SER M.

guage *. The Word, GOD, therefore must III. inevitably make a Part of the Text; and 'being a Part of it, must neceffarily be underftood of the fecond Perfon in the Bleffed Trinity; each of the Propofitions, that immediately follow, being true of the Son, but not of the Father or the Holy Ghost +. Notwithstanding the Gloffes therefore which the Socinians and Arians have fixed on this Text, it is fufficiently evident from this Text alone, that the SON is the Perfon who was manifeft in the Flesh, and that the Person who was so manifest is very God. But these being Points which refer to a Doctrine that has been defended of late by fo many Hands, and in fuch different Methods, as to give every one that defires it, an Opportunity of being duly and fufficiently confirmed in it; I fhall not attempt to prove either of the Particulars directly and in form; but only to take Occafion from the Words I have read to you, to remove the Objection which fome People are apt to make to thefe Doctrines, from their being myfterious and incomprehenfible. So that,

See Dr. Mill upon the Place: Pearfon on the Creed. P, 128, and Milbourn, P. 4 →→→→ 12.

+ Pearfon p. 127, 128. Milbourn, p. 68.————————72,

SERM. in fhort, the Second and Third Head that

III.

follow from my Text are what I have in View: And in fpeaking to these, I shall not confine myself to the fingle Doctrine of our LORD'S Incarnation, but fhall confider the Subject of Mysteries at large, and shall shew,

FIRST, What it is we mean by Myfteries: And,

SECONDLY, That it is no Objection to the believing of any Article of our Religion, that it has what we understand by Mysteries in it.

FIRST then, I must fhew what it is we mean by Myfteries. For that there are Mysteries in Religion all that believe the Scriptures must allow, because the Scriptures frequently tell us fo. So that in Truth, it is not the Word that

fome Men object to us, but the Senfe we put upon it; It is neceffary therefore that we explain the Word, before we proceed to dispute about it. Now the Account which the Socinians give us of Myfteries is, "That they are not therefore call"ed Myfteries, because they transcend our "Understanding after they are revealed, but "because they could not have been known

And this, SER M. fometimes.

" without Divine Revelation *." for ought I know, may be true In fome Places of the New Teftament Things may be called Mysteries, partly, if not wholly, because they were not known till the Gospel revealed them. But ftill that the Word fignifies more fometimes, I think the bare naming of fome Texts will fhew. As, for Inftance, when St. Paul fpeaks of the Rejecting of the Jews, and the Calling of the Gentiles, under the Notion of a Myftery that was then revealed, though the Reason of either was not yet to be accounted for: For, Oh the Depth (faith he) both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! How unfearchable are his Judgments, and his Ways paft finding out! Thus again when he fpeaks of the close Union and Conjunction between Chrift and his Church, though it was already effected and already known, he yet calls it a Mystery: This is a great Myftery, but I speak concerning Christ and the

* Myfteria divina non idcirco Myfteria dicuntur, quod etiam revelata omnem noftrum Intellectum Captumqne transcendunt; fed quod non nifi Revelatione cognofci poffint. Slicht, in Meif ner. de Trin. &c. p. 70.

Myfterium] Rem arcanam quam nemo novit nifi a Deo revelatam. Id. in 1 Cor. xv. 51.

+ Compare verfe 25. and 33. of Rom. xi.

III.

Church,

SER M. Church, Eph. v. 32. And thus lastly, in

III.

IS

my Text, the Manifeftation of the Son of GOD in the Flesh, and the Confequences thereof, are faid ftill to be a Myftery, notwithstanding they were now fufficiently revealed. For in both thefe Places the Verb is used in the present Tense: To μusýpiov tõτο μέγα ΕΣΤΙΝ ; and again, μέγα ἘΣΤΙ τὸ τῆς Εὐσεβείας μυςήριον. This Is a great Myftery, and great IS the Mystery of Godliness. From whence I would infer that the Word, Myfteries, does not only mean Things that could not have been known but by Divine Revelation; but fometimes alfo is put for Things that tranfcend our Understanding, even after they are revealed. And if fo, then thefe Texts are fufficient to convince us that it is no Objection to the Truth of any Doctrine, that such Doctrine is even in our Sense of it a Mystery. But that our Adverfaries may not charge us with refting a Point of this Importance upon the Meaning of a fingle precarious Word; I fhall chufe to enter upon the Thing itself, and fhew what we mean by the Word at present.

Now I would define a Divine Mystery (for of fuch I am to speak) to be fome Truth not discoverable by Reafon, but made known to

us

us by Revelation, and of which, when revealed, we know only the Reality and not the Manner. It is fome Doctrine or Article of Faith, which, upon the Testimony of GOD, we affent to or believe in the generalor at large, though we cannot comprehend all the Particulars. As far indeed as we be

lieve or affent to it, we conceive and underftand it; (for there is no Believing, or giving our Affent to, what we do not understand;) but then we perceive that there is fomething more which, either for want of Divine Revelation, or elfe through the Narrowness of our prefent Capacities, we know nothing of, and which therefore to speak properly, we neither believe nor disbelieve. Thus the Doctrine of the Trinity is what we call a Mystery; because, though we believe, upon the Testimony of Revelation, that there is a Trinity of Perfons in the Unity of the Godhead; yet we do not pretend to comprehend or conceive in what the Distinction of Perfons confifts, or in what Manner they are fo united as all to make but one Being. But now, even in this Mystery, we do not profess to believe any farther than we under Band. We understand that there is a GOD, and that GoD is one: And we farther un derstand,

SERM.

III.