great evidence and teftimony of the glory of Jefus as Mediator. To the fame purpofe is the language of Peter, Acts ii. 33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, he hath shed forth this which ye now fee and bear. Afterwards, he appeals to the effufion of the Spirit, as the external evidence of the exaltation of Jefus as a Prince, and a Saviour, ver. 36. THEREFORE, let all the boufe of Ifrael know affuredly, that God hath made that fame Jesus both Lord and Chrift. As the Spirit of Chrift teftified before-band the fufferings of Chrift, and the glory that should follow; after both, he testified the fatisfactory nature of the one, and the certainty of the other. It being, therefore, peculiarly incumbent on the apostles, to declare the refurrection and the glory of Chrift, with the gift of the Holy Spirit to him, that he might communicate it to others; it is evident that they could not give their testimony in a proper manner, without afcribing these things to God. For as the refurrection respected a part of the humanity of Jefus, the glory that followed especially terminated on this nature. The apostles could not in strict propriety of language diftinctly speak of his divine nature as suffering, dying, rifing again, and being glorified. Befides it is granted, on all hands, that Jefus, as Mediator, was the Father's fervant. Therefore the gift of the reward must be ascribed to the Father. For it was a judicial act, in confequence of that work which the Mediator had finished. + The propriety of their conduct will yet further appear, from the natural and neceffary confequence of a belief of the mediatory character of Jesus. The attention of their hearers was first arrefted by a declaration of the refurrection and glory of that very Person whom they had crucified. They could not difbelieve these things, because they were not merely attefted by men of unexceptionable cha racters, i racters, but by the Spirit of God. For they not only faw the ancient and well known fymbol of the Divine presence abiding on each of the apostles, which would most probably bring to their recollection the teftimony of the Baptift, that he who came after him should baptize them with fire, as the fenfible emblem of the baptism of the Holy Ghost: but they beard unlearned men addreffing every man in his own language. Therefore, unless they fhut their eyes and stopped their ears, they could not deny the prefence and operation of the Spirit, or doubt that he confirmed the testimony of the speakers. As foon as they were affured of the truth of the facts attefted, they would naturally inquire into the extent of the character of Jefus. Thus, alfo, their minds would be prepared for receiving information. This mode of instruction a pofteriori is far better calculated for the generality of minds, than that a priori. The apostles themselves learned the meaning of Chrift's fayings, and the dignity of his Person, moft fully from the event. Not till after his refurrection, did they understand that, when he faid, Deftroy this temple, &c. he spake of the temple of his body, and that the literal temple was only a type of this. When, as that King who brought falvation, he entered in humble triumph into Jerufalem, and was hailed by the multitude as he that came in the Name of the Lord; these things underfood not bis difciples at the firft: but when Jefus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto bim, John xii. 16. We have already feen, that those who received the teftimony of the apostles, must have confidered the refurrection of Jefus as a Divine vindication from the charge of blafphemy, on the ground of which he was condemned; and of course, as a convincing evidence of the truth of that teftimony, which he fealed with his blood. Therefore, al: though U 4 though it did not appear, from the compendious hiftory of the Acts, that the apoftles formally deduced this conclufion, we might be affured that they had it ultimately in their view. We might even fuppofe, that they particularly expreffed it, on various occafions. For we know that they were uniform in their doctrine. And we find one of them expressly testifying, in another place, that Jefus was declared to be the Son of God with power,—by the refurrection from the dead, Rom. i. 4, that is, he was powerfully exculpated from the unjust fentence of his adverfaries, when they condemned him for blafphemy against God, because he called himfelf his Son. 1 When the apostles fpoke of Jefus as having ascended, as having received the promise of the Spirit, and as beftowing fuch precious gifts as repentance and remiffion; the Jews muft neceffarily have inferred, that he was exhibited as a divine Perfon. If they believed that he had fuch power and glory, they must also have believed his Deity. For their own prophetical writings declared that it was God who should thus afcend, and receive gifts, Pfal. lxviii. 18. When they knew that Jefus was exalted to give, even to his murderers, they could not but conclude that this was he who was described as the God of their falvation, who fhould receive gifts even for the rebellious. The very idea of his having power to forgive fins, would, according to their own principles, fatisfy them that he was truly divine. For it was a received maxim with them, how filly foever it may appear to their more enlightened friends the Socinians, that no one could forgive fins but God only. In a word, they could not believe that Jefus would judge the world, without either believing that he was a divine Perfon, or renouncing • Indeed, by an attribution of what strictly belongs to one nature to the whole person, it is expressly declared that God was—received up into glory, 1 Tim. iii. 16. nouncing that article of their. Creed, fo long received as matter of inspiration, that God was Judge himself, Pfal. 1. 6. Hitherto, I have spoken of means only; God, in the general tenor of his operations, as regularly employing thefe, as if the fuccefs wholly depended on them; and it being incumbent on his fervants to obferve the fame method. But when it is confidered, that the apoftolical addieffes were accompanied, not merely by the outward and extraordinary operations of the Spirit, but, to all who believed, by thofe that were inward and efficacious; the argument acquires additional force. They would be led to form the conclufions already mentioned, not merely by the dictates of reason, and from the neceffary connexion of the truths which they newly embraced with thofe formerly believed; but especially by that Spirit of truth, who was promised to lead into all truth, and whofe fpecial work was to testify of Jefus. С НА Р. XI. Proofs from the Book of Acts, that the Apoftles taught the IT T has been seen, that the apostles fulfilled the primary end of their miffion, in preaching that Jefus was the Meffiah; and that the evidence by which they proved this doctrine, was fuch as neceffarily implied that he was a divine Perfon. But this is not all. From their difcourfes, recorded in the Acts, and from other circumstances there narrated, it appears that they not only believed this doctrine, but taught it, even in addreffing unbelievers. The ་ The prayer for direction in the choice of an apoftle, in room of Judas, would feem to have been addressed to Jefus, as the fearcher of hearts, chap. i. 24. Not only is he generally distinguished, in the New Testament, as Lord; but this defignation is, in ver. 21. joined with that of Jefus. The language is; Thou, Lord, who knoweft the bearts of all men, fhew whether of these two thou hast choJen. Now, it cannot be refused, that the choice of an apostle properly belonged to the Head of the Church; and that this was a right which he claimed and exercised, while on earth. Therefore it is faid, ver. 2. that he gave commandments unto the apostles whom нE bad chofen. But if he was not the object of this prayer, though he chose all the rest, he had no hand in the choice of Matthias. On this fuppofition, a ftrange contradiction must be admitted, that his honours and privileges were diminished by his exaltation. The very end of the choice was, that one might take part of this miniftry and apoftleship. But if Jefus did not choose him, how could he be an Apoftle of Jefus, that is, one sent by him? The language ufed in this prayer, is perfectly applicable to the Saviour. For he declares, that all the churches fball know that it is he who fearcheth the reins and bearts, Rev. ii. 23. Can we suppose, then, that he should either deprive himself or be deprived of this first opportunity, after his afcenfion, of displaying his omniscience and fovereignty, or of one fo i aportant? Nor was it uncommon for his disciples to address him as the hearer of prayer. For we learn from the next chapter, that Peter, when filled with the Holy Ghoft, (ver. 4.). applied the prophecy of Joel to Jefus, as the object of in- ́ vocation, ver. 21. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever Shall call on the name of the Lord, fhall be faved. Now, these words evidently reípect our Saviour. For that great and |