Discourses on scripture mysteries: preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University, in the year 1787; ... By William Hawkins, ...

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- [imprimatur]

- TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

- Extract from the last Will and Testa ment of the late Reverend JOHN BAMPTON, Canon of Salisbury.

- DISCOURSE I.

- DISCOURSE II.

- DISCOURSE III.

- DISCOURSE IV.

- DISCOURSE V.

- DISCOURSE VI.

- DISCOURSE VII.

- DISCOURSE VIII.

- ANNOTATIONS.

- [errata]

THE END.

DISCOURSES ON SCRIPTURE MYSTERIES, PREACHED AT ST. MARY'S, OXFORD, BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY, IN THE YEAR 1787; AT THE LECTURE FOUNDED BY THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M. A. CANON OF SALISBURY; WITH NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE AND CRITICAL.

BY WILLIAM HAWKINS, M. A. PREBENDARY OF WELLS, VICAR OF WHITCHURCH, DORSET, AND LATE FELLOW OF PEMBROKE-COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD: PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS, AND SOLD BY D. PRINCE AND J. COOKE, OXFORD; AND J. F. AND C. RIVINGTON, LONDON.

M DCC LXXXVII.

IMPRIMATUR,

JOS. CHAPMAN, VICE-CAN. OXON.
Aug. 6. 1787.

TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

MY LORD,

HAVING had the honour of being appointed preacher of the Bampton Lectures for the current year, by the Heads of Colleges in Oxford, I have the happiness to introduce them to the Public with the additional great advantage of your Grace's protection; an advantage the more considerable, as it derives as much from the character, as the rank of my patron.

In this situation it will, I presume, become me to address your Grace rather under the form of preface than in the style of dedication.

My slender pretensions to your favour are grounded in the earnest endeavour of the following sheets fully and circumstantially to vindicate that faith which, I need not tell your Grace, is not barely attacked, but insulted every day. The Charity which is not easily provoked must resent the freedom, I had almost said the audacity which distinguishes the infidels of the present generation. These Gentlemen affect to be the party aggrieved; and to console themselves at the same time with a hope, and sometimes a persuasion of the speedy abolition of confessions and systems, and, in consequence of it, the revival of evangelical doctrine in its native simplicity.

I cannot think opinions openly and arrogantly hostile to the national establishment can be justified even by their sincerity. But infidelity in general is without this excuse: it has been repeatedly shewn to draw its principal resources from the vigilance of captiousness, the popularity of profession, the artifice of dissimulation, the confusion of things not really connected, and the occasional suppression, or adulteration of truth. To these I am sorry, for our own sakes, to add the inconsistency between certain controversial terms, and the imprudence, or unwariness of concession. Such resources as these are indeed inexhaustible. Mr. Bampton's wise and pious institution, and every 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 other of a similar nature, supposes as much. We contend with enemies, who, though with unequal forces, will always be able to take the field. However, my Lord, I flatter myself I have happily chosen more advantageous ground than many of my fellow-soldiers in this warfare; to whose names on other accounts I look up with deference and veneration. After all, the event must be left in the hands of Providence. I have only to beg the favour of the intelligent reader to peruse these discourses and the annexed annotations, (which will be equally necessary,) with an inclination to be satisfied; and in that spirit of candor and impartiallity with which, I trust, he will find them to have been composed. I request his attention throughout the performance, and reasonable allowances for the inaccuracy, or inequality that may be discovered in it. I hope he will be biassed, not by speciousness of principle, or habit of attachment, but by preponderance of argument. I submit it to his judgment, whether I have in any instance shewn an undue warmth, or unwarrantable resentment; and desire him finally to determine, as he shall upon the whole be persuaded, not of the abilities of the advocate, but the merits of the cause. Open to conviction myself, I shall always be ready to rectify an error, or to renounce an opinion, on competent representation; but shall not pay the least regard to any censure or animadversion, the features of which shall manifestly betray it to be the offspring of prepossession, chagrin, or malevolence.

With sincerest wishes and prayers for your Grace's health and happiness, and for the peace and prosperity of that Church over which you so worthily preside,

I remain, With all duty and respect, My LORD,
Your much obliged and Most obedient servant, WILLIAM HAWKINS.

Extract from the last Will and Testament of the late Reverend JOHN BAMPTON, Canon of Salisbury.

—I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes herein after mentioned; that is to say, I will and appoint, that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the manner following:

I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week in Act Term.

Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost—upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the City of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library; and the expence of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Lands or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.

Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the Degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice.

DISCOURSE I.

JOHN XVIII. 38. ‘Pilate saith unto him, What is Truth?’

THIS question, of all by far the most important, was put to our blessed Saviour by the Roman Governour, perhaps carelessly, perhaps contemptuously, but certainly without the least wish for information. In much the same spirit of scorn, or with similar indifference, the same question is every day in the mouths, sometimes of sceptics and scoffers, and sometimes of men of a more serious cast, who affect to be persuaded that we cannot, and, it may be, desire not to give them satisfaction. Unhappily, the Christian world is divided and subdivided almost infinitely; it is parcelled out into sectaries of a thousand denominations. The fact is, though the right of private judgment in matters of religion, which has been exercised from the beginning, was justly and necessarily asserted by the leaders and friends of the REFORMATION, it must be acknowledged, folly, perverseness, pride, and enthusiasm, have, by severally maintaining it, been productive of that strange multiplicity of religious sentiment which we have so much cause to lament; of that schism, heresy, scepticism, and infidelity, which have all along disturbed the Church, but fix a mark of peculiar disgrace on the last and present century.

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

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

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

But if doctrines are true, why not officially taught, and carefully transmitted? Is profession ridiculous, or authority contemptible, as such? Indeed, the question is not, what saith the Church?—but—what saith the Scripture? Now by Scripture, and the earliest antiquity, our surest guide, and purest precedent, we are not only willing, but wishful to be tried. It is true the bulk of Christians are not equal to this trial; in a certain sense, they care for none of these things; they take matters upon trust; they are not able to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the faith that is in them, except that they were born and bred in it, and suppose it to be unquestionable. It is with respect to this implicitness of assent, this tameness of acquiescence, as it is opprobriously called, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has no less impiously than ludicrously been exposed to contempt under the description of the [*] Trinity of the Mob! But this is very unfair representation. Surely no argument can be drawn from the incapacity, or the credulity of the many, to the disadvantage of a doctrine that, with respect to the grounds on which we defend it, solicits, demands, defies the penetration of enquiry, and the inquisitiveness 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of criticism. The spiritual state of the common people all over the world falls nearly under the same predicament; but at the same time a proportionable degree of satisfaction will always be derived to every man from every degree of rational assurance that he is in the right way; or belongs to a communion wherein the truth is held in purity approaching nearest to the standard of primitive Christianity.

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

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

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

"His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right."

It is well for us there is nothing argumentative in the jingle of a couplet. I confess myself to be one of those who are hurt by every effort that has a plain aspect towards resolving all religion into morality. I consider every attempt of this kind as an indirect attack upon the fundamentals of Christianity. According to the idea of these reasoners, the character of the Messiah, and of the Son of God, will dwindle into that of a mere Legislator, or moral philosopher, who teaches us to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. [†]This text, and texts congenerous with this, may plausibly be urged in exaltation of good works to the exclusion of faith: but let them be contrasted with the following, he that believeth, and is baptiz'd shall be saved; [*] he that believe thon the Son hath everlasting life, [†]&c. &c; and where is boasting on the part of moral honesty, or evangelical righteousness? As speciously, or as justly as men may harangue in demonstration of the excellence of piety and virtue; or as loudly, or as reasonably as they may exclaim against the violence, and much more the virulence, which has actuated the spirit of controversy in too many instances; I presume, no intelligent person, if he is impartial, will deny, that the faith which St. Jude tells us was once delivered to the Saints, whatever we are precisely to understand by it, is something entirely distinct from mere morality; that it ought earnestly to be contended for, agre ably to the same Apostle's exhortation; that it is very possible to contend with meekness; that errors, and schisms, and heresies are represented in scripture as things more or less sinful, dangerous, and damnable; and that consequently it is of the utmost importance to our spiritual interests to be right in principle as well as in practice. The petulancy, the pride, and the malevolence of bigots, and of disputers of this world, as the Apostle calls them, will no doubt be brought into judgment no less than the grossest immoralities; but this will not by any means supersede, or retard an honest and charitable attempt to enquire into and ascertain the leading doctrines of our common Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

*
See p. 16, 36, 37. in Preface to Stilling fleet's Discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity.
↵

†
Tit. ii. 12.
↵

*
Mark xvi. 16.
↵

†
John. vi. 47.
↵

*
See Deism Revealed. Vol. 2. p. 145.
↵

†
See Note at p. 3 of Howes's Discourse on the abuse of the Talent of Disputation in Religion. &c.
↵

DISCOURSE II.

JOHN V. 39. ‘Search the Scriptures.’

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

Without laying before you at present all, or the principal texts by which the doctrine of the Trinity is supported, or in which the absolute divinity both of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is explicitly asserted, or necessarily implied, we may previously remark that, supposing them to be authentic, unequivocal, and intelligible, the infidel is in fact precluded from taking advantage of those passages which are declarative either of the acknowleged humanity of Jesus Christ, or of the gifts and operations of the blessed Spirit: that humanity, and those operations being things manifestly distinct from the Divine essence, and real personality. What we shall have to do therefore will be to enquire, in due time and place, whether the exceptions which have been made against the texts with which the catholic doctrine is fortified, are grounded in principles of common candour and common sense; or, in other words, whether the interpretations of anti-trinitarians are critically just, and agreable to the rules which are generally allowed to govern interpretation. In the mean time, it will be well worth while to examine, whether the doctrine before us is not proveable by evidence which, though indirect and collateral, is irresistible. There is hardly any such thing as framing a sentence, or a proposition that cannot be prevaricated with; but the tenor of a context, and the weight of circumstances will not easily admit of sophistication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

*
1 Cor. xii. 4.
↵

†
Ephes. v. 5.
↵

‡
Matt. xi. 27.
↵

*
Hosea xiii. 14.
↵

†
Psalm lxxi. 23.
↵

‡
Isa. xlv. 21.
↵

§
1 Tim. i. 1.
↵

‖
Jude v. 25.
↵

*
2 Tim. iii. 16. 2 Pet. i. 21.
↵

†
The Father of the everlasting age.

Bp. Lowth.

↵

*
John viii. 58.
↵

†
Coloss. i. 16.
↵

‡
Rev. i. 8.
↵

§
Acts i. 24.
↵

*
John xi. v. 25.
↵

†
Ibid. vi. 54.
↵

‡
2 Cor. v. 10.
↵

*
John xi. v. 25.
↵

†
Job. xxvi. 13.
↵

‡
Ibid. xxxiii 4.
↵

27
Cor. i. 30.
↵

*
1 Cor. ii 10.
↵

†
Heb. ix. 14.
↵

‡
Rom. viii. 27.
↵

§
1 Pet. iii. 18.
↵

‖
Ezek. iii. 24.
↵

*
Acts xiii. 2.
↵

†
Acts xx. 21.
↵

‡
Heb. vi. 1.
↵

*
Acts xv. 11.
↵

†
Jude 21.
↵

§
2 Thess. iii. 5.
↵

39
1 Thess. iii. 11.
↵

*
Matt. xii. 31.
↵

*
1 Thess. iv. 9.
↵

*
John xiii. 34.
↵

†
John xiv. 9.
↵

‡
John i. 18.
↵

§
1 Tim. vi. 16.
↵

*
Matt. iii. 3.
↵

†
Isa. xl. 3.
↵

*
1 Cor. viii. 4. &c.
↵

*
1 Rev. 4.
↵

*
Rev. v. 13.
↵

†
Rev. xvii. 14.
↵

*
Rev. xxi. 22.
↵

†
Rev. xxii. i.
↵

‡
Rev. vi. 15.
↵

*
1 Cor. ii. 10.
↵

†
Rev. ii. 11.
↵

*
Ephes. i. 10.
↵

†
1 Cor. ii. 7.
↵

*
2 Pet. i. 21.
↵

†
Luke x. 24.
↵

*
1 Pet. i. 10.
↵

*
Heb. x. 23.
↵

†
Jude 20.
↵

DISCOURSE III.

ACTS I. 3. ‘By many infallible proofs.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

*
Luke i. 1.
↵

*
John xvi. 12.
↵

*
Rom. i. 4.
↵

*
Luke viii. 43.
↵

†
Ibid. xviii. 35.
↵

‡
1 Tim. iii. 9.
↵

*
Luke i. 35.
↵

*
Acts i. 24.
↵

*
Acts ii. 14.
↵

*
Matt. xxviii. 20.
↵

†
Ephes. iv. 7. 1 Cor. vii 11.
↵

*
Acts viii. 26, &c.
↵

*
Acts ix. 1, &c.
↵

*
Acts xxii. 14. x. 1, &c.
↵

DISCOURSE IV.

ACTS I. 3. ‘By many infallible proofs.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After these things, we are told, Paul and Silas—came to Corinth [§]; and Paul reasoned in the synagogue,—and persuaded the Jews and Greeks;—and was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ; and when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, your blood be upon your own heads, &c. You will be pleased to compare this relation with that of the perverse and unbelieving Jews at Antioch in Pisidia, already taken notice of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, if this be admitted, I would remark, that as the title of Lord confessedly belongs to our Saviour, the Christians may fairly be supposed, in their triple form of ejaculatory address,—Lord, have mercy upon us; Christ, have mercy upon us; Lord, have mercy us; to invoke Christ the Lord, as supreme God: or if by Lord we are in the first and third petition to understand God the Father, still we must be presumed in the intermediate one to address the Son as equal to the Father; because we shall else be absurd enough to invoke the supreme God and a subordinate being with the same fervour, and as it were in the same instant. You will see the argument these pious ejaculations furnish us with, whether we do or do not credit the account of Arrian. [†]

In confirmation of what has been offered, I desire to add one or two more facts, which, if I mistake not, have more weight in them than is commonly apprehended; as, for instance, the appointment of the Lord's day; and the style or title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by which churches were in the primitive times distinguished. For can we do less in common reason than worship him with the supreme God, and as the supreme God, to whose particular honour one day in the week is for ever to be kept holy; on whose particular account the most sacred observances of religion were transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first; and whose peculiar house is now the only house of prayer for all people?

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

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

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

Notes

*
Acts xii. 5.
↵

*
See Dan. iii. 28. and chap. vi. 22.
↵

§
Acts xiii. 2.
↵

*
Acts xiii. 16, &c.
↵

*
Acts xiv. 3, &c. &c.
↵

§
Heb. ii. 3, &c.
↵

*
Acts xiv. 8, &c.
↵

*
Acts xvi. 1.
↵

*
Acts xvi. 30.
↵

*
Acts xvii. 1, &c.
↵

†
Ibid. xvii. 6.
↵

*
Acts xvii. 10.
↵

§
Acts xvii. 16, &c.
↵

§
Acts xviii. 1, &c.
↵

*
Acts xviii. 13.
↵

*
Acts xviii. 24.
↵

†
Acts xix. 2, &c.
↵

95
* Acts xx. 17, &c.
↵

96
* Acts xxi. 27, &c.
↵

†
Acts xxii. 1, &c.
↵

98
† Acts xxiii. 1, &c.
↵

†
Acts xxiv. 5, &c.
↵

†
Acts xxiv. 24, &c.
↵

†
Acts xxvi. 1, &c.
↵

†
Acts xxviii. 23, 31.
↵

†
Romans i. 3.
↵

*
Cave's Prim. Christ. p. 86. Echard's Roman History, Vol. III. p. 2.
↵

†
See Wilkins on Nat. Relig. B. I. ch. 8. p. 42.
↵

*
See Passim.
↵

DISCOURSE V.

1 JOHN V, part of verse 20.

This [†]is the true God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In perfect consistence with this, the Apostles preached the Gospel, after their Lord and Master had left the world, and was gone to his Father. They taught Gospel truths; they insisted on, (St. Paul more especially,) they rejoiced, they gloried in their deliverance from bondage under weak and beggarly elements; [†]they exulted in the abolition of the ceremonial law, as a mere temporary establishment, and shadowy institution; but at the same time they regarded the moral law as of inviolable authority, and a complete standard of conduct still. When the Apostle just now named exposes the extreme folly of such transgressors of the law as stood selfcondemned; or complains of the rigour of its requisitions; or declares the impossibility of yielding meritorious obedience to it, and consequently of obtaining Salvation under it, its subsistence and obligation are supposed beyond all possible contradiction. That it could not make the comers thereunto perfect, was an argument of its own intrinsic perfection. The same great Apostle, pressing upon his Roman converts the duties of brotherly love, and universal charity, recites almost all the commandments of the second table; and subjoins that comprehensive precept of Moses just now mentioned, which he no doubt considered as inclusive of every evangelical precept, even that of loving our enemies, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. St. James calls this very precept, this great social principle, the royal law; [†]and when he argues against the folly and presumption of a partial obedience to the divine commandments, and a commuting as it were for iniquities, rests his argument wholly in that supreme authority by which the law of Moses was enacted: he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. [†]In short, both our Lord and his Apostles inculcated, and enlarged upon many things of practical importance, as circumstances admitted, and occasions required; but they taught nothing of this kind but what was reducible to the Mosaic institutions, or to some general head of Jewish, or natural morality. I add of natural morality; because the law of nature, the law of Moses, and the law of Christ are, in point of morality, one and the same; the latter illustrating, explaining, enforcing, and recommending the two former, but neither adding to, nor diminishing from them. For the reason or fitness of things is absolutely unalterable; and whatever is in its own nature morally good or evil, has always been so, and will for ever continue so to be. The moral law which was once written upon tables of stone was originally 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 engraved upon the fleshly tables of man's heart. (u) To maintain or to imagine otherwise, is to charge God foolishly; and to suppose both the law and the Gospel to prescribe a practice in some instances unnatural and unreasonable. St. Paul's descriptions of the gross ignorance and depravity of the heathen world are equally animated and just. [†]But notwithstanding this, the irradiations of reason and conscience are sometimes beautifully visible amidst this blackness of spiritual darkness. We might extract from the writings of Pagan authors, philosophers and others, of different times, and in different places, a moral system, against which, collectively taken, should lie no fair exception; and produce from them sentiments finely coinciding with the most exalted principles, and most refined doctrines of Christianity.

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

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

Incesta est etiam sine stupro, quae cupit stuprum.

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

Quae quia non licuit, non facit, illa facit.

Ut jam servaris bene corpus, adultera mens est;

Omnibus exclusis intus adulter erit. Ibid.

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [*]

Some of the philosophers argued against present solicitude, and the taking too much thought for the morrow, precisely as our Saviour does in his discourse on the mount. A philosopher, or wise man, ought not to be anxious about these things, viz. food, &c. &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—is a sentence quoted by Dr. Whitby in his note on v. 25. Ch. 6. of St. Matthew. The following sentiment of Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [*]is almost a counterpart to our Saviour's—of every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account at the day of judgment. Tully's notion of the servitude of a sinner quadrates exactly with the doctrine of our blessed Lord, and of St. Paul after him. Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin, [†]says the former; his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness, [‡]says the latter; and says Cicero, si servitus sit obedientia fracti animi, et arbitrio carentis suo, quis neget omnes imbrobos esse servos? [§]On the other hand, Deo parere libertas est, says Seneca, in the spirit of a Christian, and the language of the Church; in one of the Collects of which, God's service is called perfect freedom. The same philosopher represents the Deity as a most beneficent Being who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust; ecce sceleratis, says he, sol oritur, et piratis patent maria. [*]And, to mention only one particular more, he directs us in another place to consider human afflictions as the corrections of a father for our spiritual benefit. God, he says, sicut severus pater durius educat; [†]which is almost literally the sentiment of the Apostle. [‡]The frailty of human nature, our radical disinclination to virtue, the necessity of propitiation, and our want of extraneous assistance as well as of personal resolution, for the purpose of a good life, are points often intimated, and as often insisted upon by Pagan writers. The nitimur in vetitum—of the poet was a sort of standing thesis with many. The multitude of heathen sacrifices shews a consciousness of guilt, and a solicitude for atonement. Their sense of the need of a divine blessing on their endeavours in general, appears sufficiently from their undertaking nothing of moment, whether of a public or private concern, without the previous observance of certain rites and ceremonies; or, as Pliny expresses himself in the introduction to his panegyric on Trajan, sine deorum immortalium ope, consilio, et honore. It may not be easy to ascertain what we are to understand by the Daemon, or the Genius, which, by his own account attended Socrates; but it is certain the notion of good and evil genii prevailed much in the heathen world. In the following lines, the warmth of divine infusion in the human breast is beautifully expressed by Ovid;

Est Deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo:

Impetus hic sacrae semina mentis habet. [†]

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. &c. Il. lib. xiii. v. 730. et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

†
HE is the true God—according to some versions, and perhaps defensible ones. See Webster; and Scot's Christian Life, Vol. II. p. 558. See Whitby in loc.
↵

*
Mal. iv. 2.
↵

†
Jer. xxiii. 6.
↵

‡
Luke xxiii. 35.
↵

§
Mar. xiv. 61.
↵

‖
1 Cor. ii. 8.
↵

**
Heb. ii. 10. v. 9.
↵

*
John xviii. 37.
↵

†
Ibid. iii. 16.
↵

‡
Matt. ix. 13.
↵

§
John ix. 4.
↵

*
Luke iv. 18. 43.
↵

†
John i. 17.
↵

‡
John iv. 9, 10.
↵

§
Gal. iv. 4.
↵

*
1 Tim. i. 15.
↵

†
Tit. ii. 11, &c.
↵

‡
Matt. v. 17.
↵

§
Col. ii. 14.
↵

*
Matt. xv. 9.
↵

†
Matt. xix. 17.
↵

‡
Ibid. xxii. 35.
↵

§
John xiii. 34.
↵

*
Rev. i. 5.
↵

†
Gal. iv. 9.
↵

†
James ii. 8.
↵

†
James ii. 11.
↵

†
Rom. i. 21, &c.
↵

*
Tusc. Q. l. I. 26.
↵

†
See Whitby in loc.
↵

*
See Le Clerc's Note above referred to.
↵

*
See Plato de Leg. l. 4.
↵

†
John viii. 34.
↵

‡
Rom. vi. 16.
↵

§
Tully's Par. 5.
↵

*
Sen. de Ira. l. 4. c. 26. de vit. beat. 15.
↵

†
See Wilkins. B. 1. c. 16.
↵

‡
Heb. xii. 7, &c.
↵

†
Sententiae illus. ex Ovid. See Cumberland on the defects of heathen Deism. p. 21.
↵

*
See Whitby on Matt. 7. 13.
↵

†
See Locke's Reasonab. of Christian. p. 269.
↵

*
See Whitby on Matt. 6. v. 9.—13. v. 10.
↵

*
See Patrick's Disc. on Baptism. p. 8. Allix's Reflect. V. 2. p. 177. Potter's Ch. Government.
↵

†
Heb. x. 28.
↵

*
See Shuckford's Sac. and Prof. Hist. connec. Vol. 1. B. 5.
↵

†
See Parker on Idolatry, p. 43.
↵

DISCOURSE VI.

GAL. Chap. 1. part of verse 7. ‘There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So again: Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God. [†]These words contain a proper and natural commission given to Mary Magdalen by our blessed Lord in consequence of his resurrection, and agreeably to what he had spoken unto his disciples when he was yet in Galilee. [‡]It was his intention to signify by her the speedy accomplishment of what he had frequently foretold and promised them under the character of the Messiah; but it was neither necessary nor expedient to discover to her singly the fulness of his Godhead.

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

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

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

Notes

*
See Lightfoot's Harm. of the N. Test. Sect. 92. p. 273.
↵

†
See a late work entitled An Elucidation of the Unity, &c. p. 59. where this Form is treated with equal freedom.
↵

*
John i. 1.
↵

*
John iii. 13.
↵

†
John i. 14.
↵

*
Col. ii. 9.
↵

†
John viii. 58.
↵

*
Whiston's Solution, &c. p. 254.
↵

*
Scrip. Doc. of the Trin. Prop. 39. See Stephens's Sermon on the eternal generation, &c.
↵

*
John 5. v. 26.
↵

†
See this text miserably distorted in Locke's Reasonab. of Christian. p. 67.
↵

*
Heb. 1. 2.
↵

*
Rom. 6. 4.
↵

*
See Grotius in loc.
↵

*
See Grotius on Rom. ix. 5.
↵

*
Rom. xiv. 9.
↵

†
1 Cor. i. 2.
↵

*
Mr. Taylor. See his Key to the Apostolical Writings.
↵

*
1 Tim. iii. 16.
↵

†
See Mr. JONES on this verse.
↵

*
Mr. Travis.
↵

*
Luke xi. 1.
↵

†
Heb. x. 12. vii. 25.
↵

‡
Phil. ii. 6. &c.
↵

*
See Mr. Parkhurst's Note at p. 79 of his Treatise on the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour.
↵

†
1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 15, &c.
↵

*
See Parkhurst's Divin. &c. of Christ. p. 102. &c. 117. &c.
↵

†
See Disc. 3 and 7. See John xiv. 26. xv. 26.
↵

‡
See Luke xviii. 18.
↵

*
John xvii. 3.
↵

†
Col. i. 15. Rev. iii. 14.
↵

*
Mark xiii. 32.
↵

†
John xx. 17.
↵

‡
Luke xxiv. 6.
↵

§
1 Co. xv. 28.
↵

*
Ephes v. 18.
↵

†
1 Thess. v. 19.
↵

‡
1 John iii. 24.
↵

§
John xx. 22.
↵

*
Rom. viii. 10.
↵

†
Heb. xii. 29.
↵

‡
1 John iv. 8,
↵

§
1 Cor. xiv. 25.
↵

**
1 Cor. ii. 5.
↵

DISCOURSE VII.

1 COR. Chapter 15. Verse 12. ‘If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is, of this kind of implied evidence we have plenty in the sacred volume. I will only produce one piece more of Gospel-history, in presumptive proof that Gentiles as well as Jews understood by a resurrection what we do at this day. St. Paul concludes his discourse to the Athenians with insisting on the certainty of a future judgment from the assurance which God had given to all men of it, by his having raised that man, whom he had ordained to be their judge, from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, says the historian, some mocked; but others said, we will hear thee again of this matter. [*]Now St. Paul's audience consisted chiefly of Stoics and Epicureans; and the latter most undoubtedly were the party that derided the doctrine which the former did not conceive to be altogether extravagant, or ridiculous. But had the Apostle meant only to inculcate the general doctrine of a future state, the Stoics in all probability would have been satisfied as to that point without a farther hearing; and the Epicureans would have no more mocked, or insulted, than if a Stoic had preached it.

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

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

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

There is, I persuade myself, little or nothing in this passage but has its answer in the foregoing considerations; unless we should be kind enough to acknowlege for argument the triumphant sneer of that parenthesis, (wherein, I think, are contained all the Articles of the Christian Faith.) It might therefore be sufficient to remark, that Mr. L. seems to admit mysteries as some people dispense alms, viz. grudgingly, or of necessity; and at the same time to express our obligations to him for his indulgent concession, that bodies have been raised from the dead upon particular occasions. But because this great writer may possibly be still thought by some to have hit upon an expedient, which happily helps him out of embarassment, in the stale distinction between a particular and the general Resurrection, let us see whether this distinction will not vanish before the ensuing argumentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

*
See Enquiry when the Resurrection of the Body was first inserted in the Creeds. sub. init.
↵

*
See Grotius de vent. l. 7. and 10. Le Clerc's Notes. Prideaux Connect. v. 1. p. 103. &c.
↵

*
Jenkins's Reasonab. &c. V. 1. p. 103. P. on the Cr. p. 379.
↵

*
Matt. 22. 23. &c.
↵

*
John xi. 24.
↵

*
Acts xvii. 32.
↵

†
Mark ix. 10.
↵

*
See Essay on the Human Underst. and ch. on Identity.
↵

*
1 Cor. xv. 20. vi. 14.
↵

†
Rom. vi. 5.
↵

‡
2 Cor. iv. 14.
↵

§
John v. 21.
↵

*
Phil. iii. 21.
↵

†
v. 43, &c. 51, &c.
↵

*
Ibid.
↵

*
Ibid.
↵

*
Ibid.
↵

*
See particularly Rom. viii. 11.
↵

*
Dr. Law. Mr. Peckard, &c.
↵

*
Heb. vi. 1, 2.
↵

DISCOURSE VIII.

1 COR. Chapter 15. Verse 12. ‘If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?’

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

Let us consider, says St. Clement in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, how the Lord does continually shew us that there shall be a future resurrection; of which he has made our Lord Jesus Christ the FIRST FRUITS, raising him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection that is continually made before our eyes. Let us behold the fruits of the earth. Every one sees how the seed is sown. The sower goes forth, and casts it upon the earth; and the seed which when it was sown fell upon the earth dry and naked, in time dissolves; and from the dissolution the great power of the Providence of the Lord raises it again; and of one seed many arise, and bring forth fruit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was the concurrence of private judgment which first formed the Christian Church; it was the same concurrence which gradually compounded the enormous mass of popery; it was the same that effected the Reformation; and it was the same that constituted the numerous sects and parties into which this Reformation has been most deplorably split and subdivided. It is to nothing more or less than this that the Church of England owes her existence. And upon this ground it is certain, her requisition of assent to her public offices, and of subscription to her articles, the measure of just policy, and common prudence for her security, are no more to be regarded as invasions of the right of private judgment, than the open attempts, or the secret machinations of her enemies, for her destruction. Upon this ground, in short, her declarations of faith in what she holds to be evangelical truth; and indeed the whole scheme of her doctrine, discipline, and polity, are perfectly intelligible, and manifestly consistent. But is not the inference drawn from the acknowleged right of private judgment by a late famous author, and his associates, altogether chimerical, and totally incomprehensible? Their inference is, that every individual Christian may, if he thinks fit, withdraw himself from all the Churches upon the face of the earth, stand absolutely single in the profession of his faith, or, as this author expresses it, be a Church to himself. [*]And is not this in effect to assert, that a Church may be formed without a communion, without government, or ministry; without a possibility of being infected with heresy, or divided by schism? Is it not to all intents and purposes to aver, that a society may subsist without members, without establishment, or constitution? We deny not that a man may judge he has a claim to this spiritual independence; and indeed our principle supposes him so to judge; but then we must beg leave to think in our turn, that he is grossly mistaken in that judgment. (pp)

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

The principle of the Confessional leads, we apprehend, to these absurd consequences; but at the same time we assert no dominion over the faith, or the consciences of others; we leave every one to stand or fall to his own master; we conceive, that, by the immutable constitution of things, every one will think and act for himself, though we imagine all men to be accountable to God as well for their opinions as for their practices; we neither do, nor wish to compel men to come in that our Church may be filled, persuaded as we are at the same time that this Church is, in respect of all essentials, an apostolical one; that she holds fast the things which become sound doctrine, and teaches the words of eternal life.

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

It is pleasant enough to observe, that, notwithstanding the fine flourishes and colourings of certain authors, who plausibly profess themselves to be advocates for the common rights and privileges of Christians, we find them sometimes driven out of their track by the irresistible force of truth, and insensibly advancing▪ or admitting ecclesiastical notions: we find them after all their efforts and struggles to climb over the pale of the Church, unwarily, or rather unavoidably slipping back, as I may say, into her fold, and undermining their own principles. The words of a late famous prelate [*]upon this subject will verify the observation. ‘As it is absurd, says he, to suppose that any man can be saved by the faith of another, or by any belief but what is truly his own; so there is no possible method of having a faith of his own, properly so called, without building it entirely upon what appears right to his own judgment, such as it is, after his best endeavours for INFORMATION.’ That is to say, in other words, a man cannot properly be said to judge for himself till he has received information, or instruction from others. In short, let privileges be as sacred, or consciences as tender as you please, I affirm that the erection and establishment of a national Church, whether the doctrines she teaches are in themselves orthodox or otherwise, true or false, is as fairly defensible upon rational and protestant grounds, as the institution of any religious sect, or society whatsoever.

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

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

Notes

*
Enquiry &c. p. 18.
↵

*
See Mr. Jones's Introduc. Disc. p. 4. Note.
↵

*
See Confessional. Ch. 2. p. 34. Note.
↵

*
Bp. Hoadley.
↵

*
1 Tim. iv. 1.
↵

ANNOTATIONS.

Page 2. (a) or misconstrued.] Controversy in general may be said to subsist in a great measure by the pliancy of composition. Christopher Davenport, a Franciscan, in a paraphrase, or exposition of the thirty-nine articles, makes them all capable of a Roman-Catholic sense; and Raynardus, a Roman likewise, by a perverse interpretation, converts every article of the Apostolic Creed into heresy or blasphemy. The design of the latter is obvious enough. I do not recollect to whom I am indebted for these particulars. In like manner Dr. Waterland acquaints us, that Franciscus, abbot of St. Clare, contrived to reconcile our thirty-nine articles to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, ‘by dint of great dexterity, and most amazing subtilty,’ as the learned Doctor expresses it.

With respect to religious questions, the Romanists, in derision of the principles and pretensions of Protestants, and by way of proof of the necessity of ecclesiastical interposition, have all along called the Scriptures mortuum atramentum, "dumb judges," &c. and assimilate the same to a "nose of wax," to represent their susceptibleness of any sense it may suit us to put upon them; though at the same time none more than themselves endeavour to make advantage of their versatility. This is apparent in many instances; e. g. in their constructions of those texts by which they pretend to prove the doctrine of extreme-unction, of a purgatory, &c.

The applications of Scripture made by the Roman Canonists are serio-ridiculous, if I may so say, beyond all conception. They will prove the twofold power of the Pope from the two swords which the Apostles had when ‘Christ was seized by Judas.’ Christ said to Peter, Feed my sheep in general, not such or such a flock; from whence it has been inferred, that the Pope, as successor to that Apostle, is to be acknowledged the universal Pastor, &c, &c.

JEWEL'S Defence of the apology of the Church of England. part 4th. p. 473, &c. Translation of JURIEU'S continuation of the accom. of the Scripture prophecies. p. 52. Dr. WATERLAND'S Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trin. p. 211, 363, &c.

Page 4. (b) Such an authority.] It is much on the same principle that the Papists, as Chillingworth remarks, in order to ground the belief of the Trinity, &c. in the Church's infallibility, roundly deny that this great doctrine can be proved, either from Scripture, or by ‘consent of the ancient fathers.’ This, as that great author observes, is ‘doing the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them.’ I find the following extract from the Racovian Catechism, made by the anonymous author of Four Treatises concerning the Doctrine, &c. of the Mahometans:—Sententia eorum, qui Christo naturam divinam tribuunt, est repugnans non solum sanae rationi, verum etiam Divinis Literis, &c." Hereunto the author subjoins two other similar passages, the first from Smalcius, a famous Socinian; and the latter from Socinus himself. The words of Socinus are these. ‘ Usque ad tempora CONCILII NICAENI, et aliquanto post, ut omnium qui tum extitere scriptis liquet, ille unus verus Deus, quem passim sacra testimonia praedicant, solus Pater Jesu Christi est creditus; et qui contrarium sentiunt, ut SABELLIANI et eorum similes, pro haereticis plane sunt habiti. ’

Let us see then how Bp. Jewel manages this matter against his antagonist Mr. Hardinge, who, in his pretended confutation of the Apology for the Church of England, confidently asserts, that ‘the Divinity of the Holy Ghost cannot be proved by any express authority from Scripture.’ We find that illustrious prelate taking the wisest method of putting his adversary to silence and confusion, by producing testimonies and opinions, and not barely concessions, but strong asseverations of a directly contrary tendency, from the writers of the Roman Church itself. One quotation from Nazianzen is extremely remarkable, and runs as follows. ‘ Dicet aliquis non esse scriptum, Spiritum Sanctum esse Deum. Atqui proponetur tibi EXAMEN testimoniorum, ex quibus ostendetur, Divinitatem S. Spi. testatam esse in sacris literis, nisi quis valde insulsus sit, et alienus a Spiritu Sancto. ’ In short, the various methods which have been taken by Papists to evince the necessity of admitting the infallibility of the Church, and to discredit the authority of the evangelical writings, are equally scandalous and pitiful. You have them particularly enumerated by an author just now quoted; and it will be sufficient to select one of them, as it is a flagrant one; I mean that of the Cardinal Perron, who, in the last century, in order to render the Scriptures suspected and contemptible, asserted, that ‘some things in them sound like fables, others are apt to raise in the mind indecent and dishonest imaginations, as some expressions in Solomon's song; the history of Balaam's Ass which spoke; and the jaw-bone of an Ass, with which Sampson slew a thousand Philistines. ’

CHILLINGWORTH's Preface. Bp. JEWEL's Defence. part 2d. p. 90. Translation of JURIEU's Contin. &c. p. 66. WOLLEBIUS's Compend. Theol. Chris. cap. 2. p. 15. TRAVIS's Third Letter to Mr. GIBBON. See SOCINUS de Eccles. p. 345. Four Treatises, &c. p. 191.

Page 13. (c) Errors of integrity.] One of Mr. K.'s arguments, or rather one argument urged by him in the name of his Church, is the following. ‘Heretics would arise after the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the Church be infallible; therefore there must be a Church infallible.’ To which Mr. Chillingworth replies in these words. ‘I pray tell me why cannot heresies besufficiently discovered, condemned, and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of faith? If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is heresy; seeing heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the faith. That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked, and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. If any one should deny that there is a God, that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, &c, &c; that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world, and the Son of God; if any man should deny either his birth, his passion, or resurrection, &c; or sitting at the right hand of God; his having all power given him, &c; that it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judge of the quick and the dead; that all men shall rise again at the last day, &c, &c; if a man should hold, that either the keeping of the Mosaical law is necessary to Salvation, or that good works are not necessary; in a word, if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? If you say, that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of faith, I answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatever it is, which was intended by God, is true; for he that doth not so, calls God's truth into question. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to faith, or salvation.’

It may be asked, however, whether this gives us satisfaction to the full? Do not our Creeds and Articles contain particulars which we shall look for in vain in M. C.'s list of the objects of faith? Are not many whom we consider as heretics ready to subscribe to this list? Was Mr. C. inadvertently, or designedly silent with regard to these particulars? Or are we to consign them to the class of obscurity? Whatever might have been his motive to the wording of his paragraph in this manner, or whatever was his personal persuasion in respect to the fundamental articles of the faith professed by the Church of England, the momentous import of the interrogatories I have just put must be visible to every reader.

When Mr. C., or any body else tells us, that ‘God does not require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be God's word, and to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it;’ or, that ‘he that believes the Scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic,’ [*]he must be understood with qualification; as asserting, not absolutely that an honest man cannot possibly err concerning the faith, but that error, or heresy will not be imputed to involuntary ignorance, or to sincerity of persuasion.

‘Heresy, says Bp. Taylor, is not an error of the understanding, but of the will;’ and elsewhere, ‘it is not the opinion, but the impiety that condemns and makes the heretic.’ On this principle this sagacious and moderate writer condemns the Heresiarch whose error ‘commences upon pride and ambition, &c. and excuses those who follow him in simplicity of heart.’

Agreably to all this, Dr. Potter, (author of the Answer to Charity Mistaken, whose cause Chillingworth espouses,) and after him Dr. Waterland quotes the following remarkable passage from Salvian, an antient Bishop of Marseilles, respecting the truly sincere of the Arian persuasion. They are heretics, but do not know that they are so. In short, they are heretics in our judgment, not so in their own; for they esteem themselves such good Catholics, that they even throw upon us the infamous charge of heresy. Such therefore as they are to us, we are to them. We know assuredly that they are injurious to the divine generation of the Son of God, in making him inferior to the Father. They, on the other hand, think us injurious to the Father, in believing them both equal. How they shall be punished at the day of judgment for this their error, &c. no one can know except the Judge.

It may be proper to take Mr. K.'s argument, and Mr. C.'s answer into re-consideration. ‘Heresies, says the former, would arise after the Apostles' time, and after the writing of Scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the Church be infallible; therefore there must be a Church infallible.’ The substance of Mr. C.'s reply is, that ‘without any need of an infallible guide,’ the great truths of the Gospel are discoverable, and consequently heresies avoidable, by all such as ‘believe Scripture to be the rule of faith:’ and that with respect to those obscure places of Scripture," which Mr. K. tells us "contain matters of faith," we have nothing to do but ‘believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God, is true,’ without being solicitous to avoid mistakes concerning them.

By this answer 'tis certain this celebrated disputant seems to lay his own faith rather open to suspicion. For does he not admit what he might, and in fact ought to have contested? Take them in the gross, the ‘places of Scripture which contain matters of faith,’ are not by any means obscure, but altogether plain and intelligible. I speak concerning the faith of the Church. What the sense of these places is, according to the established laws of interpretation, and according to the belief of the Christians of the first ages, is a question, to the determination of which we surely need not have recourse to infallibility. Though therefore, with respect to passages really ambiguous, or obscure, it will be a safe and excellent rule, ‘to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God, is true,’ yet it will be unfair, unreasonable, and unsafe to apply this rule to places which are no otherwise ambiguous, or obscure, than as they "contain matters of faith;" especially when we remember how frequently, and how earnestly we are required to strive for the faith, to contend for the faith, and to examine and prove our own selves whether we be in the faith. Truth is not less truth because it is held in a Church that pretends not to be infallible. God only knows the hearts of the children of men: but at the same time it will be no breach of charity to intimate, that every man should be fully persuaded in his own mind, that if he errs, his error is an error, not of his will, but of his understanding.

CHILLINGWORTH, part 1. c. 2. p. 90. TAYLOR's Disc. on the Lib. of Prophesying, Sect. 2. p. 23, 42. POTTER's Ans. to Char. Mistaken. Sect. 4. p. 119. WATERLAND's Import. of the Doc. of the Trinity. p. 167. SALV. de Guber. l. 5.

Page 14. (d) of insanity.] I cannot bring myself to recall these words by the high respect which on many accounts is due to the names of certain persons, eminent for their ability, and some of them for their piety too, who have advanced notions not a whit less eccentric or extravagant than these. The late worthy Bishop of Cloyne, who denied, or at least doubted the existence of matter, is not without his numerous admirers. In fact, he seems to have confounded all, though he has convinced none. But whatever purpose was intended to be served by such a doctrine, surely its real consequences must be detrimental to the cause of Christianity. If all about us is mere mockery and illusion, the very foundations of all evidence, all faith, and all practice are undermined; nor will it be possible to determine which position most contradicts my senses, or offers most violence to my conceptions, that which avers the non-existence of matter, or that which maintains the transubstantiation of it in the holy Sacrament. The followers of Mr. Hobbes will be apt to laugh this notion to scorn, under a persuasion that they deny, or doubt the existence of Spirit, and consequently of God, with a much better grace. It may be observed, with regard to both extremes, that there is no such thing as demonstrating beyond a possibility of doubt, or contradiction. For, to use the words of an author of the last century, ‘it is possible that mathematical evidence itself may be but a constant undiscoverable delusion, which our nature is necessarily and perpetually obnoxious unto, and that either fatally or fortuitously there has been in the world time out of mind such a being as we call Man, whose essential property it is to be then most of all mistaken when he conceives a thing most evidently true.’ There is no shutting the door against scepticism. We meet with doubters and disputers of all ages and nations. Marcus Antoninus makes mention of one Monimus, a Cynic philosopher, who averred that all is fancy, and that there is absolutely no such thing as a criterion of truth. Pyrrho, though not the first sceptic, was famous enough to give an appellation to scepticism. But notwithstanding all this, a man of sense and of common prudence will listen to rational evidence, and yield assent to moral certainty. He will soon be convinced upon enquiry, that both body and spirit exist, and that mind is neither matter nor motion; that if chance, or nature, if you please, made the world, it is that which preserves it too; and may dissolve it; and, after its dissolution, may restore it to its original state, or reduce it to one infinitely worse than the present. This sure is at best but uncomfortable philosophy. Not that I would hereby insinuate immorality to be necessarily connected with infidelity. Plato distinguished long ago between the "ranting" and sober atheist; and observed, that a man whose sentiments are impious may be virtuous from constitution. Accordingly he very justly resolves atheism into not barely depravity of manners, but sometimes into an affectation of singular wisdom. [*]One source of atheism in his opinion is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is almost literally translated in the following words of the Apostle, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Dr. Cudworth seems unwarily to give some advantage to the atheist, where he says, that ‘when we affirm that God is incomprehensible, we only mean, that our imperfect minds cannot have such a conception of his nature as doth perfectly master, conquer, and subdue that vast object under it, &c.’ The case is, we comprehend by our reason that God is, though not what he is, in respect of his essence in the abstract. But that he is self-existent from all eternity, that he is a Spirit, that he is the Creator and Governor of the Universe, that he is all perfect, are certain truths, notwithstanding the darkness which surrounds them. Sophocles may be imagined to have had these truths in his eye, when speaking of the divine edicts, and the immutable decrees of heaven, he puts this fine sentiment in the mouth of Antigone,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And yet we have wits and philosophers of great name and recent date, who seem desirous of reviving the old atomical physiology, which, as Dr. Cudworth expresses it, ‘makes all things to be materially and mechanically necessary without a God.’ These gentlemen are at least far from pronouncing matter incapable of the privilege of thought. One [*]in direct terms calls thought the agitation of the brain. Unhappily Mr. Locke so far subscribes to this principle, as to declare his opinion, that ‘we have not sufficient knowledge to determine, by the light of reason, that God could not grant the gift of thought and sensation to a being which we call material.’ Mr. Voltaire eagerly catched at this notion of the ‘sole reasonable metaphysician,’ as he calls him.

MORE's Antid. against Atheism. p. 10. CUDWORTH's Intell. Syst. ch. 3. p. 176. PLATO de Leg. l. 10. CLARKE's Dem. of the Being, &c. of God, p. 22, 23, &c. SOPHOC. Antig. Act. 3. v. 462. Memoirs of VOLTAIRE, p. 61. See JOHNSON's note at cap. 4. of PUFFENDORF's de officio hom. et civ. See M. ANTONI. lib. 2—15.

Page 19. (e) hundred mysteries as one.] I shall beg leave to confront the pride of infidels with the joint authorities of Mr. Boyle, and Lord Bacon; the former of whom in his treatise, entitled Motives to the Love of God, thus expresses himself. ‘If I be not very much mistaken, they are so, who presume to give us satisfactory definitions of God's nature, which we may perhaps more safely define by the impossibility of its being accurately defined. Nor will an assiduity and constancy of our speculations herein relieve us: for too fixed a contemplation of God's essence does but the more confound us.’ And then he refers us to the well-known story of Simonides. Agreably to these sentiments, the great Lord Bacon says, ‘If any man shall think by view and enquiry into these sensible and material things, to attain that light whereby he may reveal unto himself the nature and will of God, then is he spoiled through vain philosophy. And hence, continues he, it hath proceeded, that some of the chosen rank of the more learned have fallen into heresy, whilst they have sought to fly up to the secrets of the Deity, by the waxen wings of the senses.’ And ‘again. "The prerogative of God comprehends the whole man, and is extended as well to the reason, as to the will of man; i. e. that man renounce himself wholly, and draw near unto God; wherefore as we are to obey his law, though we find a reluctation in our will, so we are to believe his word, though we find a reluctation in our reason; for if we believe only that which is agreeable to our reason, we give assent to the matter, not to the author, &c. By how much therefore any divine mystery is more discordant and incredible, by so much the more honour is given to God in believing, &c. &c.’ How do these sentiments differ from those of the "philosophic Christians" of this enlightened age!

Motives, &c. p. 63, 64. Bacon on the Advancement of Learning, translated by Watts, B. 1. p. 8. 9. p. 468.

Page 21. (f) ventilation of these subjects.] It is ridiculous, it is useless, it is endless to start metaphysical questions, which instead of clearing matters, serve only to confound them. It has been asked, whether the Deity be naturally or morally good; or whether he is ‘necessarily good and just in the same sense as he is eternal and omniscient?’ All speculations on such points as these are covered by the general idea of absolute inherent perfection. Perhaps Seneca may be allowed to discharge this difficulty not unhappily, when, speaking of the Deity, he says, Ipse est necessitas sua. The ingenious editor of Puffendorf's treatise De officio hominis et civis speaks much the same language in the following note: Deus intelligitur ad suarum perfectionum normam actiones componere. Ipse sibi lex est. Ens natura perfectissimum cum Deus sit, ideo quodcunque agit vel eligit, non potest non esse optimum. Itaque nugas agunt, vel quiddam pejus, qui Deum, ens primum et summum, virtutis et obligationis capacem esse docent. [*]But these last words seem rather obscure.

To avoid making God the author of evil, the doctrine of Zoroastres was, that ‘God originally and directly created only light, or good; and that darkness, or evil, followed it by consequence, as the shadow doth the person; that light, or good, hath only a real production from God, and the other afterward resulted from it, as the defect thereof.’ An ingenious writer gives us the sentiments of Plato on this perplexing subject, in the following translation.
God is good. He is not, as many say, the cause of every thing. The good things we enjoy are to be solely ascribed to him; but we are to search for another cause than God for our evils. Or, if we will say they come from God, [†]some such reason as this is to be assigned. We may say, God does always what is just and good, and the persons punished receive benefit by it; but the poet must not say the sufferers are miserable, and God inflicts that misery on them; if indeed he say, the wicked, as miserable, stand in need of punishment, and when punished by God, receive benefit from it, this may be permitted; but we are strenuously to oppose any man, who says God is the author of evil to a good man. Such language is at no rate to be tolerated in a state.
The judicious reader will see how little a way this theory goes towards clearing the difficulty; but he will, I presume, acknowlege it goes far enough to convince us, that Plato had, ‘to speak modestly, as precise ideas of the Divine nature as any modern philosopher,’ according to the translator's expression. But in his Timaeus, this famous philosopher imputes the origin of evil to the ‘necessity of imperfect beings,’ as Dr. Cudworth expresses it. ‘Wherefore, says he, though, according to Plato, God be properly and directly the cause of nothing else but good, yet the necessity of these lower imperfect things does unavoidably give birth and being to evils.’ This is conformable enough to modern notions. Aristotle seems to have thought the Deity to have been the cause or principle of all things without exception; tho' in the following sentence he expresses himself in terms general, modest, and unperemptory;—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It is further observable, that not only many heathens, and among others, Platonists, but, what is more extraordinary, Christians also have asserted the self-existence and eternity of matter, in order to account for the origin of evil, and effectually salve the honour of the Deity. God would have made nihil non optimum, says Hermogenes, as Tertullian represents his and his followers reasonings. These heretics were called Materiarii. It has been the opinion of some that God permitted the fall of man, purely with a view to his redemption. [*]

‘The author of Deism Revealed remarks, "that there are two opposite and supreme principles, according to the belief of almost all the Pagans now in the world.’ We are further given to understand by other authors, that God's absolute decrees and predetermination of good and evil is the doctrine of the Koran in general; though the Mahometans are divided in their opinions upon this article. The sect of the Hashemians were, it seems, so afraid of making God the author of evil, that they would not allow him to have created an infidel; which was adopting something like the old Magian theory, according to which there are two principles, or a good and evil God, who are in a state of perpetual enmity and opposition. On the other hand, the Mozdarians thought it possible for God to be a liar, unjust, &c. as the Basharians taught, that ‘God is not obliged to do what is best; and that, had it pleased him, he might have made all men true believers.’ The English translation of a Latin version of an Arabic manuscript, which contains a short system of Mahometan theology, gives us a distinction upon the subject of the divine decrees, as whimsical as it is unsatisfactory. In the sixth section we have the following passage.—‘God hath so decreed good, obedience, and faith, that he ordains and wills them; and that they may be under his decree, his salutary direction, his good pleasure and command: on the contrary, God has decreed, does ordain, will and determine evil, disobedience, and infidelity; yet without his salutary direction, his good pleasure, or command; it being only by way of seduction, indignation, and prohibition. But whosoever shall say, that God is not delighted with good, and faith, or that God hath not an indignation against evil and infidelity; or that good and evil are from God, so that God hath decreed and willed both, with complacency in them, he is certainly an infidel.’ Then follows in another character;—Direct us, O great God, into the right way!—A petition expressive of the author's perplexity.

The general way both among Jews and Christians of accounting for the origin of evil, is to derive it from the abuse of human liberty. Let us turn to the sentiments of the learned Grotius upon this subject. ‘Cum diximus Deum omnium esse causam, addidimus, eorum quae vere subsistnnt; nihil enim prohibet, quo minus ipsa, quae subsistunt, deinde causae sint accidentium quorundam; quales sunt actiones. Deus hominem et mentes sublimiores homine creavit cum agendi libertate: quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est, sed potest sua vi aliquid vitiosum producere.’ Still will not this elastic difficulty return with full force upon us? For may it not be asked, who created men and angels, and endowed them with this liberty? Or could either have abused a privilege they never enjoyed? Is there nothing of apparent causality in all this? Indeed the learned author seems to me to be sensible of his distressed situation. He observes very justly, in the words immediately following those just cited, that it would be impious to call God the author of evil. ‘Hujus quidem generis malis, quae moraliter mala dicuntur, omnino Deum adscribere auctorem nefas est.’ But what does he say in the leading sentence of this very section? ‘Neque ab eo quod diximus, dimovere nos debet, quod mala multa evenire cernimus, quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse; ut qui perfectissime, sicut ante dictum est, bonus sit.’ Surely that same videtur betrays entanglement. Let us just see now in what manner Mr. Le-clerc, the ingenious editor of this work of Grotius, illustrates this delicate passage. ‘Praevidit quidem etiam Deus fore ut naturae liberae libertate sua abuterentur, indeque multa mala et physica et moralia eventura; nihilo secius abusum illum, consectariaque ejus pati maluit, quam naturas libertate praeditas non creare. Quid ita? Quia cum natura libera sit praestantissima creatura, quaeque summam opificis potentiam quam maxime ostendit; Deus noluit incommoda ex naturae mutabilitate promanantia antevertere, quia ea potest, cum visum erit, per totam aeternitatem emendare; iis modis qui non nisi bonitati ejus convenientissimi esse possunt, quamvis eos nondum revelarit.’

The very learned and equally pious Dr. Barrow expresses himself on this subject in the following words. ‘As for those real imperfections and evils, (moral evils, habitual distempers, irregular actions, &c.) we need not seek any one eternal cause for them; (though order and uniformity do, disorder and confusion do not argue any unity of cause whence they should proceed:) the true causes of them are notorious enough: the voluntary declining of men, &c, from the way God doth prescribe them; their abusing their own faculties, &c. &c. As for other evils of griefs and pains incident to the nature, or consequent upon the actions of any being, they are such as God himself, (without any derogation to his goodness,) may in his wisdom, or justice be author of, for ends sometimes apparent to our understanding, sometimes surpassing its reach. It may suffice, that God challengeth to himself the being the cause of them. Shall there be any evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it? Doth not evil and good proceed out of the mouth of the Most High? I am the Lord, and there is none else; I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. ’ (See Amos. 3. v. 6. Lamen. 3. v. 38. Isa. 45. v. 7.) We derive rather distress than content from all this; nor (to go a step farther) shall we receive more satisfaction from St. Augustine, in the following quaint solution,—mali nulla natura est, sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit; or from Wollebius, (Divin. Profess. at Basil in the last century,) in the following distinction, non enim eveniunt (viz. Dei decreta) necessitate coactionis, sed necessitate tantum immutabilitatis; or from Mr. Whiston, in his observation, that ‘whatever is evil must have been the consequence of man's fall, and not God's introduction.’ We are reminded by these several particulars of the heresy of the Marcionites, who no less absurdly than wickedly maintained, that the God of Moses and the God of the Gospel were two different Beings; the former, rigid in his nature, and vindictive in his proceedings; the latter, benign in his disposition, and gracious in his dispensations.

Bp. WILKINS on the Prin. of Nat. Relig. B. 1. p. 116. See Mr. GEDDES's note at p. 129 of Essay on the Composi. of the Antients. Bp. CUMBERLAND's Essay on the defects of Heathen Deism, p. 10. PRIDEAUX'S Connex. V. 1. p. 179. GEDDES's Essay on PLATO, p. 132, &c. JENKINS's Reason. of Christian. V. 1. p. 224. TERTUL. adver. HERMOG. p. 282. CUDWORTH's Intell. Syst. ch. 4. p. 197. Ibid. 220. ARIST. Met. lib. 1. System of Mahom. Theol. p. 33. SALE's Disc. prefixed to the Transla. of the Koran. BARROW's Expos. of Cr. p. 111, 112. AUGUS. de civ. Dei. 11. 9. WOLL. Comp. Theo. cap. 3. p. 23. See STILLINGFLEET's Orig. Sac. B. 3. ch. 3. Bp. BRAMHALL's Controversy with HOBBES, on this subject. Mr. BRYANT's Treatise, and Dr. PRIESTLY on philosophical necessity. Humorous Dial. between PHILAU. and TIMOTH. dedicated to Abp. SHELDON, p. 87, &c. WHISTON's Disc. on the Hist. of the Creat. See Bp. LOWTH's note at Isai. ch. 45. v. 7. See GROTIUS, lib. 1. p. 18. de veri.

Page 30. (g) eternal essence itself.] We cannot possibly be too cautious, too reserved, too general in our doctrines from the pulpit, or the press, respecting the Holy Trinity, or the particular Divinity of our Saviour. Infidelity is always on the watch, and will take advantage in a moment of the least ambiguous, or inaccurate, or obscure expression, which may fall from our lips, or our pens. Some of the Fathers themselves, and indeed of our own most able writers, sometimes speak unguardedly, and inconsistently on these subjects. For the sake of perspicuity and distinction, as it should seem, it has been said, the Father is self-existent, and the Son, or Holy Ghost, necessarily existent; which is in fact a distinction without a difference. The Three Persons, as constituting One God, are equally selfexistent. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the Deity; and every idea of originality, derivation, &c. evaporates in the consideration of a Trinity in Unity. ‘Though it has pleased God to represent the relation which the Second Person in the Trinity bears to the First, under the analogy of that of a Son to a Father, yet we must not think that this analogy holds in every respect, or that every circumstance of human paternity and filiation is applicable to the Divine.’ These are the words of a late worthy and learned writer, who expresses himself still more happily in the following passage. ‘It is impossible for God himself to reveal these things to such kind of beings as we are, any other way than by accommodating himself to our conceptions, and using such terms as bear some analogy to things known and understood by us.’ ‘The Father, (says another able advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity,) is first in our conception of God; and therefore when we speak of the Almighty, or the eternal God, and the reason is the same for the only God, we primarily and principally mean the Father, tacitly including the other two Persons.’ [*]

But is the language of the author last quoted of a piece with this sentence, when he talks of selfexistence, or unoriginateness, as the peculiar mode of the existence of the First Person? Or is the writer first quoted perfectly consistent with himself, when he concurs in sentiment with those whom he calls "the most zealous defenders of the Nicene faith;" and agrees with all the antient writes, who, he tells us, ‘hold the Son to be in some sense inferior to the Father, and that even with regard to his divine nature?’ ‘The Father, says he, is the first Person, the Son, the second. The Father they all represent as unbegotten, receiving his being and attributes from none but himself; the Son they teach to be God of God; begotten of the Father, and receiving his nature, &c, from the Father, but yet coeternal and coequal with the Father, receiving from him from all eternity the same intire and individed essence.’ Is not this language inaccurate, incongruous, and self-contradictory?" Many passages both in antient and modern writers are exceptionable on the same grounds. To select a few. The learned Bp. Bull gives, in his own words, the following sentiment of Petavius. Nam, ut recte Petavius, non potest Filius a Patre gigni, nisi ab eo naturam ac deitatem accipit, &c. St. Hillary, as quoted by the same author, says in libro de Synodis, Patri subjectus est Filius, ut auctori. Russinus in his treatise on the Creed, calls the Father the head of the Son. Cum ipse Filius sit omnium caput, ipsius tamen caput est Pater. And Damascenus in his tract de fide orthodoxa has the following words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And St. Austin, argute pro more suo, according to Bp. Bull's remark, observes, in a discourse on a passage in St. Matthew's gospel, (if I mistake not,) as follows: Insinuatur nobis in Patre auctoritas, in Filio nativitas, in Spiritu Sancto communitas, in tribus aequalitas. It is Bp. Bull's own remark, unicum esse in Trinitate principium, principii expers, nempe Patrem, dogma fuisse in primaeva ecclesia tam fixum,—ut in quadrigesimo nono Canonum, qui dicuntur Apostolorum, damnetur quisquis baptizaverit in tres principii expertes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Under the same article the learned Prelate observes, that the antient Fathers, and those of the Nicene Council, and Athanasius himself never scrupled to give the appellation or title of the one only God to the Father. Let the reader take his own words. Denique veteres Deum Patrem, eo quod principium, causa, auctor, et fons Filii sit, unum illum et solum Deum appellare non sunt veriti. Sic enim ipsi Patres Nicaeni exordiuntur suum symbolum; q. v. Et magnus Athanasius, quo nemo melius intellexit Synodi Nicaenae mentem, &c, concedit Patrem jure dici 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod solus ingenitus sit, &c. Propter Patrem vivit Filius, says St. Ambrose, as quoted by Bishop Pearson, quod ex Patre Filius est; propter Patrem, quod ERUCTATUM est verbum ex Patris corde, quod a Patre processit, quod ex paterno generatus est UTERO, &c. Dr. Fiddes gives us a passage from St. Hilary, in which that Father asserts, that ‘our making the Son God is no objection against the Father's being the one God. He is the one God, says he, because the only underived God.’ Surely Bp. Pearson himself, who in the main is wonderfully exact, does not speak in the most proper terms, when he tells us, that ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other; that therefore it necessarily followeth, that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine Nature originally of himself; and consequently, it having been already proved, that he is truly and properly the eternal God, that he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally but originally God; that in him (Christ) is the same fulness of the Godhead, more than which the Father cannot have, but yet that in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding this disparity, &c. &c.’ To adduce only one example more; even the judicious Hooker is off his guard in the following passage. ‘Seeing therefore the Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not, (for Christ is God by being of God, light by issuing out of light,) it followeth hereupon, that whatsoever Christ hath common unto him with his heavenly Father, the same of necessity must be given him, but naturally and eternally given him, not bestowed by way of benevolence &c.’

The priority implied in the term Father, in its common acceptation, accounts for all this incoherency; but where, I would gladly know, do the terms auctor, fons, origo, principium, &c. occur in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the apostolical Fathers, Clemens, Polycarp, and Ignatius? Or where are any terms to be found importing subordination and inferiority, except such as evidently refer to the humanity of Jesus Christ? And after all, and all this put together notwithstanding, the common resemblances by which the great mystery has been faintly illustrated by the Fathers, especially by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, as light from the sun, or a stream from a fountain, are produced to no purpose as proofs of a subordination, &c. For let light be supposed to have issued from the sun, or a stream from a fountain, from all eternity; on this supposition it is plain, causality and originality are merely nominal; the fountain necessarily implies the stream, and the sun, light: and in like manner, in the case before us, the existence of the Father necessarily supposes the existence of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Father can no more exist without the Son than the Son without the Father.

The truth is, the Fathers of the Church, whose sentiments Bp. Bull lays before us, apparently grant much, but really yield nothing. If Athanasius, e. g., asserting the eternity and Divinity of the Son of God, meant not such an absolute co-equality as entirely excludes all dependence and inferiority, he flatly contradicts the Creed which goes under his name, in which it is expressly said, that in the Trinity, ‘none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another;’ and if he did mean this, we cannot argue against his faith from the carelessness, or the impropriety, or even the absurdity of his expressions. Elucidation has before now been the parent of entanglement. The Arians themselves are sensible they cannot admit the eternity of the Son of God, without acknowleging at the same time his absolute co-equality; and therefore affect to understand every passage or phrase seemingly derogating from the dignity of Jesus Christ, as a direct assertion, or tacit concession that he is a creature. Through a most strange inadvertence, the writers we have been extracting from appear to have confounded the idea of temporal with that of eternal generation.

It has been frequently and well observed, that most of the Fathers, before the Council of Nice, speak sometimes of a temporal generation of the Son by the operation of the Holy Ghost on the blessed Virgin; and sometimes, by a sort of catachresis, give the name of generation to the mission of the Son from the Father, for the purpose of creating the world; and that, by directing our whole attention to the passages relative to both these, the enemies of our faith have artfully attempted to prevent our notice, or acknowlegment of other numberless places in the writings of these Fathers, wherein they plainly and unequivocally assert the eternal generation of the Son of God.

By help of these considerations, and such as these, we shall, for the most part, be enabled to reconcile exceptionable passages in the writings of the Fathers in general with the purest faith, and strictest orthodoxy; and shall have no cause for resentment, or complaint, if in so large a bulk of human composition, and amidst such a multiplicity of subjects and circumstances, we are sometimes surprized by inaccurate diction, or unsound sentiment.

The supposed canon referred to by Bp. Bull, which forbad the baptizing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on pain of damnation, really maintains only the doctrine of the Athana. Cr. viz. that ‘there is one Father, not three Fathers.’ Tertullian says somewhere, that there was a time quando Filius Dei non erat; which is true in the second or third sense of Sonship; as there was a time when God was not a Creator; viz. ante mundum conditum. Nay, there is an expression in Lactantius which more than insinuates that there was a time, when even God the Father, or God absolutely considered, was not; for, says he, Deus ipse se fecit. And, by the way, they who talk of God the Father's ‘RECEIVING his Being from himself alone, ’ do but paraphrase the words of Lactantius. I cannot think the Catholic faith can be in the least affected by these early opinions concerning Jesus Christ.

Metaphysical subtleties, technical terms, and unscriptural definitions and distinctions have undoubtedly done no small disservice to the cause of Christianity. But, as Dr. Waterland repeatedly observes, let the blame be laid at the right door. These things were artfully and gradually introduced into the Church by heretics, for the purpose of confounding and perplexing matters. The antient Christians rested solely on the authority of Scripture, and the concurrent voice of tradition. [*]The Church believed in the Trinity, believed in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and worshipped all Three as One God, before the distinction was expressed by the term Persons, or the word substance was made use of. "It does not appear," says Dr. W. ‘that the word Trinity was yet applied to this case;’ viz. in Justin Martyr's time, in the middle of the second century. The orthodox were necessitated to contend against their adversaries with their own weapons. And, what is worse, terms of art have been the fuel of strife amongst the orthodox themselves. It was a mere dispute of words which had like to have occasioned an irreparable breach between the Eastern and Western Churches. Take the following account of it in the words of Dr. Potter. "The Orientals," says he, ‘professing to believe three Hypostases in the glorious Trinity would not admit three Persons, and were therefore thought to be Arians. On the contrary, the Western believing three Persons, could not be induced to confess three Hypostases, and thereupon were taken to be Sabellians. Here was a great jealousy grounded upon a great error; which Athanasius easily discovered, and restored again their good amity and intelligence; shewing that they differed not in judgment, all meaning the same thing; and that Hypostasis on one side was the very same in effect with Person on the other.’ [*]

A writer of the last century, whose name does not appear, speaking of the controversies with which the Church of England was agitated in the year 1641, expresses himself in the following manner. ‘They be not of the highest nature; for they are not touching the high mysteries of faith; such as detained the Churches after their first peace for many years, what time the heretics moved curious questions, and made strange anatomies of the nature and Person of Christ; and the catholic fathers were compelled to follow them with all subtlety of disputations and determinations, to exclude them from their evasions, and to take them in their own labyrinths: so as it is rightly said, illis temporibus ingeniosa res fuit esse Christianum. ’

Farther; it is certain the great doctrine of the Trinity hath been sometimes dishonoured, if not weakened, by puerile illustrations, and playfulness of distinction. According to T. Aquinas, Trinitas est quasi trium unitas. It is somewhere observed likewise by this famous Doctor, that the Father is the beginning, but not the cause of the Son. And says a learned systematical writer, I think, with a levity one should not expect in him, aliud est Trinus, aliud est Triplex. Trinum est quod essentia unum, tres habet subsistendi modos: triplex, quod ex tribus rebus est compositum. Deum trinum dicimus, non triplicem; et Trinitatem non Triplicitatem. To which is very sensibly subjoined the following caution; cum judicio legendi sunt Patres, qui non raro sententiis dissident in usu vocum, Substantiae, Hypostase〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The same author cites, and at the same time justly censures a chimerical distinction of the Schoolmen betwixt generation and procession. Differunt Generatio et Processio; sed quodnam est discrimen, tutius ignoratur quam quaeritur. Sholastici dicunt Generationem Filii fieri per modum INTELLECTUS, unde dicitur Dei sapientia; Processionem per modum VOTUNTATIS, unde Spiritus dicitur amor et charitas. You have Mr. Boyle's sentiments on this subject in his Considera. on the style of Scripture, p. 41.

Bp. BULL de subord. Fil. Sect. 4. p. 225. Defen. Fid. Nicae. cap. 10. Sect. 3. p. 206, &c. PEARSON on the Creed, p, 34, 134. Fiddes, vol. 1. 384. HOOKER'S Eccles. Pol. p. 296, &c. STEPHENS'S Serm. on the eternal Gen. p. 51. WATERLAND'S Defence of his Quest. p. 134. FOGG'S Theol. Spec. p. 89, 109. WATERLAND'S Sermons. p. 141. RANDOLPH'S Vindica. of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Part 2. p. 10.

Page 32. (h) the everlasting Father.] Whatever we are precisely to understand by this expression, it is certain the proper title of Jesus Christ, considered as the second Person in the Trinity, is that of Son of God; Son in a transcendent and incomprehensible sense. We are informed by St. John, that the Jews sought the more to kill our Saviour, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, thereby making himself equal with God. It is worth observing, that this translation by no means does justice to the original; or any thing like so forcibly imports the equality in question: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; he called God his OWN Father, as Dr. Whitby and Dr. Hammond render it, his PROPER Father, his Father 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Nonnus explains the words in the beginning, John i. 1.) his Father in a peculiar sense, in a sense necessarily implying the same nature in both. The omission here is the more remarkable, as our translators attended to the same emphatical word in the only place besides where it occurs, and where its significance is not so obvious: He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom. viii. 32.) The Socinian evasion of the passage in St. John is inexpressibly ridiculous, and reduces it almost to nonsense. He made himself equal with God, by asserting, that he did the works of his Father!

See WEBSTER on John. 1. 2. See WHITBY and HAMMOND on John v. 18. See Dr. W. LOWTH'S Commen. on Isai. 9. 6.

Page 46. (i) of Divine Providence.] The notion that by the seven Spirits here mentioned are to be understood seven angels, who are the principal ministring Spirits of the Deity, is countenanced by a no less respectable authority than that of Dr. Hammond and Mr. Mede. But this is rejected by Grotius, and by the anonymous writer whom I follow, though under a different idea, and purely from a general survey of the matter. The writer I mean lays much stress on the number seven, which in Hebrew denotes perfection; [*]but his reasonings from this circumstance appear to me too weak a foundation for the support of a theory.

Dr. Gill without the least hesitation understands by the seven spirits the third Person in the blessed Trinity. He has adopted the above idea, and enlarged upon it. "By these seven Spirits," says this very sensible writer, ‘are intended the Holy Spirit of God, who is one in his Person, but his gifts and graces are various; and therefore he is signified by this number because of the fulness and perfection of them; and with respect to the seven Churches, over whom he presided, whom he influenced and sanctified, &c.’

The Ethiopic version, this author observes, reads from the seven Spirits which are before the throne of Jesus Christ.

It is farther a remark of the same author, that the second Person is last mentioned in the benediction before us, ‘because many things were to be said of him; he is described in all his offices, &c.’

Bp. Newton says, in effect, the very same thing. According to him, Jesus Christ is mentioned last ‘because the subsequent discourse more immediately relates to him.’

MEDE Disc. 10. B. 1. p. 42. See HAMMOND and GILL in loc. NEWTON on Prophecy. Vol. 3. p. 12.

Page 60. (k) when St. John wrote.] Some have supposed, as an ingenious writer observes, that detached pieces of the history of Christ, written by Apostles, or under their inspection, were extant in the Church before any Gospel was published.

Opinions are far from being concurrent with respect to the publication of the Gospels in general; but this is a diversity which does not in the least affect our argument. [†]

Cosmas of Alexandria, it seems, dates St. Matthew's Gospel from the martyrdom of St. Stephen; and is generally thought to be as wide of the mark as Isidore of Seville; according to whom, it was not written before the reign of Caligula. Perhaps the common opinion is the truest, that it was wrote about eight years after our Lord's Ascension.

It appears from the testimony of several old ecclesiastical writers, that St. John wrote his Gospel by the desire of the Bishops of Asia. Is cum esset in Asia, says St. Jerome, et jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et caeterorum, qui negant Christum in carne venisse, coactus est ab omnibus pene tum Asiae episcopis, et multarum ecelesiarum legationibus, de DIVINITATE Salvatoris ALTIUS scribere.

How far the notion of Theophylact, and, I believe, of some others, that St. John was particularly qualified to conceive, and to teach evangelical mysteries, by his personal purity, &c; how far such a notion was well-grounded, or ought to be regarded as a mere fantasy, I undertake not to determine.

In Hermannus Frank's treatise entitled, Christ the Sum, &c, of all the Scriptures, &c. there is an anecdote concerning a Franciscus Junius, who was converted from Atheism by accidentally dipping into the New Testament, and reading the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. This, says the author, is recorded by Theophilus Spizelius in his scrutiny of Atheism. He tells the story himself in his Life prefixed to his works, printed at Geneva 1705.

Mr. Boyle in his Considerations, &c. makes mention of the above circumstance, as related somewhere by Junius himself; and at the same time refers us to the history of a certain Rabbi who was converted to Christianity by reading the 53d. Ch. of Isaiah; and to the conversion of St. Austin, who was "changed from a debauchee into a Saint," by a passage in the 13th. Ch. of St. Paul's Epist. to the Romans.

TOWNSON on the Gospels. p. 25, 63. See LARDNER; and testimonies prefixed to St. MATTHEW's Gospel in MILLS's Gr. Test. Prolegomena ad Commen. in Mat. RANDOLPH's Vindica. pt. 2. p. 20, 21, 25. BOYLE's Consid. p. incert. SEE WATERLAND's Import. of the doctrine of the Trin.

Page 67. (l) the Son of God.] It is excellently observed by the incomparable Dr. Barrow, ‘that the first Adam derived his being immediately from God's power and divine inspiration; that Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist had a generation extraordinary and miraculous, as being of aged fathers, or barren mothers, by the interposition of Divine Power; and that we cannot easily conceive how the production of angels should be so much inferior to our Saviour's temporal generation, supposing he had no other.’

It will corroborate what has already been advanced, to remark farther, that if Jesus Christ be any thing less than very God by eternal generation, he was abundantly over paid for all he did and suffered for our sakes; he was recompensed beyond all measure by his exaltation to the right hand of the majesty on high, and by the divine honour and worship which has been universally ascribed and paid to him. Under this view of the matter, the assumption of humanity deserves not the name of a condescension. In his human capacity indeed, Jesus Christ for the joy that was set before him endured the Cross, and despised the shame; but in his divine, he could have no respect to the recompense of a reward. This is a thought which has been started and pursued by several writers. Equidem rem attentius perpendenti, says Bp. Bull, liquebit, ex hypothesi sive Sociniana sive Ariana, Deum in hoc negotio amorem, &c, suum potius in illum ipsum Filium quam erga nos homines ostendisse.

BULL's Judic. Eccles. Cath. cap. 5. p. 313. WATERLAND's Import. of the Doct. of the Trin. p. 47, 48, 49. BARROW on the Cr. p. 136.

Page 72. (m) Baptized for the remission of Sins.] Persons baptized were in the primitive Church dipped three times; and this immersion at the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost repectively, let us, I think, sufficiently into the sense of the Christian Church, with regard to the equality of the Persons in the blessed Trinity. It affords at least a most strong presumption; which is greatly confirmed by the strictness of the Apostolical Canons, which, as Dr. Cave acquaints us, order him, Bishop, or Priest, that neglects the trine immersion, to be deposed. Afterwards, says the same learned Author, to obviate the pretences of the Arians, who used the trine immersion to denote the Persons in the Trinity to be three distinct substances, the fourth Council of Toledo in their fifth Canon decreed, that a single immersion would be sufficient; that the dipping under water would express Christ's death and burial, or descent into hell, and the coming out, his resurrection; the single immersion expressing the Unity, while the Trinity of Persons would be sufficiently noted by the Form of words in Baptism. To this effect Dr. Cave.

It is but reasonable to make allowances for the zeal, or, if you will, the simplicity of the devout Christians of the first ages. In process of time, and as the Christian world grew darker and more corrupt, many ceremonies and customs became acts of piety, which were originally but its appendages. I shall only mention one, for example's sake, I mean that of praying with uplifted and expanded hands, in representation of the figure of the Cross: a practice which has given sanction to much folly and superstition.

CAVE's Prim. Christian. p. 205, 183. See HOOKER'S Eccles. Pol. B. 4. p. 154.

Page 120. (n) Jesus Christ our Lord.] The numerows passages we meet with, both in the writings of the Apostles, and of these Apostolical fathers, [*]which strongly mark the human nature of Jesus Christ, might, one should think, direct us to the sense we are to put upon such as are relative to his divine. The perfect Godhead and perfect manhood of our Saviour seem to me to be forcibly contrasted in this discrimination. It had been better perhaps if Divines had rested wholly in this one general distinction. We can hardly be copious without being obscure at best on the subject of the hypostatic union. But we must not yet dismiss the passage before us.

In the first dialogue of Theodoret, which Vossius refers to in his note at this place, there is a remarkable variation of reading. Instead of made and not made, or born and unborn, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; [†]it there runs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It seems, Athanasius, and Gelasius, in his treatise de duabus naturis, defend the first reading. But both come to the same point. Jesus Christ was made and not made, born and unborn, except in a mysterious and transcendent sense; he was the eternal Son of God. Or, he was made, or born of a woman, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, who came upon her, who was unmade and unborn; he was ‘both of Mary and of God;’ the latter clause being a kind of paraphrase on the former; and so in effect Ignatius asserts here both the personality and the eternal existence of the Spirit.

There is another paragraph in this Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein omniscience, an essential property of the Godhead, appears to be attributed in the fullest terms to Jesus Christ,—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Jesus Christ is signified by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherever it occurs in the Epistles of this Father, I believe, without exception; and the context evidently patronises this application. Arch. Bp. Wake seems to have overlooked the plain scope of this passage. His translation runs, "there is nothing hid from God, &c."

I had the satisfaction to find my sentiments exactly coinciding with those of Bp. Bull upon this very paragraph. His words are these, De Christo loqui Ignatium, indubium est, non modo ex voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, qua Christum ubique designat, sed etiam ex toto Sermonis contextu, de Jesu Servatore duntaxat agente.

And it is yet farther observable, that the introductory part of this Epistle (as Vossius has remarked) is rather obscure; and that (however it happened) the Most Rev. Translator has not done full justice to the plainest expression in it. The blood of Christ in the translation is in the original simply the blood of God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

BULL'S Defen. Fid. Nicae. cap. 2. Sect. 2. IGNA. Epis. to the Ephes. Sect. 1. & 15. BARROW on the Cr. p. 156. See John. 1. v. 14.

Page 123. (o) in it proper place.] In matters not of faith, but merely of opinion, these venerable fathers in general are not altogether without peculiarities which are tinctured a little with the pious fancifulness of superstition. This is more especially apparent in their notion of spiritual references, and emblematical representations.

The scarlet-line which the spies directed Rahab to fix to her window, &c. is specified by St. Clement himself, [*]and by some others, as typical of the redemption of mankind by the blood of Jesus Christ. But of all of them, except St. Barnabas, Origen is perhaps the largest dealer in symbol and allegory, as has often been pointed out in numerous instances; although it would be as unreasonable to object this in order to disparage the grounds of our common faith, as it would be to except, with the same view, against the eccentricity of some of this Father's tenets, or those of any others in any other respects; as, e. g. that helltorments will not be eternal, for which assertion he had certainly no Scriptural warrant; or that the angel with whom Jacob wrested was an evil one, which was likewise a notion of Origen's; or that souls after their separation from bodies retain many corporeal properties, as Irenaeus and Tertullian imagin'd, &c, &c. In truth, orthodoxy may be said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, and has no concern with these particularities; and much less with the conceits which the luxuriance of piety itself has sometimes given birth to. The Father I last named whimsically asserted, that the devil invented buskins, that a man might ADD TO HIS STATURE, notwithstanding what our Saviour says to the contrary; and gravely informs us in another place, that this prince of darkness, or one of his infernal ministers, upon being exorcised out of a certain woman, who was a frequenter of stage-entertainments, complained loudly that he was dispossessed of his property; the theatre being his own ground! Clemens of Alexandria advises us to lay our heads upon stone, as Jacob did, in order to our having visions, &c. &c. But of such harmless extravagance infidelity strives in vain to avail itself.

Whether St. Barnabas, who was St. Paul's companion and fellow-labourer, was the author of the catholic Epistle to which his name is prefixed, is a question undecided at this day. Much has been urged on this subject pro and con by learned men; nor am I concerned to inquire, on which side the arguments preponderate. It will suffice to say, that many have thought the allegorical interpretation of Scripture with which the performance abounds, by far too imaginary, or indeed too trifling for the pen of one of the Minor Apostles, as Vossius calls him. This able critic is however a strong advocate for him, and the primitive fathers in general; and gives it as his clear opinion, that nothing of this kind in him, or in St. Clement, (from whom he extracts the particulars above noticed,) ought in reason to be alledged to the discredit of their writings. His words are these. Quis a primis illis Christianis omnigenam scientiam, et doctrinam expostulet? Quis illos non aeque hallucinatos existimet atque eorum nepotes; praesertim in rebus nihil ad fidem pertinentibus? Nunquid et in Epistola Clementis similia occurrunt? Quis enim bono animo concoquere possit fabellam illam quam de Phoenice narrat, &c? Non puto etiam quemquam velle admittere expositionem istam, ut linteum coccineum Rahab meretricis [*] signum fuerit sanguinis Christi, &c. Atqui tamen iste Clemens pari jure atque Barnabas dictus est Apostolus. Non debent itaque in hoc reprehendere, quod in altero excusant. [†]But it should be remembered all this while, that Vossius vindicates the authenticity of St. Barnabas's Epistle, so called, by a very unequal comparison. The Epistle of St. Clement, and those of other fathers are interspersed more or less with typical application, but they are not distinguished by it. (See St. BARNABAS'S Epist. particularly Sect. 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14.)

I would take this opportunity to observe, that the doctrine of types and symbols, as it has been revived by many moderns, so has it by some been upheld with a zeal which, in going beyond the bounds of judgment, has, it may be, done disservice to Christianity. Let me ask the most sanguin advocates for symbols and prefigurations, how they relish this mode of speculation in the Romanists, when, among the arguments which they adduce in pretended proof of St. Peter's primacy, they tell us his SHIP, out of which the Lord taught the people, was an emblem or type of the Christian Church? In short, the doctrine of types in general is, in my opinion, too often at best more ingenious than solid, and has a stronger foundation in fancy than in fact. Perhaps the reader may be entertained as well as convinced by two or three select instances. The coat of the Jewish High-priest, says Dr. Lightfoot, ‘fitly resembled Christ's human nature: first, as this was of one stuff without mixture, so that without sin, &c. secondly, as this was put on after an extraordinary manner, so Christ put on humanity by an extraordinary conception; thirdly, as was the edge about the hole to keep it from rending, such was the unseparable union of Christ's two natures; fourthly as were the bells and pomegranates, such were his life and doctrine.’ Another learned writer, Mr. Mede, speaking of the manna and the rock in the wilderness, which are mentioned by St. Paul as types of Christ, 1 Cor. 10. v. 3, 4. expatiates in the following words. ‘As Manna came from heaven beside the ordinary course of nature, so Christ's birth was wonderful, &c. As Manna was of a most sweet taste, so is Christ unto the soul, &c. As Manna was of a white colour, so our Saviour was white and pure. As Manna before it was eaten was brayed in a mortar, &c. so was Christ our heavenly manna broken upon the Cross, &c. As the rock gave no water before it was smitten with the rod of Moses, so was Christ smitten upon the Cross, that out of him might flow that sovereign stream, which he who drinketh shall never thirst. As the rock was smitten with the rod of Moses, so was Christ our redeemer with the rod of the Law, &c. With much more to this effect.’ According to a modern author, Mr. Calcott, the Jewish tabernacle or temple was a type of the body of Christ. The table, the shew-bread, &c. were all emblematical, and significative of the properties, &c. of Jesus Christ, dwelling in a tabernacle of flesh. The table e. g. was compounded of two sorts of materials, wood and gold, and it was a piece of furniture which exhibited a compound person, &c; it was a type of that person who should be compounded of Jehovah and Adam, God and Man. In Mr. Bates's Faith of the antient Jews, the right ear is made to stand for obedience; the thumb of the right hand for actions; the great toe of the right foot for ways; shoulder for consent, &c. For farther satisfaction the reader may consult, if he pleases, LESLEY'S Truth of Christian. Sect. 13. POTTER on Ch. Gov. p. 50. ALLIX'S Reflect. p. 232, and vol. 2. p. 182. PEARSON on the Cr. p. 76. BARROW on the Cr. p. 107. 205. See MEDE. B. 1. Disc. 44. p. 249. LIGHTFOOT. See LANGHORN'S Let. between Theo. and Const. p. 93. TERTUL. de Spectal. c. 26. &c. &c.

Page 124. (p) minor authority.] The Epistles from which the extracts are made, (if we except the last,) have ever been held by the Church in general in the highest estimation. They were written by men who, it is well known, were intimately acquainted with the Apostles. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John; and his Epistle to the Philippians, with the first of St. Clement to the Corinthians, were for several centuries publickly read in the Churches of Asia. [*]Their authority therefore is little inferior to Apostolical.

I will transcribe a passage or two from the ante-nicene fathers, and leave the weight of the whole with the reader. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c, says Justin Martyr: Apol. I. c. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Athenagoras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Legatio pro Chris. p. 10. Nothing can be more express, simple, and unequivocal than these declarations.

And again, in contempt of, or rather in astonishment at the charge of Atheism, which the heathens brought against the first Christians, the same father asks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Ibid. p. 11.

Tertullian calls the Holy Ghost tertium numen Divinitatis, and tertium gradum majestatis. Irenaeus calls the Word Dei aeternum verbum, [†]and, according to him, Jesus Christ is Filius Dei existens semper apud Patrem.

It may be proper to take notice in this place, that the equality we are contending for is not in the lest disturbed by the disagreement betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the former was, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, and is the Spirit of the Son; non ex Filio, sed spiritum Filii esse dicimus, et Patris per Filium. This doctrine is erroneous indeed, but innocently so. For, as Archbp. Laud, [*]and many others have observed, the question, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds a Filio, or per Filium, is but a question in modo loquendi; a mere difference in words, and affects not the faith. And therefore I cannot think Bp. Taylor argues candidly, or logically, in the following passage. ‘The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, which is an article the Greek Church disavows, derives from the Tradition Apostolical, as it is pretended; and yet before St. Austin we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly, forasmuch as that whole mystery concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture, and so little derived to them by tradition, that till the Council of Nice, you shall hardly find any form of worship, or personal address of devotion to the Holy Spirit, as Erasmus observes, and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified.’ [†]The Holy Ghost is expressly styled by St. Peter the Spirit of Christ which, in the next sentence, is said to have been sent down from heaven; 1 Pet. 1. v. 10, 12. and I take it to be fully as presumeable that the article of the procession in question was grounded in the construction which this passage naturally admits, as that it "derived from tradition Apostolical;" notwithstanding the immaterial disagreement above-mentioned. But whether this difference with respect to the mode of procession took its rise from different construction, or from diferent tradition, the faith both of the Greek and Latin Church in the third Person of the Trinity was still built on a sure foundation. Eternity of generation, and procession, and existence, is equally inexplicable; and though nothing was, or, in the nature of things, could be ‘explicated in Scripture’ in respect of the whole mystery, yet, I apprehend, enough was revealed. Even if the first Christians had not addressed the blessed Spirit in any form of devotion at all, this could not have been owing to their want of comprehension of the mode of procession, but to their disbelief of his personality, and eternal existence. But that the primitive Christians, and the ante-nicene fathers believed the personality and eternal existence of the Spirit, and consequently his coequality with the Father and the Son, sufficiently, I trust, appears from the testimonies produced; and therefore admitting that most of the prayers of the Church were addressed to the Father, and few only to the Son, and fewer to the Holy Ghost, (which is far from being a matter unaccountable,) we have ample proofs that Christians worshipped ‘one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.’ Erasmus does not venture to assert, that no addresses were made to the Holy Ghost; and, if he had, we might confront him with the above cited declaration of Justin Martyr; which at least supposes this Divine Person to have been included, and frequently named in the supplications of the first Christians. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

But we are by no means destitute of antient testimonies to the same effect. The accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp conclude with ascriptions of glory, &c. to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. [†]The relation of the sufferings of the former closes with these words; ‘who trod under foot the Devil, and perfected the course he had piously desired, in Christ Jesus our Lord; by whom, and with whom, all glory and power be to the Father, with the blessed Spirit, for ever and ever.’ The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philadelphia, concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp, concludes as follows: ‘We wish you, brethren, all happiness by living according to the rule of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom glory be to God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, &c.’ In Clemens of Alexandria there is a prayer and doxology to the Trinity in these words: ‘Be merciful unto thy children, O Master, O Father, &c; O Son and Father, both one; O Lord, grant that we may pass the waves of this troublesome world, continually praising and giving thanks to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father, to the Son our Master and Teacher, together with the Holy Ghost, altogether one, in whom are all things, &c. &c.’ Add to this, that the doxologies in the antient Liturgies were some of them expressed in fuller and stronger terms than that used in our daily services.

It is affirmed by Mr. Lindsey in his Apology, that the Fathers of the three first centuries were all what we now call Arians or Socinians. We might ask this Gentleman in the words of Dathan, &c, but on much better grounds, wilt thou put out the eyes of Christians? The assertion has hardly its fellow in the whole circle of polemical divinity. Let these venerable Fathers speak for themselves. I take this opportunity to put the reader in mind of the same Gentleman's very disingenuous translation of that passage in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho, where he tells him, that there were those who admitted Christ to be the Messiah, tho' they believed him to be mere man. The whole passage is perfectly scrutinized, and a shameful omission of Mr. Lindsey taken notice of in Mr. BINGHAM's Vindication of the Doctrine, &c. of the Church of England, p. 23, 24, 25. See also Dr. RANDOLPH's Vindicat. of the Trinity, part 3, p. 40. and Bp. BULL's Judic. Eccles. Cathol. cap. 7mo, where he charges the Remonstrants with mutilating and curtailing this very passage. With what face will Mr. L. lay Socinianism, or Arianism at the door of Justin Martyr?

The passage quoted from this father in the former part of this note is so strong and explicit, that it probably gave occasion to some Socinians to aver, that HE was the first who taught the doctrine of the Trinity. I said, some Socinians, because, as we have already noted, most Socinians and Socinus himself fathers this doctrine upon the Council of Nice, with an absurdity which is exposed at large by Bp. Bull in his Defence of that Council. This duplicity is no small argument of Socinian distress.

Dr. Middleton, in resentment, I presume, of that explicitness with which Justin Martyr in the place referred to, and in many other, asserts the doctrine of the Trinity, and with a view to counteract it, takes much pains to represent his interpretation of Scripture as frequently absurd, and his doctrine as neither more nor less than refined Platonism. But the unfairness, or rather the falsity of both imputations has often been shewn. The triad of Plato, (whose admirer, &c. this holy father, it is well known, before his conversion was,) the mundane, animative, and intelligent nature of God, although it has been mentioned by some, improperly but honestly enough, to illustrate the doctrine in question, with an intention to adapt it in some degree to our apprehensions, could not possibly give rise to it. It is as clear as words can make it, that Justin the Martyr was a Trinitarian on principles very different from those of Justin the philosopher. Dr. M. most uncandidly vilifies the typical and allegorical representations, which occur often in this primitive writer, and in which probably he gratified not so much his own taste as that of those early ages.

Dr. Whitby, in his treatise entitled, An Endeavour to evince the certainty of Christian faith, &c, cites historians of credit, who acquaint us, that when Julian's design of falsifying the predictions of our Saviour, by rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, was defeated by miraculous eruptions of balls of fire, &c, (as the story is told by Ammianus Marcellinus, and many others,) almost all the Jews, who were eye-witnesses of this wonderful scene, were converted to the Christian Faith, and acknowleged Christ to be God. The writers referred to are Sozomen, Nazianzen, and Socrates, and the following passage seems to be as plain and decisive as can be wished. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It seems evident enough from these words, that the Jews who were converted on this occasion, and consequently Christians in general, at that time acknowledged Jesus Christ to be absolutely God.

Indeed the truth of this great doctrine is in some measure inferrible from the incredibility formerly objected to it by its adversaries. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Celsus; and Trypho speaks rather resentingly in the following words to Justin; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Agreably to this, the same Trypho declares, that to assert Christ to have been born of a virgin is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now I desire to ask, whether the doctrine of a miraculous birth, and bodily appearance of an inferior Deity for any supposable purpose whatever, be not sufficiently reconcileable both with Jewish and Pagan principles, and with what we know to have been the sentiments of Julian himself? Or, whether we are not in all reason to look for the chief ground of difference between Justin and Trypho in the coequality we are asserting? This will appear yet more clearly in a subsequent note. It is, in short, this equality which constituted superstitionis novae genus, as Christianity is called by Suetonius in the life of Nero.

Dr. Willes, in his first discourse, prefixed to Sir Rog. L'Estrange's translation of Josephus, says that Pilate wrote to Tiberius de Christo Deo. But where does he find this? The Acts of Pilate, so called, are confessedly spurious.

CELSUS apud ORIG. l. 4. JUSTIN's Dial. p. 292. LACTANTIUS. l. 4. c. 12 and 22.

Page 125. (q) the Atheism.] The venom of this calumny soon spent itself; and the honourable and often-noted testimony of Pliny in his letter to Trajan, that the Christians were a simple and innocent people who worshipped Christ as God, at once vindicates their morals, and declares their faith.

The fact was, the primitive Christians, like their immediate predecessors the Apostles, were reviled, defamed, and made as the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things; they were charged with the most detestable vices; with rebellion, murder, incest, &c; and to free them from these infamous reproaches, was one main business of the fathers in general, and especially of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Tertullian.

WHITBY'S Endeavour, &c. ch. 8. p. 243.

Page 126. (r) principles of polytheism.] Hesiod makes mention of many thousand Deities, and Varro of three hundred Jupiters; but both with a reservation of the properties and prerogatives of the Supreme God. These subaltern Deities were supposed to act as his instruments, and under his direction. Some of the wiser heathens however were ashamed of this latitudinarian system; and pretended to resolve their theology into allegory, &c, as Zeno, Chrysippus, and other Stoics; and philosophers of later date found it necessary to have recourse to the same expedient to elude the charge brought against the multitude of the heathen Gods by Christians. With respect to the Pagan notion of a subordination of Deities, we may affirm in the words of Dr. Heylin, that God is not only unus, but unicus, or in the phrase of Mr. Hooker, ‘that our God is one, or rather very oneness, in which essential unity, says he, a Trinity personal subsisteth.’

It will be well worth remarking, that the doctrine of the Trinity has often been represented as having no little colour or countenance both from Jewish and Pagan principles. A. Ross, [*]in his View of all religions, &c. undertakes to shew, that ‘the doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown even by the light of nature to the Gentile philosophers, poets, &c. Zoroastres, says he, speaks of the Father, who, having perfected all things, hath delivered them to the second Mind, which Mind hath received from the Father knowlege and power. Here is a plain testimony of the first and second Person. Concerning the third, Zoroastres saith, that the Divine Love proceeded from the Mind or Intellect; and what else is this Divine Love but the Holy Ghost?’ He then proceeds to lay before the reader the principles of the Chaldean Magi, who ‘acknowleged three beginnings, to wit, Ormases, Mitris, and Ariminis, i. e. God, the Mind, and Soul." He observes that Pythagoras was not ignorant of this mystery, when he placed all perfection in the number THREE, and made Love the original of all things.’ He gives us the sentiments of Zeno, Socrates, Numenius, Plotinus, and many others, ‘who write very plainly of the Hypostases, &c, so that no Christian can write more fully. ’

Let us hear now what a much better known, and an universally admired author has to offer upon the same argument. From the three divine attributes of infinite Goodness, Wisdom, and Power, the Pythagoreans and Platonists seem to have framed their Trinity of what Dr. Cudworth calls Archichal Hypostases: to which he supposes Aristotle may be thought to allude in the following passage in his book de caelo. l. 1. c. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Pythagoreans) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In another place, this learned author gives us to understand, that Zoroastres, and the ancient Magi acknowleged the Supreme Deity under the different names of Mithras and Oromasius; which Mithras was commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or three-fold. This, it seems, J. Vossius would refer to the three hypostases in the Deity, agreeably to the Christian theory: but Cudworth thinks it to be more conformable to the Pythagoric or Platonic hypothesis of three distinct substances subordinate to each other. This writer observes elsewhere, that Pagan theology in general maintained a Trinity of universal principles, or Divine hypostases subordinate; the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 EN called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or intellect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the second God; and the mundane Soul, or animated world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the third God. According to the same author, the Crocodile was a symbol of the first God of the Aegyptians; ‘an animal which when in the water sees without being seen:’ and among the same people a winged globe with a serpent springing out of it, was the Hieroglyphic of a triform Deity, or Trinity of Divine Hypostases. By the globe was signified the first incomprehensible Deity, without beginning or end, self-existent, &c; by the Serpent, the Divine wisdom and creative virtue; and by the wings, that active Spirit which quickens, enlivens, and cherishes all things.

Let us see now what was the theology of Julian, and the latter Platonists. This famous Apostate maintained, that the inferior Gods were ministers of a supreme God. He asserted, that this Supreme God, or first Deity, and fountain of all things, produced from himself, an eternal mind, and a corporeal, or "sensible animated Sun," as a great God in the visible world. The latter Platonists, in opposition to Christianity, held, that before the Trinity there was another supreme and highest Hypostasis, existing and remaining in the solitude of his own unity, as Dr. Cudworth literally translates the words of Jamblicus. This must at least be allowed to be language somewhat more intelligible than that of those old Platonists who taught, that there is a substance, a principle "in the order of nature superior to intellect." They suppose this first and highest principle of all, to be, by reason of its absolute and transcendent perfection, not only above understanding, knowlege, and reason, but above essence itself; which, by the way, was the heresy of A. Joachim, condemned by the fourth Lateran Council. Our Author very justly calls this visionary doctrine mysterious Atheism; and it seems to have been adopted by that fantastic heretic Valentinus, whose thirty Gods, or Aeons, were the production or offspring of a self-originated Deity, whom he calls Bythus, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. unfathomable profundity; or, according to some, of profundity and silence. Even the theory of Hesiod, whether literally, or physiologically understood, is much more agreeable to truth, and the Mosaic history. This old bard makes Chaos, and Earth, and Tartarus, and Love, the principles of all things. (Theogon. v. 116. and seq.) In short, the philosophy we have been just speaking of absolutely refines away all religion, and the very belief of a God; because Divinity in the abstract can no more be said to produce, to act, or to govern, &c. than wisdom can be said to be wise, or motion to move.

At best, little solid or consistent can be extracted from this medley of principles; and if we understand by a Trinity, what in reason we ought to understand by it, viz. a Trinity of three efficient, living, intelligent Persons, the sovereign causes and rulers of all things, (to use the words of a learned [†]writer,) we shall look in vain for such a doctrine properly and precisely taught before the epoch of Christianity. It is certain, the antient Pagan Theology derived partly from tradition, and partly from Judaism. In the doctrines of the latter we are to look for the rise and foundation of the principal tenets of the Philosophers whose names have been mentioned; of whom some are known to have had communications with the Jews. What then were the sentiments of these descendants of Abraham heretofore with respect to the great doctrine before us? The question is a material one; and, unless I greatly mistake, the solution of it will terminate in a very satisfactory conclusion.

Christian writers differ but little in what they have advanced upon this head. To take a few of them as they fall in our way. Wollebius lays down the following principle as an indubitable one. Etsi Veteris Testamenti tempore doctrina S. S. Trinitatis obscurior fuerit, non tamen plane ignota fuit. He then quotes the first Chap. of Genesis, and other passages in the Old Testament, in common with other authors, in support of his position, or his Canon, as he calls it, and finishes the paragraph in the following words; quae testimonia tametsi pertinaces Judaei eludere satagunt, Christianae tamen menti satisfaciunt. The learned Dr. Lightfoot's sentiments on this subject, which Mr. Parkhurst has adopted, or rather with particular warmth espoused, are as follows.

The very first thing, says he, that is taught in all the Bible [*]is this very mystery.
God created; God, i. e. the Word said; and the Spirit, i. e. the Holy Ghost moved. ‘So Moses also when he is to teach concerning the creation of man, he first teacheth that it was the Trinity that created him. And God said, Let us make man after our image. He saith Let us, to shew the Trinity of Persons; and he saith in our image, not in our images, to shew the unity of essence.’ The Trinity is supposed by Dr. L. to be declared in many places; even at v. 4. of Deut. 6. Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one. Dr. L. gives this as the true reading, which, says he, ‘teaches the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity. Three words answer the three Persons, and the middle word our God, deciphering fitly the Second, who assumed our nature.’ This learned writer supposes the same mystery to be imported in the following among many other texts. Exo. 34. v. 6. Isa. 6. v. 3. Psalms 50. v. 1. 136. v. 1, 2, 3.

Indeed, Jesus Christ is by the almost unanimous suffrage of writers the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Angel of the Covenant, the Angel who appeared to Moses at the bush, the chief of the Angels who were entertained by Abraham, &c, is generally supposed to have been the Second Person in the [†]Trinity. A sensible writer endeavours to prove, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the Law, and that it is in fact acknowleged and asserted by the Jewish Rabbies, by Philo and Maimonides, &c. The Jewish Cabalists, says he, ‘distinguish God into three Lights; and some of them call them by the same names, as the Christians, of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and yet say that this does not at all break the Unity of God. Your famous Philo, says he, expresses the same in many places.’ And he produces a considerable number of instances, by which it appears that this celebrated Rabbin at least lays himself open to the attacks of every Christian adversary.

To the same effect Dr. Randolph quotes a remarkable passage from Eusebius, in which it is observed, that, according to the doctrine of the Jews, ‘there is, after the Essence of God, &c, a principle begotten of no other but the Father, being first-begotten, &c, being the image of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the word of God; the true light, the Sun of righteousness, &c, &c.’

There are two striking passages, the one in the book of Proverbs, and the other in the apocryphal book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon, which have been pretty generally considered as designative of the Second Person in the Christian Trinity. I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he appointed the foundations of the earth, then was I by him, as one brought up with him, &c. (Prov. 8. v. 22. &c.) When all things were in quiet silence, thine Almighty Word leapt down from heaven out of thy royal throne, &c, &c. (Wisd. 18. v. 15. &c.)

The anonymous Author of the testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, (who, as Dr. Grabe supposes, wrote at the latter end of the second century,) makes every one of them foretell the coming of the Messiah, and most of them, in the plainest terms, the incarnation of the Son of God, or rather simply of God.

All this put together, intricate or incoherent as it may appear, will be thought most clearly to import a Trinity of some kind in the Godhead; and we may accordingly discern in a moment wherein lies the precise difference between the Pagan, the Jewish, the Arian, and the true Christian theory. By the hypothesis of each of the three former, the Supreme God neither is nor can be more than One Person; by that of the latter, the Deity consists of three Persons and one undivided essence. This as manifestly resists the idea of dependence and inferiority, as the other is compatible with it, or rather, under the notion of a Trinity, supposes it. In short, it will, I presume, be no easy matter to say what objection of weight Jews, and Gentiles, Pythagoreans, and Platonists, could have made to the Gospel, what obstacle there was to their becoming obedient to the faith without delay, except that the universally adopted principle of SUBORDINATION was superseded, and effectually destroyed by the peculiarly Christian doctrine of EQUALITY.

Perhaps I shall be thought to take upon me here the character of Moderator in the dispute between Mr. Parkhurst and Dr. Priestly. I had no such intention. But if what has been offered does not exactly coincide with the notions of the former, it will at least in the result be subversive of the principles of the latter. The Christian doctrine of an equal Trinity will be established by the acknowlegement of a plurality of any kind, respecting the Godhead, by Jews, antient, or modern, or both. With regard to the notions of Philo, &c, see Howes's Remarks in Vindication of the antient Fathers &c. p. 41, 42, and seq.

It is observable, in conformity herewith, that the Fathers in general consider the doctrine of the Trinity, in the sense of the Catholic Church, as that which characteristically discriminates Christianity both from Judaism and Heathenism. With respect to the former, Tertullian has these remarkable words; Judaicae fidei est res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumera re ei nolis, et post Filium, Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus Evangelii? Quae est substantia Novi Testamenti, statuens Legem et Prophetas usque ad Johannem, si non exinde Pater, Filius, et Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt?

HOOKER's Eccles. Pol. p. A. ROSS's View of all Rel. Sect. 7. p. 185. CUDWORTH's Intell. Sys. p. 206. WOLLEBIUS's Compen. Theol. l. 1. c. 2. p. 15. LIGHTFOOT on Gen. 1. STACKHOUSE's Hist. of Bib. Ch. 1. p. 223. Bp. ANDREWS's Lect. p. 552. LOWTH's Direct. for reading S. S. p. 68, 69. See PATRICK's Notes at Exod. 3. v. 14. 6. v. 3. 18. v. 2. TERTULL. adv. Prax. c. 31. See Mr. PARKHURST's Tract on the Divinity, &c. of our Lord from p. 1. to p. 46. See JONES. Chap. 3. Sect. 1, 2, 3. See PATRICK on Gen. 1. v. 26. LESLIE's Short Method with the Jews. p. 88. RANDOLPH's Vindica. of the Doctrine of the Trinity. pt. 1. p. 21. GRABE's Note at Sect. 2, c. 3. of BULL's Defense.

Page 129. (s) Son of Mary.] Nothing can be more ridiculous than the Mahometan notions respecting the birth of our Saviour. Mary is supposed to have conceived by the breath of Gabriel. Yet in the nineteenth Chapter of the Koran, the following inconsistent and impious expressions are put into the mouth of the Deity himself. We sent our Spirit Gabriel to Mary in the shape of a perfect man.

Mr. Sale observes, that Mahomet's account of the delivery of Mary is like the fabulous one of Latona. Both, it seems, were delivered by a palmtree; and in the womb of the latter Apollo spoke, as in that of the former, say some, did Jesus. Possibly this may be a refinement upon the Koran itself; or upon the circumstance of the babe's leaping in the womb of Elisabeth. Luke i. 41.

See Sale's Note at Ch. 19. of the Koran.

Page 131. (t) God is one God.] It is the tenet of all true Mussulmen, says the author of Mahometism explained, that the most abandoned sinners that ever existed shall be saved, ‘provided they shall once during their lives have testified the Unity of God, by pronouncing that fundamental article of the Mussulman belief, there is no God but ALLAH, and MAHOMET is his Apostle. ’ This, I conceive, must be understood with some restriction, and supposes no apostacy subsequent to the attestation in question. For the famous Mahometan Doctor, Algazali, in his comment on these two capital articles of their faith, delivers himself in the following words. He shall also believe that they that confess one God shall at length go out of the fire, after they have underwent the punishment due to their sins; so that by the favourable mercy of God, no person shall remain in hell who acknowleged the Unity of the Godhead.

The first Mussulmen gloried in the title of Unitarians upon every occasion. Some of them carried their zeal for the grand article of their religion to a degree of savage ferocity. We have a notable example of this in the history of the Saracens. At the siege of Damascus, in the reign of Omar, the second Caliph after Mahomet, Abu-Obeidah, the commander of the Saracen army, had granted quarter to certain citizens; which was a piece of lenity so exasperating to Derar, an officer of very high rank, as to draw from him a declaration, seconded by the solemnity of an oath, that, for his part, he would never have mercy upon any that said that God had a son, and joined a partner with God.

We learn from the anonymous author of Four Treatises, &c, (who assures us he derives his authorities from writers of the first class,) that the Mahometans carry this unitarian principle with them literally to their graves. His account of their funeral solemnities is entertaining enough; but the following are the only particulars with which we are at all concerned. At the interment of a Mussulman the Muezzin, or Cryer, must go before the corps, reciting with a loud voice, there is no God but very God. At the close of the whole ceremony, the defunct is addressed by the priest in these words. Be mindful of the covenant with which thou hast gone out of this world; bearing witness that there is no God but very God alone, and that Mahomet is his prophet, and that Paradise is for certain, and fire for certain, and the resurrection for certain; &c, &c.

How shall we reconcile all this with Mr. Locke's assertion, that ‘to the light which the Messiah brought into the world with him, we must ascribe the owning and profession of one God, which the Mahometan religion hath derived and borrowed from it.’ Strange assertion! The Mahometan faith is this, that there is one Person in the Godhead; the Catholic faith is this, that there are three Persons in one Godhead. Remove this difference; and you will make a considerable breach in the middle wall of partition between the two religions. (See Disc. 4th. sub fin.)

Reasonab. of Christianity. p. 86. Comment prefixed to the 2d. Vol. of OCKLEY's History of the Saracens. OCKLEY's Hist. of the Saracens, Vol. 1. p. 227, 134. Treatise concerning the Turkish Liturgy. p. 139, 142.

Page 132. (v) Papal innovation.] The Arians in Poland, soon after the Reformation, most ridiculously attempted to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as the most anti-christian of all corruptions in the Church of Rome; and would have fain had it believed, that Providence permitted the Pope to wear a triple crown, as a mark denoting him to be a maintainer of that doctrine.

See HOOKER's Eccles. Pol. B. 4. p. 142.

Page 144. (u) tables of man's heart.] Burlamaque, in his book entitled Principles of natural and politic Law, observes somewhere, that ‘moral maxims or actions are as certain, as much dictated by pure reason, as physical, or mathematical ones.’ That the Creator, e. g., says he, is to be worshipped &c, by the creature, is as selfevident as that the whole is greater than its parts. Bp. Cumberland calls the Law of nature immutable, eternal, and universal. [†]I cannot think Bp. Taylor expresses himself with accuracy, and much less with true casuistical precision, in the following passage extracted by Dr. W. Lowth from the Ductor Dubitantium. ‘If we be sent to read the laws of nature in the tables of our own hearts, where some things are disordered by passion, many more are written by interest; some are indited by custom, and others imprinted by education; and amongst several men these are the authors of contrary inscriptions; I say, if we have no better director than this, whereby to square our actions, we shall find ourselves at a loss for the managing our behaviour in some of the weightiest concerns of life.’ The inscriptions of passion, interest, and custom, &c, are not those original impressions which are still legible, and sufficiently distinguishable by a candid and inquisitive mind. The law of nature, abstractedly considered, is still what Bp. Cumberland calls it.

That obnoxiousness to error from which men of the brightest parts, and the greatest professional abilities, are not exempt, is to writers in general at once an encouraging and an humbling circumstance.

The corruption of human reason, and the ignorance and error incident to our understandings, ‘has, says a most excellent author, given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of Divine Providence, which in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased at sundry times, and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct Revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or Divine law, and they are to be found only in the Scriptures. These precepts when revealed are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from hence to conclude, that the knowlege of these truths was attainable by reason in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but till then they can never be put in any competition. Municipal law is a rule of civil conduct. This distinguishes municipal law from the natural, or revealed; the former of which is the rule of moral conduct, and the latter not only the rule of moral conduct, but also the rule of faith.’ [*]

These periods seem to have slipped from the pen. The Scriptures are the Revelation of divine or supernatural truths, but of the ‘original law of nature’ they are only the revival, or republication. THEY plainly declare that to be the will of God which, in the times of ignorance and corruption, might rather be said to have been obtruded upon the world, than recommended to it, as the will of God, by the philosophers; they teach that by authority which, before, reason only dictated, or opinion espoused; so that now every species of immorality is totally without excuse. Properly speaking, it is not the Divine Will, but the Divine Nature, "which was ‘hid from the wisdom of ages.’ For though we have in Scripture only the sure word of morality, yet Socrates, Plato, and Tully, as far as they taught truly, taught the morality of Scripture. In a word, Revelation is necessarily the rule of conduct, but directly and immediately the rule of faith.

The passages just cited interfered with the argument before me; and I am happy in the opportunity hereby given me to acknowlege my obligations to a learned and sincere friend, and to testify my high respect for the name and memory of Sir W. BLACKSTONE.

Page 144. (w) earnestly inculcated.] See GROT. l. 4. 12. TULL. de Nat. Deo. l. 2—25. De Leg. l. 2. 11. De Off. l. 2—3. PERS. Sat. 2. v. 69. XENO. Memo. l. 1. p. 571. POTTER's Greek Antiq. Vol. 1. B. 2. ch. 5. PLATO's Alci. and PLUTARCH's Insti. Lacon. CICERO pro domo sua, apud Pontif. TULL. de Leg. l. 2—7. De Divinat. 1—51—57. Fragmen. Vet. Poet. p. 60. TULL. de Nat. Deo. l. 3—35. AESCHYLUS's Persae. v. 293. EURIPIDES's Hecuba. v. 954. Bacchae. v. 70. SOPHOCLES's Ajax. v. 118 et seq. AESCHYLUS's Prom. Vinc. v. 1073. EURIP. Orest. v. 821. Phaeniss. v. 1206. Androm. 851. Tusc. Quaest. l. 2. v. 21. Fragmen. Vet. Poet. p. 24, 96. &c, &c, &c. See particularly the works of Epictetus and M. Antoninus. It has been indeed, and is often alledged, that both these authors borrowed, or rather stole the best of their philosophy from the documents of Christianity. But, admitting the truth of the allegation, they adopted these principles as fit and right, and as perfectly agreable to human reason; which is quite enough for our purpose. It is not at all material to know, whether, or how far, these, or any other philosophers, were really indebted to Revelation.

Many writers, with a laudable desire to extol Christianity, have represented in a very strong light the imperfection and insufficiency of heathen Morals, and drawn at full length, and in the most lively colours, the errors and impurities of Paganism; but all this in manifest consistence with what has been advanced.

See particularly LOWTH's Direct. for reading the Scrip. Ch. 8. p. 129. 10. p. 183, &c. and WHITBY's Endeavour. p. 10.

Page 155. (x) the Greek Dramatists. The true God must ultimately be understood by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. of Homer; the Divum Pater, &c. of Virgil; the Summus Deorum of Ovid; the communis conditor of Juvenal; and by him, as Horace says,

Unde nil majus generatur ipso;

Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum.

Naevius, according to Varro, calls Jupiter Patrem Optimum, Supremum, et Summum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—he above all, is Porphyry's description of the Deity. Prometheus, in Aeschylus, calls Jupiter, though insolently and in defiance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 936. And in the Supplices of the same author he is styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which are almost Isaiah's own words according to Bp. Lowth's translation. q. v. v. 584. See Isaiah 9. 6. There is a fine passage in the Antigone of Sophocles which represents Jupiter as neither slumbering nor sleeping, [*]and as subject to no infirmity, or decay. See v. 612. et seq. The sovereign independence of the Deity, the unsearchableness of his counsels, and the stability of his decrees, are strongly expressed in the following places. See Homer. Il. l. 1. v. 5. Aeschylus's Supplices. v. 1056. 600. Prome. Vinct. v. 50. Agamem. v. 1496. The Chain in Homer, Il. 8. v. 19. &c, has been remarked on by many writers; and the subserviency of all things, past, present, and to come, to the Divine will and pleasure, is expressly declared in the continuation of the passage above referred to in Sophocles:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vid. supr.

The spirituality of the Divine Being is expressed by Plato, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, and others, under the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by Cicero, and the Latin writers, by that of Mens. The divinae particula aurae of Horace, the aetherius sensus of Virgil, the animus as contradistinguished from the anima of Juvenal, &c, &c, unquestionably refer us to the spiritual creator. Tully, we know, delights in this argument, and handles it in a thousand places. In one particularly, he asserts, "Nihil ab optimo et praestantissimo genitore, animo melius procreatum;" and in another, he speaks the very language of Revelation itself. ‘DEI, says he, IMAGO quaedam ANIMUS est; ex ipso DEO delibata ac profecta.’ [†]

The omniscience, the omnipresence, [‡]the invisibility, and the incomprehensible nature of the Deity, are set in a very strong light by Pagan writers. Tully, in his book de natura Deorum, cites Pythagoras affirming, Deum esse animum per naturam rerum omnium commeantem. l. 1. 10. Seneca, speaking of God, says, Quocunque te flexeris, ibi illum videbis occurrentem tibi; and Plautus says finely, Est profecto Deus, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et videt. The Greek Dramatists are very clear and explicit under these articles. In a fragment of Euripides one says,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which, as Mr. Barnes observes, is exactly parallel with Hesiod's,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [*]Of all the heathens Plato perhaps had the most exalted sentiments, and, as a learned author expresses it, "came nearest to the truth," He was indeed conversant in the Jewish Law to such a degree as to be described under the character of Moses speaking Greek, according to the same author's observation from Eusebius and others. He calls God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and emphatically the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Origen cites this remarkable expression from him, which is produced by Grotius; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—

But, it may be, this eulogy is premature. ‘In the sacred commentary of the Persian rites, the following words, says Sir Isaac Newton, are ascribed to Zoroastres. ’ O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

‘This, says he, was the antient God of the Persian Magi. ’ The same great author acquaints us, that Hystaspes, father of Darius, was co-founder of the religion of the Persian empire with Zoroastres; which religion, says he, ‘was composed parly of the institutions of the Chaldaeans, in which Zoroastres was well skilled; and partly of the institutions of the antient Brachmans, who are supposed to derive even their name from the Abrahamans, or sons of Abraham, born of his second wife Keturah, and instructed by their father in the worship of ONE GOD,’ without images, &c." (See NEWTON's Chronol. Ch. 6. p. 350, 351.)

One is almost afraid to say, this consummate Philosopher could himself be mistaken in this or in any matter; could possibly be liable to the weakness of inadvertence, or the littleness of prepossession. Yet the author of the Essay on Spirit makes use of Sir. Is. Newton's words when he declares, that God is a relative term, which has reference to subjects. Surely it has been observed with great truth, that of all terms the term GOD is perhaps the most absolute. It is the name of the Supreme, self-existent Being, independently on ten thousand creations. We know not wherein the essential happiness of the Deity consists; but we know that the mere production of worlds contributes nothing to it. It is true, God is our Creator, our King, our Father, &c; but does he stand related to us under these characters by necessity, or by bounty of grace? We worship him as our Maker, we honour him as our Sovereign, we fear him as our Judge, we love him as our Father, &c, &c; but before the great day of universal manifestation we shall not see him, and even then most probably shall but imperfectly see him as he is.

Page 160. (y) proof upon proof.] The refinements of learned men have disserved the cause they wished to promote. According to the traditions of the Chinese, as European missionaries have represented them, Confucius, their great philosopher, who lived above five hundred years before Christ, used often to say, It is in the West that the true Saint is to be found; and even before him it was a saying of Laokun, that eternal reason produced ONE; ONE produced TWO; TWO produced THREE; and THREE produced all things. How far the conclusion of Simplicius's comment upon Epictetus may deserve more attention, I will not determine. It is to be found in Dr. CAVE's Prim. Christian. being a prayer ‘in which mention is made of three Persons, the Lord, (or Father;) the Saviour, (or Christ;) and the light of truth; ’ which even in Scripture, says Dr. C., is "a common periphrasis of the Holy Spirit." If we may believe Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, (as the same author refers to him,) Ignatius heard the angels in a vision praising the Trinity in alternate hymns, &c; which introduced alternate hymns into the Church. Mr. Hooker seems inclined to suspect the authority of this story; and it is certain nothing is said relative to such a vision in all the genuine epistles of this antient Father, which are seven; though in one of them, viz. that to the Ephesians, he talks of Jesus Christ's being sung, and of singing to the Father by Jesus Christ: [*]which makes the omission more extraordinary.

The absolute Divinity of Jesus Christ has, with more haste than judgment, been asserted by some from our Saviour's words to the leper, I will; be thou clean: and by others from his power to forgive sins; nothing in all this implying a self-inherent authority. Dr. Whitby quotes the following passage from a no less illustrious Father than Irenaeus, with respect to the remitting power. ‘By remitting the sin, &c, he shewed who he was; for if none can remit sins but God, and yet our Lord did remit them, &c, it is manifest that he was both the Word of God, and the Son of man, receiving the power of remission from his Father, as God and Man.’ Surely he could receive this power as man only.

It is not my intention to derogate in the least from the merit of Mr. Jones's performance, (the Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity,) which upon the whole is admirable and satisfactory. His scriptural parallels are for the most part happy; and his mode of reasoning is always ingenious, and generally conclusive. Perhaps it rather fails in the application of the following text; God was IN CHRIST, reconciling the world to HIMSELF. 2 Cor. 5. 19.

It is allowed on all hands, says Mr. Jones, that the world was reconciled by Christ Jesus to the one, only, great and supreme God. But, this very same God (for the word is but once used in the whole sentence) was in Christ; manifest in the flesh, and reconciling the world to himself. And were there no other passage of Scripture to be found, this alone is sufficient to overthrow the whole doctrine of Arianism; which, as far as the Scripture is concerned, depends upon this one assertion, that the word GOD, in Scripture, NEVER signifies a complex notion of more persons than one; but ALWAYS means one person only, viz. either the person of the Father singly, or the person of the Son singly. Which is absolutely false: for here it signifies both. The text considers God as agent and patient at the same time, and upon the same occasion; as the reconciler of the world, in the person of the Son; and the object to whom the reconciliation was made, in the person of the Father; yet there is but one word (GOD) to express them both. So that the word God, though of the singular number, is of a plural comprehension. And thus I find it to have been taken by some of the most eminent writers before the council of Nice; Plasmatus in initio homo per manus DEI, id est, FILII et SPIRITUS, says Irenaeus; putting the singular name of God for the two persons of the Son and Spirit. And the same word, in the language of Origen, (if we are allowed to take the version of Ruffinus as genuine,) includes the whole three persons: igitur de DEO, id est, de PATRE, et FILIO, et SPIRITU SANCTO. And our excellent church has used the word God in the same comprehensive sense; as in the Blessing after the communion service, GOD ALMIGHTY, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I am afraid this is not so full an answer to the above assertion as was to be wished; and that it is not absolutely sufficient for the "overthrow of the whole doctrine of Arianism." In the first place, Dr. Clarke's proselytes will be apt to insist, that the whole doctrine of Arianism does not depend upon this one assertion; and in the next place, that, if it did, Mr. Jones has advanced nothing here forcible enough to overthrow it. It is true, they will say, God was in Christ; but in what sense? why, by his grace, his influence, and spiritual communications; as he is likewise said to be in us; and as Christ is said to be in us; and as we are said to be in God, and to be in Christ, by the purity of our hearts and affections. This, they will tell us, is plain simple theory, without any wanton refinement, or imaginary distinction of "agent and patient, &c." And with regard to the authorities of Irenaeus, Origen, and the Blessing in the Communion service, they will add, that they cannot admit either a private sentiment, or a public doctrine to be the standard of true Chistianity.

As this is specious enough, it may be proper to disencumber ourselves from the weight of this same Arian assertion, by other considerations. Hac non successit, alia progrediamur via.

First then let it be observed, that though the English word God be "of the singular number," yet the Hebrew word Elohim, of which it is the translation, is confessedly "of a plural comprehension." Accordingly it has been demonstrated over and over again, that the ancient Jews held a plurality of some kind in the Deity. (Vid. Supr.)

But, secondly, we may recur to considerations still more internal, and indisputable. If it has been abundantly made to appear, that the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, as properly and truly as the Father is God, the term God must unavoidably be acknowleged to include, or to "signify a complex notion of more persons than one," in many places of holy writ. It will suffice to produce a few instances. The Father is said to be in us, 1 John. 4. 13. or to dwell in us, or abide with us, and the Son is said to be in us, &c, Rom. 8. v. 10. and the Holy Ghost is said to be in us; and, in a case which he mentions, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, it would be reported, that God was in them of a truth. 1 Cor. 14. 25. Now can any man assign a tolerable reason why the word God in this passage should not be regarded as inclusive of the whole blessed Trinity? Another Scripture saith, every one of us shall give account of himself to God; Rom. 14. 12. but if in the term, God, Jesus Christ is not comprehended, what will become of the text which assures us we must all appear before HIS judgment-seat? 2 Cor. 5. 10. The great Apostle of the Gentiles puts the Elders of the Church of Ephesus in mind, that he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God: and if he who purchased this Church with his own blood, and he who appointed overseers over it, are to be considered as parties in this counsel, (and surely they are to be so considered,) the word, God, has manifestly a complex signification here, and means more than one person only. Acts 20. 27, 28. The Kingdom of God is a phrase which, in most places where it occurs, will, I presume, not barely admit but require the same latitude of application. The Word of God may be regarded in the same light. Lastly I shall close these examples with one which is the more eligible, because it is contained in a text which has already undergone examination, and to which our adversaries are for ever putting in their claim. I mean v. 28th. of the 15th. Chapter of St. Paul's first Epist. to the Cor. [*] 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, i. e. the complement of the Deity, the Trinity in Unity, may be all in all. Every critical eye sees clearly that, in this passage, for the complex word—God—we must read the single term Father, before we can with any sort of propriety accommodate it to the purpose of the anti-trinitarians. In this case indeed, there would be an obvious sense, and a natural antithesis, and both in their favour.

The other text—I am in the Father, and the Father in me, John 14. 11., which Mr. J. produces as synonomising with the preceding, may be explained away by similar means. The Arian has the following passages to oppose to them. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, &c. John 17. 21, 22, 23. I am far from saying, or even insinuating, that there is any real difficulty in all this; or that the orthodox construction of the passages adduced by Mr. J. does not fairly and properly belong to them. I only take leave to observe, and have an obvious view in observing, that, with regard to the defence of Christian doctrine in general, and particularly to the confutation of the assertion above-mentioned, this truly respectable author might have selected texts less equivocal, less liable to prevarication.

It is observable, Dr. I. Watts makes the texts I am in the FATHER and the FATHER IN ME, &c, subservient to his doctrine of the inherency, or indwelling of the Father, i. e. of the godhead in the MAN Christ Jesus.

It has been remarked, that by a small alteration in the punctuation, the 3d. v. of the 17th. Chap. of St. John, that they might know thee the only true God, &c, may be thus rendered, that they might know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, to be the only true God. This reading is supported by the authorities of Novatian, St. Austin, and St. Ambrose. But it will be prudent, I believe, to wave these authorities. These Fathers seem to have been in great fear, where no fear was. We may safely abide by the sense of the text before us in its present state. Were we really in distress, it might be worth our while to appeal to these early opinions in our favour.

See Discourse 6th sub. fin. Dr. WATTS's Last Sentiments. p. 76, 77. See the passage in IRENAEUS cited at large, and illustrated by Dr. WATERLAND in his 2d Defence of his Queries. p. 90. See Mat. 9. 6. Deism Revealed. Vol. 2. p. 192. CAVE's Prim. Christian. p. 40, 177. See WHEATLY's MOYER's Lecture Sermons. Sermon 5. p. 250. Note B.

Page. 161. (z) abstract speculation.] Among the many tripartite representations of the Trinity, material and intellectual, essence, intelligence, and will, have been regarded by some as significant of that great mystery; which seems to be much about as wise a symbolization as that of those who gravely affirm the moon to be an emblem of the Church, birds emblems of heretics, and fish of antichrist. ‘We find in our nature, says a celebrated writer, which is said to be made after the image of God, a very near resemblance of the Holy Trinity, and of the different operations of each of the Divine Persons. For example; to know a thing present, and to remember what is past, and to love or hate, are different operations of our mind, and performed by different faculties of it. Of these, the understanding is the Father faculty, and gives being to things, as to us; for what we know not, is to us as if it were not: this answers to creation. From this faculty proceeds the second, that of memory, which is a preserving of that the understanding has created to us. Then the third faculty, that of the will, which loves or hates, proceeds from both the other; for we cannot love or hate what is not first created by the understanding, and preserved to us by the memory.’

The plastic power of a warm imagination, or a sanguine zeal, will form emblems and adumbrations of the Trinity in all countries, and in all ages of the world. We are told the old Aegyptians, and modern Americans, worshipped the Deity under the picture of a sun with three heads.

As infidelity will take all advantages of pious whim, and indiscreet attachment, so will it as surely avail itself to its utmost of certain strange notions, which have been advanced, in direct variation from the received doctrine of the primitive Church. It is not easy to say with what propriety, or in what sense, Papists have called the Virgin the complement of the Trinity. Mr. Sale tells us, some of the Christian Arabs associate with a Sect that worshipped the Virgin as a God. We learn from the same author, and others, that some of the Nicene Council maintained there were two Gods besides God the Father, viz. Christ and the Virgin. Others have affirmed, that the Spirit was the creature of the Son. The Bp. of Agen wrote an expostulatory letter to Father Gabriel, who had roundly asserted, that Mary was the fourth Person in the Godhead.

JURIEU's Accom. B. 3. p. 163, &c. STACKH. Body of Div. p. 183. SALE's Prelim. Discourse, p. 35. PRID. Life of Mahomet. p. 36. LESLIE's Sh. Meth. with De. p. 61, &c.

Page 207. (aa) smatch of this sentiment.] We are told that Diogenes, upon being asked, how he would be buried, answered, in cynical contempt, as it should seem, of this custom of his country, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with my face downwards.

POTTER's Gr. Antiq. V. 2. B. 4. Ch. 6.

Page 227. (bb) reunited to it.] There is no guarding against the impertinence of captiousness, or the prevarications of infidelity. Many questions may be asked upon subjects of this kind, which may perplex our judgments, without disturbing our faith. It will be sufficient to insist, that, even setting aside the authority of Scripture, or granting it to be undecisive, our theory is at least as free from difficulties as that of our opponents.

Page 231. (cc) L's. notion of identity.] In controversy it is neither unusual, nor is it bad policy to cry f—l first. Both Mr. L. and Dr. S. have recourse to something like this artifice, when they apply to believers St. Paul's severe reprimand to such enquirers as should ask, how are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool, the Apostle replies; and proceeds to illustrate the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, through the remaining part of the Chapter, and particularly in the verses some time since quoted. If this plainly appears from the fairest and most natural construction of these passages, we stand clear of the aforesaid mortifying imputation, and may justly return the compliment. And, in fact, we are encouraged to risk our reputation for wisdom on our interpretation, by that sort of half-concession which truth seems to have extorted from Mr. L. himself, when he tells us, that the words—that which thou sowest, &c. might be ‘sufficient to deter us from determining any thing for or against the same body's being raised at the last day.’ For these are not St. Paul's strongest, or most unequivocal expressions.

Page 234. (dd) this body to come.] One would almost imagine Dr. S. had espoused somewhat like the antient heathen notion, that the ‘shades of departed persons retained a kind of subtile vehicle, in all particulars exactly resembling the body of the deceased.’ The notion of such a subtile vehicle, which is not a whit more comprehensible than the Christian theory of the resurrection, is at least so far consonant to the same, as it implies a natural wish of reunion, and a sort of hankering of the soul after its old companion.

GEDDES'S Essay on Compos. p. 212.

Page 234. (ee) or to what.] Dr. S. must have known what has been said by our most eminent Divines upon the subject before us. This Church never produced a sounder Divine, or this nation a closer reasoneer than Dr. Barrow. His sentiments are as clear and determinate as possible on the orthodox side of the question. Could the Inquirer persuade himself that he has confuted them by the consciousness of silence, the affectation of contempt, or the peremptoriness of opposition?

See BARROW's Expos. of the Cr. under the Article of the Resurrec. of the Body. p. 305.

Page 234. (ff) would have them.] The common arguments which are adduced in proof of the identity in question have, I presume, much more weight than some are willing to allow. The effects of chymical operations have been observed to be analogous to the resurrection. It has been remarked that "from the ashes of a plant fairer plants have sprung."

Grotius pursues much the same course of arguments as others, but is unhandsomely deserted by his Editor. For Mr. Le-clerc is for adjusting matters nearly on the same ground, and in the same language with Dr. S. and Mr. L. RESURGERE corpus dici optime potest, cum SIMILE ex terra a Deo formatur, conjungiturque menti. Itaque non opus est ut in nimias angustias nos redigamus dum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 materiae nimis rigide defendimus.

JENKINS's Reas. of Christ. v. 2. p. 447. See BEATTIE on the immutab. of Truth, Ch. 4. p. 86, &c. GRO. de ver. l. 2. c. 10.

Page 243. (gg) believe in him.] Some have erred concerning this matter. Dr. Cudworth supposes Christ's body to have been changed into a spiritual or heavenly body immediately after his resurrection; the subtilty and tenuity of which was shewn by his entering into the place where his disciples were assembled when the DOORS WERE SHUT, &c; ‘however its glory were for the time suspended, partly for the better convincing them of the truth of his resurrection, and partly because they were not then able to bear the splendor of it.’

But there are many reasons why we should not humour this child of a fruitful imagination. When our Lord, after his conversation, &c, with the two disciples at Emmaus, vanished out of their sight, had he not that body with which he was crucified? Had he not that body when he shewed his disciples his hands and his feet; when he called upon them to handle him, &c, and assured them that it was he himself who addressed them? The truth is, he could appear or disappear at pleasure, by virtue of his divine power; and therefore it was by no means necessary he should be invested with a spiritual or heavenly body for that purpose. The resurrection of that body which was crucified, which rose from the dead, and with which Jesus Christ conversed upon earth forty days, is the proper pledge and earnest of our resurrection; his glorious body, strictly so called, being probably assumed at his Ascension.

St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, expresses himself very emphatically upon this subject. In his note on the passage I allude to, the learned Vossius says as follows. Resurrectionem Christi vocat (Ignatius) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia nobis haec data commune resurrectionis futurae signum. The Most Rev. Translator, I observe by the way, renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the word token, which I need not inform the critical reader is not fully adequate to the original: the Greek term denoting a token, or sign given in consequence of an agreement between party and party. Our Saviour had pledged himself, both to his disciples, and to the Jews, to rise again; and by so doing at once fulfilled his engagements, and gave ample security for the general resurrection.

From that passage in St. Paul's 2d. Epist. to the Cor. Ch. 5. which speaks of our being clothed upon with our house which is from heaven, &c, some have inferred, says Dr. Cudworth, that ‘bodies come not out of graves:’ but as this matter is cleared by commentators, and Dr. S. lays no stress on the place, I shall waste no time upon it.

JENKINS's Reason. of Christian. v 2. p. 447, &c. GROT. de Verit. l. 2. c. 10. IGNA. to the Smyrn. Sect. 1. See VOSSIUS's note p. 257. CUDWORTH's Intell. Sys. ch. 5. p. 796, 799. See WHITBY's Note at John 20. v. 19.

Page 244. (hh) in the flesh.] This passage in St. Clement is not to be over strictly, or literally understood. The Apostle expressly declares, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. That body which shall be raised up at the last day, that material substance which, when re-united to the soul, will constitute the identical person who died, and was buried, shall be changed, shall even be fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ, previously, as it should seem, to its appearance before his judgment-seat. For we shall all be changed in a moment &c, at the last trump, when the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and this mortal shall put on immortality.

It has been observed by many, that the good fathers from whom passages are extracted on this subject, together with St. Paul before them, in his 15th. Chap. of the 1st. Epis. to the Cor., speak only of the resurrection of the just: but it is at the same time to be noted, that, with respect to this principle of incorruption, the change in the general resurrection will undoubtedly be the same both of the just and the unjust.

Weak reasoning, like a weapon which falls short of its aim, will be returned upon us by our adversary. St. Chrysostom's argument, and that of some other fathers, and of many modern Divines, for the resurrection of the same body, drawn from the supposed absurdity of one body's sinning and another's suffering, is obviously a futile one, and may be rendered serviceable to the interest of the enemy. The body undergoes a great variety of changes in the course of life; and, it might be asked, would not every imaginable purpose of retribution be fully answered by a future state of happiness, or misery, to soul and body, whencesoever that body might be supposed to come? Ut justum est, says Wollebius, ut quaedam peccata post hanc vitam puniantur; ita est quoque, ut quod socium fuit peccatorum sit quoque poenarum.

Compend. Chris. Theol. p. 193.

Page 251. (ii) he once had.] ‘How far, says Dr. S., they (Athenag. &c.) succeeded is not the point at present; they might have shewn that the resurrection of the flesh is no where taught in Scripture.’ But what if this was left to be shewn by Dr. Sykes? What, if their design was to prove the resurrection of the flesh to be a Scripture doctrine, and that upon rational grounds? I venture to think this is put out of doubt by what has been submitted to the reader; though luckily Dr. S. himself will help us out if we have any how failed in our argumentation upon this subject. For in his account of Tertullian's third form, or rule of faith, in his book De Praescriptione Haereticorum, the Dr. thus expresses himself. ‘Nor is his third Form or Rule, &c, any Creed of any Church, but only a summary of the doctrines of the Gospel.’ This father then intended his Form or Rule, as a summary of Christian doctrine, even according to Dr. S's account of the matter; and in it, as it is quoted by himself, we have mention in plain terms of the resurrection of the flesh. The words of Tertullian are these: that Christ shall come in glory to judge the world, facta utriusque partis resuscitatione, cum carnis restitutione. [*]

Page 254. (kk) the first time.] Notwithstanding the explicitness of these passages, Mahomet's theory of the resurrection is sometimes not a little whimsical, according to what we learn from Mr. Sale of it. He acquaints us, that this false prophet supposed the whole human body would be corrupted, except the rump-bone, which is first formed, (the os coccygis, as he terms it;) and that this is to be a sort of seed from whence the whole will be renewed at the last day, after a rain of forty days, (viz. a great dew, according to the Jews, from whom Mahomet took this hint,) which will impregnate the earth, and "cause the bodies to sprout like plants." The Jews, it seems, call this bone Luz. Cudworth appears to have an eye to this particular in his 5th Chapter. p. 799.

SALE's Prelim. Disc. p. 81.

Page 254. (ll) been discussing.] The story which Mahomet introduces into the second book of the Koran of the miracle God was pleased to work, for the confirmation of Abraham's faith in the article before us, is extraordinary indeed, and well worth transcribing. God said to Abraham, take four birds, cut them in pieces, and disperse them in four different mountains; and then call them, and you shall see all those four birds will immediately come to you. This story is told by Mahometan writers still more circumstantially. ‘These four birds, they say, were a pigeon, a cock, a crow, and a peacock; and that when Abraham had cut them in pieces, he made a perfect anatomy of them, and minced them all together. Some add, that he pounded them in a mortar, and reduced them all to one mass, which he divided into four parts, and carried them to the top of four several mountains; and that then, holding up their heads, which he retained in his hands, he called them severally by their names; and that each came accordingly for his head, and flew away with it.’ [*]

It is certain Mahomet refined much upon the history of Moses in general; and my author observes, that probably this wild story has its foundation in God's command to Abraham to offer a sacrifice of a turtle-dove, and a pigeon, among other animals, as we read in the 15th Chapter of Gen. v. 9. et seq.

Page 257. (mm) in competent authority.] The sense of the Apostolical and primitive Church may be collected from the Form of the first Baptismal Creed, which ran in the following terms, I believe in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. [†]That this Creed, which implicitly declares the Three Persons to be One God, was simply the Confession used in the earliest times, is the opinion of many learned men, and particularly of Episcopius, (the most eminent of the Remonstrants in Holland,) who, as Dr. Waterland observes, was not aware of its destructive consequence to his own Hypothesis, viz. ‘that the divine eternal generation of the Son was not inserted in the Creeds from the beginning.’ The words of Episcopius, as quoted by Bp. Bull, are these. Antiquissimum (symbolum), quodque in prima Baptismi administratione jam inde ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus usitabatur, hoc erat; CREDO IN DEUM PATREM, FILIUM, ET SPIRITUM SANCTUM: nempe ad praescriptam ab ipso Jesu formulam. On which occasion the learned prelate makes the following observations. Perspicuum est in hac formula vocem DEUM 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad omnes Tres, nempe Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum referri. Quod Graeci adhuc clarius exprimunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ita sane hanc brevem Confessionem veteres intellexere. Hinc Tertullianus (adv. Prax. c. xiii.) communem Christianorum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto Fidem exponens, ait, et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unusquisque. Mihi sane videtur in his paucis verbis, Credo in Deum, &c, magnam illam veritatem, nempe Filium et Spiritum Sanctum UNUM esse cum Patre Deum, aliquatenus clarius exprimi quam in fusioribus quibusdam symbolis quae subsecuta sunt. Nam per additamenta illa post verba Credo in Deum Patrem, &c, et adjectiones post mentionem Filii, non repetita voce DEUM in articulis de Filio et Spiritu Sancto, videri potuit, et nonnullis visa est DEI appellatio ad solum Patrem pertinere; plane contra mentem ac sententiam eorum qui latiora illa symbola condididerunt.

BULL's Judic. Eccles. Cath. Chap. 4. p. 308, 309. WALL's Hist. of Inf. Bap. Part 2. Ch. 9. p. 491. BINGHAM's Antiq. B. 2. WATERLAND's Import. of the Doc. of the Trin. Ch. 6. p. 223. and Serm. 8. RANDOLPH's Vindica. Part 2. p. 81.

Page 258. (nn) no religion at all.] As nothing differs more than judgment, so by consequence nothing multiplies more than error. The number of heresies and heretics, according to Prateolus, was in his time no less than 520, as Bp. Taylor informs us, in his discourse on the Liberty of Prophesying. But he takes no small pains at the same time to lessen their number, and extenuate their malignity; and, it must be granted, not without success. It concerns not me to enter into particulars, or to examine the grounds of this learned prelate's moderation. The list of heretics, including those of a modern date, as it is given us by A. Ross, in his View of all the Religions in the World, is almost as numerous as the abovementioned. The very names of the greatest part of them must be to the generality of readers unknown. He gives us an account of the Secundians, Ptolomaeans, Colarbasii, Heracleonites, Ophites, Cainites, Cataphrygians, Theodocians, Semiarians, Aquarii, Floriani, Aeternales, Luciferians, Humiliarii, Cruciferi, Hospitalarii, Bethlemites, &c, &c, &c. [*]

Of a few of the old heresies, which were to a remarkable degree extravagant, it may not be amiss to mention the tenets. Irenaeus in cap. 28. l. 2. adv. Haere. censures such heretics, quicunque inerrabilem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 generationem enarrare ausi sint ex trivio petitis comparationibus, dicentes scilicet, VERBUM DEI ex Patre generari, ad instar VERBI HOMINIS per linguam prolati; which are Bp. Bull's words.

The Valentinians taught, that Christ's body was in a manner purely spiritual, and passed through the Virgin as through a pipe, or conduit.

The Cainites worshipped Cain as the author of much good to mankind; as also Esau, Corah, Dathan, &c, &c; and Judas, asserting that he foreknew what happiness should accrue to mankind by Christ's death, and therefore betrayed him.

It was the doctrine of Apelles, that there was but one chief God, to whom was subordinate a fiery God, who appeared to Moses in the bush, who made the world, gave the law, and was the God of Israel. He gave to Christ a body compacted of the starry and elementary substance, which appeared in the shape only of man. This body, when he ascended, he left behind him, every part thereof returning to their former principles: Christ's spirit only being in heaven. This heretic lived, says A. Ross, about 150 years after Christ, in the reign of the Emperor Commodus.

We have already exhibited to the reader many strange Pagan notions relative to the nature, &c, of the Deity; but perhaps the most extraordinary, the most eccentric of them all, has not yet been remembered. It is not properly a heresy indeed, but it is an error which may fitly occupy this place. The heathen mystical theologists often call God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—male and female, signifying thereby, though grossly, yet not unemphatically, the creative power of the Supreme Being. Dr. Cudworth cites a passage from a hymn of Synesius, (whom he calls a learned and pious Bishop,) wherein the Almighty is addressed under expressions precisely equivalent:—

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Agreeably hereunto, Varro quotes from Soranus, an eminent poet, (according to our author,) the verses following:

Jupiter omnipotens, regum rex ipse Deûmque.

Progenitor genitrixque Deûm; Deus unus et omnis.

Methinks this sentiment becomes the heathen theologist, or poet, much better than the Christian Divine.

Far from meaning to rank a late very eminent writer, Dr. I. Watts, in the number of notorious heretics, or in the least to detract from the excellence of his character, I think myself bound in duty to my subject to take notice here of the singularity of his sentiments.
His idea of the Divinity of Christ was, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the FATHER, was united to the man Christ Jesus, in consequence of which union, or indwelling of the Godhead, he became properly God. [*]He conceived this union to have subsisted before the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth, &c.

In these sentiments there is not so much as a reference to the Holy Ghost. But we are not to consider them as final. We shall find the Dr. to have had more enlarged notions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

In his SOLEMN ADDRESS TO THE GREAT AND EVER-BLESSED GOD, on a review of what he had written in the Trinitarian Controversy, he puts the following questions with all that humble reverence, (his own words,) and that holy awe WHICH becomes a creature in the presence of his God.

‘Hast thou not, O Lord God Almighty, hast thou not transacted thy divine and important affairs among men by thy Son Jesus Christ, and by thy holy Spirit? And hast thou not ordained that men should transact their highest and most momentous concerns with thee, by thy Son, and and by thy Spirit? Hast thou not, by the mouth of thy Son Jesus, required all that profess his religion to be washed with water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Is it not my duty then to enquire, who or what are these sacred names,’ and what they signify?

‘Hast thou not ascribed divine names, and titles, and characters to thy Son and thy holy Spirit in thy word, as well as assumed them to thyself? And hast thou not appointed to them such glorious offices as cannot be executed without something of divinity or true Godhead in them? And yet art not thou, and thou alone the true God? How shall a poor weak creature be able to adjust and reconcile these clashing ideas, and to understand this mystery? Or must I believe and act blindfold,’ without understanding?

‘Holy Father, (he proceeds,) thou knowest, how firmly I believe with all my soul, whatsoever thou hast plainly written and revealed in thy word. I believe Thee to be the only true God, the supreme of beings, self-sufficient for thine own existence, and for all thy infinite affairs and transactions among creatures. I believe thy only Son Jesus Christ to be all-sufficient for the glorious work of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God; he is God manifested in the flesh; and that the man Jesus is so closely and inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one person, even as the soul and body make one man.’

‘I believe also thy blessed Spirit hath almighty power and influence to do all thy will, to instruct men effectually in divine truths, &c. I yield up myself joyfully and thankfully to this method of thy salvation, as it is revealed in thy gospel. But I acknowlege my darkness still. I want to have this wonderful doctrine of the all-sufficience of thy Son and Spirit for these divine works made a little plainer.’

‘Hadst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any place of thy word, that this divine doctrine is not to be understood by men, and yet they were required to believe it, I would have subdued all my curiosity to faith, &c. But I cannot find thou hast any where forbid me to understand it, or to make these enquiries. My conscience is the best natural light thou hast put within me, and since thou hast given me the Scriptures, my own conscience bids me search the Scriptures to find out truth, &c. I have, therefore, been long searching into this divine doctrine, that I may pay thee due honour with understanding. Surely I ought to know the God whom I worship, whether he be one pure and simple being, or whether thou art a threefold deity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’

‘Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been pleased, in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me which of the different opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy, my unbiassed heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace the discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real distinct persons in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine doctrine; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience might with ease find out, and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference,’ and ingrafted it into my soul.

‘Thou hast called the poor and the ignorant, the mean and foolish things of this world, to the knowlege of thyself and thy Son, and taught them to receive and partake of the Salvation which thou hast provided. But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this; in the explication and defence whereof, multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the old Testament and the new, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings?’

‘O thou searcher of hearts who knowest all things, I appeal to thee concerning the sincerity of my enquiries into these discoveries of thy word.’

‘I humbly call thee to witness, O my God, what a holy jealousy I ever wear about my heart, lest I should do the slightest dishonour to thy supreme Majesty in any of my enquiries or determinations. Thou seest what a religious fear, and what a tender solicitude I maintain on my soul, lest I should think or speak any thing to diminish the grandeurs and honours of thy Son Jesus, my dear Mediator, &c. Thou knowest how much I am afraid of speaking one word which may be construed into a neglect of thy blessed Spirit, from whom I hope I am daily receiving happy influences of light and strength. Guard all the motions of my mind, O Almighty God, against every thing that borders upon these dangers. Forbid my thoughts to indulge, and forbid my pen to write one word, that should sink those grand ideas which belong to thyself, or thy Son, or thy Holy Spirit. Forbid it, O my God, that ever I should be so unhappy as to unglorify my Father, my Saviour, or my Sanctifier, in any of my sentiments or expressions concerning them.’

‘Blessed and faithful God, hast thou not promised that the meek thou wilt guide in judgment, the meek thou wilt teach thy way? Hath not thy Son, our Saviour, assured us, that our heavenly Father will give his holy Spirit to them who ask him? And is he not appointed to guide us into all truth? Have I not sought the gracious guidance of thy good Spirit continually? Am I not truly sensible of my own darkness and weakness, my dangerous prejudices on every side, and my utter insufficiency for my own conduct? Wilt thou leave such a poor creature bewildered among a thousand perplexities, which are raised by the various opinions and contrivances of men to explain thy divine truth?’

Help me, heavenly Father, for I am quite tired and weary of these human explainings so various and uncertain. When wilt thou explain it to me thyself, O my God, by the secret and certain dictates of thy Spirit, according to the intimations of thy word?

Now, for truth's sake, I desire to ask any intelligent, impartial, and candid reader, whether we have not in these passages strong indications of a wavering, though pious mind? Whether such language as this does not rather tend to encourage specious scepticism, than sound faith? Whether it is not chargeable with inconsistency between reverence and remonstrance, between declarations of acquiescence and expostulations of discontent? Whether, according to Dr. W—'s ideas, all ecclesiastical authority is not as such altogether odious, or contemptible; and whether, for what appears to the contrary from these periods, Christianity might not flourish without the existence of Church, pastor, or teacher? Whether we have not in this illustrious Dissenter an extraordinary instance of the compatibility of radical and invincible prejudice with an honest and good heart, and a solid understanding? Whether Dr. W. had any thing like sufficient grounds for his suspicion that the orthodox received doctrines are resolvible into mere ‘explainings, inventions, or contrivances of men?’ Whether he does not appear to be unreasonably, though sincerely anxious to understand all mysteries, while at the same time he could not but know, that the capital doctrines of the Gospel are delivered AS mysterious, and that Christians are supposed and required to walk by faith, and not by sight? Whether he does not most erroneously convert a particular promise into a general one; not recollecting that, though, for obvious and very important purposes, our heavenly Father will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him, yet that Spirit was by no means ‘appointed’ to guide every individual Christian into all spiritual truth? Whether, had we been told "plainly;" in so many words, ‘in any single text, that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit are three real and distinct persons in the divine nature,’ it had been possible for D. W. to have misunderstood it; or whether he, or any body else, could have been "bewildered in any doubts," with respect to this doctrine? Whether such a "discovery" of it would not have been received every where with "unbiassed hearts," and with universal ‘zeal, safaction and joy,’ a few instances perhaps of obduracy, &c, excepted? Whether, had it been ‘so expressed and included in the several scattered parts’ of Scripture, that the Doctor's ‘reason and conscience could with ease have found it out, and with certainty inferred it,’ there would have been the least occasion for the "skill and activity of his rational powers?" Whether, after all, the doctrine in question be not expressed, or included in the sacred pages sufficiently to warrant any man's firm assent to it; especially when we take into the account the whole weight of that evidence by which we prove its correspondency with the sense of antiquity, and the belief of the primitive Church? Whether the wisest and the weakest are not equally incapable of "taking in so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine" as that of the Trinity? Whether the Christian doctrine concerning things spiritual and mysterious is really "represented," either in the Old Testament or the New, as ‘plain and easy even to the meanest understanding?’ Whether, granting that ‘multitudes even of men of learning and piety have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, &c, in the explication and defence’ of the doctrine before us, all this should not be principally attributed to antitrinitarian artifice, and to a gradual departure from that simplicity in which it was originally taught and received in the world? Whether, if this ‘perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God’ be a part of Christian doctrine, it is not prima facie the most "necessary and the most important?" Finally, whether the doctrine of the Trinity, as held in the Church, has not at least as much countenance from Scripture, and even from reason, as Dr. W—'s notion of the indwelling of the Deity in the Man Christ Jesus; and whether this is not in effect acknowleged by himself?

As to the notion itself, it is, I trust, to all intents and purposes refuted in the foregoing pages; and I shall content myself with expressing my astonishment at the force of prejudice in one who so strongly recommends, or more properly inculcates an "indifference for every thing but truth," [*]and censures so severely all domestic, national, or party attachments. For with all his gentleness, benevolence, charity, and love of truth, Dr. W. appears to me to have been biassed by more than ordinary prepossessions. He who has expressed himself in the manner we have seen; he who has occasionally declared, that he ‘allowed the greatest distinction possible between the sacred three in the divine nature, which does not arise to three distinct conscious minds or spirits;" and that he was fully "established in the belief of the Deity of the blessed Three, though he knew not the manner of explication, ’ must, to my apprehension, be considered as protesting against the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons, chiefly because it was an established one; because it was the doctrine of the Church.

I have dwelt the longer on this case as it is uncommon; as it is the case of a great and good man, whom (to borrow Dr. Johnson's words) ‘every Christian Church would rejoice to have adopted.’

Dr. WATT's last Sentiments on the Trinity. p. 62. Solemn Address. p. 101, &c. See JOHNSON's Life of Dr. WATTS with notes, &c. CUDWORTH's Intell. Syst. Ch. 4. p. 304. A. ROSS's View of all Religions. Sect. 7.

P. 260. (oo) to judge for ourselves.] It abundantly appears by a considerable number of extracts made by Bp. Jewel from many fathers and doctors of the Church of Rome, that antiently in that communion the Holy Scriptures were not barely indulged, but recommended to every hand. By what means the Romanists have since qualified the sense of these passages, or reconciled the same with principles of a later date, I have no occasion to inquire. But in one of them there is a singularity which, I believe, will pay any man for his trouble in the reading. It is to be found in Theodoret; and is translated by the great prelate as follows. ‘Ye may commonly see, that our doctrine is known, not only of them that are the doctors of the Church, and the masters of the people, but also even of the tailors, and smiths, and weavers, and of all artificers: yea, and farther also of women; and that not only of them that be learned, but also of labouring women, and sempsters, and servants, and handmaids. Neither only the citizens, but also the country-folks do very well understand the same. Ye may find, yea, even the very ditchers, and delvers, and cow-herds, and gardiners disputing of the HOLY-TRINITY, and of the CREATION OF ALL THINGS.’

The same passage is referred to by Dr. POTTER in his Answer to Charity Mistaken. p. 205.

JEWEL's Defence, &c. part. 5. p. 507.

Page 262. (pp) mistaken in that judgment.] An eminent and learned writer of the last century, whom I have quoted before, observes, (and the observation has been also cited,) that ‘heresy is not an error of the understanding, but of the will;’ and to this doctrine, properly stated, we can readily subscribe. But in the excess of his moderation, this Right Rev. author sometimes questions, in effect at least, the authority, not only of all ecclesiastical traditions, and councils, but of the Scripture itself; giving us sentiments wholly incongruous with every idea of faith, system, or establishment. Witness those contained in the following extract, which, to my imagination, nothing but the zeal of adherency to a favourite principle could have drawn from the pen of so able a writer, and so professed a casuist.

Since, says he, holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths, and the great rule of faith, to which all sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions, and since all agree in the articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down, and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity; and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries, and matters of question upon which there is a vail; since there are so many copies with infinite varieties of reading; since a various interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an accent may much alter the sense; since some places have divers literal senses, many have spiritual, mystical, and allegorical meanings; since there are so many tropes, metonymies, ironies, hyperboles, proprieties and improprieties of language, whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation, now that the knowlege of such circumstances and particular stories is irrecoverably lost; since there are some mysteries which, at the best advantage of expression, are not easy to be apprehended, and whose explication, by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligible; and lastly, since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture, as searching the originals, conference of places, parity of reason, and analogy of faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and very fallible, he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very far from confidence, because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty, all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries, and amidst so many difficulties. And therefore a wise man that considers this, would not willingly be prescribed to by others; and therefore if he also be a just man, he will not impose upon others; for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him, unless he could secure him from error. So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of prophesying, and interpreting Scripture; a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in questions controverted, and the uncertainty of any internal medium of interpretation.

Now if this be the case, we are but mocked, when we are told the Scriptures are the "repository of divine truths;" or that any articles of faith can be "clearly and plainly set down" in any Creed whatsoever. Under the above circumstances, in what formulary, or system, shall we look for ‘all that which is of simple and prime necessity?’ Is it not strange too, that there should be many other mysteries in Scripture distinct from those divine truths of which it is the repository; and stranger still, that matters of question should be put under a vail? Upon all matters of faith there is indeed a vail; I mean, upon all mysterious matters, which cannot possibly be "apprehended at the best advantage of expression." The explication of these is absolutely impracticable; and every attempt for that purpose, ‘by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligible.’ Perhaps he will bid as fair as any man to be an expounder of mysteries who shall disentangle the several clauses of this paragraph. I know not whether any thing can be found surpassing this, either in the style, or in the spirit of present moderation. [*]

The truth of the matter is, that very sensible and very good men, are apt to run into inconsistencies upon this subject. ‘It is very meet, says Dr. Potter in his answer to Char. Mistaken, that the ignorant people should obey their overseers in the Lord, and submit themselves to the ministry and direction of the Church in many profound doctrines above their reach. But it behoves them, (says he, in the immediately following sentence,) to have a distinct and comfortable knowlege of the essential points of faith; and not securely to rest in a babish simplicity, but (so far as God hath enabled them) to be led on to perfection. To which purpose they are commanded to search the Scriptures, that they may grow and increase in knowlege, &c, and that they may be able both to believe with the heart, and confess with their mouth, and render a reason of that hope that is in them.’

Bp. TAYLOR's Disc. on the Lib. of Pro. Sect. 2. No. 6. Char. Mistaken answered. Sect. 6. p. 203.

Page 270. (qq) freedom of sentiment.] The humour of raising doubts and disputes, opposing establishments, and disdaining to think or act in the common way is, as Bp. Gibson observes, well expressed by one of the advocates for infidelity, in words to the following effect; that if the opinions of a certain friend of his were established to day, he would oppose them to morrow. This, the Bp. informs us, is reported to have been said by a person (I suppose) of some consequence, whose name he mentions not.

Bp. GIBSON's Past. Let. p. 7, 8.

Page 271. (rr) spiritual Constitution.] The author of a work published some years since under the title of Free Thoughts on the subject of a farther Reformation, speaks of our Reformers in the following terms. ‘One no small disadvantage which they unhappily laboured under, and which from their time to this has been matter of just regret to true friends of Divine Revelation, was their defect of knowlege in sacred matters, above all in the true sense of Scripture, &c. If (says he in another place) we would form our judgments of the abilities of our Reformers to frame for us a system of doctrines which should remain a perpetual standard of belief and profession in the English Church, and by which all our Clergy in all future ages should be summarily concluded, we shall, I suppose, see just reason to wish that they had been more equal than they appear to be, to so weighty an undertaking. Those who are well acquainted with their writings will see, in a variety of instances, evident marks of their insufficiency for such a task; and be fully convinced of the truth of that observation of a learned and worthy Doctor of our Church, that they were but bad interpreters of the Scriptures.’

In support of all this derogation, which is obligingly qualified with a few introductory commonplace compliments, our author has given us a number of extracts, relative to certain religious topics, from Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Catechism, published in 1543, and dedicated to King Edward VI. We may see, it seems, from these extracts, how greatly disproportioned the abilities of this famous Prelate and his colleagues were to the work of Reformation, &c. To what conclusions this will lead, I need not inform the reader. But I take leave to offer a remark or two upon the occasion. In the first place, if the intellectual weakness of our Reformers was really so great as is here represented, Protestants to a man have reason enough to be ashamed of themselves. What answer shall they make to any sensible Roman-Catholic who should teaze them with these mortifying truths? To my thinking, as none of the exceptionable contents of the passages cited from the Arch-Bishop's Catechism make a part of the doctrine of our Church, they might, in reverence to his memory, and for her credit, have much better been suppressed. Had this Gentleman contented himself with observing, that the Reformers of the Church were fallible men; and consequently, that the Forms and Offices they have delivered down to us may be capable, in some instances, of alteration and improvement, he had spoken more agreeably to truth, though less adequately to his purpose. For what he has alledged has a plain tendency to shew the necessity rather of pulling down than repairing our spiritual building. On the whole, as he has conducted matters, I know not any one person upon earth under so many obligations to him as the Pope of Rome.

I shall take this opportunity to animadvert on certain dirty aspersions in a late performance from the hand of a rigid non-conformist, and perhaps an avowed unbeliever, and perhaps both.

The anonymous editor of Dr. Johnson's Life of Dr. I. Watts with Notes, sacrifices to the virulence of his diposition every regard to decency, charity, and truth. It will be proper to trace this calumny to it's source. ‘Happy, says the celebrated Biographer, will be that reader (viz. of the works of Dr. W.) whose mind is disposed by his verses or his prose, to imitate him in all but his Non-conformity, to copy his benevolence to man, and his reverence to God.’ Is there any thing in this to put a man of candour, or a man of sense out of humour? Yet our Editor asks, ‘is not this exception, and even the mention of this circumstance, a striking proof of Dr. Johnson's bigotted attachment to the national established mode of worship?’ It is really no proof at all. How far Dr. J. was in fact a bigot to establishments, I undertake not to determine; but the period just quoted by no means proves him to have been so. The most moderate Churchman breathing has not the better opinion of Dr. W. for his Non-conformity. I cannot think such an one could have "mentioned this circumstance" more tenderly, had he mentioned it at all; and with what propriety Dr. W—'s Biographer could have left it unmentioned, I must leave it to this Gentleman to explain to us. ‘Reverence to God, he proceeds, and benevolence to man, are the two grand essentials of religion. He that possesses these is a true Christian, whatever be the external mode of worship which he adopts. Neither his Conformity nor his Nonconformity will exclude him from the divine favour, nor ought it to be matter of censure to his fellow-creatures. If a man in uniting with any Christian community, appears to follow the dictates of his own conscience, &c, he deserves the esteem of all parties, and to object to his peculiarity of religious profession is the mark of a little mind.’

Now this is partly true, partly false, but, you see, as far as Dr. Johnson is concerned, wholly impertinent. There is as little as possible of censure, or of objection in the sentence above quoted from him. As to sincerity of persuasion, no body denies the validity of it's pretensions; but at the same time what will make an honest man will by no means constitute a "true Christian." ‘Reverence to God and benevolence to man are indeed the two grand essentials of all religion;’ and, to borrow our author's term, they MAY be possest by Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics.

"That Dr. W. was conscientious in his Non-conformity," will be readily admitted; but surely this will not justify the unfairness, or the duplicity, or the malignity, or the falshood of the following paragraph. ‘Considering what the terms of ministerial conformity are, says our annotator, it may be justly questioned, whether if all the clergy were equally conscientious, one half of them would not be Dissenters. To declare an assent and consent to ALL and EVERY THING contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, the book of Common Prayer, &c, (which comprehend such a prodigious number of particulars; many of them very disputable, some of them unintelligible, and others exploded by the wisest and best of men;) is such a requisition as it is hard to be conceived the generality of the clergy can bona fide approve. It is indeed WELL KNOWN that MOST of them, and even of the BISHOPS themselves, disbelieve some of the doctrinal articles of the Church, as appears from the general strain of their preaching and of their writings, and that they profess to subscribe them only as articles of peace. If the terms of conformity were a declaration that they did not believe "all and every thing, &c," it is undeniable that many (not to say the most) of those that conform might very conscientiously make it. Whether therefore their subscription to the present terms be consistent with simplicity and godly sincerity, it behoves them seriously to enquire. If others think that such a subscription would, in them, be a gross prevarication, and rather than be chargeable with it, willingly forego the advantages of being in the Church, they ought at least to be respected as honest men. And if Dr. Johnson had studied the grounds of Non-conformity (which he appears not to have done) he might have entertained a better opinion of the understandings of Protestant Dissenters as well as their integrity. But this is not the place for entering into that controversy.’

If these representations are just, and these assertions true, the controversy is absolutely decided with a vengeance; and the bulk of the clergy of of the Church of England are as great a set of sc—ndr—ls as can be produced in the annals of the human race. I shall not waste a moment in vindicating them from imputations so palpably scandalous; but content myself with declaring my firm belief, that Dr Johnson would not ‘have entertained a better opinion either of the understandings or integrity of Protestant Dissenters’ from these samples of BOTH; and that were Dr. W. restored to life, he would, for visible reasons, think himself under much greater obligations to the Biographer than to the Annotator.

In short, we are not to wonder at any thing which is advanced by one who maintains, as this writer does in another page of this very performance, that ‘in the Scripture-plan no traces of a national Church, or ecclesiastical authority, are to be found.’

It may be pertinent to remark farther, that exceedingly mad as the Puritans and their friends in the last century were against the governors of the Church, and our whole ecclesiastical polity, THEY appear to have been more than ordinarily solicitous to express their full assent and consent to the most material articles of our faith. Their quarrel was not against our doctrine but our discipline. I have by me a just and literal translation of the Confession of Faith, together with two Catechisms, a larger and a less, drawn up by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, in 1651, under the authority, and with the concurrence and approbation of Parliament, (so called,) and of the Kirk of Scotland. The 3d clause in the ch. de Deo et Sacro-sancta Trinitate runs verbatim as follows. ‘In Deitatis unitate personae tres sunt unius ejusdemque essentiae, potentiae, ac aeternitatis; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanctus. Pater quidem a nullo est, nec genitus nempe nec procedens: Filius autem a Patre est aeterne genitus: Spiritus autem Sanctus aeterne procedens a Patre Filioque.’ In the 23d ch. de statu hominum post mortem, deque resurrectione mortuorum, we find this clause: ‘Novissimo illo die, qui comperientur in vivis non morientur quidem sed mutabuntur; qui mortui fuerint resuscitabuntur omnes, ipsissimis iis corporibus quibus viventes aliquando fungebantur, ac non aliis, ut ut qualitate differentibus; quae denuo animabus quaeque suis aeterno conjugio unientur.’

These doctrines are held out almost in the same words in both Catechisms.

From which circumstances I take occasion to ask, whether, as far as we may reasonably collect from the style and the sentiments of the Editor of Dr. Johnson's Life of Dr. I. Watts with Notes, the views and the dispositions of the Protestant Dissenters of this age have not a tendency more inimical and destructive, than were those of these same Ancestors of theirs who "triumphed in the ruin" both of Church and State?

But is there not after all an inveterate difficulty, which we have rather met than encountered, and much less overcome, and which furnishes Popery with its shrewdest argument, and Infidelity with its strongest handle? The protestant principle asserts the right of private judgment in matters of religion. And yet precepts relative to obedience to spiritual authority, &c, are as plain as those directions which require us to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good, &c. How shall we reconcile these things? In consequence of the exertion of this personal right, differences arise in the world, and controversies, the natural issue of them. How are these to be decided? Is it not a solecism in religion to suppose a controversy without a judge? Nevertheless we say, and demonstrate too, that the Church of Rome, the only Church which pretends to infallibility, has erred, and that even in fundamentals. Accordingly we refer to no arbitration; we acknowlege no rule of faith, no judge of controversy but Holy Scripture. Supremus judex (say the Westminster Divines abovementioned) a quo omnes de religione controversiae sunt determinandae, omnia conciliorum decreta, opiniones, &c, nullus alius esse potest praeter Spiritum Sanctum in Scriptura pronunciantem. [†]

But are not these vain words? Doth any man, or any body of men pretend to the gift of discerning of Spirits at this day? Or if they do, are their pretensions admissible? Or can Scripture, with any propriety, be said to be the judge of controversy, when it is the whole and sole ground of it? Do not all parties find means to wrench the authority of the sacred pages to their side? Every Anti-trinitarian will say, in the words of Chillingworth, (whatever the real sentiments of the latter might be,) ‘Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I believe or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no Demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true.’ [‡]But then to the proofs you have to offer, and the texts you have to produce, he opposes his texts, and his proofs, such as they are; or perhaps one general assertion, which no body can deny, viz. that there is but "one living and true God." Where now is the judge of controversy? What is become of ecclesiastical authority? Or what have we to say to those who cast it in our teeth, that the Church of England hath erred as well as the Church of Rome? In short, where is heresy? And what is schism?

With a view to the solution of this difficulty, and by way of Supplement to the contents of the foregoing sheets, let us see whether a little enquiry will not enable us sufficiently to ascertain what heresy of the worst sort was in the days of the Apostles themselves, and according to the conception they must by fair construction be understood to have entertained of it.

In his 2d general Epistle St. Peter foretells that there would be false teachers among Christians, who should privily bring in damnable heresies, EVEN denying the Lord that bought them. (ch. 2. v. 1.) From which passage we can do no less than infer, that the denial of the Lord that bought us is of all heresies the most damnable.

Now whether we do, or do not abide by Dr. Whitby's interpretation, who apprehends we are to understand God the Father by the word Lord in this passage, ‘Christ being never styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the original word) in the New Testament,’ the inference will inevitably be one and the same. Jesus Christ was confessedly the purchaser of the Church with his own blood. In point of nature, or attribute, there can therefore be no difference betwixt these two Persons; the heresy which denies either will be equally damnable, according to Dr. W's sentiment. But if we reject it, the Divinity of our Saviour is not less implied in the text before us. For in most evident allusion to this very purchase, Ye are bought with a price, says St. Paul to the Corinthians; therefore, continues he, glorify God, i. e., out of all question, Jesus Christ who bought you, in your body and in your Spirit, which are God's; i. e., which are Christ's. (1 Cor. 6. 20.) It may be a satisfaction to the reader to compare this passage with the following in the next Chapter. He that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (v. 22, &c.)

In his last and farewell address to the Children of Israel, which is called his Song, their great Legislator puts this question to them, is not he thy father that hath bought thee? [*]God is said to have bought his people by his deliverance of them from the bondage of Aegypt; which was only a type, but indisputably a type of the eternal redemption obtained for us by the precious blood of Christ. And is it not just to infer the equality of these Divine purchasers from the nature and value of their respective purchases? The denial of the Lord that bought us is therefore in effect the denial of the Divinity of our Saviour.

There is a passage in St. Jude, parallel to this which we have had in consideration, that will not be found consistent with it, or with its context, without supposing the same equality. This Apostle complains of certain ungodly men, who denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. They denied our Lord Jesus Christ, as one with the Father, not as in essence distinct from him. I say, the affinity of this passage to the other, and its own context, not barely warrant, but demand this sense. Jude the Servant of Jesus Christ, &c, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved BY Jesus Christ, and called. We are very sufficiently authorised to read by for in, [*]in this passage; and if so, it is most undoubtedly as much the attribute, or property of the Supreme God to preserve, and to call, as it is to sanctify; which indeed is the discriminative office of the Holy Ghost: whose Divinity, by the way, is here plainly asserted by implication. But we are under no necessity of disturbing the present version. In the 3d verse, the Apostle exhorts Christians to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints. That from the beginning some should depart from the faith, or a belief in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God by eternal generation, on principles, and for reasons, by which infidels and sceptics are influenced at this day, is by no means matter of astonishment. But supposing the faith of the primitive Christians, the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints, to have been merely a faith in Jesus Christ as a prophet, or as the Messiah, or as a creature of a more or less excellent name, there would, I presume, have been little room for contention about it, or danger of its being denied.

If we take into examination that impious and strange doctrine of which St. John speaks in terms of strong censure and resentment, in his first and second general Epistle, this research will likewise terminate in an unquestionable proof of our Lord's Divinity; and convince us, that in the denial of it the error consisted. Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that Spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard, &c. Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ. (1 John. 4. v. 3. 2 John. v. 7.) Or, as some read these passages, that confess not Jesus Christ which is come in the flesh. The import of these texts will not be in the least affected by this variation. That the man Christ Jesus, the person who was known by the name of Jesus Christ, lived and conversed in the world, did many wonderful works, was contumeliously treated, and at length put to a painful and ignominious death, were facts too recent, and too generally known, to be disputed by any at the time when our Apostle wrote these Epistles. That the Jesus Christ of these Epistles was the very identical person whom the Apostle styles in his Gospel the Son of God, the Word that was in the beginning with God, and really and truly was God, cannot with the least appearance of reason be questioned. But that God was indeed manifest in the flesh, took our nature upon him, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree, this was a saying too hard for the acceptation of those deceivers, false prophets, and anti-christs, as St. John calls them, and whom, at the 6th v. of Chap. 4. he represents as possest with the spirit of error. Accordingly they were weak, and at the same time bold enough to resolve this great truth into mere semblance and deception; and to affirm that the human person of Jesus Christ was a phantom, and lived, and suffered, and died, not really, but in appearance only: which abominably ridiculous notion was, as has been observed, in a great measure adopted afterwards by Mahomet, who was offended at those indignities and sufferings which he considered as altogether unworthy of that prophetic character which he acknowleged Jesus Christ, as his predecessor, to have been vested with. This doctrine is delivered in the Koran in general terms; but the followers of Mahomet differ in their sentiments respecting it. According to some, Jesus Christ was not nailed to the Cross, but a malefactor who in person much resembled him. The person crucified, say others, was ‘a spy that was sent to intrap our Saviour;’ and others assert him to have been Judas; and others, Simon the Cyrenian.

Or if we suppose St. John to have had in his eye another heretical tenet of a similar nature and tendency, which was very early disseminated in the Church, viz. that of the Carpocratians, &c, who made a distinction betwixt Jesus and Christ; and maintained, that the former suffered, and rose again, but that the latter was impassible, as being purely of a spiritual nature; (agreeably to the idea suggested by Webster's translation of Father Simon, which for every Spirit which confesseth not, &c, reads which separateth Jesus;) the result will necessarily be found to be one and the same. For to what can we reasonably attribute the denial of our Lord's humanity, or its separation from the divinity, but to an averseness to acknowlege the union of God and Man in the person of Jesus Christ? And if so, it will naturally follow that this union was the doctrine of the Apostles, and the belief of the primitive Church.

It is well worth observing, that Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, quotes word for word the 3d v. of the 4th Ch. of St. John's first Epistle, Whosoever does not confess &c; and that Ignatius, who conversed with the Apostles, and, upon the death of Evodius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by as many of the sacred College as were then living, not barely mentions, but most expressly censures and condemns this whimsical opinion of the Phantomists, if I may take liberty so to call them. ‘Stop your ears, says he, in his Epistle to the Trallians, as often as any one shall speak contrary to Jesus Christ; who was of the race of David, &c; who was truly born, and did eat and drink; was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was truly crucified, and dead.’ And a little after, if, says he, ‘some who are Atheists, that is to say Infidels, pretend that he only SEEMED to suffer, (they themselves only seeming to exist,) why then am I bound? Why do I desire to fight with beasts?’ In the Epistle of the same Father to the Smyrnaeans, we have the following passage. ‘And he suffered truly, as he also truly raised up himself; and not, as some unbelievers say, that he only SEEMED to suffer.’

Though therefore neither the Apostles, nor the Apostolical Fathers particularly specify what heresy is, it appears by just and natural inference from many passages in their writings originally to have consisted in denying the perfect Godhead, and perfect manhood of our Saviour; and that heresies in general deserve to be considered as so many evasions of these fundamental truths. There is another passage in the Epistle to the Trallians which, simply asserting the Divinity of Jesus Christ, puts this out of all reasonable doubt.
I exhort you, says the venerable Author, or rather not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, that you use none but Christian nourishment; abstaining from pasture which is of another kind, I mean heresy. For [†] they that are heretics confound together the doctrine of Jesus Christ with their own poison, &c. Wherefore guard yourselves against such persons. And that you will do if you are not puffed up, but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our GOD, and from your Bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles.
In short, all these circumstances concur to the establishment of our first Hypothesis. If the Catholic faith of the primitive Christians was the same which is held in the Church of England at this day, at and before the publication of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, as well as the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, their doctrine on the subjects we have been handling is sufficiently uniform and explicit; if otherwise, it is by far too consistent, and too perspicuous.

Agreeably to what has been advanced, we may farther observe the sacred authors frequently referring to some standing doctrines, some capital articles of belief, which had been by them taught, and were by the Church universally received. It will be a hard matter to comprehend the meaning of many passages in the Scriptures, without supposing them to import, or to allude to some such doctrines or principles. The first converts to Christianity are said to have continued stedfastly in the Apostles, doctrine and fellowship; [*]and whatsoever that doctrine might be, it was then no WRITTEN doctrine. St. Paul thanks God, that the Roman converts had obeyed from the heart that FORM OF DOCTRINE which was delivered to them. [†]He exhorts the Thessalonians to stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which they had been taught, whether by word, or by his Epistle; [‡]and recommends it to Timothy, to keep that which was committed to his trust; and to hold fast the FORM of sound words which he had heard of him. [§]He injoins Titus to reject a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition. [**]It will be sufficient to add to this the advice of St. Jude to Christians in general, which just above fell under notice, viz. that they should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.

It was doubtless with an eye to this faith, to the preservation of the same in purity, and to the future peace and prosperity of the Church, that Jesus Christ gave some, Apostles; as St. Paul informs us; and some, Evangelists; and some, Prophets; and some, Pastors and Teachers: [†]nor could the purpose of such appointments have been answered but by a regular succession of some of these characters through all ages.

For the same purpose most unquestionably, God hath set in the Church, helps, and governments, &c, as the same Apostle declares to his Corinthian converts in the 12th Chapter of his first Epistle to them.

Now how all this could be done; or how either Evangelist, Prophet, or Teacher, or Governor could at any time, or in any manner, exercise his function, without invading the right of private judgment, as it has of late days been contended for; or without departing from the simplicity of the Gospel in its original state, I pretend not to have sufficient penetration to discover.

Matters appear then to stand thus.—That Jesus Christ constituted no arbitrator, no infallible judge, or decider of controversy, &c, in his Church, is demonstrable from the differences, the disputes, and dissentions, relative to circumcision, &c, which subsisted in its very infancy. At the same time it is certain the Holy Scriptures speak of a common faith, and of the common salvation. [*]You have seen 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 what grounds we have for our persuasion that such common faith was nothing more or less than a belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the other articles contained in our Creeds. Under this persuasion, the Church of England, as a national Church, as a Church reformed from the gross errors, corruptions, and superstitions of Rome, has not only "power to decree rites, or ceremonies, but authority in controversies of faith;" viz. authority, not to determine, but to declare. Accordingly we do not anathematise, or molest them that renounce our Doctrine, or separate from our Discipline, upon principles avowed by ourselves. We maintain our own rights without encroaching upon the privileges of others. We "discover, condemn, and avoid" what we call and believe to be heresies, without aiming, or wishing to prevent them by coercion. We conceive spiritual government to be as compatible with religious liberty, as temporal jurisdiction is with civil; and that when the Reformers asserted the right of private judgment in matters of religion, the natural right of all men to make use of their own faculties, ‘they could not possibly mean to invest every individual with the privilege of working out his own salvation by his own understanding and endeavours,’ independently on any extraneous assistance, or instruction whatever; and much less to intimate, that he is under an indispensable obligation so to do. Were this the case, the Apostle's question, are all Teachers must be answered in the affirmative; and the necessary consequence would be, that EVERY BODY, and yet NO BODY would be a Teacher. Which is absurd. Neither the justest claim, nor the most reasonable exemption can alter the nature of things. If it be true, that this Church derives her existence from the exertions of human reason, emancipating itself from spiritual slavery; it is as true, that she owes her preservation to decent order, and legal establishment. If it be true, that the bulk of the people naturally wish to act, to think, and to judge for themselves; it is as true, that they naturally take advice or instruction from others, submit to controul, and reverence authority. In short, to whatever causes we are to ascribe that diversity of opinion which distracts the world; how perplexing so ever the present constitution of things may be; or for whatever reasons it has pleased infinite wisdom to place us in a state of trial, infirmity, and imperfection; one general truth must universally be subscribed to; viz. that, with respect both to faith and practice, the Lord knoweth them that are his, [†]and will hereafter acknowlege them accordingly.

P. S. It is needless to tell the sensible reader, that I have not been professedly contending with any of the latitudinarian writers whose works are incidentally quoted, or referred to, in the progress of these Discourses and Annotations. If what has herein been offered be sufficiently solid and satisfactory, they are severally replied to, though not in form, yet in effect.

Notes

*
See Relig. of Protest. p. 335; and end of Preface.
↵

*
See Letters on Infidelity. p. 35.
↵

*
Hume's Dialogues, p. 60.
↵

*
See Johnson's Note at Sect. 4. Book 1.
↵

†
Plato quotes here the famous passage in Homer, where mention is made of Jupiter's two Vessels, the one containing good, and the other evil, &c. See Plato de Repub. b. 2. and Pope's Note at v. 527. of 24th. Book of the Iliad.
↵

*
See Catcott's Serm. 2. p. 33. 3. 48.
↵

*
It is well observed by Mr. Parkhurst, that the first, second, and third persons in the Trinity are merely theological, not scriptural terms. Divin. &c. of Christ. p. 35.
↵

*
See Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy. p. 626.
↵

*
Answer to Char. Mista. Sect. 3. p. 90.
↵

*
See Catcott's Serm. I. p. 14.
↵

†
See Bp. Percy's Key to the New Test. p. 47, &c.
↵

*
For proof of the genuineness of St. IGNATIUS'S seven short Epist. &c. See p. 131, &c. of Parkhurst's Divin. of J. Christ. and Arch. Bp. Wake on the Epist. of Ignatius.
↵

†
See Note at p. 136. of Parkhurst's Divin. of Jesus Christ.
↵

*
Epist. to the Corin. Sect. 12.
↵

*
N. B. Many are of opinion that Rahab was no harlot.
↵

†
Vossii Notae ad Barnabae Epist. Cathol.
↵

*
See CH. 10. of WAKE'S DISCOURSE prefixed to his Translation of these Epistles.
↵

†
See STEPHENS'S Ser. on the Eter. Genera. who illustrates this doctrine by a multitude of testimonies from p. 44. to p. 50.
↵

*
See Laud against Fisher. p. 24.
↵

†
Bp. TAYLOR on Lib. of Pro. Sect. 5. p. 90.
↵

†
See WAKE's Relation of these Martyrdoms. p. 137, 152.
↵

*
See Note at No. 38.
↵

†
See Extract from an anonymous Author quoted by Dr. RANDOLPH in his Vindica. p. 51. &c.
↵

*
See Genesis 1. 1, 2, 3, &c.
↵

†
See particularly ALLIX. BULL. JUSTIN MARTYR. IRENAEUS, and TERTULLIAN.
↵

†
Dissertation on the Law of Nature. p. 89.
↵

*
See Commen. on the Laws of England. Sect. 2. p. 42.
↵

*
Psalm 121. v. 3, 4.
↵

†
Timaeus. Fragmen. Sec. 8. Consola. sub fin.
↵

‡
See Virgil. Aen. l. 6. v. 724. Geor. 4. v. 221.
↵

*
See Tragaed. Incer. v. 8. and Barnes's Note. See Ibid. v. 335.
↵

*
Sect. 4.
↵

*
See Disc. 6. sub fin.
↵

*
Enquiry. p. 17.
↵

*
MORGAN's Mahom. explained. Vol. 1. p. 156. See Mr. WHITES'S Note at l. 14. p. 274. of his learned B. Lectures.
↵

†
See CYPRIAN. Epist. 73.
↵

*

A. ROSS was a Scotchman, and Chaplain to Charles I. He was the author, or compiler of near thirty treatises, the subjects of some of which are not uninteresting. His View of all Religions past several editions; the last of which appeared in 1696. It is referred to by Mr. BOYLE in his Discourse on the usefulness of Natural and Experimental Philosophy.

See GREY'S HUDIBRAS. Canto. 2. v. 2.

↵

*
It seems these were likewise Dr. DODDERIDGE'S sentiments.
↵

*
See Improvement of the Mind. p. 285.
↵

*
See a curious vindication of this author, (Bp. TAYLOR,) in WOOD'S Ath. Oxoni. p. 402. Vol. 2.
↵

†
Confess Fid. Cap. 1. 10.
↵

‡
Religion of Protestants &c. p. 335.
↵

*
Deutero. Ch. 32. 6.
↵

*
See Hammond, &c, &c.
↵

†
See the references in the Margin.
↵

*
Acts ii. 42.
↵

†
Rom. vi. 17.
↵

‡
2 Thess. ii. 15.
↵

§
2 Tim. i. 13.
↵

**
Titus iii. 10.
↵

†
Ephes. iv. 11.
↵

*
Titus i. 4. Jude v. 3.
↵

†
2 Tim. ii. 19.
↵

N. B. The reader is desired to correct a few errors of the Press with his pen; especially in p. 84. l. 15.—109. l. 1.—147. l. 16.—333. l. 26.—334. l. 11.

Information about this book

Title statement

Discourses on scripture mysteries: preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University, in the year 1787; ... By William Hawkins, ...

Hawkins, William, 1722-1801.

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/4608

ID [isbn10]

1106016076

ID [isbn13]

9781106016072

ID [TCP]

K063128.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3323039907

ID [ECRP]

1123800600

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— Discourses on scripture mysteries: preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University, in the year 1787; ... By William Hawkins, ..., Hawkins, William, 1722-1801.. xi,[1],414p. ; 8⁰. Oxford :: printed at the Clarendon Press, and sold by D. Prince and J. Cooke; and J. F. and C. Rivington, London,. 1787.. [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT75139.] [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.