"sitteth on the throne:" and no words can possibly be more emphatical than those used on these occasions. Can any man, then, 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 the Revelation of John not 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, 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."

66

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, which seem most explicit on the subject: though we could prove our doctrine, even if these evidences were set aside. I have therefore declined adducing one testimony in the Epistle of John, which is decisive, if genuine, (as upon the whole I suppose it to be ;) because its authenticity has been so much disputed.3 A short specimen, however, may shew with what success they who deny the Deity of Christ have laboured. The Psalmist, and from him the apostle, says of the Messiah, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."4 To elude the obvious inference from this text, it has 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 can conceive God himself to be the throne, on which a creature should reign to eternity?—Instead of "God was manifest in the flesh "s some would read it, "who was manifested in the flesh;" in which case God must be the antecedent, as the context shews; and then the sense remains precisely the same. Others would read it, "which (mystery) was manifested in "the flesh :" and then the mystery must be that to which all the subsequent clauses in the verse refer; and, whatever may be thought of the other propositions, "which mystery was re"ceived up into glory," will scarcely be deemed the language of inspiration, by any who do not prefer nonsense to orthodoxy. But sometimes these persons seem disposed to retain our reading, and to explain the expression to mean, that the wisdom and power of God were conspicuous in Christ;' which would be also true of Peter or Moses; and so 31 John, v. 7, 8,

66

Rev. v. 9-14, vii. 9-12, + Ps. xlv. 6, 7. Heb. i. 8, 9, Heb.

2 Rev. i. 5, 6. 51 Tim, iii. 15,

16,

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 Fa"ther;" that he should be convinced of his Deity by his resurrection from the dead. To set aside this testimony, it has 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 irreverent contempt of the name of God? Who then can believe, that the apostles used such profane language before Christ, without meeting the least reproof for it? 2 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 cannot admit of any such construction, consistently 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.-By others, 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 one in his senses suppose, that this was all the meaning of the apostle's introduction to his gospel, of the sublime things which he says of the Word, and of 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!

66

The interpretation, given of another decisive evidence 3 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; when at best, this 1 John xx. 26-31, Rom. i. 3, 4. 2 Matt. 34-37. 3 Phil. ii. 5-10,

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 in the form of God, signifies, being truly God and appearing so; even as the form of a servant and the fashion of a 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?

I

The apostle, speaking of the patriarchs, said, "Of whom, "as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God "blessed for ever. Amen." To evade this decisive testi-' mony, it has been proposed to render the latter clause," God "be blessed for ever, Amen." But where then is the meaning of the preceding expression, "as concerning the flesh?" Did ever a sensible writer use such language in speaking of the descent of any prince or hero? Does not the energy and propriety of the passage depend on the contrast between the clauses," of whom as concerning the flesh of Christ "came," and "who is over all God blessed for ever?" And does not such a change in the version render the passage unmeaning, or absurd?

"2

of

Stephen's dying address tò Christ has lately been considered, as the words of a man in an extacy 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!" Ye know the grace our Lord Jesus Christ; that though he was rich, yet for "your sakes he became poor." What shall we say to these words of Paul? 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 did not exist before he became man?— The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain, "I came forth with the Father, and am come into the "world; again I leave the world and go to the Father," and many other declarations which he made, "that he came down from heaven," so pressed the ancient Sucinians, as to induce them to feign that Jesus went to heaven to receive his instructions, previously to his entrance on his ministry, as Mohammed afterwards pretended that he did. But modern Socinians have given up this figment; they seem conscious of their inability to maintain their old ground; and therefore they now intimate that apostles and evangelists were mistaken, and that several books or parts of the Scriptures 22 Cor. viii ix. 3 John xvi. 28-30,

1 Rom. ix. 5.

are not authentick, or are not divinely inspired. Thus they save themselves much trouble, by answering all our witnesses at once and doubtless they act prudently in imitating the church of Rome; constituting themselves judges of the Scripture, determining what parts of it are divine, and making their own scheme the standard by which it is to be interpreted: for neither of these systems can be supported, but by disregard to the word of God, or degradation of it.

I feel a confidence that each of the arguments here adduced is separately conclusive: how great then must be their united force! 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 first epistle, when, having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (voc) is the "true God, and eternal Life. Little children, keep your"selves from idols ?"

ESSAY VII.

The Doctrine of Christ's Deity shewn to be essential to Christianity and some Objections to the Doctrine briefly answered.

WE are not in all cases capable of determining 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 essentials, nor do I 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 maintain, that, Christ's divinity was the master-piece 'of absurdities:-directly contrary to every part of natural ' and revealed religion, and to all the rational faculties God has given us; that by making more gods than one, it was a breach of the first commandment;' and much more to the same purpose. This was a direct charge of gross idolatry, which surely must be a mortal sin: and, as the defenders of the doctrine denied, and even retorted, the charge, shewing that another god is substituted by Socinians in the place of the God of the Bible; the cause was fairly at issue, allowed to be of the greatest possible importance, and entitled to the 11 John v. 20, 21,

I

most careful, serious, and impartial investigation. But at present men are generally put off their guard, by the plausible and indolent sentiment, that speculative opinions are of little consequence; and that those, who are sincere and lead good lives, will not be condemned for doctrinal errors. And an attempt has lately been made, by a champion of the party, to persuade a very large body of men, who universally profess the doctrine of Christ's Deity, that there is no essential difference between them and the Socinians! On the other hand, some able defenders of the doctrine seem disposed to allow, that, supposing it true, the belief of it is not necessary to salvation, or essential to Christianity; nay, that they who most strenuously oppose it, and not always in the most unexceptionable manner, may notwithstanding be accepted by God as sincere believers. Thus the subject, which used to be considered as of the utmost importance, is now generally thought to be rather a matter of doubtful disputation among professed Christians, than immediately connected with our eternal interests: and the cause has more to fear from the indolent and contemptuous indifference of mankind, as to theological questions, which are not supposed essential to salvation, than from the most strenuous and ingenious efforts of its very able and learned opponents.

I shall therefore endeavour in this place, to shew that the doctrine of our Lord's Deity is essential to the faith and hope of a Christian and this will lead our attention to many arguments in proof of it, which were not produced in the former Essay.

:

I. There are several texts of Scripture which are decisive on the subject. Jesus Christ himself declares, that "the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son; "that all men should honour the Son, even as they ho"nour the Father; He that honoureth not the Son, "honoureth not the Father that sent him." 2 If the very end of his mediatorial authority, as the Son of man, were this, "that all men should honour him" with the same kind and degree of honour that is shewn to the Father; (and this must be the case if our doctrine be true;) then such persons as deny his Deity; refuse to worship him; and spend their lives, with all their ability, influence, and diligence, to draw men off from this faith and worship; do not honour him at all, but greatly degrade him; and therefore, by the verdict of their future Judge, they "do "not honour the Father that sent him." So that the docAddress to the Methodists in his preface to the letters of 2 John v. 22, 23.

1 Dr. Priestly. the Wesleys.