opened in heaven, all the angelic hosts are introduced as joining the company of redeemed sinners in ascribing eternal honour and praise to "the Lamb that was slain," in union with " him that sitteth on the throne" (Rev. v. vii.) No words can possibly be more emphatical than those used on this occasion: can any man, therefore, after reading them, assert that Christ is a mere created being? or that it is idolatry to worship him? Or will he pretend to believe that book to be "the unerring word of God;" or can he disprove its divine inspiration, when its prophecies have been so remarkably accomplished? This shews that our version is faithful in another place (Rev. i. 5, 6), and that every Christian ought to join the saints of old in saying, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.'

VII. Lastly, our doctrine is confirmed by the absurdities into which its most able opposers have been driven. Such men have principally laboured to invalidate those texts that seem most explicit on this subject, though we could prove our doctrine even if these evidences were set aside; and for this reason I have not adduced one testimony, which is decisive if genuine, (as I suppose it to be), because its authenticity has been so much disputed, (1 John v. 7, 8). A short specimen, however, may show with what success they have laboured who deny the deity of Christ. The psalmist, and from him the apostle, says of the Messiah, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," &c. (Psal. xlv. 6, 7; Heb. i. 8, 9): To elude the obvious inference from this text, it hath been said, that the words may be rendered, "God is thy throne for ever and ever." We read that heaven is God's throne, and the earth is his footstool, but who ever thought of God himself being the throne on which a creature was to reign to eternity? Instead of " God was

manifested in the flesh," some would read it "who was manifested in the flesh; in which case, God must be the antecedent, as the context shows, and the sense remains precisely the same (1 Tim. iii. 15, 16). Others would read it," which (mystery) was manifested in the flesh," and then which mystery must be the nominative case to all the subse. quent clauses in the verse; but whatever may be thought of the other propositions," which mystery was received up into glory," will scarce be deemed the language of inspiration by any who do not prefer nonsense to orthodoxy. But sometimes they seem disposed to retain our reading, and to explain the expression to mean "the wisdom and power of God being conspicuous in Christ," which would be also true of Peter or Moses; and so this great mystery of godliness at length is found to be no mystery at all! When incredulous Thomas was at last convinced of Christ's resurrection, he exclaimed, "My Lord, and my God!" And it cannot seem wonderful to those who consider that he knew the Messiah was to be called Emmanuel, and had heard him say "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," &c. that he should be convinced of his deity by his resurrection from the dead (John xx. 26-31; Rom. i. 2, 3). To set aside this testimony, it hath been said, that the apostle's words were the language of astonishment, and not of adoration; as men often exclaim, my God! when greatly surprised. But are not such exclamations manifest violations of the third commandment, and certain proofs of men's irreverent contempt of the name of God? Who then can believe that the apostles used such profane language before Christ, without meeting with the least reproof for it? (Matt. v. 37.) Surely such a solution must be improbable in the highest degree; and they who can admit it have no right to despise other men's credulity. But, indeed, the

words do not admit of any such construction, consistent with the idiom of the original language. That most august passage with which John opens his Gospel has been so construed, in order to evade our inference from it, that the nominative case to the verbs used in it must be changed again and again, without the least intimation given of it, contrary to all the rules of grammar. At other times, the Word is supposed to mean nothing more than the energy or power of God, which was eternally with him, and essential to him, by which he made the world, and which was manifested in the man Jesus; but can any man in his senses suppose that this was all the meaning of the apostle's introduction to his Gospel, of the sublime things he says of the Word, and his becoming flesh and dwelling among us? If any one should think so for a moment, a second attentive perusal must surely convince him of his mistake. Aware of this, it is now deemed convenient to set it aside as no part of revelation. The interpretation given of another decisive evidence (Phil. ii. 5-10) is grounded on a proposed different translation, implying" that Christ did not think of such a robbery as that of being equal with God." But not to mention the various expressions used by our Lord, which certainly were thus understood by the Jews, who can believe that the apostle should propose to his brethren, as a perfect example of humility, the conduct of a mere man, or creature, who barely did not claim equality with the eternal God; which could be no more than an exemption from the very summit of all possible pride and ambition? His argument (as well as the meaning of the words) proves, that "being in the form of God," signifies being truly God, and appearing so; even as the form of a servant and the fashion of man signify being truly man: and how could a mere creature "take upon him the form of a servant," seeing he

must always have been a servant of his Maker? To render the words of Paul (Rom. ix. 5), " God over all be blessed for ever," would reduce his language to absurdity; for what could he then mean by saying, "of whom, as concerning the Aesh, Christ came?" Did ever historian describe the descent of a prince in such language? and would it not be ridiculous in him to do so? Stephen's dying address to Christ has lately been considered, 66 as the words of a man in an ecstacy of devotion, or in the agonies of death," and therefore not of much weight in the argument; as if modern reasoners could better direct our faith and worship than this protomartyr, when full of the Holy Ghost, favoured with the visions of God, and replete with the light of heaven! What shall we say to Paul's words? (2 Cor. viii. 9.) Could he, who was born in a stable, had not where to lay his head, and died on a cross, be rich before he was poor, if he had not existed before he became man? The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain (John xvi. 28), and many other declarations he made, "that he came down from heaven," &c., so pressed the ancient Socinians as to induce them to feign that Jesus, like Mahomet, went to heaven to receive his instructions, previous to his entrance on his ministry. But modern Socinians have given up this figment; they seem conscious of their inability to maintain the old ground, and, therefore, they now intimate that the apos→ tles and evangelists were mistaken, and that several books of the scripture are not authentic. Thus they save themselves much trouble, by answering all our witnesses at once: and doubtless they act prudently in imitating the church of Rome, by constituting themselves judges of the scripture, determining what parts of it are authentic, and making their own scheme the standard by which it is to be interpreted; for neither of their systems can

subsist except by a proportionable disregard to, and degradation of, the word of God. I feel a confidence that each of the arguments here adduced are separately conclusive; how great then must be the united force of them? Yet only a small part of the evidence can be contained in so brief an essay. I would therefore conclude with observing, that the scriptures were written to recover men from idolatry to the worship of the true God, and that idolatry consists in worshipping such as by nature are no gods. What then shall we think of all the texts here adduced if Christ be not God, or what shall we say to John's conclusion of his epistle? Having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (oros) is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols," (1 John v. 20, 21.)

ESSAY VII.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF OUR LORD'S DEITY, SHOWING IT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITY; WITH A BRIEF ANSWER TO SOME OBJECTIONS.

WE may not, in all cases, be able to determine exactly what things are essential to our holy religion, and what are not; yet the scriptures most evidently declare some particulars to be so; and I cannot but consider the doctrine of our Lord's deity as one of these, nor hesitate to say that Christianity itself must stand or fall with it. The greater decision is proper on this subject, as our opponents seem lately to have shifted their ground: they used to say, that "Christ's divinity was the masterpiece of absurdities, directly contrary to every part of natural and revealed religion, and to all the rational faculties God has given us ;"