some.
2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.

↵

(162).

(The conditions of our reciprocal covenant with God.) ‘Let us but satisfy ourselves that we perform the conditions which Christ hath required of mankind, in order to salvation (which conditions are all summed up in these two words, Faith and Repentance) and we may be as certainly assured that we belong to God, and are entitled to his favour, as if we saw our particular names recorded in a book, among them that are appointed to salvation. Away, therefore, with all fears and doubts concerning our eternal Predestination. Let us never be solicitous in enquiring, whether God hath decreed such a particular number of persons (in exclusion to the rest of mankind) to eternal life; or, if he hath done so, whether we be in the number of them; but let us take care to secure our own duty.’ ‘ Secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed, to us, and to our children, that we may do all the works of his law; ’ as we have it in Deuteronomy.
Let us take care to obey God's commandments: let us live as well as we can, and if we do so, it is certain we cannot miscarry; and if God hath made any such Eternal Decrees concerning the lot of particular persons, it is certain likewise that we are in the number of those that are predestinated to eternal salvation, provided we continue in our faith and obedience.
ABp. Sharp's Sermon—"Of the Fewness of those who shall be saved." Vol. III. p. 111.

↵

A TRACT ON THE LAW OF NATURE, AND PRINCIPLES OF ACTION IN MAN.

BY GRANVILLE SHARP.

For ye are all the SONS OF GOD by Faith in Christ Jesus.
GAL. iii. 26.

"—one is your Master (even) CHRIST, and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And"—"one is your Father, which is in Heaven."
MATTH. xxiii. 8, 9.

LONDON: Printed for B. WHITE, at Horace's Head, in Fleet-street; and E. and C. DILLY, in the Poultry.

MDCCLXXVII.

INDEX OF TEXTS referred to in the foregoing Work; OF THE Various TOPICS discussed; AND OF THE Different AUTHORS referred to.

INDEX OF THE TEXTS referred to in the foregoing Work.

GENESIS.

Chap.

Verses

Pages

i.

2.

368.

ii.

17.

11.14.

iii.

4, 5.

19.

17 to 19.

22.

19.

28 n.

22.

20.43.

311 n.

313 n.

xiv.

2.

92 n.

22.

240.

xviii.

19.

91.

23 to 25.

88 n.

33.

92 n.

xxii.

1.

188 n.

2.

267 n.

6 to 8.

267 n.

18.

267 n.

EXODUS.

iii.

14.

259 n.

xviii.

25.

326 n.

xix.

403 n.

11 to 13.

404 n.

16.19.

404 n.

xx.

2.

371 n.

xxiii.

17.

228 n.

xxx.

12 to 16.

104.

xxxii.

9, 10.

80.

7 to 17.

83.

27.

240.

31 to 33.

96 n.

xxxiii.

18.20.

215.217 n.

xxxiv.

23.

228 n.

LEVITICUS.

xvii.

2.

52.

xix.

18.

68.

28.

156.

NUMBERS.

ii.

339 n.

xiv.

7.

84.

11 to 20.

86.

13 to 20.

86 n.

20 to 22.

88.

xvi.

1 to 40.

94.

10 to 22.

88.

19.

92 n.

41 to 48.

96.

xx.

12.

97 n.

xxv.

15.

166.

18.

165 n.

xxvii.

12 to 14.

97 n.

17.

325 n.

xxxi.

8.

166.

xxxi.

16.

165 n.

325 n.

20.

165.

DEUTERONOMY.

i.

326 n.

9 to 17.

328 n.

13.

328 n.

16, 17.

324 n.

iv.

37.

97 n.

vi.

4.

242.275.320.

321.350.

371.

4, 5.

241.

5.

278 n.

16.

278 n.

viii.

16.

189 n.

x.

20.

337 n.

xviii.

18 to 20.

104 n.

xxii.

44.

278 n.

xxiii.

23.

278 n.

xxxi.

6.

397 n.

xxxii.

22.

131 n.

JOSHUA.

vi.

4.

403 n.

vii.

19.

240.

xiii.

33.

240.

xviii.

4.

327 n.

xxii.

16, 17.

325 n.

22.

241.

24.

240.

JUDGES.

vi.

39.

189 n.

xi.

23, &c.

240.

1 SAMUEL.

xvi.

14.

190.

xx.

31 to 14.

102.

xiv.

1.

189 n.

xviii.

33.

109.

xxiv.

17.

105.

1 KINGS.

xviii.

12.

183 n.

xxii.

20 to 23.

137 n.

2 KINGS.

ii.

16.

184 n.

1 CHRONICLES.

xxi.

1.

190 n.

2 CHRONICLES.

xix.

6, 7.

324 n.

xxxii.

26.

136 n.

31.

136 n.

JOB.

xix.

26.

130 n.

26, 27.

400 n.

xxxiii.

4.

363.

xlii.

7.

215.

PSALMS.

ii.

2.

347.

7.

331.338 n.

12.

338 n.

x.

16.

238 n.

xi.

6.

144 n.

xviii.

31.

349.387.

xxii.

16.

401 n.

xxiv.

1.

27 n.

xxvi.

2, &c.

189 n.

xxxiii.

6.

364.

xlv.

265.344.

6.

263.

7.

378 n.

379 n.

xlvii.

2.7.

27 n.

l.

23.

225 n.

li.

11, 12.

360 n.

lviii.

11.

145 n.

lxxxii.

6.

323 n.

lxxxiii.

1.

349.

13.

349.

18.

233.282.

349.

lxxxvi.

10.

387 n.

xc.

268 n.

xcv.

372.

xcvii.

7.

353 n.

c.

5.

148 n.

cii.

19.

266 n.

23, 24.

266 n.

268 n.

24.

266 n.

25 to 27.

265.

cvi.

32.

97 n.

cx.

1.

216 n.

260 n.

278 n.

347.

4.

342 n.

cxv.

16.

27 n.

cxviii.

22.

225 n.

26.

279 n.

cxxxix.

46 n.

cxliii.

2.

49.51.

cxlvi.

9.

238 n.

ISAIAH.

i.

24.

228 n.

vi.

1 to 3.

390.

8 to 11.

289.

9.

223.

9, 10.

223 n.

10 to 14.

277 n.

vii.

15.

31.

15, 16.

45.

x.

16.

228 n.

xii.

2.

331. 348.

369 n.

xix.

4.

228 n.

xxv.

8.

214.

xxviii.

16.

225 n.

xxxiv.

6.9, 10.

132 n.

xxxvii.

16.

387 n.

xl.

248.

277 n.

3.

248.252.

281 n.

3.5.

221.

3 to 11.

257.

9.

220.

9, 10, 11.

252.

11.

263.

12 to 17.

360, 361.

18.

213.361.

xli.

4.

270.

10.

269.

13, 14.

270.

xlii.

1 to 3.

247.

5 to 8.

246.

318 n.

319.

6.

245.

8.

282.

xliv.

6.

271.

13.

376.

xlv.

21 to 23.

272.

7.

134 n.

xlviii.

12.

271.

liii.

1.

280 n.

5.

268 n.

7.

221 n.

267 n.

liv.

5.

295 n.

lviii.

3.

22 n.

lxi.

1.

279 n.

379 n.

1, 2.

331.348.

lxii.

11, 12.

226 n.

lxv.

2.

302 n.

JEREMIAH.

xxiii.

300 n.

5, 6.

298 n.

6.

263.

xxxi.

31.

375.

33.

374, 375.

33, 34.

376.

xxxiii.

6.

303 n.

16.

296 n.

303 n.

304 n.

xxxv.

17.

301 n.

LAMENTATIONS.

iii.

38.

137.

EZEKIEL.

viii.

14.

163 n.

xii.

2.

223 n.

xviii.

31, 32.

393 n.

xxiii.

11.

393 n.

DANIEL.

ii.

44.

344.

v.

6.

144 n.

vii.

13, 14.

344.

MICAH.

iv.

301 n.

10.

301 n.

v.

301 n.

1.

301 n.

v.

1, 2.

262.

2.

262.

vi.

9.

301 n.

ZECHARIAH.

vi.

12, 13.

343.

vii.

7.

301 n.

11 to 14.

302 n.

14.

302 n.

xii.

10.

401 n.

xiii.

6, 7.

401 n.

MALACHI.

iii.

1.

228.

281 n.

MATTHEW.

i.

18.

365.

20.

365.

21.

225.

22, 23.

277 n.

iii.

3.

277 n.

5.

185 n.

220 n.

11.

249.

15.

308.

341 n.

iv.

149.

1 to 11.

184 n.

7.

278 n.

10.

337 n.

v.

18.

132 n.

17.

340 n.

17, 18.

337 n.

29, 30.

130 n.

33.

278 n.

vi.

7, 8.

159 n.

33.

193, 194.

vii.

12.

75.

7.

197.

viii.

28 to 32.

177.

31, 32.

179 n.

32.

ibid.

xi.

10.

227. 229.

12.

227 n.

xii.

28.

364 n.

48 to 50.

324 n.

xiii.

14.

223 n.

xviii.

19, 20.

397 n.

xix.

23, 24.

29.

xxi.

22.

197.

xxii.

37.

278 n.

44.

216 n.

xxiii.

35 to 39.

98 n.

37 to 39.

303 n.

38.

98 n.

xxiv.

15 to 21.

98 n.

30.

223 n.

35.

132 n.

xxv.

14.

24.

14 to 30.

24. 27 n.

41.

131 n.

132 n.

142.

xxvi.

39.

268 n.

xxviii.

18, 19.

235 n.

19.

200 n.

20.

260 n.

MARK.

i.

149.

2.

227 n.

3.

277 n.

5.

185 n.

12, 13.

184 n.

ii.

5 to 12.

295 n.

v.

12.

179 n.

13.

ibid.

180 n.

ix.

24.

197.

45, 46.

131 n.

xii.

29.

275.

30.

278 n.

36.

278 n.

xvi.

19.

260 n.

LUKE.

i.

31 to 33.

345.

33.

354.

iii.

35.

365.

366 n.

4.

277 n.

iv.

149.

12.

278 n.

18, 19.

279 n.

18.

331. 348.

vi.

12.

278 n.

31.

75.

vii.

27.

227 n.

viii.

32.

179 n.

33.

ibid.

x.

16.

230.

27.

278 n.

xi.

9 to 13.

198.

396 n.

xii.

19, 20.

25.

xiii.

7.

26.

13.

50.

35.

98 n.

279 n.

xiv.

2.

27.

9.

195.

xvi.

2.

27 n.

17.

132 n.

25.

30.

xvii.

29, 30.

144 n.

xix.

37, 38.

279 n.

xx.

42.

278 n.

xxii.

31, 32.

149.

53.

139 n.

xxiii.

30.

50.

xxiv.

17.

366 n.

35.

366 n.

39, 40.

400 n.

44.

268 n.

49.

366 n.

JOHN.

i.

1.

310 n.

1 to 14.

222 n.

257.

5.

224.

9.

258.

310 n.

14.

332 n.

18.

262.

19.

224 n.

23.

277 n.

23 to 26.

277 n.

29.

267 n.

29 to 31.

222 n.

29 to 36.

251.

ii.

5.

200 n.

16.

332 n.

19.

206 n.

19 to 21.

96.

26 to 31.

282 n.

29.

295.

30.

281 n.

31.

281.

iv.

9.

222 n.

v.

17.

315.

17 to 23.

338.

18.

334.

21.

315. 338.

21, 22, 23.

235 n.

22, 23.

318. 353.

26.

336 n.

vi.

44.

377.

392 n.

394 n.

vi.

45.

377.

53 to 55.

312 n.

57 to 58.

312 n.

63.

362.

64.

146 n.

70.

146 n.

viii.

34.

55 n.

44.

148 n.

261.

154 n.

53.

261.

58.

260.

x.

6 to 11.

287 n.

11.

257.

287 n.

15.

308.

30.

285. 321.

328. 350.

31 to 38.

325.

34.

325 n.

37.

364 n.

38.

350.

39.

329.

xi.

50.

267 n.

xii.

6.

146 n.

13.

279 n.

31.

141 n.

195.

38.

280 n.

45.

222 n.

xiv.

6.

53. 148 n.

392 n.

395.

9, 10.

285.

11.

350.

13, 14.

314.

13 to 17.

397 n.

16, 17.

357 n.

16 to 26.

366 n.

xiv.

23.

292.

26.

357 n.

379 n.

381 n.

28.

320.

xv.

26.

355. 381.

xvi.

6.

309.

13,

355.

381 n.

14.

308.

15.

351.

356 n.

15, 16.

358 n.

xvii.

5.

341. 351.

10.

358 n.

15,

236 n.

308.

17.

291.

21.

350.

xviii.

11.

268 n.

xix.

17.

267 n.

xx.

17.

245 n.

20.

400.

24 to 27.

401 n.

ACTS.

i.

9 to 10.

402 n.

ii.

34.

279 n.

iii.

14.

378 n.

15.

363 n.

14 to 16.

336 n.

iv.

5 to 12.

225 n.

12.

315.

24, 25, 26.

347.

v.

4.

230.

x.

38.

366 n.

368 n.

378 n.

379 n.

xvii.

27, 28.

217.

xvii.

29.

322 n.

372 n.

xxiv.

25.

405 n.

xxviii.

25.

388.

ROMANS.

i.

4.

369 n.

20.

371 n.

20 to 32.

136 n.

ii.

14.

37.

14, 15.

37.

iv.

17.

368.

v.

53.

7.

100.

12 to 14.

48.

19.

340 n.

21.

48.

viii.

1, 2.

369 n.

9 to 11.

383 n.

17.

264.

18.

398.

29.

265.

33.

367.

35 to 39.

98 n.

37.

310.

ix.

3.

97.

5.

294 n.

xii.

5.

296 n.

xiv.

7 to 13.

274.

xv.

16.

386 n.

17 to 19.

365 n.

xvi.

27.

350.

1 CORINTHIANS.

i.

24.

367.

ii.

4.

366 n.

8.

284 n.

9 to 15.

382.

10.

370.

10, 11.

356 n.

ii.

13.

356 n.

14.

212 n.

iii.

11.

295.

16, 17.

386.

v.

129.

vi.

11.

367.

19.

384 n.

20.

330.

x.

4.

373 n.

16.

314.

xiv.

33.

135.

xv.

4 to 8.

401 n.

20.

402 n.

24, 25.

346.

24 to 28.

350.

25.

347.

25, 26.

351.

28.

346.

35 to 55.

407 n.

45.

368.

47.

280.308.

53.

130 n.

53, 54.

214 n.

56, 57.

31 n.

2 CORINTHIANS.

ii.

10, 11.

129.

iii.

17.

360 n.

18.

378.

iv.

4.

220.

17.

398.410.

v.

4.

407 n.

17.

200.

vi.

16.

385 n.

xi.

14.

138 n.

GALATIANS.

iii.

28, 29.

300.

29.

296 n.

393 n.

iv.

6.

383 n.

8.

386 n.

v.

14.

77.

EPHESIANS.

i.

3 to 17.

245 n.

17 to 20.

331.348.

22, 23.

306.

ii.

2.

141 n.

18.

383 n.

20.

295.

20 to 22.

306, 307.

21, 22.

342 n.

22.

384 n.

385 n.

iv.

7.

378.

27.

128.

vi.

128 n.

11, 12,

128.141.

12.

138 n.

27.

128.

PHILIPPIANS.

i.

19.

384 n.

ii.

9 to 11.

315.

COLOSSIANS.

i.

12.14.

139 n.

14.19.

218 n.

15 to 19.

218.

ii.

9.

219.236.

253.

iii.

4.

398 n.

1 THESSALONIANS.

i.

5.

366 n.

iv.

16.

404 n.

2 THESSALONIANS.

i.

7.

143 n.

ii.

9 to 12.

135 n.

1 TIMOTHY.

i.

17.

217 n.

350.

ii.

1.

394 n.

4.

394 n.

5.

307.

322 n.

iii.

16.

223 n.

252 n.

iv.

1 to 3.

157 n.

vi.

16.

217 n.

221 n.

13.

368.

2 TIMOTHY.

ii.

17.15.

406 n.

iii.

16, 17.

214 n.

HEBREWS.

i.

1, 2.

264.

1 to 4.

219 n.

2.

231.343.

3.

217.219.

6.

353 n.

8.

344.

8, 9.

264.347.

9.

379 n.

10, 11, 12.

268.

ii.

11.

324 n.

14, 15.

139 n.

16.

265.

17.

265.

iii.

7 to 11.

374.

iv.

7.

372.

15.

149.

268 n.

v.

6 to 10.

342 n.

vii.

1, 2.

343 n.

1 to 11.

342 n.

ix.

14.

208.

22.

51.

x.

15.

374.

23.

198.

397 n.

26, 27.

145.

27.

49.

29.

208.

xiii.

8.

264.

JAMES.

i.

13.

137.

188 n.

13 to 15.

137 n.

14.

121 n.

ii.

19.

50.145.

322 n.

iv.

1 to 4.

121 n.

7.

129.

v.

1.

30.114.

14.

379 n.

1 PETER.

i.

10, 11.

358 n.

ii.

5.

295.

iv.

14.

208.

369 n.

v.

5.

264.

8.

129.

2 PETER.

i.

2 to 4.

201.

ii.

4.

130.

139 n.

11.

147.

19, 20.

55 n.

iii.

6, 7.

143 n.

9.

394 n.

iii.

10.

132 n.

143 n.

352.

1 JOHN.

i.

5.

147 n.

5 to 7.

138 n.

ii.

2.

267 n.

20.

378.

27.

379, 380.

iii.

2, 3.

399 n.

8.

135 n.

iv.

8.

148 n.

9.

222 n.

16.

293.

v.

7.

138 n.

9.

216.

11.

216.

11 to 13.

311 n.

JUDE.

6.

125 n.

133 n.

139 n.

REVELATIONS.

i.

4.

239.

7.

224.

8.

362.

17, 18.

269.

ii.

7.

311 n.

iii.

7.

378.

iv.

7.

399 n.

8.

239.

v.

12, 13, 14.

339.

vi.

15, 16.

50 n.

vii.

4.

340 n.

xi.

11.

369 n.

16, 17.

240.

xix.

20.

143 n.

xxii.

14.

313 n.

INDEX OF THE Various TOPICS discussed in this Work.

A.

- AARON. See Moses.

- Abraham. Remarks on his attempt to sacrifice his son, 79. His remonstrance to the Almighty, 88, agreeable to that due exertion of Reason which GOD requires of his creature Man, 89. See Moriah, Moses.

- Accents (Greek) essential sometimes to the meaning and proper construction of the sacred text, 253 n.

- Adam. No descendant of his, though ever so rich, has any right to eat the bread of idleness; nor can do so without offence against his own soul, and the universal ordinance of God, Gen. iii. 17 to 19. p. 22, 23.

- Adam and Eve. See First Parents, Bread of Idleness, Man, Human Nature.

- Adonis. Etymology of that name, 227 n. See Thammuz.

- Affections (natural). Their superiority to self-love, instanced from the brute creation, 9, 10. Are principles of action, 108.111. But not rules of obedience, 112. Instanced in the avaritious man, ibid. In drunkards and gluttons, 114. In the vices of lust, gaming, &c. 115.

- African Slave-trade, encouraged by the English government, 205.

- African Traders and American Slave-holders, are petty tyrants, and destroyers of mankind, 10.

- Alexander Severus. His favourite maxim, 68.

- Appetites, not rules of obedience, 33. See Affections.

- Arabians, Turks, &c. Their detestable arbitrary governments in Judea, 302 n.

- Arbitrary Power. See Despotism, Arabians, &c.

- Aristotle. Just answer of his, 74.

- Athanasius. His creed defended against the Rev. Dr. E. Harwood, 256 n. See Unity of God.

- Avarice, defeats self-love, 114.

- Author. Not his design to define what is the universal principle of action, but to point out what it ought to be, 56, 65. His reasons for introducing religious topics into Tracts of Law, 198. 212. A sincere advocate for liberty of conscience, 210 n. See Brooke, Fool of Quality, Human Nature, Religious Melancholy.

B.

- Balaam. His counsel promoted the service and worship of Devils, 166 See Fornication.

- Baptismal Vow. Resistance to evil spirits, a necessary article thereof, 122.

- Beads, used by Mongulian priests and nuns in their devotions, like the Roman Catholics, 158 n. and among the idolatrous Calmues and Chinese 159 n. by the Great Lama of the Tartars, and by the priests of the idol Menipe, 162 n.

- Bread of Idleness. No descendant of Adam can eat thereof, without offence against his own soul, as well as against the universal ordinance of God, pronounced against our first parents after the fall, 23.

- Bread and Wine. See Communion.

- Brooke (Mr. of Dublin). His Fool of Quality applauded by the author, 105 n. See Author.

- Brutes, never violate the universal principle of SELF-LOVE, 171, except for a reasonable cause, 173. But one instance of their being actuated by evil spirits, and that by the express permission of our Lord himself, 174. See Devil, Man.

C.

- Calmucs. See Beads.

- Cambridge MS. condemned by the best critics, 254 n. 255 n.

- Chinese. The idolatries of their priests are, in many respects, like those of the Romish priests, 159 n. See Beads.

- Christ. His promises, relative to the gift of the Holy Ghost, are clear and absolute, 196. Is always with his church on earth, 217. In him only can God be seen, 220. Included in the Eternal Being JEHOVAH, 230. Is One with his Almighty Father in Eternal Existence, in that BEING of Eternity, JEHOVAH, 258—275. 294. Was affected (through the weakness of that Human Nature, which he had taken upon him) with all the horrors of an approaching, agonizing death, 268. Was not only JEHOVAH in name, but in effect and reality, 269. 271. And in power and glory, ibid. & seq. IS LORD OF ALL, 276. ABOVE ALL, 281. The LORD FROM HEAVEN, 283. The LORD OF GLORY, 284. OVER ALL, GOD BLESSED FOR EVER, 294. Truly and essentially the SON OF GOD, as well as the SON OF MAN, 309. Is, in the most effectual manner, to us, the TREE OF LIFE, 312 n. The same supreme honour due to him, as to the Father, 317. Our Lord's expression, My Father is greater than I, considered, and explained, 320. Christ was not only glorified in his divine nature, but expressly as MAN, 341. By Christ's resurrection and ascension is incontestably proved, that the real substances of flesh and bones can, and do, inherit the kingdom of heaven, 400, 401, 402 notes. See Eternal Word, Jesus, Communion, Father and Son, GOD, Human Nature, John the Baptist, Paul, Socinians, True Believers, Commentators on Scripture.

- Church of England. Articles and Liturgy thereof, how cautiously worded, 209. Its Articles, &c. defended, 210 n. See Jehovah, Mental Blindness, Non-subscribing Clergymen, Trinity.

- Church of Jerusalem. Their happy manner of living in common, 107 n.

- Church of Rome. Similarity of the antichristian ceremonies in that church to the religious forms of worship amongst the antient and modern Heathens, 156, et seq. ‘forbidding to marry,’ a doctrine of devils, ibid. See Papists, Mongulians, Heathens, Chinese, Tartars, Monks, Nuns, and Beads.

- Cicero. His just definition of law, 30. Of the law of nature in man, 33. Clearly describes the natural instinct of the knowledge of good and evil, under the title of common sense, 34.

- Claromonian or Clermont MS. See Cambridge MS.

- Clergymen. See Non-conforming Clergymen, Mental Blindness.

- Commentators on the H. Scriptures. Grotius and Vitringa have erroneously attributed the title of Jehovah our Righteousness (which the scriptures give to Christ alone) to Jerusalem. Also Mr. W. Lowth, and the Authors of the last English version, 296 to 304.

- Common Sense. See Cicero, Knowledge of Good and Evil.

- Communion. In what manner the bread and wine received therein are the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, 312 n. See Papists.

- Confucius. Just maxim of his, 74.

- Conscience. Few men so bad, as not to be sometimes sensible of its accusations, 38. 49. A principle of action, 44. Men seldom fall into gross crimes, till they have gradually stifled it, 53. See Knowledge, Reason, Sinderesis.

- Cremensis (Joannes). Remarkable story of him, 168 n.

D.

- David. Was not actuated by self-love, when he tendered his own life, to save those of his subjects, 102. The nature of his crime, in numbering the people, explained, 103. His natural paternal affection was more powerful than self-love, in the case of Absalom, 108. See Satan.

- Day of Judgment. Dreadful state of this world after that awful and tremendous day, 352. See GOD, Hell, Last Day, Last Trumpet, Sharp (Archbp.)

- Death. The penalty of breaking the first and only penal law, 14. Its not being inflicted immediately after the fall, affords no objection to Moses's relation of that transaction, 14. 21. No elevation of station will exempt us from it, 25. Penalty of labour added thereto, ibid. The consideration of this universal doom to death and labour, ought to incite us as a principle of action, 28. Death is not the only object of the sinner's fear, 51. The time when, and by what means, death will be destroyed, 351. See Fall.

- Demoniacal Possessions. Their reality defended, 175 n. et seq. See Case of Saul in the Appendix. Also Gadarene Demoniacs.

- Demons. Have no power over the brute creation, 175 n. See Devil, Satan, Enemies, Evil Spirits, GOD.

- Depravity of Mankind. Not universal; so that the universal principle of action in man is not to be drawn from thence, 56. See Man.

- Desires. Not unlawful in themselves, but in their excess, 120 n.

- Despotism (political), and arbitrary power, prevail almost throughout the world, 205.

- Devil. Is not merely a name, 117 n. 123. His personality asserted by Archbishop Sharp against Mr. Hobbs, 123 n. Not to be understood as one particular being, but as the whole company of evil spirits, 124. Proved from scripture, 128, et seq. Commonly understood of the prince, or chief of the fallen angels, 140. Worshipped by the name of Satan by the heathen Tartars, 159 n. Has no power over brutes, but by divine permission, 176 n. ‘Forbidding to marry,’ a doctrine of devils, 156, et seq. See Satan, Enemies, Evil Spirits, Demons, Fallen Angels, Balaam, Human Nature, Man.

- Divine Nature. Man entitled to partake of it through Christ, 196 to 202. This participation of the divine nature is the glorious effect of Christ's promises, to those who duly claim them, 382. See Man, Human Nature, Christ, Holy Ghost.

- Doing as we would be done by. The true Christian RULE OF ACTION, and a fundamental axiom of the law of nature, 75. The ONLY PATERNAL PRECEPT to which the Creator has graciously reduced the rule of obedience, 76. Ought to be the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN MAN, 78. See Puffendorff.

- Doctrine of Devils. See Church of Rome.

- Drunkards and Gluttons. Their deplorable state, 114.

E.

- Enemies (spiritual). Their influence a distinct principle of action in man, 18. 117. They take a most dangerous advantage, though unperceived, of all immoral, carnal affections, 119. See Devil, Demon, Satan, Evil Spirits.

- English government. See African Slave-trade, Slavery in the Colonies.

- Eternal Word. Though in the beginning with God, and was God, yet, under the gospel, became the angel, or messenger of God, 226, 227. Proceeded out from the Father, 261. See Christ, Jesus, Son of God, John the Baptist.

- Evil Spirits. Resisting them an express article of the baptismal vow, 122. Are used to fulfil the eternal judgment and justice of the Almighty upon the unrighteous, 137 n. And may then be said to become principles of action in man, ibid. The propriety of calling them angels of darkness, 132, et seq. Foreknow their own certain damnation, 145. Human Nature liable to their temptations, (150, 190.) if we do not resist them, as the scriptures command us, 192. When men neglect the due resistance, these spirits gain such advantage over them, (193.) that at last men will become personal enemies, even to themselves, 194. See GOD, Human Nature, Demons, Fallen Angels, Devils, Satan, Enemies Spiritual.

F.

- Faith, in the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity absolutely necessary to salvation, 200 n. 209. See Human Nature, Jehovah, Trinity.

- Faithful, are ONE in the Father and the Son, 292. but we must be careful to distinguish between the unity of the FATHER and the SON, and the unity of the faithful in them, 293. See Father and Son.

- Fall of Man. History of it considered, 11, et seq. An enquiry into the principles of our own nature more important than any other branch of natural philosophy, 12. Death not being inflicted on the day of the transgression, affords, no just exception against the truth and propriety of the relation, 14. See Bread of Idleness, Death, Reason.

- Fallen Angels. Difference between them and the good, 125 n. See Devil, Satan, Evil Spirits, Demons, Enemies (spiritual), Spirits.

- Father (Almighty) and Son, are ONE in many respects, which cannot, with the least propriety, be attributed to the unity of the church in Christ, 294, 305. See Faithful, Man.

- First Parents. The nature of the penalty due for their transgression, was clearly revealed to them, and was as clearly understood by them before they fell, 15. See Bread• of Idleness, Reason, Sin.

- Forbidden Fruit. See Tempter.

- Fool of Quality, the author's reason for quoting it, 106. n.

- Fornication, its baneful consequences; being a snare to enslave men to spiritual adversaries, and to idolatry, 166, et seq.

- Freedom (true). See True Freedom. What it is, p. 196, 197.

G.

- Gadarene Demoniacs, their case examined and explained, 175, et seq.

- Gentiles, have universally demonstrated a sense of the precept of doing as we would be done by, even without the assistance of scripture, 73.

- Ghost. See Holy Ghost.

- Gluttons. See Drunkards.

- GOD. Delivered a clear and express law to man before the fall, 14. which was the first and only penal law, ibid. and which he himself cautioned them not to transgress, 16. Never judges men without law, like the arbitrary princes of this world, 21. Love of him, the great first principle of all duty, 79. his command ought to supersede all natural affection and self-love, 79. requires his creature, man, to judge of right and wrong, 89. is said in scripture to do what he only permits, 135 n. 178 n. his servants, sometimes left to themselves, 136. he sometimes uses the very devils as instruments of his justice, 137 n. difference between his agency and permission, 178 n. wickedness of ascribing to his agency the agitations occasioned by the inspiration of unclean spirits, 181 n. 190 n. he tempteth no man, 188 n. his command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, was no temptation to evil, but a trial or proof of faith, 189 n. has lodged the power of admitting or resisting evil spirits or damons, entirely in the human breast, 190. a perfect knowledge of him only to be attained in heaven, 213. It is our duty to cultivate our limited knowledge of him, 214. is a spirit, and cannot be seen with human eyes, 217. but in Christ, who is the image of God, he can be seen; and in him alone can be fulfilled that ancient prophecy to the Jews, that they should SEE THEIR GOD, 220. All flesh shall literally SEE Christ at the DAY OF JUDGMENT, 223. See Christ, Eternal Word, Happiness, Jehovah, Knowledge of Good and Evil, Moses, Political Liberty, Sodom.

- Gods. See Judges and Magistrates.

- God's Word. The extreme danger of paying any attention to any doctrines or interpretations, which in the least contradict the literal or most obvious meaning of it, 18. See Scriptures, Eternal Word.

- Gospel. See Eternal Word.

- Greek Accents. See Accents.

- Grotius. See Commentators on Scripture.

H.

- Happiness. The pursuit of it not the universal principle of action, neither is it the proper rule of obedience, as advanced by a learned law-commentator, 57, et seq. There is nothing so liable to be misunderstood, as happiness, 65. None equal to that acquired by a perfect knowledge of God, 213.

- Harwood (Rev. Dr. E.) An indiscreet alteration in his new edition of the Greek Testament, 253. Dangerous presumption of that alteration, 254 n. which has but one single Greek MS. to support it, ibid. See Athanasius.

- Heathens (Eastern). Similarity of their religious ceremonies to those of the Papists, 157, et seq. Shameful rites of the ancient heathens, 162, et seq. See Church of Rome, Beads, Chinese, Prostitution, Tartars.

- Hebrew Scriptures. Supplementary words never allowable, but where absolutely necessary to complete the sense, 297 n.

- Hell. A real place of material fire, 130 n. Probably the present terrestrial globe may hereafter become that place of eternal fire, 131 n. The objection that the world will be consumed, and therefore will not feed an everlasting fire, is of no force, 132 n. The above conjecture confirmed by Archbishop Sharp, 142.

- Hobbes (Mr.) His judicious opinion of the Law of Nature, 68. See Devil.

- Holy Ghost. Mankind have a free choice, either to admit that heavenly gift, or the contrary spirit of the prince of darkness, 196. Every one who claims that gift properly, will undoubtedly receive it, 198. The divine nature of the Holy Spirit is as clearly declared in scripture, as that of the SON OF GOD, 355, et seq. The Holy Spirit is not, like other spirits, a created spirit, but proceedeth out from the Father, 357 n. The almighty operations of the Holy Ghost manifested the glory of the Son, as well as the glory of the Father, 358 n. Is truly God, of the same supreme, divine nature, or eternal being, with the other Two Divine Persons of the Trinity, 358. His entire union and equality with the Father and the Son, in the Divine Nature, or GODHEAD, proved, 362. Is declared to be the Creator in Job, and by the Psalmist, 363. Power from on high, justification, and sanctification (all divine attributes) expressly attributed to the Holy Ghost, jointly with Christ, 367. Similar titles given to the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, 367, 369. The power of giving life, especially life eternal, attributed both to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, 368. If we really believe the holy scriptures to be the word of God, we must necessarily believe that the HOLY GHOST is really and truly GOD, 387. See Christ, GOD, Man, Virgin, Unity of God.

- Holy Spirit. See Holy Ghost.

- Honesty. Is the best policy, even for a selfish man to pursue, 7.

- Human Nature. Is really liable to the impulse and inspiration of evil spirits, 150. But is still equally capable of divine inspiration, and to partake of the divine nature, 196 to 202. Human nature, and the principles of human actions, cannot be easily defined, without the assistance of religious topics, 198. It was human nature alone that was to be exalted and restored, by that peculiar union with the divine nature in Christ, whereby all mankind are rendered fellows and brethren to him, 264. Is capable of being exalted and dignified, even in this life, 292. Is exalted to eternal glory, but only in, by, and through Christ, 309. The means of retrieving its lost dignity pointed out, 309. That dignity cannot be properly known or understood, without a right faith in the dignity and divine nature of Christ, 312. The necessity of such a faith, 314. The glorious privileges granted to human nature are only through the merits of that Son of Man, who voluntarily took our nature upon him, 394. God hath instructed us how those privileges are to be claimed, 395. See Christ, Man, Sin.

- Human Sacrifices. Amongst the heathens, accounted for, 153. Account of one in North America, 154 n.

J.

- Jehoshaphat. His wise charge to his judges, 324 n.

- Jehovah. A name no where in scripture attributed to any person that is not included in the unity of the Godhead, 233. The complicated etymology of that name, 236. Each person of the Holy Trinity is occasionally mentioned in scripture under that distinguishing and peculiar name of the SUPREME GOD, 245. That name given to the Almighty Father, the First Person of the Holy Trinity, 245 to 248. Secondly, To Christ the Son, 248 to 355. And, Thirdly, To the Holy Ghost, 355 to 382. Many learned men do not perceive, that the glorious Name JEHOVAH, (the peculiar Name of the ONE SUPREME GOD) is clearly in the scriptures attributed to the Son of God, 330. Their objections answered, 330, et seq. The threefold repetition of the epithet Holy, in the proclamation of God's glorious title, Jehovah of Hosts, seems to correspond with the idea of a Plurality of Persons comprehended in that One Eternal Being, JEHOVAH, 390. See Christ, GOD, Commentators on Scripture, Holy Ghost, John (the Baptist) Trinity. Jehovah our Righteousness.

- Jefferies (Lord Chanc.) Character of him and Gen. Kirke, from Rapin, 62 n. See Sharp, Archbp.

- Jesus. The meaning of that name explained, 224 n. See Christ, Eternal Word.

- Jews. Have never returned to their own proper country since the general dispersion foretold by Zechariah, 302 n. Which hath continued more than 1700 years, and they shall not be restored till they are converted, 303 n. Their judges and magistrates originally elected by the people, as all public officers (in strict justice) ought to be, 325 n. et seq. See Judges and Magistrates, Law of Nature, Newton, Paul (St.)

- Inspiration. See Human Nature.

- Involuntary Servitude. Agreed by all the best writers to be contrary to the Law of Nature, 3.

- John (the Baptist). The Messenger of the Eternal Word, 227, 228. Was the long-expected Voice in the Wilderness foretold by Isaiah, 281 n. And the extraordinary messenger of JEHOVAH foretold by Malachi, 281 n. Gave the highest testimony that could be of Christ's heavenly power and divine existence, 282 n. See Eternal Word.

- Jonathan—was not actuated by self-love, in his noble and virtuous friendship for David, 100. Could not submit, like modern statesmen, to do evil, that good might come, 101.

- Isaac. See Abraham, Moriah.

- Israel. See Political Liberty.

- Judas became a Devil, and how, 146 n.

- Judges and Magistrates. In what sense they are called Gods, and Sons of the most High, by the Psalmist, 323 n. Which is no degradation from the title and dignity of the REAL SON OF GOD, 324 n. See Jews.

- Justification. See Holy Ghost.

K.

- Kings—ought constantly to study the Holy Scriptures, 103 n. See Judges and Magistrates, Monarchs.

- Kirke (Gen.) See Jesseries.

- Knowledge of good and evil—seems plainly to be the grand principle, whereby men, who have not the law, are a law unto themselves, 36. It is an universal principle, 57. 64. But not the universal principle of action, 65. Duly exerted, promotes our love of God, 79 et seq. That very knowledge is now (through the mercy of God) become a principle of action (if used as it ought) to incline us to RIGHTEOUSNESS, and lead us to the Tree of life, 310. See Cicero, Reason, Scripture Evidence, Sin, Tree of Life.

L.

- Last Day. Terrible and striking description of it, by Archbp. Sharp, 144. The resurrection of Christ's body, a proof to us that flesh and bones can inherit the kingdom of heaven, 400. See Day of Judgment, Hell.

- Last Trumpet. Answer to objections about the future sounding thereof, 402 n.

- Law. See GOD.

- Law of Nature. The author does not intend to give a regular definition of it, 1. All pretensions to an unlimited authority of any man or men over others are contrary to it, and to natural equity, 2. Jewish constitutions not always consistent with it, 3. Opposers of it censured by Puffendorff, 4. Unreasonable to search for it amongst slaves, 55. Cannot be properly understood, without a competent knowledge of those spiritual beings, by whom our minds are liable to be influenced, 191. See Author, Hobbes, Involuntary Servitude, Reason.

- Liberty of Conscience. See Author.

- Life. The FORFEITURE of it the declared penalty of breaking the first penal law, 14. See Death.

- Litany. See Trinity.

- Liturgy. See Trinity.

- Love of hoarding. See Self-love.

- Lowth (Mr. William). See Commentators on H. Scripture.

- Lusts of all kinds are principles of action, which unavoidably produce oppression, and other evils, 6.

M.

- Man—by apostacy may become a sort of devil, 146. Exemplified by the case of Judas, 146 n. Why more depraved than the brute creation, 173. Through the privileges of the Gospel, MAN may become a new creature, and a partaker of the divine nature, 200 n. In what his dignity and superiority over the rest of the creation consists, 201. 288: which cannot be attained without the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, 211. The unity of the FATHER and the SON with the church is a topic necessarily included in a Tract on the Nature of Man, 291. The means of retrieving his lost dignity pointed out, 309, et seq. which is not to be accomplished, but through Christ alone, 311 n. Man is called a Temple in the New Testament, 384. The doctrine necessarily arising from thence, 384, et seq. See Christ, GOD, Holy Spirit, Divine Nature, Human Nature, Depravity, Reason, Temple.

- Magistrates. See Judges and Magistrates.

- Marriage. The forbidding it a doctrine of devils, 156, et seq. Its wicked tendency, 167 n. See Church of Rome.

- Melancholy. See Religious Melancholy.

- Mental Blindness, of some modern clergymen, who have seceded from the Church of England, because the Litany, and other parts of our excellent Liturgy, express divine honour to the SON OF GOD, 338 n. See Trinity.

- Monarchs—should not despise the reasonable remonstrances of their subjects, 83. The right of remonstrating proved from scripture, 83. See Kings, Judges and Magistrates.

- Mongulians, or Mogulians. Their idolatrous customs similar to those of the church of Rome, 158, et seq, n. See Church of Rome, Papists, Beads.

- Monks (Heathen). Have a grand monastery in Crim Tartary, 157 n. See Church of Rome, Papists, Devil.

- Moriah (mount) — the place where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, and likewise the place where the BELOVED SON OF GOD was really sacrificed, as the propitiation for our sins, 267 n.

- Moses. His remonstrance to God approved by the Almighty, as also that of Aaron, 91. His zeal for the glory of God, 81. 84. et seq. Moses' manner of seeing God explained, 215. See GOD, Self-love.

N.

- Natural Affection. See Affections, GOD.

- — Equity. See Law of Nature.

- — Philosophy. See Fall.

- Nature. See Law of Nature.

- Neighbour. The duty of loving our neighbour as ourselves enforced, 68. A maxim almost universally acknowledged, 73, 74. Is the true Christian rule of action, 75. and the only paternal precept to which the Creator has reduced the rule of obedience, 76. See Doing as we would be done by.

- Newton (Sir Isaac). His account of the encampments of the Israelites in the wilderness, 339 n. His explanation of the four beasts in the Apocalypse, 340 n.

- Non-subscribing clergymen. The doctrine of the Trinity the principal cause of their objections to the Church of England, 209. Reasons why their petition to parliament could not be granted, 210 n. See Church of England, Mental Blindness, Trinity.

- Nuns. Women bound to celibacy, contrary to nature, amongst the heathen Tartars, Chinese, &c. 157. Orders of them amongst both the ancient and modern heathens, 157. See Church of Rome, Devil.

O.

- Original Sin. Nature of it explained, 17 to 48.

P.

- Parents. See First Parents.

- Papists. A public promulgation of some parts of their religion ought not to be tolerated, and why, 210 n. Their manner of adoring the sacramental bread, unjustifiable and idolatrous, 314 n. See Beads, Chinese, Church of Rome, Heathens, Tartars, Mongulians, Monks, Nuns.

- Patriotism and Brotherly Love has superseded self-love in many instances, 95—99. 102.

- Paul (St.). His anxiety for the eternal welfare of the Jews, 97. His wishing himself accursed from Christ explained, 97. His disinterestedness, and unbounded affection, 97 to 100. See Christ.

- Penal Law. See Death, Life.

- Philosophy—is vain, if the philosopher is unacquainted with himself, 12.

- Polish Brethren. Some of them notorious Socinians, 253 n. See Socinians.

- Political Liberty. The glorious state of it, with which God was pleased to bless his people ISRAEL, 328 n. and three preceding pages.

- Popery. See Papists, Church of Rome.

- Power from on High. An attribute given by our Lord himself to the Holy Ghost, 366. See Holy Ghost.

- Pride. In temporary honours and worldly possessions, the folly thereof, 203. Is a principle of action, 203. See Satan.

- Pride (spiritual), and pride of learning, their bad tendency, 206, et seq. See Satan.

- Priests. The immoral tendency of forbidding them to marry, 167 n. See Marriage, Church of Rome.

- Prince of Darkness. See Devil, Satan.

- Principles of Action. See Happiness, Affections, Author, Conscience, Death, Depravity of Mankind, Doing as we would be done by, Enemies, Evil Spirits, Knowledge of Good and Evil, Reason, Satan, Self-love, Sinderesis, Temptations, &c. &c.

- Prostitution, and a promiscuous use of women promoted by Satan, as a sacred rite amongst the heathens, and why, 159, et seq.

- Psalm cii. Something peculiarly deep and mysterious therein, 266 n.

- Puffendorff. A position of his examined, 69, et seq. Has well defended the general rule of Doing as we would be done by, against Dr. Sharrock, 70.

R.

- Reason, or the knowledge of good and evil, was unlawfully assumed by our first parents, 11. 43. 192. Is the cause that sin is imputed to us, 30. A divine attribute, which the Gentiles acknowledged, 31, 32. Is properly the grand principle, or law of nature, or conscience, 37. Man not endowed with so ample a portion of it before the fall, 41, et seq. A rule of obedience, 33. God requires us to exert it, 89. See Knowledge of Good and Evil, Sinderesis, Conscience.

- Religious Melancholy. The author precluded from making any remarks of his own thereon, by the observations of his grandfather, Archbishop Sharp, 150 n. See Sharp, (Archbp.)

- Religious Topics. See Author, Human Nature.

- Remonstrance. See Monarchs, Abraham, Moses.

- Riches—are a continual snare of temptation, as well to acquire them unjustly, as to expend them improperly, 29.

- Roman Catholics. See Church of Rome, Papists, Monks, Heathens, Tartars.

- Rules of Action and Obedience. See Affections, Appetites, Doing as we would be done by, Neighbour, Reason, Death, Sinderesis.

S.

- Sadducees (modern)—answered, 122—196. See Evil Spirits.

- Satan. His success in misleading mankind, a distinct principle of action, 19. Draws us into temptation, by enlarging our desires, 119 n. The devil at present worshipped by the name of Saitan among the Tartars, 159 n. Provoked David to number the people, 190. Pride the occasion of Satan's fall, 203. His device, in promoting man's assumption of forbidden knowledge, is completely turned against himself, 310. See Devil, Evil Spirits, Enemies Spiritual, Demons, Wicked Spirits.

- Saitan. A name amongst the Calmues for one of their idols, 160 n.

- Sanctification. See Holy Ghost.

- Saul. His melancholy, or madness, not a mere natural disorder, 191 n. An evil spirit the real agent which troubled him, 190 n. See Case of Saul (Appendix).

- Scriptures. We cannot reject any part of the scripture evidence, without a manifest perversion and abuse of our hereditary knowledge of good and evil, 286. We are obliged to believe the scriptures, though we do not fully comprehend them, 288. See Hebrew Scriptures, Commentators on Holy Scripture.

- Self-love—is not the universal principle of action, (7, et seq. 61, et seq.) even in brutes, 11. 96. Bad actions manifestly tend, even in the opinion of the offenders themselves, to defeat the most essential purposes of self-love, 63. Patriotism and brotherly affection manifestly superseded self-love in Moses and Aaron, (95, 96.) and also in St. Paul, 99. Was not the ruling principle of action in Jonathan, 100. nor in David, 102, et seq. Self-love must yield to the love of hoarding, 113. See Avarice, David, Jonathan, Moses, Paul.

- Servitude (involuntary). Illegality of it pointed out, 2, et seq.

- Sharp (Archbp.) Remarkable instance of his truly Christian behaviour to Judge Jefferies in his misfortunes, 62, 63 n. Extract from his sermon on the day of judgment concerning hell, 142 n. His sermons recommended as an antidote against religious melancholy, 150 n. See Day of Judgment, Reason, Last Day, Hell.

- Sharrock (Dr.) See Puffendorff.

- Sin—is imputed to us, whether rich or poor, through the knowledge of good and evil, that additional faculty acquired by human nature, through the transgression of our first parents, 30. In what manner it is the sting of death, explained, 49. See Original Sin, First Parents, Human Nature, Knowledge of Good and Evil, Reason.

- Sinderesis—sometimes treated as distinct from reason and conscience, though in fact it is the same, 39, et seq. A principle of action, 40 n. 41 n. See Reason, Conscience.

- Slave. None so miserable, as the man that is a slave to his own passions and desires, 55. See Law of Nature.

- Slavery in the Colonies—is favoured and encouraged by the English government at home—a national disgrace! 205.

- Socinians. The manner in which they endeavour to evade a certain scripture testimony of the divine nature of Christ, 230. confuted, 231, et seq. That evasion it as vain as it is wicked, 236. A mistaken doctrine of theirs, (293. 305.) proved to be unjust and false, 307. See Polish Brethren.

- Sodom. God's gracious condescension to Abraham, when he remonstrated in behalf of the condemned inhabitants thereof, 91. See Abraham.

- Son of God. See Christ Jesus, GOD, Holy Spirit, Jehovah, Judges and Magistrates, Mental Blindness.

- Sons of the most High. See Judges and Magistrates.

- Sorrow. The Hebrew word so rendered in Gen. iii. more properly signifies labour, 21 n.

- Spirit. See Holy Ghost.

- Spirits—may converse with us by secret illapses without our perception, 118 n. See Enemies (Spiritual) Satan, Devil, Demon, Evil Spirits.

- Sting of Death. See Sin.

- Suicide. The maxim, that all who commit it are mad, erroneous, 171. Otherwise accounted for, 173.

T.

- Tartars— have monasteries for heathen monks and nuns, 157 n. See Devil, Church of Rome, Papists.

- Temple. Man is a temple, "the temple of the Holy Ghost,"— "the temple of God," 384, 385. The doctrine necessarily arising from this revelation, 384—388.

- Temptations. We ought not to murmur at God's permitting them, 121. Why they are permitted, 135 n. Will become principles of action, if not carefully resisted, 150. That the temptation of our Saviour was a fact, not a vision, proved, 184, et seq.

- Tempter—was well acquainted with the nature of the forbidden fruit, 19. See Enemies (Spiritual) Satan, Devil, Evil Spirit, Demon.

- Thammuz, or Adonis. Manner of mourning over him among the ancients, 163.

- Thompson (Rev. Mr.) His doctrine concerning the law of nature, very convenient for tyrants and slave-holders, 5.

- Translators of the Bible. See Grotius and Vitringa.

- Tree of Life. See Christ, Knowledge of Good and Evil.

- Trinity. That doctrine is to be received more by faith than by human comprehension, 212. The incommunicable name, JEHOVAH, never applied by the sacred writers to any persons but those of the Holy Trinity, 235. The doctrine of the Trinity, as received by the Church of England, strictly consistent with the scripture doctrine of the Unity of the Godhead, 244. Some clergymen have seceded from the Church of England, because the Litany and Liturgy express this doctrine, and attribute divine honour to Christ, 338. The clear distinction of the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity, as revealed even in the Old Testament, 245, et seq. The true nature of the unity thereof must still remain a mystery, because our finite understandings cannot comprehend a perfect knowledge of the ETERNAL BEING, 285. The Three Persons clearly distinguished by the prophet Isaiah, 360. And by our Saviour, 396 n. See Faith, Christ, Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Non-subscribing Clergymen, Unity of God, Unitarians.

- True Believers. Their unity in Christ, explained, 295 to 309. See Faithful.

- True Freedom. What it is, 196, 197.

- Trumpet. See Last Trumpet.

- Truth—more dangerous than falsehood itself, when blended with falsehood, 20.

- Tubourai Tamaide (an Otaheitan). Remarks on his behaviour, 36.

- Turks. See Arabians, &c.

- Tyrants. It is necessary for them, either to misrepresent, or to deny the law of nature, 5. See Thompson.

U.

- Vestal Virgins. See Nuns, Heathens, Church of Rome.

- View of the Soul. Extract from a treatise so called, 110 n. et seq.

- Virgin (Blessed). Her miraculous conception expressly attributed to the Holy Ghost, by St. Matthew, 365.

- Vitringa. See Commentators on Scripture.

- Universal Principle of Action in Man. See Doing as we would be done by, Happiness, Self-love.

- Unitarians. Some of the mistaken people, who vainly call themselves Unitarians, hold doctrines which are inconsistent with our belief in the Unity of God, 242, 243.

- Unity of God—an indispensable article of our faith, yet are we equally bound to acknowledge, that Three Divine Persons are included therein, 241. Athanasius, a strict assertor of this doctrine, 255 n. Without the doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Nature, the application in scripture of the same attributes to different persons, could not be understood, 364. The Holy Ghost included in that Unity, 371. To contend for the Unity of the Divine Nature, if the least degree of inequality therein be admitted, is absurd, 243, 244. 372. See Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Trinity.

- Unlawful Affections—ought to be carefully guarded against, lest any of them should become the reigning principle of action, and should lead the poor enslaved mortal to eternal destruction, 116.

- Unlimited Servitude. See Law of Nature.

W.

- Wicked Spirits. See Evil Spirits.

- Word Eternal. See Eternal Word.

Y.

- Ynca Manco Capac. Wise precept of his, 75.

INDEX OF THE Different AUTHORS referred to.

A.

- ABEN EZRA, 238.

- Alexander Severus, 68. 73.

- Anacrisis Apocalypsios, 297 n.

- Answer (the author's) to the Rev. Mr. Thompson, 2 n.

- Arabic version, 219 n.

- Aristotle, 74.

- Assembly's Annotat. 379 n.

- Athanasius, 254 n. 255 n. 256 n.

- Athenagoras, 357 n.

- Augustine, 355 n.

B.

- Bishop's Bible, 304 n.

- Bracton, 4 n. 8.

- Brooke (Mr. of Dublin) 105 n.

- Broughton (Mr. Hugh) 219 n.

- Brugensis (Lucas) 366 n.

- Burkitt (Mr.) 97.

- Burton (Rev. Mr.) 268 n.

- Buxtorf, 237, 238.

C.

- Cambridge MS. 254 n. 255 n.

- Carniades, 5.

- Chaldee Par. 363 n.

- Chandler (Bp.) 224.

- Christ's temptations real facts, 188 n.

- Chrysostom, 97 n.

- Cicero, 6. 31.

- Claromontan or Clermont MS. 254 n. 255 n.

- Commentary on Isaiah (Louth's) 134 n.

- Commentary (Jewish) on some of the Psalms, 238.

- Common Eng. version, 1611. 304 n.

- Complete Christian Dictionary, 204 n.

- Confusius, 74.

- Cowell, 4 n.

- Critica Sacra, 216.

D.

- Day of Judgment, Sermon on the manner of it, by Archbp. Sharp, 142 n.

- De Dieu (Mons.) 219 n.

- De la Vega, 75.

- Demoniacks of the N. Test. Essay on, 177 n. 186 n. 191 n.

- Deodati, 134.

- Diogenes Laertius, 74.

- Doctor and Student, 12. 39. 42. 44 n.

- Dutch annotations, 136 n.

- Dutch embassy to the Cham of Tartary, account of, 159 n.

E.

- Erasmi Paraphrasis in Evang. Joan. 217 n.

- Essay towards reconciling the numbers of Daniel and John, by the Rev. Mr. Burton, 268 n.

- Evangelical discourses, 119 n.

- Ezekiel, 182 n.

F.

- Fleta, 4 n.

- Fool of Quality, 105 n. 108 n.

- Fox (Rev. Francis, M. A.) 379. 394 n.

- Friendly admonition to drinkers of gin, brandy, &c. 115.

G.

- Gomarus (Fr.) 255 n.

- Greek Test. new edit. of, by the Rev. E. Harwood, D.D. 252 n. 254 n. 255 n. 256 n.

- Greek Test. (Wetsten's) 2d edit. Preface to, 255 n.

- Grotius, 296 n. 303 n. 357 n. 366 n. 379 n. 385 n. 400 n.

H.

- Hales (Dr. Stephen) 115.

- Hebrew text, 297 n.

- Herodotus, 164 n. 165 n.

- Hill (Dr.) 254 n.

- Hobbes, 68. 70. 123 n.

- Huetius, 304 n.

I.

- Jackson (Dr.) 55 n. 121 n.

- Ides (Mr. Isbrant's) 157 n.

- Inquiry into the nature and design of Christ's temptation, 181 n. 185 n. 186 n. 189 n.

- John (St.) 182 n.

- Justin, 3 n.

K.

- Kennet (Basil) 69 n.

- Kimchi (Rabbi) 304 n.

- Kircher (Athanasius) 161 n.

L.

- Lactantius, 5.

- Lampridius, 68.

- Lardner, 176 n.

- Lafitau, 155 n.

- Last English translation, 297 n.

- Law of Liberty, or Royal Law, 77.

- —of Retribution, 178. 234 n. 299 n.

- —of Nature and Nations, 69.

- Le Brun, 157 n. 159 n.

- Le Clerc (Mons.) 255 n.

- Leigh (Mr.) 216.

- Louth (Rev. Mr. William) 134 n. 296. 304.

M.

- Marcinus, 74.

- Mastricht (Ger. Van.) 255 n.

- Maundrel's Travels, 163 n.

- Mede (Joseph) 68.

- Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains, 156 n.

N.

- New Test. with references, 394 n.

- Newton (Sir Isaac) 339 n.

- Novis Orbis Regionum et Insularum, &c. 157 n.

O.

- Observations on various subjects, 256 n.

- — on Daniel and the Apocalypse, 340 n.

- Old English translation, 297 n. 304 n.

- Oratio Philippica, 57 n.

P.

- Paris (Matt.) 167 n. 168 n.

- Patrick (Bishop) 165 n. 166 n. 326 n.

- Paul (Father Mark) 157 n.

- Payne (Mr. John) 119 n.

- Pearson (Bishop) 304 n.

- Pole's Synopsis, 366 n. 400 n.

- Puffendorff, 4. 69. 71, 72. 74.

R.

- Rapin, 62 n.

- Remarks on several very important Prophecies, 249. 389 n.

S.

- Scaliger, 268 n.

- Seneca, 74.

- Septuagint, 275. 327 n.

- Sermon (Bp. Chandler's) before the King, 226.

- Sharrock (Dr.) 68.

- Sharp (Archbp.) 123 n. 128 n. 145 n. 150 n. 395 n.

- Sharp (Dr. John) 99 n.

- Simons (Father) 254 n. 255 n.

- Slater, 400 n.

- St. Germain MS. 255 n.

- Sykes, 176 n.

- Symphonia Prophet. et Apost. 99 n.

- Syriac version, 219 n. 234. 327 n. 363 n.

T.

- Targum, 363 n.

- Thompson (Rev. Mr.) 2 n. 3. 5.

- Tindal, 304 n.

U.

- Velthusen (Dr. J. C.) 223 n. 256 n.

- View of the Soul, 100.

- Vitringa, 134 n. 296 n. 297 n. 300 n.

- Univ. Hist. 162 n. 163 n. 164 n.

- Vulgate (Latin) 253 n.

W.

- Wetsten, 255 n.

- Warburton (Dr.) 178 n.

- Whitby (Dr.) 378 n. 379 n.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

P. 12. for compouna read compound.

130. line 6. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

134.— 2 n. dele the c. after Isaiah.

144.— 14 n. dele IT.

161. instead of woman r. women.

186. instead of, ‘by a comparative consideration of our own bodies,’ r. ‘by a comparative consideration of the contrary nature of our own bodies,’ &c.

191. line 8, for as, r. that.

199. line 1. for carefully, r. usefully.

201. line 18. for ΚΟΝΩΝΟΙ, r. ΚΟΙΝΩΝΟΙ.

216. line 13. for 1 John xiv. 9. r. John xiv. 9.

252. last line, n. for 1766, r. 1776.

278. n. line 7. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

327. line 3. 2d n. for it, r. is.

296. line 4. after see p. add 339.

339. line 17 n. for sebond, r. second.

Information about this book

Title statement

A tract on the law of nature, and principles of action in man: By Granville Sharp.

Sharp, Granville, 1735-1813.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/4389

ID [isbn10]

1106013883

ID [isbn13]

9781106013880

ID [TCP]

K053409.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3318432072

ID [ECRP]

0234601900

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— A tract on the law of nature, and principles of action in man: By Granville Sharp., Sharp, Granville, 1735-1813.. [4],447,[1],4p. ; 8⁰. London :: printed for B. White; and E. and C. Dilly,. 1777.. [With four pages of advertisements at the end.] [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [Goldsmiths', 11651] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT61464.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.